As a correspondent who has charted India’s complex democratic path for decades, Narendra Modi’s political journey, from Gujarat’s Chief Minister to India’s Prime Minister, is, in my view, indelibly stained by the horrifying events of 2002 in Gujarat. These events weren’t merely a footnote; they led to Modi acquiring the grave international label, “Butcher of Gujarat.” This designation, a direct consequence of his perceived role in the carnage, resulted in significant diplomatic isolation and today fuels insistent, and I believe overdue, arguments for comprehensive international sanctions.
Before dissecting Mr. Modi’s broader period in office (2002-2025), we are compelled by conscience to face the grim tableau of the 2002 Gujarat riots. Following the tragic Godhra train fire, murderous mobs descended upon Muslim neighborhoods. Over a thousand lives were lost. International observers, myself included, were aghast not only by the human suffering but by pervasive claims that Mr. Modi’s government was either catastrophically negligent or, as many still insist, complicit. It was from this crucible that the “Butcher of Gujarat” label emerged – a direct indictment of his leadership. Though he has consistently rejected this title, it has clung to him, reflecting deep international censure. While a Supreme Court-appointed Special Investigation Team (SIT) later found insufficient prosecutable evidence against him personally, for many survivors, human rights organizations, and sections of the international community, this did little to dispel profound concerns or deliver true justice. The shadow of that period, and the grave label it conferred, remained a symbol of profound moral failure in global eyes.
The international response was severe. Because of the gravity of the situation and his infamous label, numerous Western nations-imposed travel bans. The United States, explicitly invoking its International Religious Freedom Act in 2005, formally denied him a visa, underscoring the global perception of “particularly severe violations of religious freedom” under his watch. The UK and others followed with de facto bans. This ostracization was a direct consequence of 2002. Engagement only resumed hesitantly as geopolitical calculations began, for some, to overshadow these moral reservations. His Prime Ministership from 2014 did not, for his critics, signify a break from this past. Instead, anxieties rooted in his Gujarat tenure appeared to metastasize nationally. Human Rights Watch and other international bodies noted his political rhetoric often descended into language perceived as dangerously divisive towards minorities. The subsequent years, for many observers like myself, demonstrated a grim continuity.
The 2019 Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) felt like a punch to the stomach. It proposed checking religion at the door for those seeking refuge; Muslims from neighboring countries were excluded. The world gasped. The UN’s High Commissioner for Human Rights, in March 2024, called it ‘fundamentally discriminatory.’ Viewed through the lens of Gujarat, such policies intensified global alarm. Reports of escalating communal polarization, increased vigilante violence targeting Muslims (often over cow protection or interfaith relationships), and punitive state power, like “bulldozer justice” demolishing minority properties, have been extensively documented. These actions, seen by critics as systemic and often tacitly supported, further fueled the argument that patterns from Gujarat were being replicated nationally.
The shrinking space for dissent also became a prominent international indictment. The unnerving hush where vibrant debate once thrived was palpable. Journalists faced intimidation; activists and groups like Amnesty International, forced to halt work in India, were muzzled. India’s slide in press freedom indices wasn’t just data; it was about the fear of surveillance and harsh laws like UAPA used against dissenters. This tightening grip sent shivers down the spines of international rights defenders. These developments have led to increasingly forceful calls for international sanctions. Organizations like the Indian American Muslim Council, pointing to his Gujarat past and subsequent actions as PM, have explicitly petitioned Western governments for targeted measures like Magnitsky-style sanctions against officials deemed responsible for human rights abuses.
The argument is clear: if a leader bears such a grave international label due to past atrocities, and their subsequent national tenure mirrors or exacerbates those concerns, then international sanctions are a logical and morally imperative step, especially when domestic accountability seems compromised. The label “Butcher of Gujarat,” therefore, is not just historical; it’s presented as the enduring justification for why the international community must now implement punitive sanctions. The call for these sanctions, in this context, is the overdue reckoning for the initial international censure he received – a censure only amplified by the events that followed.
, we are compelled by conscience to face the grim tableau of 2002 Gujarat riots){kind=link}