Never forget Godhra

http://rajeev2004.blogspot.com/2013/02/never-forget-godhra.html

Never forget Godhra, but also complain that other people don't want to forget what happened right after. In fact, try to actively encourage people to forget what happened right after, including who was in charge.

panileni paparao wrote:Never forget Godhra, but also complain that other people don't want to forget what happened right after. In fact, try to actively encourage people to forget what happened right after, including who was in charge.

constant and indiscriminate use of sarcasm is ineffective and boring. so "clever," iit, and aerospacy!

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:

panileni paparao wrote:Never forget Godhra, but also complain that other people don't want to forget what happened right after. In fact, try to actively encourage people to forget what happened right after, including who was in charge.

constant and indiscriminate use of sarcasm is ineffective and boring. so "clever," iit, and aerospacy!

Does the emoticon represent the amount of hair left on your head? And did someone set fire to the last one left?

Hellsangel wrote:

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:

panileni paparao wrote:Never forget Godhra, but also complain that other people don't want to forget what happened right after. In fact, try to actively encourage people to forget what happened right after, including who was in charge.

constant and indiscriminate use of sarcasm is ineffective and boring. so "clever," iit, and aerospacy!

Does the emoticon represent the amount of hair left on your head?

i'm glad you asked. no, it represents your only testicle, whose fuse has been lit and is about to explode.

lol....

lesbian with one exploding test**le

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:

panileni paparao wrote:Never forget Godhra, but also complain that other people don't want to forget what happened right after. In fact, try to actively encourage people to forget what happened right after, including who was in charge.

constant and indiscriminate use of sarcasm is ineffective and boring. so "clever," iit, and aerospacy!

Does the emoticon represent the amount of hair left on your head?

i'm glad you asked. no, it represents your only testicle, whose fuse has been lit and is about to explode.

My my! What were you doing down there? You can stop sucking now.

panileni paparao wrote:Never forget Godhra, but also complain that other people don't want to forget what happened right after. In fact, try to actively encourage people to forget what happened right after, including who was in charge.

guess people should collectively forget or collectively remember. or else it's lop sided no matter how balanced or impartial one is.

panileni paparao wrote:Never forget Godhra, but also complain that other people don't want to forget what happened right after. In fact, try to actively encourage people to forget what happened right after, including who was in charge.

I think other did forget what happened afterwards. That is why they continue to bomb and kill - as per the "killing Manual".

Hellsangel wrote:

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:

panileni paparao wrote:Never forget Godhra, but also complain that other people don't want to forget what happened right after. In fact, try to actively encourage people to forget what happened right after, including who was in charge.

constant and indiscriminate use of sarcasm is ineffective and boring. so "clever," iit, and aerospacy!

Does the emoticon represent the amount of hair left on your head?

i'm glad you asked. no, it represents your only testicle, whose fuse has been lit and is about to explode.

My my! What were you doing down there? You can stop sucking now.

you already lost that one.

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:

panileni paparao wrote:Never forget Godhra, but also complain that other people don't want to forget what happened right after. In fact, try to actively encourage people to forget what happened right after, including who was in charge.

constant and indiscriminate use of sarcasm is ineffective and boring. so "clever," iit, and aerospacy!

waitaminute. why did you select that emoticon? does it flow with text?

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:constant and indiscriminate use of sarcasm is ineffective and boring. so "clever," iit, and aerospacy!

Does the emoticon represent the amount of hair left on your head?

i'm glad you asked. no, it represents your only testicle, whose fuse has been lit and is about to explode.

My my! What were you doing down there? You can stop sucking now.

you already lost that one.

If you say so... Guess the food stamps are not going far enough. You have to turn tricks now.

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:

panileni paparao wrote:Never forget Godhra, but also complain that other people don't want to forget what happened right after. In fact, try to actively encourage people to forget what happened right after, including who was in charge.

constant and indiscriminate use of sarcasm is ineffective and boring. so "clever," iit, and aerospacy!

I am sorry that my use of sarcasm has angered and upset you deeply; I did not intend for it to. Your constant and indiscriminate bitterness is working for you, I hope!

Vidya Bagchi wrote:

panileni paparao wrote:Never forget Godhra, but also complain that other people don't want to forget what happened right after. In fact, try to actively encourage people to forget what happened right after, including who was in charge.

guess people should collectively forget or collectively remember. or else it's lop sided no matter how balanced or impartial one is.

