Re: Never forget Godhra

by Idéfix Mon Mar 04, 2013 1:42 pm

rawemotions wrote:Your argument is subjective.

As is yours.

rawemotions wrote:Regarding my points, I am not the one who is making assertive statements about the cause of riots. I am just disputing your conclusions. Burden of proof should lie with the accuser.

You are the one accusing others of not discussing those previous riots, and accusing others of partisan bias. I gave you three reasons why we are discussing the 2002 riots more than those previous riots. You are not even in a position to dispute two of those three reasons. For the one reason you do dispute, all you have is subjective.

rawemotions wrote:Even going by your own argument, there have been Congress governments where the ration of kills/duration of riots come very close to what was there in Riots in 2002, which is your metric to decide on government support to riots.
Do you then agree that if you we use your metric, there must have been the same level of administrative support to the riots in 1969 thru 1985, given above. You are running away from answer me. I have given you facts on Riots in Congress administration.

If the Congress leaders who encouraged those earlier riots was still leading the state and was being talked about as a potential PM, I suspect both of us would be talking about that person.

rawemotions wrote:You are still side-stepping J&K Genocide and Nellie riots in Assam (5000+) killed. Why this partisan attitude ?

I am not sidestepping them. They are not good comparables because of other factors that muddle the situation. In J&K, there was a separatist movement and terrorism at play; the interests of the state government were aligned with those of the victims, not those of the perpetrators, so state complicity is not the real issue there. For Nellie, there is the complication of massive illegal immigration that makes it a bad comparison to Gujarat. In Gujarat-2002 and Delhi-1984, a minority that had lived there for a long time and called it home was brutally targeted by the majority community, while the highest political leaders, instead of condemning the violence, justified it. Neither J&K nor Nellie fit that.

by SomeProfile Mon Mar 04, 2013 2:29 pm

trofimov wrote:
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.

False. Blatant lies. The administration did not refuse to deploy the army. Here are the actual facts of the army's role:

In less than two days, the city of Ahmedabad erupted in an orgy of violence. The local police either played a partisan role or were woefully inadequate to deal with the rioters. The only option was to call in the army.

But where was the army? Unlike the earlier occasions when the army stationed in Ahmedabad could move in at an hour's notice, this time it took more than two days. The troops earmarked for internal riot control duties were more than 600 km away, deployed on the border and ready for war.

To re-adjust the defences took time. The troops flown into Ahmedabad did not have transport and were unfamiliar with the geography of the city. It took them nearly three days to bring the situation under control.

Most of the killings and violence took place before the army was deployed. Sporadic arson and violence did continue, but the worst was over within a week. In normal times, the army could have been deployed in a day.

For instance, army units in Delhi and Meerut (40 km away) were ready to move in within hours of the riots sparked off by the assassination of Indira Gandhi on December 31, 1984. But the then government deliberately delayed deploying it.

This was certainly not the case in 2002, when the delay was caused due to the logistical difficulties involved in redeploying troops from the border.

Source: http://www.rediff.com/news/2005/mar/03spec1.htm

Moreover, The administration requested neighboring states to send the police forces for help. All the neighboring states, which were ruled by Congress governments, refused!

by Idéfix Mon Mar 04, 2013 2:48 pm

SomeProfile wrote:
trofimov wrote:
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.

False. Blatant lies. The administration did not refuse to deploy the army. Here are the actual facts of the army's role:

In less than two days, the city of Ahmedabad erupted in an orgy of violence. The local police either played a partisan role or were woefully inadequate to deal with the rioters. The only option was to call in the army.

But where was the army? Unlike the earlier occasions when the army stationed in Ahmedabad could move in at an hour's notice, this time it took more than two days. The troops earmarked for internal riot control duties were more than 600 km away, deployed on the border and ready for war.

To re-adjust the defences took time. The troops flown into Ahmedabad did not have transport and were unfamiliar with the geography of the city. It took them nearly three days to bring the situation under control.

Most of the killings and violence took place before the army was deployed. Sporadic arson and violence did continue, but the worst was over within a week. In normal times, the army could have been deployed in a day.

For instance, army units in Delhi and Meerut (40 km away) were ready to move in within hours of the riots sparked off by the assassination of Indira Gandhi on December 31, 1984. But the then government deliberately delayed deploying it.

