Press and Media Reports

Page 6

A still-born Labour
Sanjay Suri
Outlook India, April 8, 2005

Leaders love the lights, but Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi was not coming to London just to watch Gujarati folk dance at the 'Vibrant Gujarat' show at the Royal Albert Hall, or even to announce some new multi-crore investment by some British Gujarati. In the shadows of what turned out to be a non-visit lay the political agenda of building up a Hindu candidate for the British Parliament.

An Operation Hindu Vote has been going on for a little more than a year in Britain now. It's an attempt to harness the community vote so as to get something back via the MPs who benefit from it. "We are getting in touch with other Hindu leaders, and we want to launch the initiative countrywide," Kanti Patel from the Operation Hindu Vote campaign told Outlook earlier.

Modi in Britain would have helped Labour in Gujarati-heavy areas at a time when Tories are chasing its tail.

But beyond the attempt to generate a Hindu vote, these are moves to get someone politically Hindu into Parliament. Labour MP Ashok Kumar is Hindu, but not the kind of political Hindu these groups want. The House of Commons, they believe, needs an MP of the Hindutva stamp.

"Several people in the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and the Sangh parivar believe they need to make inroads within Labour through the notion that Hindus are being discriminated against. Some people will be sympathetic to the idea that there should be a Hindu MP," Suresh Grover, director of The Monitoring Group, an independent body that studies community relations in Britain, told Outlook. But their politics and the reasoning behind it could do a lot of damage, he warned.

Nevertheless, this is the game where Modi counts as no other. No candidate contesting from a Gujarati-heavy constituency could be better blessed than by Modi, hero to large numbers of Hindu Gujaratis. But none was thought more likely to gain than Modi's two political representatives in Britain, both members of the Hindu Swayamsevak Sangh (HSS), the British wing of the RSS, and both members of the Labour Party. The two also hold key positions on behalf of the Indian government and business.

Of the two, Manoj Ladwa, Modi's feet-touching representative and spokesman, is also Britain representative of FICCI, to which he was appointed during the BJP government days. Ladwa eulogised Modi at a meeting during his last visit to Britain in 2003, and stoutly defended him before hostile media and political groups.

Modi and the Gujarat government were represented also by Vikas Pota and his company named—rather appropriately—Saffron Chase. In an unusual privatisation of Indian diplomacy, Pota was also engaged by the Indian High Commission in 2001 to deal with the Labour Party on its behalf through the Labour Friends of India group. For years now the Indian government has effectively talked to the Labour Party through a middleman who is a British citizen with an RSS background. And he and Ladwa still continue in their posts despite the change in government in New Delhi.

Ladwa denies he is looking for a Labour parliamentary ticket; Pota says "no plans or ambitions of contesting exist". These are not the kind of plans or ambitions anyone declares publicly before the time has come. But just about everyone in political circles see the two grooming themselves for Parliament. "We would be very surprised if one of them or some other Hindu candidate is not sent into Parliament soon," a senior member of the Overseas Friends of the BJP said. Good then to have Modi by your side.

"They are among Modi's main contacts in Britain and they wanted him to come. Without any doubt these people would have used their association with Modi to build themselves up. They see his popularity among Gujaratis as having an impact on their popularity," Grover said.

A visible association with Modi would have come this time before an audience of about 5,000 at the Royal Albert Hall, a massive number considering the small victory margins in British constituencies.

This number would have been further enhanced through broadcast of the event on Sony Television. To the Labour Party these could add up to mouth-watering numbers in Gujarati-heavy constituencies in times when it finds the Tories getting closer and closer to its tail. "We believe there are at least 30 constituencies where the Hindu vote can make a difference," says a member of the Hindu Forum.

In the end, the visit came unstuck after Labour leaders gathered that Modi's presence in Britain could lose them chunks of either the Hindu or the Muslim vote, depending on how the visit shaped up.

That choice became stark at an event for presenting The Muslim News Awards for Excellence on March 23, when the controversy over the denial of the visa by the US was at its peak. Imran Khan, the leading solicitor in Britain taking up political Muslim issues, announced at the function that he would secure a warrant from a court to get Modi arrested on his arrival in Britain. Chancellor of the Exchequer (finance minister) Gordon Brown and Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy were among the guests. The message could not have been conveyed more directly.

