Rediff has a nice round-up of what today’s SC verdict in the Narendra Modi case means. In summary, there is no evidence against Modi. In fact, L.K. Advani put it best:

Welcoming the Supreme Court order in the Gulbarga society case, the Bharatiya Janata Party on Monday said it has vindicated the party’s stand that there is no shred of evidence against Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi in the case relating to the 2002 riots in the state.

Does that mean Narendra Modi is innocent? No one can say for sure but if you continue to say that he was complicit in the riots, know that it cannot be proven in court.


I’ll play devil’s advocate here: In riots and targeted killings how many of us trust investigations that proceed for over a decade?  To not single out the post-Godhra riots, I don’t trust the 1984 anti-Sikh riots’ verdict either. Almost no Congress big shot was involved if evidence is to be believed. Do you think that is the truth?

I don’t, and I’ll feel the same when the post-Godhra riots’ trial comes to a close. There will certainly be some justice as trials continue — not everyone is smart or powerful enough to get rid of evidence.

Those who believed Modi personally was involved in the riots will continue to do so. Those who are convinced Modi is innocent will feel vindicated. Those who don’t know what the truth is but believe Modi was unfairly targeted will, again, feel vindicated. And those who don’t know what the truth is but believe Modi was responsible as the head of state and hence must not occupy public office — well, no one cares about such nuance.


Aren’t we glad the Congress goons rioted in 1984 so we can now use those riots as an accessible, opposite analogy?