A 10-year old boycott of Narendra Modi by the European Union is coming to a grinding halt. Some of the EU members have already reached out to the Gujarat chief minister, while many others, are desperately looking for face-savers that would also allow them to engage with Modi. Several reasons are being cited by the EU members for changing their stand on Modi that ranges from respect for Indian judicial system, staying away from internal politics and expanding the respective countries’ diplomatic footprint in India. But the fact remains that the Gujarat chief minister is no longer the pariah he used to be to the western governments for nearly a decade.
The boycott of the 27-member European Union was an informal agreement among its ambassadors in Delhi taken in the wake of the Godhra riots in 2002. Modi, widely accused of engineering the riots in which large number of Muslims in Gujarat were killed after a train carrying Hindu pilgrims was attacked by miscreants at Godhra, was seen as the main culprit by the European ambassadors. To uphold human rights values, the members of the EU had taken an unanimous decision not to have any truck with the Gujarat chief minister and his cabinet. Though no resolutions were passed and it was more of a “gentlemen’s agreement”—the boycott of Modi and his government, stayed.
The boycott was reiterated yet again, in 2008. As a result of this, Modi’s travel plans to the West was severely hampered and despite several invitations from his supporters in the United States, United Kingdom or other European countries, the Gujarat chief minister never formally applied for a visit to visit any of these countries. But now this position is being revisited by the EU ambassadors and many of them are raising serious questions on whether there is any justification of maintaining the boycott on Modi.
“We can well understand the grief of the people affected by the communal riots,” says Gustavo de Aristegui, Spanish ambassador to India. “But after 10 years no clear link has been established between Narendra Modi and the riots,” he adds.
Expressing respect for the Indian political system Aristegui points out that “political battles” are legitimate part of any democratic set up but no “outsider” has the right to interfere with it or the judicial process in the country.
It is true that despite strong beliefs and accusations in sections in India about Modi’s involvement in the Gujarat riots, the Indian courts have so far found nothing to link him to the carnage in the state. But this is not the only reason that has made many of key members in the West, including the EU ambassadors, to relook at Modi.
The Gujarat chief minister’s success in gaining the confidence and trust of leading Indian business and industrial houses by projecting his state as an investment- friendly destination and himself as a strong leader who encourages business friendly atmosphere, has also led many of the foreign missions to re-think their strategy on Modi. Though the Americans have not yet reached out to him directly, there are reports of informal contacts between the two sides. Such moves are also backed by serious attempts last year to refurbish Modi’s image in the US media.
Some EU ambassadors, namely the Swedish and the Danes had already reached out to Modi by sharing platforms with him for business and investment in Gujarat in 2011. But it was the British high commissioner James Bevan who formally broke the ice and started the process of ending the EU boycott of Modi when he visited the state and had a hour-long meeting with the Gujarat chief minister. The import of the British decision was not lost on Modi who had then tweeted after his meeting with Bevan—“had a great meeting …. to strengthen Guj-UK ties in economic and social sectors.”
Under attack from various quarters for breaking rank with the EU, Bevan had clarified that UK was engaging with Gujarat and not any individual. “I don’t agree with the view that we are rehabilitating Narendra Modi, this engagement is not an endorsement,” the British high commissioner had said.
But his decision has sparked off a debate among the EU ambassadors on how to deal with Modi after 10 years. Some countries like Belgium and Holland took the initiative of resuming discussion on this controversial topic after the UK decision.
“France does not, as a principle, wish to interfere in India’s domestic affair,” says French ambassador, Francois Richier. Maintaining ambiguity in his stand he adds, “The friendship and strategic partnership between France and India is well above evolutions in domestic politics of either state.”
But EU diplomats point out that the stand taken by the Europeans in 2002 is no longer valid or tenable in 2012 because of the changes in the political scenario in India. They point out that in order to do business in India where regional players are exceedingly becoming important because of the coalition nature of the country’s polity, has forced them to re-look at their stand on many of the chief ministers. It is not only Modi, they point out, but many others like Mamata Banerjee of West Bengal, Nitish Kumar of Bihar or Akhilesh Yadav in UP, are all in the list of emerging players of India with whom they want to build up a political or diplomatic equation.
However, while this argument makes sense it is also a fact that there was no other chief minister against whom the EU had imposed a ban. Therefore, while engagement with other regional players has been reported on, it is the attempt to reach out to Modi that has created a stir. The fact that he could well become the BJP’s prime ministerial candidate for the next Lok Sabha elections has only added weight to the Europeans’ attempt to reach out to Modi.
“We want to do business with India, in India but what we do not want to do is to interfere in an ongoing election campaign,” says German ambassador Michael Steiner. “We will cross the bridge when we come to it,” he adds. The indications were already clear that while some of the EU members had already started reaching out to Modi, others were waiting for the Gujarat elections to be over. After his convincing victory, there is no doubt that many senior western diplomats will make a beeline for the Gujarat chief minister who will then be seen as a major player in the emerging political scenario in India.
Thank you to all those who have taken the trouble to read the article and share their thoughts. Out of the arguments made here, there are two that perhaps need answering. So here they go.
1. The first part of the article compares outcomes (relative percentages of population of the religions concerned) irrespective of the process that led to those outcomes - whether immigration, relatively faster population growth or conversions. This was for two reasons. One, to put the figure of 2.3 per cent in "numerical perspective", as the article itself explained. The second reason was that outcomes are ultimately what the crux of debate is about. The rest of the article in any case dealt with process - or conversions in this case, from both a contemporary and historical perspective.
2. Some commenters have tried to cast doubts on the reliability of Census 2001. Those who do this should bear in mind that Census 2001 was conducted by a BJP government. Considering the extreme importance that BJP gives to this issue, it would be reasonable to expect that IF it had perceived a problem with the methodology that was distorting the numbers, it would have fixed it. As the article mentioned, BJP or BJP-supported governments have been in power for 10 of the last 40 years, or about a quarter of the time, and the only reasonable conclusion one can arrive at is that any misreporting of numbers, real or perceived, would be marginal and hence, not of importance.
To all other arguments made, my answer is the following: Please read the article again, with particular focus on the quotations of Vivekananda and Monier Williams, and the history of the missionary efforts in Bengal and their outcome.
yawn! western leaders would sell their mothers if their corporate masters tell them to.
modi - now, i do not know if he was complicit in the violence -- should refuse to engage with western leaders if he has an er.. modicum of sense. let them grovel some more. their corporate masters will have them by their &@!!s if they fail to get him on board.
Exactly what Outlook is doing in this issue, right?
Also note, the conservatives are in power. So, a more pragmatic approach is expected unlike in the case of Mr.Blair.
let me join Maha;
A big yawn !!
Anyone who believes international relations are governed by morality is living in a dreamworld. It may be cynical, but it is a fact. The US had no problems with Saddam Hussein gassing his own people as long as he was battling the Iranians. The moment he ceased to be of any use to him, they attcked Iraq and deposed him on the patently false charges of amassing WMD.
When an anti-Modi stance appeared the line to take to gain brownie points with people the US and EU was trying to please. Now that the befits of the earlier policy have dwindled, these govts are changing track so as not to be deprived of what they percieve to be their share of the spoils. If any further proof is required, then look at the continued and unbroken engagement by the world's "democracies" with various military regimes.
In international relations there are no permanent friends or permanent enemies, only permanent interests. Lord Palmerston's words are as relevant today as when he made them nearly 200 years ago.
We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism
1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.
2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads
3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site
4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.
5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT
6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.
7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.
8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.
9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:
a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you
10. We have an online thread for our comments policy:
You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT