Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi has been denied visa by the Bush administration. He had been invited by the Asian-American Hotel Owners Association. Had the US permitted his visit, it would have gone unnoticed.

The US could have quietly allowed Modi to spend a few days in a more tolerable climate. Instead it chose to deny diplomatic visa to Modi.

They even cancelled the normal visa, which had already been granted to Modi some seven years ago. They did it so resoundingly that it hardly seemed a simple visa denial. Why?

To know the truth we have to go behind the facade of religious freedom issues the US has raised. The US supports and takes the support of jihadi regimes the world over. So the issue of religious freedom as the reason to keep Modi out is a lie.

Obviously, the Bush administration has used the Modi visa issue to convey a message to global Islamists. The geo-political think tanks of the US thought, thanks to Modi, that they got a chance to tell the Islamic world how even-handed they are. Look at it from the US perspective.

They are engaged in a war with Islam itself, not just Islamic terrorism. They are under pressure to show that they are not against Islam or Muslims. Here they got a golden opportunity to humiliate Modi-who is projected as anti-Muslim to demonstrate that they are friends of Islam too.

"See how we are treating an elected Chief Minister of a State of India whose population is more than the population of many nations in Europe."

"Believe us, we are sensitive to Islamic world" - this is their message to the Islamists. This is the American version of pseudo-secularism. So denial of visa to Modi is part of American geo-politics. That is why they wanted it done, and they did, in the most celebrated way, dragged it till the last moment and made it an issue.

But why did the US choose to risk a scrap with the Indian Government? This is perhaps where they miscalculated. They never expected the split Indian polity to come together on the issue. They never anticipated the 'secular' Indian Government to join the protest, much less lead it.

They did not provide for the unified Indian reaction, with the State of India leading the protest, against the US action. They had enough reasons to believe it will not happen. The secular Indian polity had made Modi a symbol of hate. It suited secular India's political needs to blacken Modi. So he became the Indian version of Hitler, the Hindu version of Islamic terror.

So the US was perhaps right in expecting that the Hindu polity in India would be isolated, that there would be a 'Secular'-Hindu clash in India on the issue. But that did not happen, even accounting for the marginally different views of the CPM (Communist Party of India) and the RJD (Rashtriya Janata Dal).

So, by standing together, the Indian polity has stood up to an attempt to humiliate India. It has surprised the US. Indian polity has demonstrated total unity on this issue, something which we have seen only in times of war. So the US is in a fix. It cannot hang on to its decision without causing a setback in its relations with India. It cannot change it without a setback to its geo-political message to the Islamic world.

As of now, the US is the loser and Modi the gainer. In the process, the US has put Modi on the global map.

But look at the impact of the Modi visa issue on the Indian polity and its working norms. For the first time the Indian polity has followed the dictum of Yudhistra in Mahabharata. The story goes that the Gandharvas defeated the Kauravas and arrested Duryodana and all his 99 brothers who had planned to humiliate the Pandavas living in the forest. Bhima and Arjuna were extremely pleased at Kauravas' humiliation.

But Yudhistra chided them and told them, 'vayam panchadikam shatam' - meaning, when difficulty comes, we are not five and they are not hundred, but "we are five plus hundred" and asked them to get the Kauravas released. This was despite all the harm that Kauravas had caused to the Pandavas.

One might dismiss his as the ethical norm of Dwapara Yuga inapplicable to the dark age of Kali Yuga. But one great man, who inspired many leaders of India like Vajpayee, Advani and even Modi, dared to give the same advice to Indian polity.

He was M S Golwalkar, the man who built the RSS (Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh) into a powerful organisation. A well-known Indian political leader, who was on a visit to the UK, chose to criticise the then Indian Prime Minister Pandit Nehru on foreign soil.

It was common knowledge that Nehru had visceral hatred for the RSS and Golwalkar.

Yet Golwalkar quoted Yudhistra and said that outside our nation, despite all our differences, "we are all one" and condemned the criticism of our Prime Minister outside India.

He cited how Winston Churchill owned the British Prime Minister Atlee as 'Our Prime Minister' on US soil despite their well-known mutual hostility. This is how national spirit works beyond borders.

The moral is: Yudhistra is relevant even in today's global politics. It is difficult to follow great men. But it is even more difficult to ignore them. The Indian polity can be proud today for acting as counselled by Yudhistra.