As such, the denial of the visa by the US couldn't have come at a more inopportune moment. The refusal was certain to be cited in arguments before a court. The plea to court would have had a British basis because three British nationals had died in the Gujarat riots of 2002. Though attempts at arrest through court action weren't likely to succeed, as they did not before Modi's 2003 visit, Khan's threat won strong backing at the Muslim gathering. It sent worrying messages to Labour leaders: if the government refused to arrest Modi, it could anger Muslim voters; if it did, it inevitably would alienate many Hindu voters.

The most suitable outcome for the government was to see that Modi kept away from London voluntarily and steer clear of a crisis that could have hurt Labour one way or another. Indeed, it suited everyone except Modi and his men that he stay back; and yet everyone says Modi took the decision on his own, and they had nothing to do with it. A British spokesman in New Delhi had said that Modi had a multi-entry visa, and that there were no grounds to refuse him a private visit. Modi's office in Ahmedabad said he was persuaded by the central government to stay back for security reasons. The pmo denied talking to Modi. You'd think that Modi just decided that London was not for him at this time of the year. Or that he was scared away by hints that his life would be in danger.

Hindu leaders close to Modi say HSS volunteers in Britain had offered to take full charge of security for Modi. "If he can move around Gujarat, he is not going to be scared coming to London," a keen BJP supporter said. The supporter and others believe that it was finally some of Modi's own supporters who were made instrumental in persuading him to cancel his visit. The politics of the Hindu and the Muslim vote hung heavy over the end of the loaded non-visit, as it had over the beginning.

Return to Press and Media Index

THE news that Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi had called off his visit to Britain, after being advised by the Home Ministry that there were concerns about his security, came as civil rights campaigners in London were preparing to picket him on his arrival, and a move to have an arrest warrant issued against him was said to be going well. The protest venues had been settled, the placards were ready and, as one activist put it: "We were raring to give him hell."

Their immediate reaction was one of disappointment that Modi had "got away with it", but as the details emerged they realised that his decision was in fact a "victory" for their campaign. "It is a face-saver for Modi, a face-saver for the British government and a tremendous victory for us," one campaigner said.

By cancelling the three-day trip, which was to begin on March 25, Modi saved himself the embarrassment of being booed and jeered by his own countrymen on the streets of London. Even more humiliating was the prospect of being presented with an arrest warrant or subjected to a "citizen's arrest" by groups protesting against the visit.

For the British government, which had been under enormous pressure to stop Modi from entering Britain, the move was a quiet diplomatic triumph. Foreign Secretary Jack Straw had been deluged with petitions urging him to follow the U.S. "lead" and revoke Modi's visa over allegations of his government's involvement in the 2002 communal violence in which three British nationals were killed.

But taking the American route was precisely what the British government did not want to do lest it should be seen as "slavishly" aping Washington, to quote an Indian diplomatic observer. At the same time, it did not want to be accused of hosting a man about whom a senior British High Commission official in New Delhi had said, after the 2002 violence: "A reconciliation between Hindus and Muslim is impossible while the Chief Minister remains in power."

As the pressure mounted, the Foreign Office made it clear that it would have "no contact" with Modi or provide official security during his visit. The British government reportedly conveyed to New Delhi its strong "concerns" about Modi - a diplomatic euphemism for saying that he was not welcome. The message was that if he still insisted on coming he would be on his own.

After the humiliation of being refused an American visa, Modi understandably did not want to risk more embarrassment. Suggestions that there was a threat to his life were clearly exaggerated. Indeed, anti-Modi campaigners - mostly belonging to secular civil rights groups - were furious at being portrayed as Al Qaeda extremists by his supporters.

But even a bit of `drama', such as someone attempting a citizen's arrest or hurling abuse, would not have made for a pretty sight, and would generate damaging headlines around the world. And this was the last thing Modi would have wanted at a time when he and his supporters were desperately trying to salvage some prestige after the "slap on the face" - as The Hindu editorial put it - from the Americans. Hence, the decision to stay home.

