By Beena Ahmad

When the Chief of Minister of Gujarat Narendra Modi’s bid to travel to the U.S. was foiled by the State Department last year, it seemed like a victory… and it was in some ways. When was the last time you heard of a protest succeeding? Modi’s visa was denied after the Coalition Against Genocide, an ad hoc group of organizations and individuals, raised hell about the Gujarati leader’s complicity in human rights violations against minorities in India. The most egregious example of Modi’s policies is his administration’s obstruction of justice following the thousand or so deaths of Muslims in the 2002 riots precipitated by the Godhra train fire. A subsequent report found no evidence that the fire had been started by a group of radical Muslim arsonists, an incendiary rumor that Modi’s administration had encouraged. Instead, further investigation attributed the fire to a common stove in one of the compartments. Regardless, Modi was recently invited back by another Indian-American group to participate in the World Gujarati Conference in New Jersey over Labor Day weekend. As far as I know, he didn't take another shot at the visa application process. Some of his aides did and their visas were similarly rejected. So, it still has to be asked: Why are the NRIs (non-resident Indians) so determined to get him here?

A friend and I were asking that very question in the March of 2005. The news that Modi had been invited to the U.S. reached us from several different channels, which spoke to the coalition’s ability to get the word out. My journalism radar, which had been low on batteries for some time, started beeping. This was the first story for a long time, since journalism school, that I really wanted to report. My friend and I hatched a plan to crash the conference in Ft. Lauderdale, where Modi was scheduled to speak. We lined up a business magazine that was interested in the conference from the angle of just another industry trade show so that we could gain entry into the event – both of us had distinctly Muslim last names and I was worried we would be barred from the event ourselves.

Just as we had packed our bags, already having purchased our plane tickets, word came that Modi had been rejected for both visas that he had requested. He was not granted the diplomatic visa because the purpose of the trip was business, and he was denied the tourist/business visa as an individual who “was responsible for or directly carried out, at any time, particularly severe violations of religious freedoms.” Ever the cynic, I wondered how much the State Department’s decision really had to do with acquiescing to the coalition’s demands or doing the right thing – we were awfully chummy with Pakistan at the time, having just sold our allies fighter jets.

My friend and I decided to go to the event anyway. Spring seemed a long way off, and neither of us had been to Florida. Besides, we still desperately wanted to know why an organization as seemingly diverse as the AAHOA (Asian American Hotel Owners Association) would disrespect its Muslim members so openly. What did the minister of Gujarat have to do with the hotel industry? How was AAHOA's leadership handling this public relations scandal? We soon learned the answer to the first question. The organization is too homogenous for its name – AAHOA’s membership is actually about 98 percent Gujarati, and therefore by an overwhelming majority Hindu.

As it turned out, Modi that cunning fox slipped into the event anyway. He made his speech via satellite at a conference in Ft. Lauderdale, which was hosted by the Asian American Hotel Owners Association. When we arrived at the convention center on the evening of the opening ceremonies, many of AAHOA’s big corporate sponsors were packing up their brochures and gimmicks, dismantling their booths in the trade show main hall, and taking off. Among the departed were some major partners in the hotel industry, i.e. AMEX, Cendente, Best Western and Hilton, just to name a few. The Coalition Against Genocide had pressured not just the State Department to heed its own report denunciating Modi’s corrupt leadership, but with tactical wisdom the group had also lobbied the sponsors and guest speakers of AAHOA’s conference to boycott the event. When the board members refused to drop the Modi issue and unanimously decided to continue pursuing his participation in the conference, the U.S. corporations apparently decided that AAHOA was not worth the scandal. Ironically, AAHOA in turn flexed its muscles and seemed to decide that it did not need its corporate sponsors – at least for the purposes of this conference. In a speech AAHOA then-President Nash Patel declared, “For not respecting our heritage, you [corporate sponsors] have made us stronger.”

