At the time, he was notorious for failing to take action to prevent the 2002 riots in Gujarat, which broke out after 59 Hindu pilgrims died in a train fire. In a wave of anger, blame was placed on the Muslim community. The ensuing violence lasted for three days. It has been described as a pogrom: over a thousand Muslims were killed and countless homes and businesses were destroyed.

Modi, as Chief Minister, failed to bring the situation under control. Some suggest that he was even complicit in the violence, and the media described the events as “state terrorism”. Later, Modi never expressed regret for what happened, and the state did not launch any formal investigation.

The US barred him from entering the country on grounds of religious freedom. Officials cited a provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act, that "makes any government official who was responsible for or directly carried out at any time particularly severe violations of religious freedom ineligible for a visa.”

Yet when Modi was elected Prime Minister in 2014, US President Barack Obama made it clear that this was in the past, congratulating him on his victory and inviting him to the White House. Under the Trump administration, the relationship became even closer.

What had changed? If Modi was guilty of violating religious freedom in 2005, he remained equally guilty a decade later. The only difference is that he had become Prime Minister.

National leaders can get away with murder – or, in this case, a pogrom. They are protected by their diplomatic status.

On the level of international politics, those at the top are almost above the law. In most cases leaders are only taken to court after they have left their office: during the Arab Spring, Tunisia’s Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali was convicted of numerous crimes, but died before he could serve any time in prison. Even Chilean president Pinochet, indicted for numerous charges of murder and crimes against humanity, died before he could be formally convicted.

Our leaders should be held to the highest moral standards. If the pressure to do so does not come from the world of diplomacy, it could still be brought to bear by those in business.

Companies such as Apple and Microsoft are almost as powerful as national governments – if not more so. And doing business always involves considerable negotiation. If companies like this made good political leadership a matter of business, by using their influence to support greater transparency and accountability, our leaders would have to listen.

This already happens all over the world. The political action committees affiliated with Amazon and a number of other big tech companies gave their support to Joe Biden in the US elections. The business world is not politically neutral.

There should be no such thing as diplomatic immunity. But if the political world refuses to put human rights before business interests, then businesses must make it clear that there are some things that come before profit.