The "anti-visit'' groups hailed the cancellation as a vindication of "people power".

"Clearly, the momentum that we built up against his visit and the pressure we brought to bear upon the British government not to allow him to come here appear to have resulted in the advice that he should reconsider his travel plans," said Amrit Wilson of the South Asia Solidarity Group (SASG). She said that the campaign against "divisive forces" would continue: "It is not just about one person, it's against the entire Sangh Parivar and its activities."

Echoing the sentiment, Mohamed Munaf Zeena, chairman of the Council of Indian Muslims (United Kingdom), said his organisation would press for a permanent ban on Modi's entry in Britain, even if that meant enacting a new law.

"We are going to ask Mr. Straw whether it is in the British interest to allow such a person to visit the U.K. Is it not time that we took a stand and sent a clear signal that the likes of Modi were not welcome - not just to the people of the USA but to the people of the U.K. as well?" he said.

This would have been Modi's second visit to Britain since the Gujarat carnage, which provoked international outrage, prompting calls for him to be tried for "crimes against humanity". During his previous visit in 2003 - months after the allegedly state-sponsored violence that claimed more than 2,000 lives - he faced angry demonstrations by cross-community groups led by the left-wing SASG. A move to have him arrested failed on a technicality on that occasion, but this time human rights lawyers were more confident of getting an arrest warrant issued against him under the British Criminal Justice Act.

According to Suresh Grover of the U.K. National Civil Rights Movement, they were on firmer ground this time as the family of at least two British nationals - Saeed and Sakil Daud - killed in the Gujarat violence, had given their consent for a case to be filed against Modi. "Unlike on the previous occasion, this time we have the consent of the Daud family to seek Modi's arrest on their behalf," said an optimistic Grover as he waited for an appointment with a magistrate shortly before the cancellation of Modi's trip was announced.

As in 2003, the country's civil rights movement was united about the demand for a ban on Modi's entry, arguing that allowing him in would run contrary to the government's own strong line on the Gujarat administration's role in the 2002 violence. Protest groups believed that there was a "contradiction" between the British government's condemnation of the Gujarat events and its reluctance to bar his entry into Britain, effectively allowing him to use British soil for "political propaganda".

"While it is true that the British High Commission in India has condemned, and to some extent exposed some aspects of what happened in Gujarat three years ago, prominent figures in New Labour are known for their support to Hindutva groups," said an SASG spokesperson.

In the end, however, the British government managed to achieve quietly what the Americans did so ham-handedly. Having said that, it is doubtful whether London would have acted at all if Washington had not taken the lead.

Return to Press and Media Index

After the US denied Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi a visa, the Centre has advised him not to travel to the UK for Gujarat divas.

Late on Thursday evening, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Home Minister Shivraj Patil spoke to Modi. They discussed security concerns and persuaded the Chief Minister to cancel his proposed three-day tour to the UK.

"The Prime Minister and the Home Minister told the Gujarat Chief Minister that there was a perceived security threat to his proposed visit. Mr Modi has agreed to cancel his trip in accordance with their wishes," said Hasmukh Ardia, Principal Secretary, CMO, Gujarat.

No official contact

With a series of protests being organised by human rights groups across UK and intelligence reports indicating that Narendra Modi might have been the target of terrorist groups, the Indian government felt it could not guarantee Modi's security.

The British government while issuing a visa to Modi had already disassociated itself from his visit, saying there was to be no official contact.

Protests held

Modi was to attend the Gujarat day celebrations in London on March 26 and organisations like Awaaz and South Asia Watch had protested vigorously against his visit.

"Our hearts are with the victims of Gujarat. The reason for our protests was to ensure that those responsible were held accountable and that the victims and horrors are not forgotten," said Suresh Grover, Awaaz.

For people like Grover, the cancellation of Modi's trip is a vindication of their stand.

Return to Press and Media Index

LONDON, MARCH 24. Asian human rights activists were today trying to obtain an arrest warrant against the Gujarat Chief Minister, Narendra Modi, ahead of his planned visit to Britain tomorrow. The visit has since been cancelled. Suresh Grover of the `Monitoring Group' and `Awaaz' — the two organisations spearheading the campaign for Mr. Modi's arrest — said: "We are making all efforts to have him arrested for torture under the British Criminal Justice Act."