What followed was a rallying of the troops and the battle was elevated to mythical heights. There is nothing more disagreeable to me than self-righteous rhetoric touted for the purposes of business. You’ll find the grossest mutations of principle there, the most convoluted ethics. It was the sort of inspirational posturing you see in movies like Armageddon, where the techniques borrowed from nobler protests and causes in history are used in fictitious melodramatic scenes. It was revolting to hear speeches that invoked the example of the heroes of the civil rights movement, MLK and JFK (“Courage is tested in times of adversity.”), used here to defend a man who freely trampled all over them. Modi’s own role models are the likes of Hitler; indeed, Modi has been criticized for government-sanctioned textbooks in Gujarat that glorify Hitler’s regime. Modi has also been connected with threatening the rights of the Christian minority by pushing for laws that would make it a crime to abet conversions from Hinduism.

As in Hollywood, the effect of this virtuous talk came across (to us anyway) as cheap and superficial. Saffron-colored arm Lance Armstrong bands were distributed; “We’re selling these bands to show our solidarity.” According to the AAHOA leadership, the first choice had been black to signify “disappointment,” but the bands didn’t come in that color. So, the organization opted for armbands imbued with an obvious religious connotation. The sad truth is that AAHOA’s objectives were once commendable. As Nash Patel pointed out, “Years ago, our founding fathers created AAHOA against the prejudices and improper practices of the insurance business.” The organization was established in 1989 with the purpose of protecting its membership, largely immigrants, from exploitation and racism by American businesses. I know the hotel industry businesses suffered even more for its South Asian-ness after 9-11; I knew we were united in this experience. My heart ached for the recognition that the first South Asian hoteliers must have faced racism more painful than what I had experienced in my own childhood in New York and New Jersey. These guys were pioneers in a multi-cultural United States. They were the ones willing to venture out to the frontiers of immigration, the lilywhite hinterland regions of the U.S.

It was clear, however, that AAHOA’s leadership has since relied on its younger members to bridge that gap with America and to give the organization a more assimilated face. The most visible board members were desi frat boys. They had been educated in the UK, South Africa or the States in engineering or medicine, but had ultimately returned to the family business as hoteliers. In their speeches, they cracked jokes about boozing and girls. The concept for the whole conference was surfer, “Riding the Wave of Success.” The main room was decorated like a nightclub with pink, orange and blue neon lights and a hip dance mix introduced the speakers. Many of the older members too veiled their South Asian identities with nicknames that had the unintended effect of sounding gangster more than anything else, i.e. “Jags,” “Sly” and “Naz.”

In the face of this whole Modi debacle, the younger board members appealed to the very American outrage that they had been constitutionally offended. For example, they complained that their first amendment rights had been violated: “What they’ve [U.S. State Department] done is deny my right to hear a constitutionally and democratically elected leader.” The AAHOA official leader who made that statement followed it up with what he must have thought was a brilliant analogy, “Are you telling me I couldn’t invite Martha Stewart because she went to jail?” Sure, I thought, you could invite Martha Stewart, but your first amendment right hasn’t been violated if she isn’t at liberty to come to your convention (because she’s busy serving time). A more compelling argument might have been, “Bush is a war criminal and he walks free in America, isn’t that a bit hypocritical?” Touché, I would have had to admit that he had me there, but two wrongs don’t make a right. The argument that America should welcome all visitors, including the unsavory ones, so that we can all have a dialogue is tempting. It appeals to the same sensibility in me that resists censorship and believes in liberal immigration policies. But the first amendment only applies to individuals under the purview of the U.S. government. As far as their “democratically elected leader,” Modi received a vote of no confidence from the Indian National Human Rights Commission for “a comprehensive failure on the part of the state government to control the persistent violation of the rights of life, liberty, equality, and dignity of the people of the state.” I don’t want Modi here any more than I think we should admit a known serial killer from Zimbabwe.

When they had exhausted their constitutional remedies, the board members resorted to a fundamental freedom that all businessmen believe they have – the laissez faire notion that they should be free to do whatever the hell they want. They claimed protection under a philosophy that business and politics are two discrete entities and that business is somehow immune from the culpability to which politics is subjected. They said, “We invited him [Modi] and that’s when the backlash started and that stems from communal issues and political issues that we have no position on.” The idea that business stands outside politics is a ridiculous and unsophisticated notion. What of the American companies, such as Coca Cola and IBM, that had a relationship with Nazi Germany? How did the tobacco lobby control Congress for so long? Even AAHOA has its own PAC (political action committee) so that it can represent industry interests in Washington. The fact is that AAHOA made a bold political move by sticking by Modi. From a business standpoint, the move might even be called foolish. The result was that the organization’s major corporate partners, understanding the implications of being linked to bad politics, withdrew from the convention. Interestingly, Modi’s corrupt politics can also be seen as bad for business. One of the top reasons that investors would be reluctant to invest in Gujarat is because of the instability caused by communal violence. This sort of unrest also keeps the tourists away.