Correct, both the burning of kar sevaks and the killing of Muslims were awful crimes committed in an organized, well-thought-out manner. One side portrays Godhra as "an accident" or "a spontaneous reaction" and argues that the riots were "planned and organized." The other side claims that Godhra was "planned and organized" and that the riots were "a spontaneous reaction."

Any human being with no stakes in that battle can easily see that both sides are wrong.

How do you explain the number of Muslim MLAs from BJP and the subsequent share of the muslim vote in Gujarat? Is that attributable to a collective stockholm syndrome?

The Hindus in that particular train car were returning from Ayodhya. They did some pooja there. They believed that place was where Lord Rama was born. They believed in the cause of rebuilding the temple. As long as they did not engage in violence, the Muslims of Godhra had no business of confronting these 78 men, women and kids. It is a fact that a huge mob consisting of Muslims gathered at that railway station waiting for the train to arrive.

Muezzin-Bar'chu wrote:How do you explain the number of Muslim MLAs from BJP and the subsequent share of the muslim vote in Gujarat? Is that attributable to a collective stockholm syndrome?

There are two possibilities. One is that a completely marginalized minority recognizes that the BJP has a monopoly on power in that state thanks to its communalized Hindu population, and decides to adopt whatever means are necessary for survival in a realpolitik sort of manner. The other is that once Modiji earned the everlasting admiration and support of Hindus in Gujarat, he decided he has that flank totally secured. In the interest of having a counterargument to his 2002 record when the time came to act on his national ambitions, he then decided to reach out to Muslims in a limited, selective way to act as tokens in his party.

The reality is probably a combination of the two. Modi's outreach was probably responded to by elements of the Muslim population who were the most prone to realpolitik.

Rishi wrote:As long as they did not engage in violence, the Muslims of Godhra had no business of confronting these 78 men, women and kids. It is a fact that a huge mob consisting of Muslims gathered at that railway station waiting for the train to arrive.

Correct. I don't think the hundreds of Muslims killed in the riots "engaged in violence" themselves. As long as those individual Muslims did not engage in violence, the Hindus of Gujarat had no business of killing them. But they killed them because they were Muslims, and some other Muslims had killed some Hindus. Do you find one of the two events bad, but the other a justifiable reaction?

Rishi wrote:The Hindus in that particular train car were returning from Ayodhya. They did some pooja there. They believed that place was where Lord Rama was born. They believed in the cause of rebuilding the temple. As long as they did not engage in violence, the Muslims of Godhra had no business of confronting these 78 men, women and kids. It is a fact that a huge mob consisting of Muslims gathered at that railway station waiting for the train to arrive.

This is on my reading list:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0143029010/ref=oh_details_o00_s00_i00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

Of the 58 people who died in Godhra, 19 bodies remained unclaimed. It is suggested that these were of muslims. It is also suggested that the Kar Sevaks did the initial provocation when they pulled the beard of a muslim vendor, forced him to shout Jai Shri Ram, and then took a muslim girl to their train compartment and misbehaved with her. This by no means justifies the violence, and all perpetrators of the violence should be brought to justice. However, to claim that the ensuing violence which claimed the lives of around 2,000 muslims was a result of 'spontaneous reaction' is reminiscent of this incident in history:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristallnacht

Godhra must never be forgotten, but the reason for this is the state sponsored pogrom which followed what happened in Godhra.

The blogposter Rajeev I think was a former IIT-Madras student. I dont know what happened there. He became rabid Tamil hater. I think its the same fellow.

panileni paparao wrote:

Muezzin-Bar'chu wrote:How do you explain the number of Muslim MLAs from BJP and the subsequent share of the muslim vote in Gujarat? Is that attributable to a collective stockholm syndrome?

There are two possibilities. One is that a completely marginalized minority recognizes that the BJP has a monopoly on power in that state thanks to its communalized Hindu population, and decides to adopt whatever means are necessary for survival in a realpolitik sort of manner. The other is that once Modiji earned the everlasting admiration and support of Hindus in Gujarat, he decided he has that flank totally secured. In the interest of having a counterargument to his 2002 record when the time came to act on his national ambitions, he then decided to reach out to Muslims in a limited, selective way to act as tokens in his party.

