Justice by the law, not by a vigilante

Aspects of Narendra Modi’s politics are reprehensible. His conduct during the Gujarat riots was condemnable. The lack of remorse he has...

Aspects of Narendra Modi’s politics are reprehensible. His conduct during the Gujarat riots was condemnable. The lack of remorse he has shown since, borders on the nauseating. His appeal to values of constitutionalism and democracy is downright hypocritical. He is stubbornly immune to the ordinary pressures of public opinion, and will take any opportunity to polarise politics or bait his opponents. Like many political figures he will respond only to the currency of power. The victims of the violence in Gujarat require expressions of solidarity and justice. It is very tempting to support any attempt to shame Modi. It is very tempting to applaud the denial of a US visa. But this temptation should be resisted. Any nation has discretion over who is admitted within their borders. But what the United States exemplified in denying him a visa?

Whether justice has been done, or an accused shamed, depends upon the quality of the legal and moral authority that does the judging. The conduct of elected officials in democracies should not escape scrutiny just because they are democracies. But it defies logic to suppose that visas will be denied to officials from such countries, whereas functionaries from countries like Saudi Arabia and China, listed by the State Department itself as ‘Countries of Particular Concern’—when it comes to religious freedoms—will go free. It gives the impression that if the denial of religious freedom is systematic, the United States will not act. If it is an aberration, albeit, a serious one, within a nation otherwise committed to religious freedom, the United States will. It gives the impression that the US is more concerned about its exercise of discretionary power than about commitment to principle. Although the substance of a law is more important than its origins, the Violation of Religious Freedom Act, had its provenance in pressures from the Christian right. The Bush administration has also, in some instances, linked healthcare aid, to its religiously inspired line on abortion. So much for solicitude for religious freedom.

The United States has also cited our own duly constituted authorities, such as the Supreme Court and the National Human Rights Commission, as the basis of its decision. But the deference to duly constituted authorities in India cannot be selective. Modi is Chief Minister and representative of Gujarat under the very same Constitution that authorises the Supreme Court. The United States is effectively saying that it will not allow him to function on its territory in that capacity. It will not respond to requests from the Prime Minister on behalf of an elected official of the state. In essence, the United States will be unilateralist in its determinations. These determinations will be about exercising power not producing justice.

Story continues below this ad

Many around the world happen to sincerely believe that George Bush is a war criminal. Whether or not this is true is beside the point. But this claim ought to become the basis of punitive action, only if it were not simply a function of people’s convictions, but a product of some settled due process. Yes, I, like many commissions, may be convinced that the evidence that Modi’s misconduct was grievous is substantial. But none of this has yet amounted to his removal from office. On the contrary, substantial numbers of people in his state, seems to think that he deserves to be Chief Minister. And we have to treat his as Chief Minister,not Narendra Modi. We are frustrated that our justice system often does not deliver; we are frustrated that political influence and deference to due process benefits politicians like Modi. But what is the answer going to be? Seeking vigilante justice from a superpower? A power that itself wants no international court to superintend its own conduct? It does not follow from the fact that someone has been plausibly accused of committing a wrong, to suppose that anyone therefore has the right to both decide whether this person is in fact guilty and act on it. It is tempting to think of the formalism of law and duly authorised institutions as irritant blocks in the way of justice. But if the alternative is vigilantism, we will have given up a cardinal principal that preserves the line between barbarism and civilisation.

The US decision is a slap in the face of Indian authorities and the people of Gujarat. It is up to us a nation to introspect on how a major elected official managed to occasion such a rebuke. But to point out that the US decision is unwise, unprincipled and borders on unilateral vigilantism, is not to condone Modi. We may be delighted that finally someone has slapped Modi in the face. But such expressions of solidarity with the victims will not solve our long-term problems. Modi recently got an unprecedented standing ovation in Calcutta Club. Truly defeating what he stands for will require deft politics, not merely expressions of disapprobation.

Donald Trump may replace H-1B lottery with wage-based selection process

World9 hr ago

Days after hiking the fees for new H-1B applications to $100,000, the Donald Trump administration has proposed to overhaul the visa process for high-skilled non-immigrant workers. The Trump administration has suggested a wage-based selection process for the H-1B programme, instead of the current lottery system.

View all shorts

Live Blog