Mr. Grover said the family of two British nationals, Saeed and Sakil Daud, who were killed in the Gujarat violence, had given their "consent" for a case to be filed against Mr. Modi. A case demanding compensation from the Gujarat Government was pending in an Indian court.

Mr. Grover said that a similar move during Mr. Modi's visit in 2003 had failed on a technicality. This time they were on firmer grounds, he claimed.

"Unlike on the previous occasion, this time we have the consent of the Daud family to seek Mr. Modi's arrest on their behalf," he said. Efforts were being made to get the same judge, who had heard the case in 2003, to give them a hearing again.

More organisations urged the British Government to revoke Mr. Modi's visa, arguing that his visit would "inflame" passions.

The Indian Muslim Federation (UK) said in a letter to the Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, that Mr. Modi's visit would be "damaging to the British community." "The United States Government has revoked Mr. Modi's visa... and we strongly urge you to act on a similar basis and stop his visit to the U.K.," the Federation president, Shamsuddin Agha, said a day after the South Asia Solidarity Group and the Council of Indian Muslims (UK) issued similar calls.

Mr. Modi, who is scheduled to meet Gujarati businessmen and his party supporters during the three-day visit, will face protests on his arrival. The British Government has made it clear that it would have "no contact" with him because of its "concerns" over his administration's role in the 2002 communal violence.

Return to Press and Media Index

Ahmedabad, March 20: Speakers at the Swabhimaan rally today said the denial of a US visa to Narendra Modi had united the entire country — except the Gujarat BJP, they might have added.

At the rally here in protest against the US decision, there were three key absentees: Keshubhai Patel, Suresh Mehta and Kashiram Rana. All three are rivals of Modi and have been fomenting a rebellion from which the Gujarat chief minister has been rescued by the visa refusal.

Such is the demonstration of outrage otherwise in the BJP camp that Lal Krishna Advani equated the decision to the British imposition of salt tax which Mahatma Gandhi protested against with the Dandi March.

Advani said the Swabhimaan rally was just the beginning of a series of protests.

Talking of the Dandi March, one Gandhi — Rahul — arrived in Gujarat to take part in the re-enactment of the yatra by the Congress on the 75th anniversary. In Vadodara, he criticised the “divisive and destructive” policies of some political parties.

But at least on the visa controversy the BJP and the Congress are speaking in one voice, in public. At the rally, Modi thanked Prime Minister Manmohan Singh for protesting against the Washington decision.

Advani took the theme of unity further. He said even Modi’s detractors were forced to support him on the issue. “Until now Modi was a symbol of Gujarati pride and self-respect, but now his name has become synonymous with the country’s self-respect”.

Another visitor to Gujarat belonging to the opposite political camp, however, saw in the BJP’s holding of a rally an effort to draw “political mileage” out of the incident.

Sharad Pawar asked why the BJP did not think of organising a Swabhimaan rally when George Fernandes was asked to remove his clothes and shoes while being frisked at an airport in the US. Fernandes was then defence minister in the Vajpayee government.

The Nationalist Congress Party leader also referred to a comment he said Atal Bihari Vajpayee had made while visiting the US as Prime Minister. “What kind of honour did Vajpayee bring to the country when he went there and said ‘my head hangs in shame when I think of Gujarat’ (the riots).”

Fernandes was one of the speakers at the rally. He said: “The problem with the United States is that it behaves as the ‘emperor of the world’ (global cop). So long it has this inflated self-image, it will continue to behave like this. But this time the US has been jolted by denying a visa to Modi. The entire nation is united on this issue.”

Modi targeted his fury at President Bush who, he said, “has no business to dictate to Gujarat what law we should or should not enact”.

The chief minister said the US was unhappy with him because he passed a law banning religious conversions. The chief minister added that it was time to resolve to make this country so prosperous that some day Americans would line up for an Indian visa.