The reality is probably a combination of the two. Modi's outreach was probably responded to by elements of the Muslim population who were the most prone to realpolitik.

I find it remarkable that after claims of 2000 people ("massacred, genocide, pogrom, krystalnaacht blah blah blah") killed under direct orders of this man Modi that Muslims across the state and in concentrated pockets like Bharuch would willingly have collective amnesia and decide to throw in their lot with this man and his party.

http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-2-133721-Modi-emerging-as-popular-leader-of-Muslims-in-Gujarat

panileni paparao wrote:Your constant and indiscriminate bitterness is working for you, I hope!

lesson 2: use your own words.

panileni paparao wrote:I did not intend for it to.

lesson 3: "i did not intend it to," not "I did not intend for it to."

Muezzin-Bar'chu wrote:

panileni paparao wrote:

Muezzin-Bar'chu wrote:How do you explain the number of Muslim MLAs from BJP and the subsequent share of the muslim vote in Gujarat? Is that attributable to a collective stockholm syndrome?

There are two possibilities. One is that a completely marginalized minority recognizes that the BJP has a monopoly on power in that state thanks to its communalized Hindu population, and decides to adopt whatever means are necessary for survival in a realpolitik sort of manner. The other is that once Modiji earned the everlasting admiration and support of Hindus in Gujarat, he decided he has that flank totally secured. In the interest of having a counterargument to his 2002 record when the time came to act on his national ambitions, he then decided to reach out to Muslims in a limited, selective way to act as tokens in his party.

The reality is probably a combination of the two. Modi's outreach was probably responded to by elements of the Muslim population who were the most prone to realpolitik.

I find it remarkable that after claims of 2000 people ("massacred, genocide, pogrom, krystalnaacht blah blah blah") killed under direct orders of this man Modi that Muslims across the state and in concentrated pockets like Bharuch would willingly have collective amnesia and decide to throw in their lot with this man and his party.

http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-2-133721-Modi-emerging-as-popular-leader-of-Muslims-in-Gujarat

I don't think those people were killed under "direct orders" of Modiji. I think he wilfully neglected to perform the functions of the state in stopping the violence right away. His administration allowed the mob to act unhindered for 2-3 days. He also gave the crowd vocal support through his public statements at the time. Instead of trying to calm the situation, even as people were getting killed, he made statements justifying the killings.

Yes, public memory is short. Also, remember that even in the case of the much, much more serious Nazi atrocities, there were still many Jews who collaborated with them.

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:

panileni paparao wrote:Your constant and indiscriminate bitterness is working for you, I hope!

lesson 2: use your own words.

panileni paparao wrote:I did not intend for it to.

lesson 3: "i did not intend it to," not "I did not intend for it to."

Thank you, Jerji. Have a nice day.

Kayalvizhi wrote:The blogposter Rajeev I think was a former IIT-Madras student. I dont know what happened there. He became rabid Tamil hater. I think its the same fellow.

I know what happened. He stepped out after 8pm and met with a fate worse than death. Same as Upps Aunty.

panileni paparao wrote:

Vidya Bagchi wrote:

panileni paparao wrote:Never forget Godhra, but also complain that other people don't want to forget what happened right after. In fact, try to actively encourage people to forget what happened right after, including who was in charge.

guess people should collectively forget or collectively remember. or else it's lop sided no matter how balanced or impartial one is.

Correct, both the burning of kar sevaks and the killing of Muslims were awful crimes committed in an organized, well-thought-out manner. One side portrays Godhra as "an accident" or "a spontaneous reaction" and argues that the riots were "planned and organized." The other side claims that Godhra was "planned and organized" and that the riots were "a spontaneous reaction."

Any human being with no stakes in that battle can easily see that both sides are wrong.

Yes, both sides are wrong etc etc. But what we really can't get over this is the state complicity in the second instance.

But for that element, the Gujarat riots would have been any garden variety communal riot. There is always a provocation and a retaliation. Rinse and repeat. Only this time, in the full glare of the TV cameras, the chaddi thugs ruled the roost with impunity, beseiging Muslim localities, lassoing a highly respected local Muslim MP and dragging him out of his home with a rope round his neck and then setting him on fire. All this happening within a few hundred metres of a police station which was fully in the know of the build up of the mob, but told not to interfere.

