I don't think you understand how this works. It's not "Congress gets one communal violence pass free, it's only fair if the BJP gets a communal violence pass too!"

No, I don't think you understand how it works.

If you are going to hold someone to a standard, then hold EVERYONE to that standard. You can't just hold someone to an arbitrary standard just because you don't like them.

> If you are going to hold someone to a standard, then hold EVERYONE to that standard.

True. However, the question is, does it need to be stated explicitly every time someone gets criticized, or asked to be held accountable for something.

> You can't just hold someone to an arbitrary standard just because you don't like them.

I don't think that was happening here. Modi wasn't being held to an "arbitrary standard" because he wasn't "liked". His actions were the point of discussion here.

I'm more than happy to condemn Narendra Modi and Rajiv Gandhi equally. Hell, I'll say Rajiv Gandhi was much worse. Neither of them would have gotten my vote in the last election. The former because he was complicit in communal violence in 2002, the latter because he was complicit in communal violence in 1984 and not running and dead.

This. and the fact that Modi was actually praised that Gujrat did not have any riots after 2002/3 and the stable socio-economic climate. Other secular/pro-muslim governments were unable to prevent quite a few during that time