Shiv Sena leader Manohar Joshi, who said all US consulates in India should be closed down in retaliation, asked Modi not to visit that country even if he were granted a visa.

Whatever the fate of India’s request to reassess the decision, Modi is going to address a New York conference tomorrow organised by friends of the BJP, and not the Asian American Hotel Owners’ Association that had invited him.

Life outside India will be difficult for Modi. Two UK-based voluntary organisations are planning protest demonstrations during his proposed visit here to participate in the Vibrant Gujarat celebrations next Saturday.

Awaaz and South Asia Watch announced the decision last night. Welcoming the US decision to deny the visa, Suresh Grover of Awaaz said: “We need to create the necessary momentum to keep up the international pressure.… When he comes here.”

Return to Press and Media Index

The response of Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi to the US decision not to grant him a visa is a study in cynicism. He argued that it is the duty of the Government of India to protect all the legitimate and democratic rights of its citizens and that the US decision went against all principles of "democracy", "human rights" and "natural justice". The UPA government did of course oblige him — more fulsomely than the call of duty warranted — but let that not distract us from expressing wonder at the words that tripped from Modi's tongue. He cited "democracy", "human rights" and "natural justice" as values that needed defending.

Can the man responsible for the Gujarat carnage of 2002 actually speak of "democracy", "human rights" and "natural justice"? When he urged the Indian government to protect the "rights" of its citizens, which included his own of course, he did not obviously perceive the irony of such a demand coming from a man who had once presided over a machinery that had spectacularly failed to protect the basic rights of Gujarat's citizens. He also attempted to pass off the murders/rapes of that horrendous interregnum as ordinary urban crimes. "New York alone witnesses more than 1,500 rapes a year" so why is the US criticising him, he wanted to know. That's Modi for you, a master purveyor of slanted reconstructions.

But this familiar fact should not detain us here. The denial of the US visa to Modi is a significant development deserving closer examination. The first question that presents itself is why did the US government single Modi out for such treatment? After all, there have been numerous massacres and riots in India involving politicians. The massacre of Sikhs in '84 is a case in point. One hasn't heard of an H.K.L. Bhagat or a Sajjan Kumar being denied an US visa on grounds of "infringement of religious freedom", or the leaders of the BJP/ VHP/ Bajrang Dal/ Shiv Sena being denied entry for fomenting the pre- and post-Babri Masjid demolition riots. As for those faceless Islamic merchants of terror who had triggered the murderous frenzy resulting in the migration of Kashmiri Pandits from the Valley, they don't even figure on the radar. So why Modi?

The answer to this question can tell us a great deal about the myriad ways in which the world has changed in the 21st century. Let us confine ourselves to three significant developments here. The first is the emergence of the US as the world's only superpower and the unilateralism it has increasingly demonstrated in the wake of the September 11 attacks. This has had profoundly unsettling consequences for the rest of the world as, for instance, the pulverising of Iraq on the specious grounds that Saddam Hussein's government harboured weapons of mass destruction. Its advocacy of international "democracy" and "democratic freedoms", we know, is highly suspect. Not only are these values deployed selectively, they are invariably employed to serve America's pursuit of global domination.

Coterminous with this has been the quickening pace of globalisation, which has meant not just the merger of financial and commodity markets, or the growing heterogeneity of national populations, but a connectivity between people on a scale that had hitherto never been imagined. This has resulted in a significant softening of national borders and could, in the future, undermine the capacity of governments to steer the social, intellectual and economic lives of their people.

Today, given the compression of space and time globalisation has wrought, NRI communities in the US and UK can respond to events in mother country in real time. Here, too, we have the ideological divisions that characterise the discourse at home. If the Association of Indian Americans of North America can deem it fit to invite a man like Modi to grace their public platforms, there can just as well be campaign clusters like the Coalition Against Genocide lobbying furiously to get the visit aborted. If some NRIs in the UK find Modi the perfect "special guest" at the Gujarat Day Concern at the Royal Albert Hall, there can just as well be the London-based Monitoring Group and Awaaz spearheading a 'Stop Modi' campaign and initiating moves to arrest him for the killings of two British nationals, Saeed and Sakil Daud, during the Gujarat carnage.

