He knows that any show of remorse will fatally erode his base of support comprising communal-minded Hindus who believe that the Muslims deserved what they got during the outbreak. This was a sentiment which was repeatedly voiced in the aftermath of the riots not only in Gujarat, but also elsewhere.

For instance, Bengali historian Tapan Ray Chaudhuri was shocked to hear such venomous views in a gathering of genteel bhadralogs in Kolkata. It may not tantamount to overstating the case if it is said that this is the outlook of all the illiberal Hindus across the country.

While this anti-minority attitude represents the BJP’s core base of support, in Modi’s case, the specific outbreak of 2002 – or “stray incidents”, as he dismissively called them at the time – has special significance since it was virtually an official pogrom. Other incidents of riots as, for instance, during L.K. Advani’s Somath-to-Ayodhya rath yatra in 1990, or in the aftermath of the Babri masjid demolition, didn’t have a prolonged period of official complicity lasting for nearly two months as in 2002.

Nor were they as widespread, as was evident from the subsequent “closure” of 2,000-odd cases by the Gujarat police for the supposed lack of evidence. They were all later reopened on the Supreme Court’s orders. But, the high level of political involvement along with the scale of the carnage – 1,200 were killed in the “stray incidents”, according to official estimates – make 2002 stand out as a particularly ghastly episode.

It is comparable to the anti-Sikh massacres in Delhi, but there is a difference. The 1984 killings were a one-time aberration based on a concatenation of political events involving Bhindranwale’s rise and Indira Gandhi’s assassination. But, there was no centuries-old historical background to the bloodbath, as in the case of the saffron articulation of Hindu-Muslim animosity stretching back to medieval times and fostered by the identification of the Muslims by a bearded guru of the Sangh parivar as a permanent “internal threat”.

This explains why there can be a Sikh prime minister while the BJP cannot field a single Muslim candidate in Gujarat. It also explains why Manmohan Singh and the Congress can apologize for 1984, but Modi and the BJP cannot for 2002. The 1984 episode was a skirmish between brothers while the 2002 carnage was an ideologically and politically motivated, and officially sponsored, offensive against “internal” enemies, as Modi’s “miyan Musharraf” speeches of the time showed.

In Modi, the BJP’s committed supporters have found a long sought-after idol. They thought that they had found one in Advani during the Ramjanmabhoomi agitation, but then the fiery rath yatri was upstaged by the moderate Atal Behari Vajpayee to become the prime minister, and then the party put in cold storage its Hindu agenda of building a Ram temple, scrapping Article 370 and introducing a uniform civil code in order to attract coalition partners.

The result was that the saffron parivar’s dream of a Hindu rashtra turned to ashes as the BJP followed a moderate path, at least formally. Modi’s role as a “modern day Nero” in 2002, as the Supreme Court called him, have made these hopes flower again. Although the coalition collapsed after the outbreak, with the number of the NDA’s constituents shrinking from 24 to four, and the BJP lost in 2004, Modi has prospered in political terms, at least where the BJP’s own supporters are concerned. They believe that he can complete the task which Advani started in 1990.

It is another matter that the BJP itself is wary of reviving the Hindu agenda lest it scares away the NDA’s only “secular” constituent – the Janata Dal (United). So, although it occasionally mentions the temple, it maintains a deafening silence about Article 370 and the uniform civil code. Even Modi has chosen to focus on development for all the 60 million Gujaratis, which includes Muslims although he does not mention them by name.

But, the fact that much of this is a smoke-screen which does not deceive the communal Hindu is evident if one turns to the netizens who are among Modi’s most vociferous supporters. However, they are not only ardent but also abusive – a vulgar trait which has been associated with the saffron camp ever since the 1990s when anyone opposed to them became recipients of hate missives doubting his patriotism and parentage and advising a migration to Pakistan.

Now, their main targets are Sonia and Rahul Gandhi and the “secular” media. It is no surprise that Modi’s poll rallies were full of jibes at “Sonia madam” and “Rahul baba” and his post-victory meeting saw him take a dig at the English media. (IPA Service)