Sure, this is not very different from the state complicity in the anti-Sikh pogrom of 1984. But TV and a more aware civil society made all the difference.

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:

panileni paparao wrote:Your constant and indiscriminate bitterness is working for you, I hope!

lesson 2: use your own words.

panileni paparao wrote:I did not intend for it to.

lesson 3: "i did not intend it to," not "I did not intend for it to."

are emoticons allowed in queen's english?

Merlot Daruwala wrote:Yes, both sides are wrong etc etc.

I mean that specifically about the two sides who make the arguments today, not about the two sides that did the killings.

Merlot Daruwala wrote:But what we really can't get over this is the state complicity in the second instance.

I agree, it is the state complicity in the form of deliberate apathy, instructions to the police to stand back, assurances to the thugs that they would not be restrained, and the CM's public justifications of the killings, that is hard to reconcile with.

i find it worrying that the chaddi gang has at least been partially successful in burying the gujarat riots under economic success stories and bring about a nice warm glow around modi. the question is will they be able to make the story stick and achieve their ultimate goal.

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:

panileni paparao wrote:Your constant and indiscriminate bitterness is working for you, I hope!

lesson 2: use your own words.

panileni paparao wrote:I did not intend for it to.

lesson 3: "i did not intend it to," not "I did not intend for it to."

are emoticons allowed in queen's english?

Please show some respect to Jerji; don't call him a queen.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:i find it worrying that the chaddi gang has at least been partially successful in burying the gujarat riots under economic success stories and bring about a nice warm glow around modi. the question is will they be able to make the story stick and achieve their ultimate goal.

I don't think they will succeed. But what worries me is that the Congress will give them all the help they need, by nominating a confirmed dunce.

panileni paparao wrote:

Muezzin-Bar'chu wrote:

panileni paparao wrote:

Muezzin-Bar'chu wrote:How do you explain the number of Muslim MLAs from BJP and the subsequent share of the muslim vote in Gujarat? Is that attributable to a collective stockholm syndrome?

There are two possibilities. One is that a completely marginalized minority recognizes that the BJP has a monopoly on power in that state thanks to its communalized Hindu population, and decides to adopt whatever means are necessary for survival in a realpolitik sort of manner. The other is that once Modiji earned the everlasting admiration and support of Hindus in Gujarat, he decided he has that flank totally secured. In the interest of having a counterargument to his 2002 record when the time came to act on his national ambitions, he then decided to reach out to Muslims in a limited, selective way to act as tokens in his party.

The reality is probably a combination of the two. Modi's outreach was probably responded to by elements of the Muslim population who were the most prone to realpolitik.

I find it remarkable that after claims of 2000 people ("massacred, genocide, pogrom, krystalnaacht blah blah blah") killed under direct orders of this man Modi that Muslims across the state and in concentrated pockets like Bharuch would willingly have collective amnesia and decide to throw in their lot with this man and his party.

http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-2-133721-Modi-emerging-as-popular-leader-of-Muslims-in-Gujarat

I don't think those people were killed under "direct orders" of Modiji. I think he wilfully neglected to perform the functions of the state in stopping the violence right away. His administration allowed the mob to act unhindered for 2-3 days. He also gave the crowd vocal support through his public statements at the time. Instead of trying to calm the situation, even as people were getting killed, he made statements justifying the killings.

Yes, public memory is short. Also, remember that even in the case of the much, much more serious Nazi atrocities, there were still many Jews who collaborated with them.

Just trying to arrive at a reasonable narrative here:

1. I agree with you that Modi probably was not giving "direct" orders.
2. I can also stipulate that there were elements in the Bajrang Dal/VHP/BJP complex that took matters into their own hands.
3. It is also reasonable to assume that the CM's office was probably inundated with a lot of information, pleas for help etc. and saddled with a resource-scarce machinery.
4. The real question in my mind is "wilful neglect". If I get past the Congress messaging, get past the wrist-flailing human rights entities' reports, there are few points of agreement; here are some 'facts'
a. PC Pandey got a clean chit
b. SIT exonerated Modi
c. The party machinery probably acted as a poly-headed hydra than a centrally commandeered Nazi party.

Do you have links from independent judicial reviews of the events to support your position:

1. that Modi vocally supported the mobs during the 2-3 days
2. that he made statements justifying the killings
3. that orders were given (traced to him) that calls for help should not be heeded by Police.