Finally, the new millennium has seen a greater articulation and application of humanitarian international law than in previous decades. It has witnessed the spectacle of Slobodan Milosevic, the man who bore the epithet 'Butcher of the Balkans', stand trial in an international tribunal that was telecast world wide. He was the first in a long list of public figures who have had to confront the uncomfortable truth that the impunity afforded by the state is an uncertain and finite thing. Augusto Pinochet, Ariel Sharon, Jiang Zemin, Jean Kambanda, Robert Mugabe, Henry Kissinger, Donald Rumsfeld, are just names.

India does not recognise the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, nor has it ratified the Convention against Torture, but it has nevertheless had to face the embarrassment of global scrutiny. When the EU issued a demarche after Gujarat, the MEA rejected it as "interference in our internal affairs", even as it objected to every expression of "concern" by visiting dignitaries from countries like Canada, Denmark and Finland. Jaswant Singh, as foreign minister,famously observed that "India will not be spoken to from any position of assumed superiority or morality".

We, who pride ourselves in our Constitution and institutions of justice, quite rightly find such scrutiny of our domestic affairs an anathema. There are also, decidedly, disturbing aspects about western powers emerging as guardians of universal rights within an universal order. But this only underlines the imperative of addressing the weaknesses of our own governance, our failures to ensure justice and to abide by our Constitution. The issue goes beyond Modi's foreign excursions. India's swabhiman needs to rest on far surer foundations than visas for its travelling politicians. The country's self-esteem ultimately rests on its ability to abide by the highest standards of "democracy", "human rights" and "natural justice".

Return to Press and Media Index

Human rights campaigners claimed last night that Mr Modi cancelled his flight after learning that demonstrators intended to make a citizen’s arrest over allegations that he orchestrated sectarian riots in Gujarat in which an estimated 2,500 Muslims died in March 2002.

The rioting was provoked by a fire on a passenger train at Godra, a Muslim-dominated town in Gujarat, a province in western India. Fifty-eight people, mainly Hindus returning from a pilgrimage, were killed and an investi- gation produced evidence of arson.

Mr Modi, a far-right poli- tician, was quoted in the Gujarati media making pro- vocative statements on the subject.

Although the British Government refused to prevent him from travelling to Britain, the US State Department banned him from entering America this week, accusing him of violating religious freedom.

Several British human rights groups had been trying to get an arrest warrant for him.

Muslim leaders failed in recent attempts to get the Government to revoke his visa.

Activists claim that Mr Modi’s involvement stoked up one of India’s worst episodes of sectarian violence since independence from Britain in 1947.

Many British families lost relatives in the riots in March 2002 and two Britons died.

In addition to the 2,500 people, mainly Muslims, who were hacked, burnt or beaten to death, it is estimated that a further 200,000 were made homeless through fire.

The Muslim Council of Britain, Suresh Grover, who heads the UK National Civil Rights Movement, and Imran Khan, a human rights lawyer, believe that they had amassed enough evidence — as required by the 1998 British Criminal Justice Act — to persuade Bow Street magistrates to issue an arrest warrant.

Some protest groups were also planning to follow the example of Peter Tatchell, the gay rights campaigner, who attempted a citizen’s arrest of Robert Mugabe, the President of Zimbabwe, during a shopping trip to London in October 1999, for torture.

Mr Tatchell was beaten up by Mr Mugabe’s bodyguards when he made a second attempt at an arrest in the foyer of a Brussels hotel in March 2001.

British supporters of Mr Modi have hinted that he may fly to Antwerp next month on the inaugural flight of a new Indian airline, but that trip is now also in jeopardy because of fears that protesters may try to seize him there, too.

Last night Suresh Grover said that the cancellation of the London visit was “a victory for human rights activists — in the UK and India — because the victims of the Gujarat massacres have not been able to express themselves”.

He personally lobbied Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, this week to ban the trip.

Two of the Muslims killed during the riots were British citizens and their widows have sued the Gujarati Government for $4.9 million (£2.6 million), alleging a conspiracy resulting in their husbands’ deaths.

