To Her Excellency Dr. Condoleezza Rice Secretary of State United States Government http://contact-us.state.gov/ask_form_cat/ask_form_secretary.html   Your Excellency   The US Government has denied grant of an entry visa to Narendra Modi, who had been invited to address the AAHOA convention in the United States of America .   While it is unquestionably within the power of every sovereign state to allow or deny entry to an alien, it appears, in the particular case of Modi, that the power may have been applied unjustly or under serious misconception about his alleged ‘misdemeanor’ in the context of religious freedom. Moreover, since the presumption that the applicant was “responsible for, or directly carried out, at any time, particularly severe violations of religious freedom” [Section 212(a)(2)(G)] has reportedly been proffered as the rationale for denial, recourse to that constitutional stipulation must unmistakably be substantiated by incontrovertible proof -  a judicial conviction, for instance.   There is also another, non-constitutional consideration that may affect a governmental decision: popular sentiment or opinion. How those are formed – both within the government and among laity – depends largely on how the media publishes news and views and how much credence is attributed to them.   In Modi’s case, it would seem that the latter consideration – that of entirely subjective ‘popular’ opinion – weighed more on the US government than the objective constitutional criterion.   This assumes immense significance when the decision adversely affects travel plans of a visa applicant who also happens to be an incumbent in elected public office of an avowedly ‘friendly’ country enjoying satisfactory bilateral relations with the US . A great deal more than bias, preconception, allegation, rumor and conjecture may therefore be needed to convince even the American people of the propriety of their government’s action.   India has a majority Hindu population, and Modi is member of a political party that, ostensibly at least, is perceived to stand for the democratic rights of that majority. There ought to be nothing amiss here, in view particularly of the democratic tradition by which other communities the world over are represented by political parties with even names openly suggesting affiliation to a religious faith. (The “Christian Democratic Party” or the “Muslim League” are examples. In Germany , in fact, the secular state collects a faith tax, the Kirchensteuer, which goes directly to the Church.) Further, Modi has not been formally charged for religious freedom violations, much less convicted for them! Only motivated media organs, and a sundry assortment of “human rights” NGO’s and activists have been gunning for him in the aftermath of the Gujarat tragedy. However, their orchestrated and consistent (almost deafening) silence over relentless atrocities against Hindus (in Kashmir , for instance) is so astonishing that it would almost seem the Hindu does not qualify for ‘human rights’! Their angst, unfortunately therefore, is much too convenient, self-serving and selective to merit serious consideration as either sincere or reliable, by a responsible constituent of the US Administration like the State Department. Their less than fair dealing in this selectivity also reveals a prejudiced animus for everything Hindu. Perhaps, as usually happens, the liar’s cacophony, which is often cheap, loud and vulgar, is more audible than the restrained voice of truth!   I am taking this opportunity of addressing your Excellency, in your capacity as a conscientious and senior functionary of the world’s most powerful nation, in order merely to correct and complete the misleading, one-sided picture that motivated media hype has obviously succeeded in creating about India in general and the Hindu majority in particular. The Modi visa issue is only an incidental consequence of a monstrous misconstruction in this regard.   For thousands of years now, the Hindu majority community in India has been culturally, politically and economically victimized by a variety of essentially inimical interests ranging from megalomania (e.g. the Macedonian Alexander, and Persian Cyrus and Darius) to religious imperialism (bigotry, intolerance, colonial exploitation and evangelization through Islam and Christianity). This notwithstanding, a philosophical worldview, inculcated by an underlying indigenous thought culture, had always ensured innate Hindu equanimity and tolerance towards every injustice, indignity and indecency to which it was subjected.   Despite his unimaginably superior spiritual and intellectual potential compared with the contemporaneous Greek, Persian, Arab, Turk and European alike, and despite the long experience of ruthless encounters he has been forced to have with aggressors, the Hindu is beset with what would seem an almost incurable suicidal tendency of judging others on the basis of his own values, and pretending to see higher human aspirations in doctrines that have none. Even as recently as in the 18th Century, when the Hindu Marathas had completely dismantled the Muslim military machine and hegemony in India, they refrained from pressing home their advantage as did the European Christians in the 15th : the latter had given their vanquished foe the choice between re-conversion to Christianity, banishment to Muslim regions or execution! Clearly, this has been a reason for the Hindu’s relentless domination by others. Even today, whenever the Hindu seeks to assert something as simple and just as his due democratic rights, he is told how it is unbecoming his essential disposition to swerve from vaunted traditional tolerance (which, incidentally, is just what the doctor ordered for certain vested interests!); in other words, he is told to shut up and not make such a fuss!   