Thanks, it is a fraught subject and would appreciate some specific answers.

Muezzin-Bar'chu wrote:Just trying to arrive at a reasonable narrative here:

1. I agree with you that Modi probably was not giving "direct" orders.
2. I can also stipulate that there were elements in the Bajrang Dal/VHP/BJP complex that took matters into their own hands.
3. It is also reasonable to assume that the CM's office was probably inundated with a lot of information, pleas for help etc. and saddled with a resource-scarce machinery.
4. The real question in my mind is "wilful neglect". If I get past the Congress messaging, get past the wrist-flailing human rights entities' reports, there are few points of agreement; here are some 'facts'
a. PC Pandey got a clean chit
b. SIT exonerated Modi
c. The party machinery probably acted as a poly-headed hydra than a centrally commandeered Nazi party.

Do you have links from independent judicial reviews of the events to support your position:

1. that Modi vocally supported the mobs during the 2-3 days
2. that he made statements justifying the killings
3. that orders were given (traced to him) that calls for help should not be heeded by Police.

Thanks, it is a fraught subject and would appreciate some specific answers.

These specific points were discussed at length on old CH, will repost some of that material later today.

panileni paparao wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:i find it worrying that the chaddi gang has at least been partially successful in burying the gujarat riots under economic success stories and bring about a nice warm glow around modi. the question is will they be able to make the story stick and achieve their ultimate goal.

I don't think they will succeed. But what worries me is that the Congress will give them all the help they need, by nominating a confirmed dunce.

I don't think Modi will ever become the PM of India. There will be a lot of protests.

However, I do believe if he becomes the PM, he will be a good one. In fact, he will not only be secular, he may end up doing more for the Muslims than any other PM before him. It may end up as a story similar to Nixon going to China.

Rishi wrote:

panileni paparao wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:i find it worrying that the chaddi gang has at least been partially successful in burying the gujarat riots under economic success stories and bring about a nice warm glow around modi. the question is will they be able to make the story stick and achieve their ultimate goal.

I don't think they will succeed. But what worries me is that the Congress will give them all the help they need, by nominating a confirmed dunce.

I don't think Modi will ever become the PM of India. There will be a lot of protests.

However, I do believe if he becomes the PM, he will be a good one. In fact, he will not only be secular, he may end up doing more for the Muslims than any other PM before him. It may end up as a story similar to Nixon going to China.

and what happened to nixon?

and what happened to nixon?

I know what you are implying. Nixon later self destructed because of his own insecurities. Actually he was an effective president. He implemented a lot of affirmative action programs that benefited blacks. He also set up the EPA.

Rishi wrote:and what happened to nixon?

I know what you are implying. Nixon later self destructed because of his own insecurities. Actually he was an effective president. He implemented a lot of affirmative action programs that benefited blacks. He also set up the EPA.

a president is not effective if his complete lack of integrity overwhelms his other deeds. modi's case is many times worse.

Rishi wrote:and what happened to nixon?

I know what you are implying. Nixon later self destructed because of his own insecurities. Actually he was an effective president. He implemented a lot of affirmative action programs that benefited blacks. He also set up the EPA.

According to some influential and knowledgeable Americans, Nixon probably would go down in history as one of the greatest U.S. presidents if Watergate hadn't been there. He did save the U.S. from a number of really messy situations, e.g. getting the country out of Vietnam completely without appearing to have lost the war, and normalizing reltions with China (even visiting that country as the US president) after U.S. had worked extremely hard around the world for decades to run down China completely and a vast majority of Americans were extremely opposed to China when Nixon decided to visit China.

Seva Lamberdar wrote:Nixon probably would go down in history as one of the greatest U.S. presidents if Watergate hadn't been there.

Watergate wasn't a peripheral distraction for the Nixon administration; it is a reflection of how that administration worked. Just like the Gujarat violence of 2002 is a reflection of how the Modi administration works.

Rishi wrote:

panileni paparao wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:i find it worrying that the chaddi gang has at least been partially successful in burying the gujarat riots under economic success stories and bring about a nice warm glow around modi. the question is will they be able to make the story stick and achieve their ultimate goal.

I don't think they will succeed. But what worries me is that the Congress will give them all the help they need, by nominating a confirmed dunce.