Return to Press and Media Index

The proposed visit to London last weekend by hard line Hindu nationalist Narendra Modi, leader of India’s Gujarat state, was opposed by British Asian groups.

Close on the heels of the US denying a visa to Modi, on the basis that he was responsible for a violation of religious freedom, UK-based voluntary organisations expressed their outrage at the visit. They were angry that the British government had not followed in the footsteps of the US authorities and cancelled Modi’s visa .

Welcoming the US decision to deny a visa to Modi and revoke his tourist/business visa, Suresh Grover of AWAAZ, an organisation committed to monitoring and combating religious hatred in South Asia and the UK said: “We need to create necessary momentum to keep up the international pressure on him.”

Ghazali Khan, committee member at the Council of Indian Muslims called him “racist,” while the Muslim Council of Britain’s Inayat Bunglawala branded him a “war criminal.”

The campaigners had written to the government demanding that his visa be revoked but to no avail.

Modi, a member of the main opposition Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party, campaigned for re-election on a right-wing agenda in elections held less than a year after sectarian riots in Gujarat in February 2002. His subsequent victory shocked his critics, who accused him of turning a blind eye to religious clashes in his state, which led to the death of around 1,000 Muslims in Gujarat. These murders were said to be in retaliation for the deaths of Hindu pilgrims burned to death on a train in a town called Godhra, which was blamed on Muslim Gujaratis.

Indira Jaising, a human rights lawyer and director of the Women’s Rights Initiative in New Delhi alleged the Gujarat riots were “pre-meditated.” Angelika Pathak, a researcher at Amnesty International’s South Asian Team said her organisation recommended to the Gujarat government that they investigate promptly, thoroughly and impartially all reports of alleged police connivance or participation in acts of sexual violence against women in the religious clashes and bring to justice those responsible.

Return to Press and Media Index

Rights activists plan to move court for an arrest warrant against Modi and claim to have the support of people who were affected by the Gujarat riots.

London civil rights activists are lobbying the British government to withdraw a UK visa for Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi who is expected here on a three-day visit at the end of next week.

The campaign to revoke his UK visa follows the American State Department’s decision last Friday to ban him from the US because of his alleged role in abetting the 2002 Gujarat riots.

New Delhi has described the US decision as “uncalled for” and lacking in courtesy and sensitivity, but Mr Modi’s critics in India and other parts of the world are delighted at the new opportunity that has been provided to hold him accountable for the tragic events of 2002.

In London, Mr Modi is being billed the chief guest at the Gujarat Festival, a musical extravaganza at the British capital’s prestigious Albert Hall, for which 5,500 tickets priced at between £ 5 and £ 50 have been sold out.

Some 70 UK and India-based performers, including Harish Bhimani, Sandeep Raval, Trilok Gurtu and Praful Dave, are expected to perform at the festival which has so far cost organisers from the London-based Asian Music Circuit more than £ 1,20,000.

Although Gujarat music and culture are the reasons for the sell-out event, Mr Modi’s presence is another reason why Gujaratis are expected to flock to the Albert Hall to express their solidarity with their controversial chief minister.

“I was told he was speaking at the Royal Albert Hall. The issue is that he is very likely to be coming here,” Mr Grover said. “We are going to make representations to the British parliament not to allow him here. If he is allowed here, we will take court action for a warrant of arrest to be issued against him.”

Demonstrations

“At last year’s hearing the judge said it may be possible to issue a warrant of arrest for him if we can show the command structure which links some of the killings or murder, or torture, specifically torture, to Modi. “In other words, if we were able to get a specific number of individuals who were affected by the Gujarat incidents three years ago.

“We are planning all sorts of actions, including strong representations with other NGOs and also planning action if he is allowed in.

“I think the action in America has spurred people in this country with regard to his arrival in the UK. It’s much stronger objections now than they used to be.”

“But the Indian stand is very good, even Manmohan Singh today spoke out.”

“What will happen if India decides tomorrow to refuse a visa to Bush because of whatever he has done in Iraq,” he asks.

Return to Press and Media Index

Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi late on Thursday night called off his proposed visit to London.

According to the chief minister's office, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh called Modi around 10.30 pm and requested him not to go to the UK in view of the controversy generated over his proposed visit there.

