Shah, of course, is a bigger catch than Kodnani and Pradhan. Not only was he the minister of state for home in Gujarat, but the CBI charge-sheet against him carries the threat of entangling Modi himself. This is the reason why the BJP is more upset about this latest arrest than the earlier ones, when its reactions were more muted.

However, its difficulty is that the cases against Shah and Kodnani are being pursued by the CBI in accordance with the Supreme Court's directives. As a result, even if there is a measure of agreement generally about the BJP's description of the official agency as the Congress bureau of investigation, the saffron camp will still have to phrase its accusations carefully lest it should be hauled up for contempt of court.

Besides, the BJP cannot afford to be too “shrill”, an aspect of its attitude which was held responsible for its defeat in the parliamentary polls by Arun Jaitley. As it is, some of the comments of its earthy chief, Nitin Gadkari, have been castigated for their lack of taste. Gadkari has been berated in this respect by Murli Manohar Joshi. So, the BJP would not like to be seen to be indirectly blaming the Supreme Court in any way.

This cautious approach explains why the party wants to focus more on price rise in parliament than on the supposed manipulation of the CBI. The party also knows that it will not get the Left's support on the Amit Shah episode. So, the saffron-red tie-up, which has been in place since their joint opposition to the nuclear deal in 2008, has cracked on the issue involving Modi's henchman.

The BJP's other problem is that the case involving Shah is becoming murkier. It isn't only his role in the fake encounters in which Sohrabuddin Sheikh, Kauserbi and Tulsiram Prajapati which is being probed, but the Ketan Parekh factor has also cropped up to draw attention to the share market scam of 1999-2001. And, to complicate matters further, another BJP MP, Dinu Solanki, has been charged with the murder of an RTI activist who was investigating his business ventures.

What these cases show yet again is how legal hurdles can stall a political juggernaut. Both Shah and Kodnani won their elections in 2002 and 2007 by huge margins. In fact, Shah's margin was the highest in Gujarat in 2002, which showed that the riots had no negative impact on the BJP's fortunes. Kodnani also improved her margin of victory in 2002.

Understandably, both Modi and the BJP regarded these results as a virtual vindication of the state government's role during the outbreak. This was the time when Moditva, or a hardline version of Hindutva, became the mantra of success for the saffron brotherhood. The corporate sector's praise for Modi also made the BJP believe that it may have found a future prime minister.

But it is the system of the separation of powers in a democracy which makes the pursuit of politics a difficult enterprise. So, even as Modi tried to put a lid on the post-riot scene in Gujarat with the police closing about 2,000 cases of murder, rape and arson against saffron activists because of lack of evidence, the Supreme Court stepped in to reopen them. And, now that the can of worms has been opened, the BJP's earlier fantasies about Modi going from glory to glory have started to evaporate.

Even before the Amit Shah episode came to the surface, the ugly spat between Nitish Kumar and Modi in Bihar had shown that the BJP would not have an easy time in projecting the latter as a frontline leader. Now, if Shah is implicated, or even if unsavoury revelations are made by witnesses, parties like the Janata Dal (United) will try to distance themselves from the BJP.

Gujarat, therefore, remains the millstone round the BJP's neck. While the Babri masjid episode has retreated to the background despite the recent testimony against L.K. Advani by an IPS officer, Anju Gupta, the apparently dubious activities of saffron politicians and police officers in Gujarat continue to hit the headlines. If anything, the charges against them point to an unholy nexus which tried to subvert the rule of law. What is frightening is that but for the Supreme Court's intervention, these politicians and officials would have succeeded in their protecting the guilty and punishing the innocent - the exact opposite of what they are supposed to do.

Soon after the riots, Atal Behari Vajpayee had advised Modi to uphold the raj dharma. Since the chief minister did not seem interested in doing so, the Supreme Court had to step in. (IPA Service)