I don't think Modi will ever become the PM of India. There will be a lot of protests.

I am cautiously optimistic that he won't.

Rishi wrote:However, I do believe if he becomes the PM, he will be a good one. In fact, he will not only be secular, he may end up doing more for the Muslims than any other PM before him. It may end up as a story similar to Nixon going to China.

That is the triumph of hope over experience.

Hellsangel wrote:

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

Does the emoticon represent the amount of hair left on your head?

i'm glad you asked. no, it represents your only testicle, whose fuse has been lit and is about to explode.

My my! What were you doing down there? You can stop sucking now.

you already lost that one.

If you say so... Guess the food stamps are not going far enough. You have to turn tricks now.

phlegmy turning tricks:

panileni paparao wrote:

Muezzin-Bar'chu wrote:How do you explain the number of Muslim MLAs from BJP and the subsequent share of the muslim vote in Gujarat? Is that attributable to a collective stockholm syndrome?

There are two possibilities. One is that a completely marginalized minority recognizes that the BJP has a monopoly on power in that state thanks to its communalized Hindu population, and decides to adopt whatever means are necessary for survival in a realpolitik sort of manner. The other is that once Modiji earned the everlasting admiration and support of Hindus in Gujarat, he decided he has that flank totally secured. In the interest of having a counterargument to his 2002 record when the time came to act on his national ambitions, he then decided to reach out to Muslims in a limited, selective way to act as tokens in his party.

The reality is probably a combination of the two. Modi's outreach was probably responded to by elements of the Muslim population who were the most prone to realpolitik.

rashmunesque display of logical leaps!

Merlot Daruwala wrote:

panileni paparao wrote:

Vidya Bagchi wrote:

panileni paparao wrote:Never forget Godhra, but also complain that other people don't want to forget what happened right after. In fact, try to actively encourage people to forget what happened right after, including who was in charge.

guess people should collectively forget or collectively remember. or else it's lop sided no matter how balanced or impartial one is.

Correct, both the burning of kar sevaks and the killing of Muslims were awful crimes committed in an organized, well-thought-out manner. One side portrays Godhra as "an accident" or "a spontaneous reaction" and argues that the riots were "planned and organized." The other side claims that Godhra was "planned and organized" and that the riots were "a spontaneous reaction."

Any human being with no stakes in that battle can easily see that both sides are wrong.

Yes, both sides are wrong etc etc. But what we really can't get over this is the state complicity in the second instance.

But for that element, the Gujarat riots would have been any garden variety communal riot. There is always a provocation and a retaliation. Rinse and repeat. Only this time, in the full glare of the TV cameras, the chaddi thugs ruled the roost with impunity, beseiging Muslim localities, lassoing a highly respected local Muslim MP and dragging him out of his home with a rope round his neck and then setting him on fire. All this happening within a few hundred metres of a police station which was fully in the know of the build up of the mob, but told not to interfere.

Sure, this is not very different from the state complicity in the anti-Sikh pogrom of 1984. But TV and a more aware civil society made all the difference.

yes, but we accept congress's legitimacy in running the country ever since. modi with one scandal that he was convicted of? nooooo, we cant allow him to see if the country supports him. nossir. the difference is the size of vote block

I think the logic is very simple. If the BJP bloc were to win the elections in India and their chosen PM candidate is Modi, then Modi will be the Prime Minister of India. No amount of expat arm(chair)wringing will help.

they will write high brow articles making fun of justifiable fear concern of muslim militancy, connections to enemies of india, abysmal record of treatment of women and minorities and ascendancy of populaton among other indians (hindu & non hindu), while at the same time badgering BJP for it's alliances with extremist hindu orgs 20 yrs ago. that is should BJP win elections

Propagandhi711 wrote:they will write high brow articles making fun of justifiable fear concern of muslim militancy, connections to enemies of india, abysmal record of treatment of women and minorities and ascendancy of populaton among other indians (hindu & non hindu), while at the same time badgering BJP for it's alliances with extremist hindu orgs 20 yrs ago. that is should BJP win elections

while the maserati marxist/exemplary proletarian of NASDAQ is preoccupied with low brow air strips

Propagandhi711 wrote:

panileni paparao wrote:

Muezzin-Bar'chu wrote:How do you explain the number of Muslim MLAs from BJP and the subsequent share of the muslim vote in Gujarat? Is that attributable to a collective stockholm syndrome?

