Just when I thought the Pseudo secularists had gone into an extended hibernation, out comes one. Ladies and gentlemen, welcome Pamela Philipose. In a truly scintillating article, she manages to confound the readers so well that I’m sure she’s a Phd from the University of Resident Idiots.

The response of Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi to the US decision not to grant him a visa is a study in cynicism.

That’s a bold start. But then, her darling government is in power so she has to give it full marks. But not overtly. Journalistic objectivity doesn’t permit it. Still, a debt has to be repaid.

The UPA government did of course oblige him — more fulsomely than the call of duty warranted…

Can the man responsible for the Gujarat carnage of 2002 actually speak of “democracy”, “human rights” and “natural justice”?

Some evidence maybe would help. This is not to say that Modi didn’t have a hand in the riots but when this has not been proved (and I’ll come to this in a bit) conclusively, it’ll do to use some words that convey suspicion. In secularist parlance word play is crucial: for example, terrorists become insurgents, or terrorists are not terrorists but they’re actually victims of army/state brutality–in the Verbal Terrorist’s land. So, in a sensational case when the truth is known but cannot be proved due to lack of evidence, the press uses words like “suspected,” “alleged,” and so forth. A recent example: Ishrat Jahan. This was the extreme opposite, actually. The secular media “proved” that she had nothing to do with terrorism and blamed the tyrannical state. And then… well, in Modi’s case he has already been proved to be the Architect of Gujarat Pogrom–evidence or no. A thug like Lalu gets heartfelt praise from “responsible” veteran journalists like the Resident Idiot. Why doesn’t Pamela apply the same principle in Modi’s case?

After spending about a hundred or more words harping on Modi’s heinousness, Pamela signs off leaving a note, “all this is of course well known.” Repeated assertion of lies… Worse follows. For her it was only “faceless merchants of terror” who drove away the Pandits from Kashmir. She plays it safe. Doesn’t risk naming the person(s) with a face behind the poor merchants. Shall we start with Musharaff? Dawood Ibrahim? A Q Khan? the luminaries of the ISI?

And then we come to a major flaw in her “article,” which exposes her absolute lack of logic, sense, and facts.

The first question that presents itself is why did the US government single Modi out for such treatment?

The only semblance of an answer, nay a mere pretence lies here.

The answer to this question can tell us a great deal about the myriad ways in which the world has changed in the 21st century.

But where or what’s the answer? And then on the pretext of giving an answer she rattles off endlessly about America’s unilateralism, its suspicious intent, its ambition of global domination, all contents of the standard Leftist/anti-American recipe.

Where her “article” gets interesting is when she writes this.

If the Association of Indian Americans of North America can deem it fit to invite a man like Modi to grace their public platforms, there can just as well be campaign clusters like the Coalition Against Genocide lobbying furiously to get the visit aborted. If some NRIs in the UK find Modi the perfect “special guest” at the Gujarat Day Concern at the Royal Albert Hall, there can just as well be the London-based Monitoring Group and Awaaz spearheading a ‘Stop Modi’ campaign…

And in the process puts her foot in her mouth. What would’ve passed off as an impeccably researched article in the past–thanks mainly to the lack of access to information–now stands exposed for it is. Let’s examine the organizations she’s listed, one after the other.

Coalition Against Genocide: Go on, visit their web site. This is a loose conglomeration of pseudo secularists, Islamic and Christian fundamentalists of various hues. Predictably, their target is Hindu “communalism/fundamentalism/whatchamacallit.” And most of the content is devoted to (i.e. against) Modi. And their friends happen to be such worthies as Sabrang. Not surprisingly, there’s not a single word about the atrocities committed on the “majority” Hindu community.

Monitoring Group: Not as conspicous as the CAG, this one is on similar lines. Their Campaigning and human rights groups web page is pretty revealing. Again, the usual suspects figure there–famously, the Amnesty International, Action Aid, et al.

Awaaz: Aah-waaz! An old suspect. With all the politeness I can muster, I’ll say it falls short of being a site promoting hate.

So is it any surprise that the limb of these courageous champions of humanity cites their examples? And in the list of criminals of humanity, she also includes

Finally, the new millennium has seen a greater articulation and application of humanitarian international law than in previous decades. It has witnessed the spectacle of Slobodan Milosevic, the man who bore the epithet ‘Butcher of the Balkans’, stand trial in an international tribunal that was telecast world wide. He was the first in a long list of public figures who have had to confront the uncomfortable truth that the impunity afforded by the state is an uncertain and finite thing. Augusto Pinochet, Ariel Sharon, Jiang Zemin, Jean Kambanda, Robert Mugabe, Henry Kissinger, Donald Rumsfeld, are just names.

India does not recognise the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, nor has it ratified the Convention against Torture…Jaswant Singh, as foreign minister,famously observed that “India will not be spoken to from any position of assumed superiority or morality”.

Rightly so. It’ll be playing right into the hands of self-proclaimed redeemers of humanity or dispensers of justice if India recognizes the court’s jurisdiction. Maybe Pamela should try telling Pakistan to recognize the court’s jurisdiction. If you look at the list of member nations from Asia, the ones that matter do not recognize this court’s jurisdiction: China, India, Pakistan, and Japan. And what’s so offensive about Jaswant Singh’s statement? Dilip D’Souza listed a few ideas to gain self respect some time ago. Maybe Jaswant Singh’s words should serve as a starting point.

In the end, like I said in the beginning of this entry, she leaves you searching for the “answer” to the question: why did the US single out Modi for such treatment? Or what does she purport to say?

By the way, did I forget to mention that Pamela is the wife of the Marxist, Achin Vanaik? And has he written copiously!