The riot has migrated from the secular platform to the heart of the Sangh Parivar. Narendra Modi, once upon a time the mascot of Hindutva, is on the verge of acquiring a new identity: villain or scapegoat? Atal Bihari Vajpayee, once upon a time the great helmsman whose words were the gospels of salvation, is about to become the loneliest of rebels with a conscience.

FINGER POINTING: Vajpayee blames Modi for the rout; (bottom) Naidu with Advani

"We are thinking afresh of the situation in Gujarat. It will be considered at the National Executive meet in Mumbai."

Atal bihari vajpayee, former prime Minister

It all began with Vajpayee's holiday musings. From the poetic isolation of Manali, he bared his conscience. The party lost the Lok Sabha elections because of Gujarat, he said. "Some people wanted to remove Modi. I was of the same opinion." It was a moment of embarrassment as well as enlightenment. And the timing-why did he choose the eve of a National Executive meeting that was anyway going to look into the various reasons for the party's defeat to voice his personal views on Modi?

Is this yet another piece of the fabled Vajpayee mind, confounding as usual? Is he saying something he couldn't afford to say with such clarity while he was in power? Is he taking the moral high ground, a place that naturally belongs to him? Certainly, this leader does not whither away, no matter what the Parivar apparatchiks wish. At a time when the rest of the party is rushing towards hardline Hindutva, he makes a pretty picture-the moral voice of the party, isolated atop a picturesque hill station. It's a landscape that appeals to his nda allies rather than his own Parivar leadership.

Vajpayee's recent television appearance has only offended those who were never really on his side: the VHP hardliners and predictably the RSS chief, K. Sudarshan. Hours after the interview was aired, the RSS chief dutifully contradicted the former prime minister. Vajpayee had hinted at Modi's removal by saying, "We are thinking afresh about the situation in Gujarat."

Sudarshan ruled out any link between the Gujarat riots and the BJP's defeat in the recent Lok Sabha polls. Talking of the party's victories in the Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Chhattisgarh assembly polls in December 2003, he said, "When we won these was it not because of Gujarat?" Sudarshan's attack is significant because this is the first time he has spoken out after 2000, when he attacked the PMO for being autocratic.

Ironically, in spite of Vajpayee, Modi was staring at an uncertain future. Apart from a faction of dissident MLAs led by Keshubhai Patel, even RSS leaders such as Madan Das Devi were targeting him. But not because of the Gujarat riots. Rather their problem was Modi's authoritarian style of functioning. This is an explanation that is more appealing to the hardliners in the Parivar than the Congress' version-now espoused by Vajpayee-that the BJP paid the price of the Gujarat carnage in the general elections.

"There is no proposal to replace Modi nor will this issue be on the agenda of the National Executive."

M. Venkaiah Naidu, BJP president

The rebels in Gujarat and even the local RSS had been promised by the Sangh Parivar bigwigs in Delhi that as soon as the Gujarat Assembly session was over (coincidentally over the same weekend as Vajpayee's TV appearance) they would censure Modi and may even consider a change of leadership.

The Sangh Parivar doesn't want to be defensive about Gujarat. It doesn't want to see the election defeat as a punishment for the riots. "We were thinking of removing Modi. But we don't want to link his removal with the party's defeat in the Lok Sabha elections," says a BJP leader. There are other, more appropriate issues, such as the Supreme Court verdict on the Best Bakery case which is due soon.

BJP insiders say even L.K. Advani would have agreed on Modi's removal-but for reasons other than Gujarat. When Patel, a long-time Modi baiter, visited Delhi last week, he was given a patient hearing by Advani. Though Advani has steered clear of the controversy, he spoke to party President M. Venkaiah Naidu on phone and advised him to call a meeting of senior leaders and also speak to Vajpayee. It was agreed that Naidu would brief the press-and clarify "the unwarranted interpretations" of Vajpayee's comments.

So what has Vajpayee gained from his sudden candour? First he had to deal with the snub of Naidu's rebuttal, who had ruled out a change of leadership and a discussion on Gujarat at the National Executive meeting. However, two days later, party spokesperson Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi clarified that Gujarat could be discussed by senior leaders on the sidelines of the National Executive meeting in Mumbai. Naqvi also added, "Vajpayee's isolation is only in the media. As far as the BJP is concerned, he is still our tallest leader."

The hawks are duty bound to defend Modi. After the Gujarat riots, Moditva and Hindutva have become synonymous. Rejecting one would be rejecting the other. Unlike Vajpayee, the Parivar believes that pandering to the Muslim vote led to the BJP's defeat. Defending Modi at this juncture does not mean that he has the Parivar's blessings. RSS bigwigs feel he needs to be more flexible in his functioning.

In order to save his job, Modi had been trying to mend his ways and practise some version of Rajdharma, much before Vajpayee's tirade. Advised by the BJP's central leadership, he had toned down his attitude and had even met dissidents individually to look into their grievances. Modi had also directed the bureaucracy to be more helpful and was contemplating expanding his 15-member Cabinet.

As the BJP sits down to assess the reasons for the poll defeat this week, Vajpayee has ensured that Moditva gets its fair share of the blame, whether it is on the official agenda or not.