There are two possibilities. One is that a completely marginalized minority recognizes that the BJP has a monopoly on power in that state thanks to its communalized Hindu population, and decides to adopt whatever means are necessary for survival in a realpolitik sort of manner. The other is that once Modiji earned the everlasting admiration and support of Hindus in Gujarat, he decided he has that flank totally secured. In the interest of having a counterargument to his 2002 record when the time came to act on his national ambitions, he then decided to reach out to Muslims in a limited, selective way to act as tokens in his party.

The reality is probably a combination of the two. Modi's outreach was probably responded to by elements of the Muslim population who were the most prone to realpolitik.

rashmunesque display of logical leaps!

It was one part conjecture and one part common sense. It wasn't meant to be a logical argument, so I don't know where you picked that up.

Hellsangel wrote:I think the logic is very simple. If the BJP bloc were to win the elections in India and their chosen PM candidate is Modi, then Modi will be the Prime Minister of India. No amount of expat arm(chair)wringing will help.

This is exactly right. I hope the voters reject him, or his party's alliance partners dissuade his party from nominating him because of the fear of voters rejecting him. But that's my political opinion. If he is nominated by his party, and his alliance wins, he will be the PM. Just like if the Crown Prince is nominated and wins, he will be the PM. In both cases, I will still consider them unfit for the high office they occupy, but I don't decide who gets to be PM; the people do.

if bjp could gear indians towards promised akshion, then modi it is.

Here is an old discussion on old CH. It highlights claims that Modi and his administration actively encouraged and supported rioters. I quoted these claims from a rioter himself on old CH:

carvaka on old CH at http://newshopper.sulekha.com/politics_sting-op-nails--butcher-of-naroda-patiya---120961.htm wrote:Here are a couple more interesting quotes:

Bajrangi goes on to claim that he phoned the then Home Minister Gordhan Zadaphiya to tell him about the killings and ‘sort out the matter. “He just asked me flee from Gujarat,” Bajrangi tells the reporter.

The Shiv Sena leader, who shared a dais with Uddhav Thackeray recently, claimed that when Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi was told of the massacre at Naroda Patiya he called him up for doing a ‘fantastic job’. “Modi helped me hide in Mount Abu for several days after the riots,” he said.

Back then, Uppili was a staunch defender of Narendra Modi. Uppili replies:

Uppili on old CH wrote:I totally believe all these and I remember reading these even 5 years back. I don't have have the slightest doubt that Modi, at the very least - looked the other way at least for the initial 3 days. The problem is the practical question of prosecuting.

I think Uppili of old CH is right. As he says, the reason Modiji got away with it is the practical problem of prosecuting high-powered individuals in India. Like Modiji, Congress was able to conduct sham inquiries and conclude that the rioting of 1984 was spontaneous and no major Congress leaders were involved. "Clean chits" like the one given to Modi were given to HKL Bhagat, who served as a Union Cabinet Minister after organizing and leading the killing of Sikhs in Delhi. That is how reliable those "clean chits" are.

As for Modi's own statements during the rioting, he said the following things even while the mobs were on their killing spree: "riots resulting from the natural and justified anger of the people," "every action has an equal and opposite reaction," and "the five crore people of Gujarat have shown remarkable restraint under grave provocation." See the article below for sources.

Here is a non-partisan organization's documentation of the events. It starts out clearly acknowledging that the sequence of events began with a Muslim mob setting fire to the train car, without offering any of the excuses or justifications for their behavior that pseudo-secular apologists habitually do. This was posted by flimflam2 a few years ago on old CH.
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2002/india/index.htm#TopOfPage

In particular, read this: http://www.hrw.org/reports/2002/india/India0402-03.htm#P386_67534

Here are some quick points of evidence for state complicity in the riots:
1. The state government officially endorsed the VHP's call for a bandh
2. The Hindu reported that "insiders in the Bharatiya Janata Party admit that the police were under instructions from the Narendra Modi administration not to act firmly."
3. The administration refused to deploy the Army for a full 24 hours after troops arrived in the state, while the carnage was its peak.
4. Many attacks took place within view of police posts and police stations.
5. Graffiti and killing mob slogans said: "yeh andar ki baat hai, police hamare saath hai" -- "this is inside information, the police is with us."