NEW DELHI, 20 March 2005 — The denial of a US diplomatic visa to Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi was yesterday criticized by one mainstream newspaper while others said he had it coming for his role in the 2002 communal carnage in the state. The visa denial “is objectionable because it harks back to US double standard and because it is simply bad in principle,” contended The Indian Express in an editorial titled “Modi, martyr”.
While not condoning the chief minister’s actions, the newspaper felt that “the US would have done far better to let Modi travel to the country and then face protest groups and demonstrations that so embarrassingly greeted him in the UK not very long ago, instead of gifting this opportunity to pose as a martyr”.
“Banning and proscribing always ends up lending more power to the politics of those who are banned and proscribed,” The Indian Express noted.
Other newspapers, however, did not find anything wrong in the US action. The Hindu, in its editorial titled “A slap in Mr. Modi’s face”, questioned his seeking a diplomatic visa for a personal visit. “Was he apprehending something untoward (during his visit) that the protection of the diplomatic visa would come in handy?” it wondered.
“Dissidents within the BJP (Bharatiya Janata Party) in Gujarat have been active in recent weeks demanding his scalp. With this additional setback over his US visa, the Gujarat chief minister could be in for a long, hard summer,” The Hindu wrote.
The Times Of India, while deriding Modi’s claim to be democratically elected, said: “In a globalizing world, no state or politician can afford to be an island. Democratic credentials have to be validated not just locally but also by the global community.
“New Delhi should steer clear of the issue. The right to issue a visa is discretionary, and the reasons cited for denying it in this case are valid,” the newspaper said.
