Sectarian riots in Gujarat killed an estimated 2,000 members of the minority Muslim community in the year 2002, in the wake of the death of 58 Hindus in a fire aboard a train. Chief Minister Narendra Modi’s government has faced intense criticism over its role during and after the riots. Seen in the photo is a rioter in Ahmedabad. (Photo: AFP)

The State Department has described the decision to deny Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi a visa to come into this country as a purely legal decision and not a reflection on the Indian political or judicial system.

The U.S. Embassy in India on March 18 informed the chief minister that he would not be issued a diplomatic visa to travel to the U.S. where he was going to be the keynote speaker at the American Association of Hotel Owners Association Annual Convention and Trade Show in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.

This is the first time ever that the U.S. law under which Modi was denied the visa, has been used in the history of this country, a State Department official told News India-Times. “But the law is relatively new,” conceded Len Scensy, Deputy Director, Office of Public Diplomacy, State Department Bureau of South Asian Affairs, and “Our job is to carry out the U.S. law.”

Asked if the decision had been made at the highest level by Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice who left India on March 16 after a one-day visit, he said, “It’s not the Secretary’s job to make this decision, but she’s aware of it. But we sent out the instructions to our Delhi office last night and told Modi’s people this morning.”

The law had been in existence for several years, but before December 2004, it applied to religious rights violations committed in the 2-year period prior to a person’s applying for a visa. A December 2004 revision removed the two-year provision and it now applies to anyone that had anything to do with severe religious persecution regardless of when that occurred. So when Modi applied, even though it was just a little over two years since the Gujarat riots occurred, he has been held accountable.

“We looked at the law and the judgment we made in our own Human Rights Report,” Scensny said, The law says, ‘any foreign government official who was responsible for or directly carried out, at any time, particularly severe violations of religious freedom,’ is ineligible for a visa to the United States,” Scensny said.

He said Modi had applied for a diplomatic visa and was denied that because he was not coming on that purpose. “But he also had a B visa in his passport, and we canceled that as well,” he said. “This is the first time this revocation has been applied,” he noted,

Asked whether it was a well-thought out move considering what consequences it might have, Scensny said, “I think a lot of thought went into this … if you look at our law and at the Indian Human Rights Commission Report and our Report, they say the same thing.”

However, he emphasized, “This is not an attempt by the U.S. to intervene in India’s justice system. This is only about his coming into the U.S. It is not any kind of sanction, or any American commentary on the Indian system. The Indian system has been doing something about it. This is just a very narrow issue.”