This was certainly not the case in 2002, when the delay was caused due to the logistical difficulties involved in redeploying troops from the border.

Source: http://www.rediff.com/news/2005/mar/03spec1.htm

Moreover, The administration requested neighboring states to send the police forces for help. All the neighboring states, which were ruled by Congress governments, refused!

I gave the source of the claim -- the HRW report that mentions that the state waited 24 hours before deploying the army. BTW, I note that the source you cited mentions that the police behaved in a partisan manner.

Also, can you provide proof for your claim that neighboring states refused to provide assistance to quell the violence?

by Idéfix Mon Mar 04, 2013 3:09 pm

Here is an article from The Telegraph datelined Mar 4, 2002. I added dates within square braces by way of context in the text below.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/india/1386725/Soldiers-held-back-to-allow-Hindus-revenge.html

Intelligence officials admitted, however, that there had been a deliberate delay by federal and state governments in deploying the army to give Hindu militants a free hand after a Muslim mob killed 58 Hindus on a train.

The air force had 13 transport aircraft fuelled and ready at Jodhpur in neighbouring Rajasthan state to ferry troops to Ahmedabad, early on Thursday [Feb 28] evening, when the rioting was at its height.

"But for an inexplicable reason, even though it was apparent that the state police were proving incapable, 1,000 troops were flown out only the next morning [Mar 1]," said a senior military officer.

On arriving in Ahmedabad, scene of the worst violence, the soldiers were not provided with transport, information on communally sensitive areas or guides.

"When the army was eventually deployed on Friday evening it was not taken to the trouble spots, but merely asked to display itself in areas from which the Muslims had already fled," a security officer said.

"It was a calculated decision by the state's Hindu nationalist government." Intelligence officials admitted that a "systems failure", prompted by politicians, allowed the rioting to continue. They said some police connived and, at times, even helped Hindu mobs.

Narinder Modi, Gujarat's chief minister, said yesterday: "Every action has an equal and opposite reaction." His officials conceded that this was a "cynical justification" of four days of rioting.

Mr Modi, who belongs to the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata party that heads the federal coalition, added that Gujarat's 50 million people had shown "remarkable restraint under grave provocation", implying that the violence could have been worse.

They said the police simply stood by, or in some cases even encouraged the rioters as they went on the rampage, burning entire families to death in their homes.

"The police actively supported the rioters, almost as if they were accompanying them," Sakina Inayat Sajid, who lost six of her family and whose husband is missing, said from her hospital bed.

by Hellsangel Mon Mar 04, 2013 11:14 pm

Hellsangel wrote:Is that movie based on Chetan Bhagat's novel?

Yes it is. I liked that novel.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/bollywood/news-interviews/Kai-Po-Che-not-Modi-propaganda-Abhishek-Kapoor-clarifies/articleshow/18792590.cms

by bw Tue Mar 05, 2013 3:54 am

Hellsangel wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:Is that movie based on Chetan Bhagat's novel?

Yes it is. I liked that novel.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/bollywood/news-interviews/Kai-Po-Che-not-Modi-propaganda-Abhishek-Kapoor-clarifies/articleshow/18792590.cms

i've completed only "2 states" by chetan bhagat - that was quite enjoyable. i tried the book the movie "3 idiots" is based on but got bored after a few chapters and abandoned it. the movie left me speechless.

i don't know of any other IITian turned writer except for a memoir of IIT-B that someone gave us as a 'gift' - more like spread word around of the book, imo.

by garam_kuta Tue Mar 05, 2013 9:07 am

by Hellsangel Tue Mar 05, 2013 9:17 am

A picture is worth a 1000 words.

Soodu nayi, your words are meaningless.

Therefore your picture is a 1000 times meaningless.

by garam_kuta Tue Mar 05, 2013 12:08 pm

Hellsangel wrote:A picture is worth a 1000 words.

Soodu nayi, your words are meaningless.

Therefore your picture is a 1000 times meaningless.

ah......

Never forget Godhra - Page 3 Images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTLl_PS1H_aylLjpn3L04mX85Pru8NW8d9mteAPzIt66NCiTKHN

by Sponsored content

Hitskin.com