It is a most unfortunate reality of India that nobody ever gets punished for any crime that they commit. Let me correct that – the senior bureaucrats, the rich, and all the politicians, never get punished. The nature of the crime is irrelevant – it could be bribes, it could be stuffing ballots, it could be murder, it could be genocide.

India has been relatively safe from experiments with genocide, though the world has had to suffer the likes of Hitler, Idi Amin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and Milosevic. It is becoming more difficult to practice mass murder, particularly in a globalized world where if the domestic population does not get you, international public opinion, and international courts, will. It is only just that Milosevic should be tried for the mass murder of a people in an international court. He was too domestically powerful, and the people too scared, to put him on trial in his home country. Should Narendra Modi be tried for the riots in Gujarat?

Of course not, because as just noted above, what happened in Gujarat was a "riot"; indeed, Chief Minister Modi should be complimented for keeping things down to (Indian) riot levels. Or so the BJP would have us believe. The dictionary defines a riot as "a disturbance of the peace by a crowd; an occurrence of public disorder". It defines genocide as "a deliberate extermination of a people or nation". The "public disturbance" in 1947 could be termed a riot because people on both sides of the communal divide were being butchered - hence, a massive tragedy but no need for a trial. But on what definition was the mass murder of Sikhs in 1984 a riot - and upon what definition is the pogrom (an "organized massacre") of Muslims in Gujarat a riot? And if most manifestly not a riot, and indeed mass murder, then there should be a trial, a la the other monsters of history.

Given this unfortunate reality, it is a worse tragedy that the "Great Brown Hope" of India, Prime Minister Vajpayee, can only utter poetry and express "disappointment" at the mass murder of innocents by the state, and a state ruled by his own political party. When challenged for his lack of concern, he goes ballistic, and expresses "disappointment" that people who were not born when he made his first political speech dare question his wisdom.

India is a democracy, and a successful one at that. But lately, it has shown signs of being more akin to the dictatorship of the masses whose religion is Hindu, than to a system which offers minimal protection to its minorities (asking for equal protection for the minorities means that one is dreaming of being a civilization). The question remains - for civilized people - whether the majority, or even large sections, of the Hindu population supports the "pograms" of the BJP. The only answer to this question, and the only effective form of justice in India, is to have national elections. The people want to judge - give them their only exercise of rights.

What if the BJP comes back to power, despite, or perhaps even because of, Gujarat? Indeed, some have argued that this is the grand strategy of the BJP, and something the Prime Minister, by keeping Modi on, seems to be buying into. Since the electorate has booted out the BJP, everywhere, the only option for survival is to frighten the Hindus into believing that they are foreigners in their own land; how better to do it than by delivering "mob cocktails" at the doorstep of innocent men, women, and children of a different faith? After all, did not Hindutva get them from a non-existent party into one that is ruling the land? So what if the society gets fragmented and butchered along the way?

If the BJP does come back to power, then the knowledge that India is not democratic, at least in the sense of minority rights, would have been worth the election. The people would have spoken, and the minorities would have been told, in no uncertain terms, from where to get off. This certainty is infinitely preferable to the mockery of the "world's largest democracy" which continuation of the BJP in power, without new elections, means. We would like to know the enemy - especially if it is us.

Besides being morally desirable, and desirable for the pursuit of minimal albeit "disappointing" justice, elections are also inevitable. The position of the non-BJP leaders in the ruling coalition is becoming increasingly untenable. It is unlikely that Chandrababu Naidu or Mamata Banerjee, or Kurananidhi, can politically survive for long if they continue to associate with the BJP. In addition, there is a moral imperative to elections - it is the only form of justice in India. This is the time for non-Congress and non-BJP leaders to provide an alternative to the desperately seeking Indians. The longer these politicians stay with the BJP, the more they are likely to be punished at the polls. So sit back and watch the game develop - first no speaker from Andhra Pradesh, then a further reduction in "guilt by association" - and then the final break. All in time for elections almost 10 years to the day since the Hindutva campaign got into high gear. Time for a referendum.

Can Vajpayee do anything to salvage his position in history, a position that needs a massive face-lift. He can make a formal break with the fundamentalist elements in his party, and make himself a national leader, rather than a parochial one. But formal breaks are not part of his character. He can sideline the fundamentalists, but that would mean removing Modi and promoting Advani to rebuild the political party that needs surgery. These two actions would seem necessary for political survival. Revival will be difficult; there are too many questions, and lives, to answer for.