London to Ahmedabad in 11 years

In October, 2012, the UK announced that it was ending the no-touch policy with Indian state Gujarat after 11 long years. Since the religious riots in Gujarat in 2001, the UK had not had any diplomatic relations with the government of Gujarat, until Oct 2012, when James Bevan, the British high Commissioner met Narendra Modi. While this immediately changed political equations in India making Modi less communal and thrilled all Modi supporters, nobody paid any attention to the boycott itself, or the need for the boycott. And why, if the boycott was really needed, did it take a decade to recall it?

Without going into the political significance (if any) of this entire event, let us just talk about the two core issues here: One, the legality of the boycott and 2, the ethics behind the recall. 

1.    The boycott was basically of the CM Modi for his alleged role in the religious violence in 2001. However, immediately after, in 2002, Modi won the state elections in a democratic election process, an election process that was organized by the Election Commission, which is impartial and has defined rules and procedures. The very fact that the Indian Constitution allowed Modi to contest elections and the fact that the people of the Indian state democratically elected Modi is significant proof that neither the Indian state nor the Indian people deemed Modi to be directly involved in the riots, in anyway. Therefore, any external nation has no authority to take a decision on Modi and label him to be involved in the riots. In other words, the boycott was illegal and without any basis. If the UK did decide to go ahead with the boycott, it was sheer disregard for the Indian government and the Indian democracy.

2.    Let us for a minute, assume that the boycott by UK was legal, then why did the UK decide to call it off? The nature of the sins in 2001 and 2012 still remain the same. If Modi was really involved, as alleged, then he should have met the same fate as other perpetrators of crime, have in the world elsewhere. This change of heart was obviously because of the loss to UK business in a place as vibrant as Gujarat. You see, business interests stand above any type of sin, however, horrifying they might be. The recall of the ban, if it was legal, in the first place was completely unethical.    

On both counts, the UK has lost. Rather than acting as a mature country, the UK has demonstrated that foreign policies related to India are made in haste and pure business interests drive decisions rather than humanity and ethics.