Font size: 
The Indian Ministry of External Affairs, which coordinated the prime minister's visit to the United States, had extended an invitation to leading journalists in the country to accompany the prime minister. Haider Hussain, the editor of Asomiya Pratidin, a leading Assamese daily, was among them. Hussain has been working with Asomiya Pratidin for the past ten years. However, as his U.S. visa was not processed in time, he could not accompany the prime minister.
When Hussain approached the MEA seeking assistance to expedite the visa process, the ministry refused to help, claiming that it is the sovereign authority of the U.S. government to approve or deny a visa to an applicant. Humiliated, Hussain returned to Assam while the rest of his peers accompanied the prime minister.
The MEA later informed Hussain that U.S. authorities take more time, for reasons best known to them, to process the visa applications of Muslims.
Being a Muslim does not mean that the person is a criminal. Neither does it imply that the person is a threat to the peace and security of any state. When a government agency like the MEA of India submits a list of people invited to accompany the Indian prime minister on his visit to a foreign country, it implies that the invitees are persons with credible records, at least safe enough to accompany the prime minister. This should be enough guarantee for any state to accept and honor a visa application.
Such an invitation implies that the MEA has run background checks on the invitees. That does not mean the United States should not conduct its own background checks; but when such checks discriminate against applicants due to their religious identity, it is discrimination in black and white.
The U.S. government might have its own reasons for discriminating against people of a particular religion. It is trite to write further about the United States’ perceived notions about particular religions, where a large section of the local population is educated day and night to be weary of bearded men. What is a shame on India and the government delegation that visited the United States is the fact that some of its senior officers, who were part of the government delegation, were engaged in discussions with their U.S. counterparts about tackling terrorism the U.S. way.
Much worse is when the national security advisor of India appreciates the U.S. initiative in tackling international terrorism. This implies approval of the U.S. government's methods of fighting terrorism, in spite of the fact that many in the United States. itself do not agree to such government actions.
The treatment meted out to Hussain is a slap in the face of the Indian government and the country's media. The government of India did nothing to ensure that its invitees were allowed to travel to the United States. Nothing could be expected from a government led by a prime minister who heads the world's largest democracy, which in fact postponed its scheduled parliamentary session to facilitate the prime minister's U.S. visit.
In terms of priorities, the prime minister preferred to please the United States and seal a controversial nuclear deal rather than fulfill his domestic democratic commitments. None of the political parties in India that oppose the nuclear deal made a statement against the postponement of the parliamentary session.
The self-proclaimed national media in India also did not condemn the action by the U.S. Embassy in discriminating against one of their peers. Instead they focussed on corporate, religious and petty political interests, while the discrimination and humiliation suffered by Hussain remained a non-issue. On this ground the Indian media has equated themselves with their U.S. and other Western counterparts.
The statement by Narayanan, the national security advisor, raises the question as to what kind of democratic values India stands for. Must India further follow the U.S. version of democracy? It appears that at least the Indian media, along with the Indian politicians, are inclined to follow the U.S. model. The question is what about the ordinary Indians? But who cares about them anyway?
--
(Bijo Francis is a human rights lawyer currently working with the Asian Legal Resource Center in Hong Kong. He is responsible for the South Asia desk at the center. Mr. Francis has practiced law for more than a decade and holds an advanced master's degree in human rights law.)
