Ahmedabad: Some of the observations of the US Ambassador on Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi may seem praises of Modi, but the overall tone of the nuanced diplomatic language used in the cables released by the Wikileaks emphasizes that the US doesn’t want to let the pro-business charisma of Modi make them forget his riot-taint.
Julian Assange’s Wikileaks on March 22 brought out a lot of strong comments and view-points on Modi by successive US envoys as depicted in the cables they sent to their bosses of State Department of the US.
The Americans seem clear that they don’t want to forget Modi’s human rights violation taint. Former US envoy Michael S. Owen has made one comment in para 16(c) of cable dated 27/11/2006 classified as confidential, “Modi is clearly not going to apologize or back down on the violence of 2002, but we think it is vital for him to hear that we are not going to let the passage of time erase the memory of these events.”
The cables quoted US Consul General saying Modi that they, “readily acknowledge the many positive accomplishments of his government, including economic growth and education. These are to be applauded, but do not diminish in any way the importance of holding accountable those persons, who are guilty of inciting or carrying out communal violence. The Consul General reiterated that failure to do so would create an atmosphere of impunity in which radical elements would feel emboldened in the future. He concluded by underlining that the US government considers human rights and religious freedom to be extremely important, and we will continue to monitor developments and engage his government in these areas.”
However, what will upset Modi most is the comment that says, “In public appearances, Modi can be charming and likeable. By all accounts, however, he is an insular, distrustful person, who rules with a small group of advisors. This inner circle acts as a buffer between the Chief Minister and his Cabinet and party. He reigns more by fear and intimidation than by inclusiveness and consensus, and is rude, condescending and often derogatory to even high level party officials. He hoards power and often leaves his Ministers in the cold when making decisions that affect their portfolios.”