US says no to Modi
Modi is a democratically elected constitutional head of an Indian state. He even registerd a thumbing victory in the election that was held after the Gujarat riots. The US is a paragon of everything even remotely linked to democracy. So, is it not only natural it should fully recognise Modi's credentials, even if they have a difference of opinion ?
Though the American action is hurting, it is another occasion for introspection. Wasn't the Indian pride already hurt when Gujarat burnt, when it was widely acknowledged that Modi did pretty much nothing to stop the mobs. No one had gained anything out of the whole episode.
Coming to think of it, the denial of visa wasn't so much of a surprise. What ever be the context of the riots, it was one incident that gave India a very, very bad image abroad.
Indians abroad, generally in the US, are more patriotic than Indians at home, may be because they are away from India. They are mostly BJP supporters. But post-Godhra, Modi gained lot of enemies in the US. This action of the US is also linked to the strong lobbying by anti-Modi (not anti-Indian) lobby in the US.
Personally, I don't think Modi deserves so much of sympathy over this. We feel bad that an Indian leader has been denied entry to the US. But just like the riots, this too has a context to it, is it not?