While the combative rath yatri of 1990 is now finding it difficult to sustain the high point of his political career, the iconic - to his followers - chief minister of Gujarat is experiencing the demeaning aftermath of being put in the dock for his suspected complicity in the 2002 riots in the state. What is damaging to both their reputations is the belief that Advani and Modi have a great deal to hide about their roles during the Babri masjid demolition of 1992 and the communal outbreak 10 years later - two events which define the BJP's politics of the period.

Advani's claim that the day on which the mosque was destroyed by frenzied kar sevaks was the “saddest day” of his life has now been busted by the contradictory evidence given before a CBI court by an IPS officer, Anju Gupta, who was present in Ayodhya on the fateful afternoon. According to her, not only did Advani show no sign of remorse when the protected ancient monument was being brought down, he celebrated the occasion with his party colleagues during and after the demolition.

What is more, his speech prior to the act of desecration by the Hindu fanatics might have provoked the latter because of his insistence that a temple must be built at the disputed site. Following Gupta's testimony, there is reason to believe that Advani has not been telling the whole truth all these years. The reason for the subterfuge is not difficult to guess. Advani must have realized on that very afternoon that open endorsement of the removal of the “ocular provocation” - his description of the Babri masjid - will strengthen his hardline reputation and may prove to be politically disadvantageous in the long run.

Unlike the VHP leaders, therefore, who have never made any secret of their joy over the demolition, Advani chose to play safe. There was also a sense of ambiguity over his comment, for it was never clear whether his sadness was due to the act of destruction or because of the possibility that the kar sevaks had also demolished the BJP's image as a disciplined party. In the context of this hazy background about personal feelings and political calculations, the latest evidence will carry considerable credibility.

It is also noteworthy that in a typical crude response to the testimony, the BJP has tried to tarnish Gupta's reputation by pointing out that she is married to a Muslim. Since Muslims and Christians are considered “aliens” by the party, as its new spokesperson, Ramnath Kovind, has pointed out, the hint is that the police officer's evidence against a Hindu isn't of much value. Kovind, of course, was merely reiterating what Savarkar had written in his book on Hindutva. There is little doubt, however, that despite such uncouth propaganda by the Hindutva camp, Advani will no longer be able to assert with much confidence that December 6, 1992, was the saddest day of his life even if he does not call it saurya divas, as the VHP leaders do.

Similarly, Modi will realize that Atal Behari Vajpayee's belief during the riots that the state government was not observing the customary raj dharma of neutrality will carry greater weight in view of his interrogation by the Special Investigation Team (SIT). The very fact that a chief minister is having to answer questions about his supposed verbal orders to the police to let the Hindus vent their anger is a severe enough blow to his prestige. Just as Advani has been trying to live down his hawkish image and project a mellower version of his personality, Modi, too, has been engaged for the last eight years to divert attention from the riots by concentrating on the state's development.

That he also wants to present a gentler, kinder image was evident from his good-humoured responses to the questions from the media personnel after he emerged from the SIT's grilling. His smiles were in sharp contrast to his earlier snarling replies to newspaper and TV reporters, especially after his party's success in the post-riots elections. For all his current affability, however, Modi and his backers like Arun Jaitley will know that the sins of the past cannot be easily washed away in a democracy with its multiple centres of power. Even if one manages to escape unhurt from a political tussle, the legal net may trap him. (IPA Service)