History, both ancient and modern, proves that Hindu cultural entity (which includes Budhhists, Jains, Sikhs and others of indigenous persuasions) has, as a matter of principle not policy, shunned territorial aggression even when it had both ability and opportunity. The few rare cases of expansion have been cultural not territorial, political or military, and were achieved through a handful of teachers - not armies of soldiers or preachers. On the other hand, the Hindu state has traditionally provided refuge and a safe haven to those who became victims of religious bigotry and intolerance. Jews dodging Christian heresy-hunters and Zoroastrian Parsees fleeing Arab Muslim persecution adopted India as their home many centuries ago and are to this day living with perfect political and religious parity with the rest of the indigenous population. No attempt was ever made by any Hindu king to either convert them to the majority religion, nor indeed to limit their religious rights in any way. (The United States , it must be pointed out, is thus not exactly alone or unique in making respect for that freedom an inalienable part of state principle or policy!) That the Hindu has always evinced and upheld the spirit of ‘live and let live’ ought to be amply clear. But for the need for brevity so essential in a communication of this nature, it might have been enlightening to review numberless historical instances that unequivocally demonstrate this fact.   Be that as it may, the important point that emerges is this: the Hindu is temperamentally entirely unequipped to willfully disregard the just rights of others, sworn enemies included, much less go out of his way to recklessly trample upon them with impunity. This is not because he is weak and therefore unable, but because it does not square with his sense of righteousness and propriety. His culture has long appreciated the essential import of the concept of tolerance in principle as opposed to toleration as policy, many millennia before your great thinker and patriot, Thomas Paine, expressed it so beautifully:   "Toleration is not the opposite of intoleration, but is the counterfeit of it. Both are despotisms. The one assumes to itself the right of withholding liberty of conscience, and the other of granting it. The one is the Pope, armed with fire and faggot, and the other is the Pope selling or granting indulgences" (The Rights of Man, p. 291).   The Hindu has never collectively initiated or fostered acts that might be described as “particularly severe violations of religious freedom”, except as a natural reaction to extreme and protracted provocation and when he has been driven against the wall. He has always only reacted. The Gujarat matter was just such a reaction, despite all that has been said and written by those interested in perpetuating doctored history.   With education and experience, however, the dormant Hindu has begun to awaken to a new awareness about his own identity and its historical compromise, much to the discomfiture of several native and alien sections that have hitherto had a virtual run of the country by keeping the collective Hindu psyche in a state of resigned acceptance of the sorry state of things. This is perhaps why the Hindu is every so often reminded, through a variety of communication channels, about his ‘traditional duty’ of being tolerant!   All of this works unobtrusively on collective psyche, and when the reaction finally comes, as it must sooner or later, it is as widespread as that witnessed in Gujarat , where the violence was not restricted to urban areas. Indeed, as news reports of the time bear out, the outcry was stronger in certain rural areas - from the so-called peasantry and tribal folk. These are the geographical regions and demographic constituents where Modi’s BJP is said to have the least influence! As has happened in the past, in Gujarat the pent-up indignation of several years cut across party and caste lines to manifest itself in massive Hindu wrath, the suppression of which became a Herculean task; after all, Muslims aren’t the only ones entitled to the privilege of rage!   So much for all the allegations made by self-appointed minders of religious rights about Modi’s ‘hand’ in the Gujarat issue. The unfortunate consequence of the Godhra conspiracy would have been as gory, Modi or no Modi.   Internal events and their outcome in India strictly cannot, nay should not, become the concern of the United States government. Likewise, appeals, demands or representations from third parties cannot form the basis for official government response or action. These would be of interest to a student of communal relations in India . Responsible governments must restrict themselves only to established facts in arriving at decisions, not allegations and conjectures made or reported by the media, or unfounded representations made by organizations (many of them dubiously-funded) with interests that may not necessarily always be bona fide or non-mercenary. Nevertheless, since the provisions of the relevant section in the INA were reportedly invoked in justifying the rejection of Modi’s visa application, the absence of even the least evidence of a judicial probe and his consequent conviction, is a clear indication of the quality of sources upon which the State Department may have relied.    Rumours abound. One is especially interesting: apparently, the state Department rejected Modi’s application in order to please Musharraf , US ’s greatest ally in the war against terror (also because he may facilitate US invasion of Iran ). According to the logic of this hypothesis, the Indian government would be put to embarrassment if it lodges a protest (as any self-respecting government must) with the US government for denying a visa to an elected state functionary belonging to the opposition. If it doesn’t, it must face a lot of fire at home! [An article by journalist Vir Sanghvi, who has been critical to the extreme of Modi’s role, speaks volumes for the indignation felt by patriotic sensibility.] And this, hopes Musharraf, would lead to deeper schisms in the Indian polity.   I do not trust hearsay. Considering the manner of deciding upon Modi’s visa application, trusting rumor is the peculiar province of the US State Department!   Your Excellency, I have no doubt taken up a great deal of your busy time. My apologies for that, as also for any inadvertent indiscretion I may have committed. I have stated what I felt was necessary to be written about the general misconceived notions aliens tend to entertain about India and its majority Hindus. I shall feel gratified if this communication helps in even fractionally correcting that deliberately skewed picture.   Sincerely Bhalchandrarao C. Patvardhan