It doesn't. But judicial scrutiny under a government clearly opposed to him does clear the mislabelling. And how does it even help the discussion here?

You are either being disingenuous or ignorant if you think the courts or anything else for that matter are truly impartial in India. Judges get killed, politicians get bought out, law and other enforcement agencies become puppets.

It does help the discussion here, the comment correctly points out how this literal 1984-esque action plays into the current regime's totalitarian tendencies which go way before the 2002 pogrom and of course their parent org, RSS which is a whole other can of worms.

Impartiality factors less when the entire Federal government apparatus is used to investigate some one for more than a decade. Also, by that reasoning should we start believing in the principle "guilty before proven otherwise"?

> It does help the discussion here, the comment correctly points out how this literal 1984-esque action plays into the current regime's totalitarian tendencies which go way before the 2002 pogrom and of course their parent org, RSS which is a whole other can of worms.

Who decided that those riots were a progrom? That term itself is misleading.

I am not fan of this step but the problems it's designed to tackle are huge in India and it's very much an option unless there are solid alternatives.

> Impartiality factors less when the entire Federal government apparatus is used to investigate some one for more than a decade. Also, by that reasoning should we start believing in the principle "guilty before proven otherwise"?

No, it was a 3 member "Special Investigation Team" and not the "entire federal apparatus" that acquitted him. [0]

"According to R. B. Sreekumar, police officers who followed the rule of law and helped prevent the riots from spreading were punished by the Modi government. They were subjected to disciplinary proceedings and transfers with some having to leave the state. Sreekumar also claims it is common practice to intimidate whistleblowers and otherwise subvert the justice system, and that the state government issued "unconstitutional directives", with officials asking him to kill Muslims involved in rioting or disrupting a Hindu religious event." [1]

> Who decided that those riots were a progrom? That term itself is misleading.

Hundreds of historians and scholars. [2]

> I am not fan of this step but the problems it's designed to tackle are huge in India and it's very much an option unless there are solid alternatives.

There are students jailed from 2020 without a trail for protesting against CAA-NRC with the explicit purpose of a "chilling effect" against dissent. People are constantly jailed for simple memes, "hurting religious sentiments" and other vapid reasons on a daily basis and you think this is an end to the means type of situation?

If I had to wager a guess, you don't live in India, advocating for oppression you don't have to go through.

[0][1][2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Gujarat_violence