Returning to the question, what purpose did Modi serve the AAHOA membership? The consistent answer was that Modi was uniquely stationed at the reception desk of a new frontier in the hotel industry. We were told that AAHOA members were interested in investing in hotel property in India, so this bond was extremely crucial to the venture. The plan had been for Modi to come with a whole entourage of businessmen from various utilities in India who would explain how Gujarat had the infrastructure to accommodate the industry. In his satellite speech, Modi encouraged the NRIs to bring their American investment dollars to Gujarat, and build their hotels there. He boasted of a variety of attractions available in his state: the palaces, the Sun Temple, the handicrafts, dinosaur bones, ecotourism, holistic healthcare, medical tourism (bargain-priced medical procedures), a “city of golden epics,” and “everything under the sea.” He said, “For me, you’re not just hoteliers. You are Gujarat’s expressed tourist ambassadors.” Modi was polished, his tone was measured, and he carried an aura of respectability; he was a captivating speaker. People suck charisma like a lollipop, and you can expect to find such a leader behind many a movement that has taken people astray. Take these lines: “I’m with you. I’m with you because of your determination to uphold democratic values, your commitment to maintain your clarity of purpose, your resolve to ignore motivated propaganda. I’m here with you because of your love and affection.”

So how many AAHOA members were willing to put their money where there mouths were anyway? We asked several of the board members. No one we interviewed had any real plans to plant a crop of Best Westerns or Marriotts in Gujarat. One board member said, “I have enough problems here.” We asked many AAHOA participants if they were considering such an investment. Even after Modi’s motivational speech, no one seemed particularly committed to the idea, and they echoed a prevailing disdain for business practices in India (inefficiency, corruption, red tape, all the reasons why many of these business owners sought economic opportunity in the U.S. in the first place).

My friend noted something interesting to me during Modi’s speech. Modi seemed to have more at stake in reaching the AAHOA body than they had in receiving his words. The tone of his speech could be described as pleading, begging, and beseeching. He struck low by stroking a sense of nostalgia in the NRIs. He seemed to imply that a race was underfoot among the various Indian states to come out first in attracting American investment dollars, jobs in the technology sector, and tourism. Didn’t the NRIs want to see their people win this race? As for the AAHOA board members, they revealed that theirs was a tight-knit community. One board member said, “A whole team of us went back there a couple of years ago. Some of our parents have known him [Modi] for a long, long time.” And this is where I began to understand why AAHOA was so defensive and why the organization was willing to rally behind an Indian official at such a high cost. This attack on Modi was personal; it was against family. The implication that Modi had committed atrocities was an accusation against the Gujarati community as a whole.

Even a continent and generation away, I could not escape my own ascribed place in the fallout of communalism violence. During Modi’s speech, I found myself listening for phrases that I knew would pierce me with dread i.e. “Let me tell you that a large part of your success comes from your genetic qualities. You could not have failed, you had to succeed.” I was horrified by the concordant applause that these statements elicited. I kept remembering that Modi’s strength comes from affirming Hinduism at the expense of Muslims, that his message is line with the extremist notions of the Rashtria Swayamsevak Sangh party that would love to see Muslims stamped out of India. The approval rating in the audience spoke volumes about the strained relations between Hindus and Muslims. But, the experience was not unlike the self-inflicted fear or nausea one invites by watching a horror film or riding a roller coaster. I realized that I had masochistically come for these ugly feelings. How many times had I clenched my teeth or patiently defended Hindus when my relatives here and in Pakistan have talked disparagingly? I have been among the perpetrators of these hateful feelings for so long. I realized I had infiltrated this conference to experience and understand what it felt like to be on the other side, to be the victim of the communal troubles between Hindus and Muslims. Now, I found that I felt scared, dejected and hurt, but I was also angry.