What can a few American bigots possibly teach India about religious freedom?

In today's highly optical political discourse it is almost inevitable that the top politicians become the ultimate spin-masters. In the 24X7 glare of media, these people are like magicians who make a whole tank disappear before your very eyes.

Therefore, it should occasion us no surprise that the US government representatives view the recent incident of Indian government denying visa to US CIRF (Commission for International Religious Freedom) as a "tremendous missed opportunity".

Some perspective may be in order here.

To start with, this is a pure political tussle. CIRF is a political body, its commissioners are all political appointments and most of them have political background themselves. Ms Katrina Lantos-Swett, the indignant commissioner of the US CIRF herself, has two unsuccessful runs for American Congress and one for the senate to her credit. So, this is essentially an incident where politicians from one country getting upset over denied access to other politician's territory. This should be of no concern to the common citizen of India. What should be of concern is the staggering levels of ignorance and religious bigotry of the members of USCIRF.

Ms Katrina Lantos-Swett, in an interview to the New York Times a month before the BJP announced Narendra Modi as a PM candidate, made statements that no responsible diplomat will make about the potential head of another state.

Ms Lantos-Swett demonstrated both her ignorance about the Gujarat riots of 2002 and about basic principles of criminal justice system itself. She quoted from the testimony of the disgraced and now terminated IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt with the certainty of someone having the last word in a debate.

In her eagerness to nail Mr Modi to the riot crimes, she made statements that ranged from inadmissible (Ms Kodnani was convicted, so Mr Modi must have been complicit to the crimes) to truly astonishing in their ignorance (being found not guilty is not the same as being innocent).

Like a good racist would, she also attempted to warn Indian public that the person they may elect as PM may not be allowed to enter USA. She must have thought it was a high priority factor for all of us. Why is she surprised that the Indian government led by the same man is keeping her at arm's length now?

The resume of her colleagues' on the USCIRF will give nobody any comfort either. The Chairman, Mr Robert P George, is a prominent member of a movement called "theo-conservatism". In terms of combination of two words, I cannot think of a two words more alarming together than this, except perhaps malignant and tumour. This movement believes that America was founded on the idea of Christianity, not on the principles of liberty and justice for all.

Mr George, in 2009, drafted the notorious "Manhattan Declaration", a virulently anti-choice, anti-stem cell research, anti-same sex marriage doctrine that urged its followers to disobey federal government if its instructions were contrary to their religion.

So homophobic and bigoted were the contents of the doctrine, that Apple Inc was forced to pull its app from the Apple store after widespread outrage!

One of the other commissioners Ms Mary Ann Glendon in 2009 rejected a medal from the Notre Dame University because the university chose a commencement speaker who was pro-choice. The speaker's name - Mr Barack Obama, President of the United States of America!

Ms Lantos-Swett herself has backers closely associated with ultra-left think tanks like Centre for American Progress, which is frequently the topic of criticism from progressives themselves over its contributor's aggressive anti-Semitism.

The argument put forth by Team USCIRF is if countries like Saudi Arabia, China and Pakistan can allow the USCIRF delegations, why can't a democratic state like India? This argument, too, does not stand up to closer inspection. Of the countries mentioned above, Saudi Arabia has many American politicians, especially the conservatives in their back pocket. They escaped consequences of sending hijackers to America in 9/11, why will they worry about a US delegation of pencil pushing career politicians?

Ditto for China. US owes so much money to China that any realistic action against China by USA is all but impossible. In fact, Ms Lantos-Swett herself agreed that she expects more from democratic countries than authoritarian ones, so the low expectations set by her may also be a factor behind grant of access to her team in Saudi and China.  As far as Pakistan is concerned, they really do not have a choice. So of the three countries the USCIRF mentions, two don't care and one can't say no. Not a compelling argument.

American lawmaker's tendency to set their differences aside when it comes to their hawkish policy worldwide, as demonstrated in this episode, is especially worrisome. This is the reason why politicians with enough hostility amongst them to shut down their own government for 16 days, are too happy to join hands to write thinly disguised warning letters to Indian PM.

This is also the reason, democrats who fight the evangelicals in their own country tooth and nail, are only too happy to oblige them when the focus is a foreign country. For USCIRF to question a sovereign government's decision to ban religious conversions in parts of India is an openly hostile move.

Its tone suggests that nobody, not even democratically elected governments, should stand in way of evangelicals in their mission to aggressively convert people from other religions. In this case it is the government of a developing country, and not the handful of representatives of the billion dollar conversion machinery who is the underdog.

Ms Lantos-Swett tries her best to reassure that their intentions are not to interfere in India's affairs and that India was welcome to send a similar delegation to the states. She missed our true concern entirely.  The real concern we have is about the presence of religious bigots like Robert P George and Mary Ann Glendon on a commission whose former heads were also "Catholic strategists" to re-election campaigns of Republican presidents.

The worry is also about accepting observation over religious practices from a country which is still unsure if a woman has right over her own womb. As far as sending a delegation to USA is concerned, in a country where leading Republican presidential nominees talk about outlawing abortions and putting assault rifles in the hands of its citizenry, blithely ignoring the 31,000 odd gunshot related deaths per year, I don't think we need a delegation to understand the problem. Study delegations can't substitute political willpower.

As a nation that guaranteed women an absolute right over their bodies forty years back and as a nation not debating whether its citizen have a fundamental right to own firearms that can fire a 1,000 rounds per minute, you will forgive me for feeling a step ahead of the American democracy.