Apropos the comments on my article, Hidden Persuaders, I wish to state the
following:
Aziz Hanifa, the well-infomed Washington DC based correspondent of India
Abroad, had contributed a report to his weekly dated March 18, 2005,
on the controversy over Narendra Modi's then planned visit to the US. The
report, which was carried by the weekly under the title "US Unlikely
To Stop Modi", stated inter alia as follows:
"Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is unlikely to bar Gujarat Chief
Minister Narendra Modi from entering the country, senior State Department
officials said. Rice was bombarded with e-mails, letters and messages
from secular, Christian and Islamic groups protesting against Modi's visit at
the invitation of the Asian American Hotel Owners' Association. State
Department officials told "India Abroad" she was aware of the
protests and concerns raised over Modi's visit , but no decision has been made
on denying him entry to the United States. The officials said it was highly
improbable that Modi, who reportedly holds a ten-year multiple entry
visa to the US, will be stopped at the port of entry and turned back.
The officials explained that there is a provision of law to refuse visas
to people, who have denied religious freedom to people and it is
possible it could apply here, but we are not sure. But that is one thing
we may be looking at."
Shortly thereafter, the announcement about the rejection of Narendra
Modi's application for a diplomatic visa and the cancellation of the ordinary
visa already issued to him before the Gujarat riots was made. In response to my
enquiries as to what went wrong made with my Indian as well as American friends,
I ascertained that there were serious reservations in the US State
Department over the political wisdom of applying a 1998 law relating to
the denial of visa to those accused of violating religious freedom to Narendra
Modi in view of the role played by the BJP in strengthening India's
relations with the US..
Ultimately, the office of Dick Cheney, the Vice-President, at the instance of
some Christian organisations, intervened and persuaded the State Department to
apply the law to Narendra Modi and deny him a visa. I was told by credible
contacts that one John Prabhudoss and his organisations were among those,
who had successfully sought the intervention of Cheney's office.
Till I received this information, I had not heard of either John Prabhudoss or
his organisations. On scrutinising the reports sent by the Washington-based
Indian journalists on the visa denial, I came across the following reference in
a despatch of March 23, 2005, sent by the Outlook correspondent in
Washington DC, which was carried in the Outlook
online edition:.
"Tactically, enlisting Congressman Joseph Pitts of Pennsylvania, an
evangelist with strong feelings about the persecution of Christians, may just
have tipped the scales in their favour. It was easy to activate Pitts since he
had first hand knowledge of Gujarat. He had been there on a private visit last
year and never stopped talking about the persecution of Christians and
Muslims. P.D. John who leads the Federation of Indian American Christian
Organizations of North America (FIACONA) was walking the halls of the US
Congress, reminding young staffers of Gujarat 2002 and the arson in the Dangs. "
On further enquiries, I came to know that P.D. John referred to in the Outlook
report was identical with John Prabhudoss. I was told he calls himself sometimes
as John Prabhudoss (when he went to Iraq after the US invasion and occupation,
for example) and sometimes as P.D.John (when he visited Gujarat after the riots
in 2002, for example) and that he wears two hats. It is also alleged that he
uses other aliases such as J.P. Doss. He is reportedly the Chairman,
Governmental Relations Committee of the Federation of Indian American
Christian Organizations of North America (FIACONA), Washington DC; and the
Executive Director of the Policy Institute for Religion and State (PIFRAS).
My enquiries and research also indicated that both are Christian organisations
and that, while the FIACONA focusses on lobbying in Washington DC on the
issue of the violations of the rights of the religious minorities and
the restrictions on the right of the Christians to proselytize in India, the
PIFRAS largely concentrates on backing the Bush Administration's policy of
promoting democracy and good governance, particularly in the Islamic world. I
came across the texts of the reports prepared and disseminated by John
Prabhudoss on his visits to Iraq and noticed that most of the members of the
delegation, which he had taken to Iraq, were Christians.
My research and enquiries also indicated that while he and his
organisations have been very vocal in their criticism of the violations of the
human rights of the Christians and Muslims in India, they have been muted on the
violations of the human rights of the Sunni Muslims of Iraq by the US troops,
the alleged brutalities committed by the US troops at the Abu Gharaib prison and
the alleged massacre of the Iraqi Sunnis, particularly at Falluja, by the US
troops. Nor did I find any activism by him and his organisations on the
brutal violations of the human rights of the Muslim detenus at the Guantanamo
Bay in Cuba. If they have campaigned on these issues as vigorously as they have
campaigned on the issue of the violations of the human rights of the Muslims and
Christians in India, I would be glad to know the details and would be only
too happy to stand corrected.
My research also brought out his acquaintance with and proximity to some
of the political leaders in Washington DC, who had played a role in the decision
to deny a visa to Narendra Modi.
After taking all these into consideration, I wrote my article and stand by my
assessment as given in that article. Since March, 2002, I have written strongly
against Narendra Modi and on the massacre of Muslims in Gujarat. I have written
equally strongly in Indian and foreign media on the serious violations of the
human rights of the Muslims by American troops in Afghanistan, Iraq and in the
Guantanamo Bay detention camp. I find it difficult to accept the arguments and
the allegations against me of those in the community of Indian origin in
the USA, who are vigorous in their denunciation of the human rights of the
Christian and Muslim minorities in India and walk the lobbies of the
Congress almost every day on this issue, but prefer to remain muted on the
serious violations of the human rights of the Muslims by the American troops
so well documented by prestigious Human Rights organisations such as the Amnesty
International and the Human Rights Watch.
In my view, this is because many of those on whose support they rely for
their campaigns relating to India, are supporters of the Bush Administration's
policies in Iraq. Who is devious, mischievous and motivated? Me?
B. Raman is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai, and Distinguished Fellow and Convenor, Observer Research Foundation (ORF), Chennai Chapte