Modi was told the government had information about a possible law and order problem in London in view of protests by human rights groups.

Modi was scheduled to leave for London from Ahmedabad on Friday morning. He was scheduled to address a gathering of Gujarati community on the occasion of Gujarat Diwas on March 26.

Modi will address the media on Friday on this issue.

Return to Press and Media Index

Apart from facing the likely threat of a warrant of arrest and a fiery demonstration, Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi may face a huge dilemma as to who his hosts are if and when he lands in London. Those who possibly invited him seem to have got cold feet.

It has been known for some time that Modi will attend the March 26 Gujarat Day celebrations at the Royal Albert Hall, sponsored by several organisations here. It was assumed that the sponsors had extended the invitation to him.

But now, with just two days to go, no one is willing to own up to have invited Modi.

Worse, the Asian Music Circuit (AMC), the organisers, have told media they did not invite Modi. Its website has a whole page on the event — but no mention of Modi.

A January 7 letter ostensibly signed by Viram Jasani, chairman of the AMC, and two others on behalf of the AMC, and addressed to Modi is, however, in effect an invitation to the Gujarat chief minister.

At one place the letter (a copy of which was faxed to HT by C.B. Patel, publisher and editor, the Asian Voice, one of the sponsors) says: "Given the historic and prestigious nature of the event (on March 26 at Royal Albert Hall), we would be delighted if you could grace the occasion as our honoured chief guest."

Jasani could not be contacted but AMC office-bearers claimed they were a non-political body and had no desire to be dragged into any controversy.

Meanwhile, Suresh Grover of the Awaz group, who had tried to get a warrant of arrest against Modi when he came here last, told HT that "if Modi comes, we will again move the Bow Street magistrates' court under the Criminal Justice Act on torture".

In Ahmedabad, a highly placed source in the CMO confirmed that Modi had been invited for the March 26 programme.

Return to Press and Media Index

LONDON: Even as controversy brewed over Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi's forthcoming 36-hour visit to Britain, both 'love Modi' and 'loathe Modi' camps here appear amazingly united on one key point: the Gujarat chief minister may literally and figuratively face the music but threatened legal action in a London court for crimes against humanity will fizzle out again, as it did 19 months ago.

Modi arrives in London for a prestigious, three-hour sell-out 'Gujarat Day' concert at the Royal Albert Hall, but many believe he may have to struggle to hear that music over the shouts of massed civil liberties protestors outside.

On Tuesday, secular and civil liberties groups, including South Asia Solidarity, threatened to protest everywhere he went and Suresh Grover of the secular campaign group 'Awaaz' renewed his pledge to get Modi arrested once he sets foot in the UK. But even as the British Foreign Office stolidly stood by its commitment to allow Modi to visit within "the bounds of law" and the period of validity" of his visa, an only marginally-flustered spokesman began the business of passing the buck.

"We understand the concerns expressed about Mr Modi's visit and if there is any risk to public order and the inevitable protests, it's really a matter for the Home Office," the Foreign Office spokesman said.

However, Modi’s supporters argue that he has brought stability to the region by dealing harshly with terrorists. They also point out that he has never been prosecuted for any human rights abuses and was democratically elected. Sources said that Modi had clearly tried to save diplomatic face and limit diplomatic embarrassment by not seeking any official contact with the British government. This is in line with Britain's official working policy not to have contact with the Gujarat government because of its "concerns over what happened in Gujarat in 2002".

Meanwhile, Modi's key supporters dismissed the prospect of any harm coming to him here. Anil Pota of the Overseas Friends of the BJP, which is hosting Modi during his British sojourn, told TOI: "People were making a hue and cry about this issue the last time he visited as well. Nothing came of it."

Added another of Modi's supporters, who insisted on anonymity, "For anyone to actually threaten to make a citizen's arrest on Modi, they would need a warrant from a magistrate. But the last time they tried to get that, the case was dismissed for lack of evidence. I can't see that position as having changed."Even anti-Modi observers admitted the threatened return to a Bow Street magistrate's court to seek an arrest warrant for Modi was just a "gimmick".