Will nation accept Narendra Modi's strong note of anguish?

However, the statement will be seen differently by Modi-bhakts and Modi-baiters.

For too many of the latter kind, justice for 2002 has come to mean putting Modi in jail, and not the conviction and sentencing of the guilty in various cases. There are over a hundred convictions now, including many carrying life sentences, but for the Left-Liberal caucus in Delhi, the crimes of 2002 are only about Modi.

Those who hate him, including those who have been demanding an apology in the hope that he won’t do any such thing, have now raised the bar, now that he has expressed words of some contrition. What he said does not even sound like an apology, some will say. Others will pooh-pooh it, and wonder how "anguish" expressed after 11 years can be counted as the real thing.

Some will contrast what Modi said with what Manmohan Singh said about the 1984 anti-Sikh killings – 21 years later in 2005. Modi said he "was shaken to the core" by the events of 2002.

Manmohan Singh, on the other hand, said it with fewer words, but it was a clear apology. "I have no hesitation in apologising to the Sikh community. I apologise not only to the Sikh community, but to the whole Indian nation because what took place in 1984 is the negation of the concept of nationhood enshrined in our Constitution."

So, in formal terms, Singh’s was a fuller apology than Modi’s. It said a clear sorry.

But did it bring any closure? A close examination does not show this to be true. The apology came not only 21 years after the event, but from a Sikh prime minister who had nothing to do with it. It came not from the Congress party or the Gandhi family, but their appointed caretaker.

Unlike the Gujarat cases, the Sikh killings have not resulted in any kind of significant convictions of the perpetrators. This, even though the casualties were more than twice as high as in Gujarat. The distribution of casualties heavily one-sided in 1984 -- with only Sikhs being killed. The Gujarat riots saw more people die from police firings than through communal targeting –- suggesting that policing was not entirely abandoned. In 1984, they were.

Another point of difference is this: in 1984, Rajiv Gandhi campaigned for the Congress by tapping into the anti-Sikh sentiment that was prevalent after the assassination of Indira Gandhi. The elections were held barely two months after the assassination, and so even the Election Commission helped Rajiv achieve a huge sympathy wave.

In 2002, Modi campaigned on a veiled anti-minority plank, but the Election Commission delayed the elections to the Gujarat assembly for well over six months in order to avoid giving people a chance to vote in anger. But Modi still won hands down.

But despite a continuous barrage of court cases and media criticism, all of which he weathered, we still find only Modi in the dock, despite a near-apology or expressions of pain and anguish.

Quite clearly, the bar will be raised continuously for Modi.

However, there is a difference between the phony Delhi consensus against accepting a Modi apology and how the ordinary Indian Muslim will view it. Most Muslims may still not vote for him, but many of them will probably accept that the Modi of 2014 is not the same Modi as 2002.

The big question is how this impacts their voting patterns.This is really the biggest question of 2014, not whether Modi will win. If many Muslims find the near-apology sincere enough, 2014 will be a game-changing election.

 The writer is editor-in-chief, digital and publishing, Network18 Group