The same reluctance was shown by L.K. Advani about testifying before the Liberhan commission. Finally, when he did appear, he used the occasion to make a political speech rather than provide greater clarification on what happened on December 6, 1992, the “saddest day” of his life when the Babri masjid was demolished. That Modi, too, may adopt a similar position is evident from his assertion that the probe into the Gujarat riots are an attempt to tarnish Gujarat's name.

He does not seem to realise, or is deliberately turning a blind eye to the fact that Gujarat's name has already been besmirched by the riots. When a chief minister like him is routinely denied an American visa because of his suspected complicity in the outbreak, then the reputation of his state cannot but be adversely affected. Its image will also suffer if Modi appears before the SIT, for it will be an unprecedented event. Never before has a chief minister been in the dock for what is, for all practical purposes, a criminal case. Yet, if he stays away, the suspicion that he has something to hide will be strengthened. For Modi, therefore, it is a Hobson's choice.

His problem, of course, is that he has been accused of the worst act which a chief minister can commit - that of preventing the police from acting against the rioters for political reasons. There is no direct evidence, of course, of his complicity, for no one expects such an illegal step to be put on record. An order of this nature could only have been given verbally. What is more, the officials who heard and obeyed it are also not expected to spill the beans for it will mean jeopardizing their careers and their post-retirement benefits. After all, they are expected to uphold the law and not subvert it. Unfortunately, if they really followed the patently illegal directives, it was also because they did not want risk their careers by defying a powerful chief minister, whose party was also in power at the Centre.

However, there was one police officer, R.B. Sreekumar, who listened to his voice of conscience. His charge that Modi gave “unconstitutional directives” was substantiated by “a highly placed source” who told an unofficial commission soon after the riots that orders were issued to the police not to do anything to contain the Hindu “anger”. The source was subsequently identified as Haren Pandya, a minister. He also requested the commission not to reveal his identity lest he should come to any harm. As is known, his fears came true, for he was assassinated, but not before he had written to the BJP chief in Gujarat to seek protection from the “whims and fancies” of an individual.

Pandya was not the only saffronite who felt uneasy about the violation of raj dharma by the Modi government. The governor of Gujarat at the time, S.S. Bhandari, an old BJP hand, also felt that the riots were a “black stain” on the party, an assessment which was different from the VHP's praise of the outbreak and Modi's infamous comparison of it with the Newtonian action-reaction law. Like Atal Behari Vajpayee, who was dissuaded by Advani and others from sacking the chief minister, Bhandari felt that removing Modi “was one way out, but there were other ways to deal with the situation. The riots were taken so lightly that they have left a deep wound … The propaganda relating to Gandhi's assassination went on for 50 years. In the same way, people will continue to talk of Godhra”.

It is easy to see, therefore, why Modi is apparently shying away from appearing before the SIT. Where the governor accuses the ruling politicians of taking the riots “lightly”, the latter obviously have a great deal of explaining to do. So far, they have avoided doing so by ensuring that the police closed many of the cases by claiming that the witnesses and the culprits could not be found. In some other cases, the witnesses changed their testimony evidently under duress. Such miscarriage of justice compelled the Supreme Court to transfer some of the major cases like the Best bakery and Bilkis Banu cases outside Gujarat.

The apex court's decision was a slap in the face of Gujarat for, first, failing to protect the innocent victims of the rioters and then letting off the murderers, rapists and arsonists “lightly”. But the BJP and its showman, Modi, have been trying to brazen it out. However, fobbing off the SIT may not be easy. (IPA Service)