
Most spin doctors will admit policy decisions are made not only to uphold higher ideals for their own sake but also to yield political results for the makers of policy, after carefully projecting outcomes, weighing risks and evaluating trade-offs. The Bush administration8217;s decision to deny Narendra Modi a visa, therefore, must not only be analysed theoretically or emotionally but also pragmatically so that the role of public perception in the process of policymaking is not underestimated. The decision, after all, was a result of intense lobbying by civic sector activists in the US. The real question is not whether the US is fair, or whether it is acting within the bounds of international law. Globalisation or not, the real question is that by opting to assert its sovereignty in this manner vis-a-vis an Indian chief minister, what has the US achieved both substantively as well as in terms of public opinion?
It has been said that improving its human rights image internationally is now a priority for the Bush administration. Yet the point has been made that there are several equally deserving candidates as Modi to be found across the globe, including many Americans themselves. To argue, then, that Modi was held directly responsible for the violation of religious freedom by a US commission and therefore denied a visa is sheer logical circularity and political/legal self-referentiality. To argue the exact opposite 8212; that the philosophical justification for the creation of universal laws is that in spite of cultural and evolutionary differences, the human race as a whole subscribes to certain absolute values that legitimise the existence of an overarching authority 8212; is equally fallacious in this case. The problem is that if the values being upheld are truly universal, unilateral decisions made by US gatekeepers of justice are not just unwelcome but also redundant. The inherent duality of all ideology aside, the reasons intellectuals across the political continuum have expressed concern at the US8217;s decision to deny Modi a visa has as much to do with its universalistic unilateralism as it does with its relativistic adhocery. In the absence of a coherent frame of reference, the US has comes off as both hypocritical and much less credible to the very galleries it seeks to play to.
Regardless of the diplomatic risk with India and the international community over this decision, in the final analysis it seems the US8217;s objective was to appease a section of its own domestic audience without jeopardising the interest of its majority, thus proving 8212; unwittingly or not 8212; that Modi is a much softer target than his critics hold.
A fortunate, even if inadvertent, by-product of this decision, then, is that it has spurred renewed passion in India for the cause against Modi. But there is greater wisdom in the contention that the way to punish the guilty is to strengthen Indian democracy from the inside, and to ensure in-built mechanisms to deal with gross infractions of justice are not only improved but also respected. For this to happen in any substantive way, it is for the people of this country to assert their democratic rights, to become more vigilant and to demand answers from the administration so that pressure from the public guides the law and the future of this land 8212; just as pressure from its inside guides US decisions. Put another way, if the state turns criminal, if the Centre appears reluctant to intervene, it is for the aam junta of the world8217;s biggest democracy to stand up and demand justice and accountability.