Real reason behind US diplomatic freeze on NaMo

The International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 (USA) was signed into law by then President Bill Clinton on 27 October 1998. This legislation was seen as a sort of major victory of the extreme right-wing within the Republican Party of the United States (especially so as it was signed by a Democrat President). The act is rooted in the U.S. Evangelical movement and its original intention was to protect Christians around the world.

The legislation is aimed to provide guidance to foreign policy of the United States on matters related to religious freedom, and is supposed to advocate on the behalf of individuals, who are viewed as persecuted in foreign countries on the account of their religion.

All countries in the world, except USA will be under the purview/scope of this legislation. This is consistent with the mindset of the United States to ‘police’ the entire world and not dwell/introspect on its own status of affairs. This is contrasting, particularly after the increasing attacks on Sikh community/their places of worship across USA, at an alarming periodicity.

It may be noted three cooperative entities have been maintained by this Act to monitor religious persecution across the world (except USA):
1) A bipartisan United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (“USCIRF”)
2) An Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom within the Department of State and
3) A Special Adviser on International Religious Freedom within the National Security Council (“NSC”).

While, the USCIRF (“the Commission”) is mandated to study the status of religious freedom across the world and compile an annual report, the Ambassador-at-Large (in Department of State, USA) and the Special Adviser (in NSC, USA) are positions in the respective forums to voice/advocate the opinion of the Commission.

Here it is particular important to note that the Commission compiles their annual report purely based on the sworn testimonies of selected individuals and there is NO provision for verification of the recorded testimonies (OR) bringing on board any counter view points. It is important to note that the individuals selected for giving testimonies are arbitrarily selected/shortlisted based on the ‘network’ of NGOs which work closely with the government of United States of America.

The individuals who depose before the Commission are provided an all expenses paid trip to USA with best of hospitality and sustenance allowances.

Every patriotic Indian will be appalled to learn that the individuals who travel from India to depose before this Commission are the same people who run thriving NGO cottage industry in Gujarat (in the garb of justice to riot/fake-encounter victims). It is even more appalling to learn that these individuals get funding from countries/agencies/individuals that have absolutely NO interest in the well-being of Bharat.

Readers will do well to research and discover nexus between the NGOs run by motivated individuals (like Teesta Setalvad, Shabnam Hashmi etc.), Congress party functionaries (like Madhusudan Mistry, General Secretary –Congress party) and Sonia Gandhi headed NAC members (like Harsh Mander, who advocates for the controversial Communal Violence Bill drafted by NAC), who all have common donors Link 1   Link 2   Link 3.

While the original bill (introduced by Bill Clinton) imposed mandatory sanctions on the countries supporting religious persecution, the amended act offers the President a waiver provision if he/she feels that it would further the goal of the bill or promote the interests of US national security not to impose measures on a designated country.

The United States government, which is currently doing business with the Congress led UPA government is constrained by the biased recommendations of the Commission. Furthermore, the President has no basis to consider waiver provision as there is no evidence to suggest that such waiver is in the interests of US (especially, as there is NO formal protest whatsoever from Congress led UPA government).

Although, it is expected that any sovereign, self-respecting country would strongly protest, any kind of diplomatic stricture on their elected representatives (as that summarily tantamount to insulting the sovereignty of the country), the Congress led UPA government has no qualms in denigrating the self-respect of India for the sake of their political considerations .

Why the Congress led UPA government would protest against diplomatic freeze on NaMo? After all, it is their consorted efforts through their NGO handlers who have deposed before the USCIRF to embarrass and isolate NaMo, politically? Not to forget the recent shameful act of Indian MPs (mostly from Congress and Left parties) pleading US president to deny diplomatic visa to NaMo.

This is the real reason for the ‘diplomatic freeze’ on NaMo, which is largely a manufactured stance as consequence actions by various self-centered forces, who have NO interest in the justice for victims or India.

Is this the way to treat someone, who stood a decade long investigations monitored by Supreme court and against whom not a shred of evidence was found in the comprehensive legal process?

It is heartening to see the tit for tat diplomatic response given by China to the antics of USA, over the Religious freedom report on their country.

Chinese blocked visit by U.S. religious freedom envoy, advocates say

China Assails U.S. ‘Arrogance’ in Report on Religious Freedom

I sincerely hope, NaMo as the Prime Minister of India would show USA its place and restore nation’s pride/ self-respect.

In fact, making NaMo Prime Minister of India is the best way for us Indians, to teach a lesson to both - Congress party and arrogant attitude of USA.