Re: Never forget Godhra

by Idéfix Fri Mar 01, 2013 7:23 pm

Here is the Modi government admitting in 2009 that a minister had the record of personally leading a mob that killed 95 people. She was "only" an MLA back then, but the government saw fit to elevate her to minister after the rioting. Not unlike the HKL Bhagat treatment. http://www.hindustantimes.com/News-Feed/India/Modi-Govt-says-minister-led-mob-that-killed-95/Article1-381627.aspx

Gujarat minister Maya Kodnani led a mob that killed at least 95 Muslims in Ahmedabad during the riots of 2002, said an affidavit given by the state’s government to the high court on Thursday. "She was a leader of the mob and at the relevant point of time she was an MLA who instigated the mob to commit the crime and therefore was in the main role,” said the affidavit.

During the investigation of the offence, it has been revealed that she had fired from her pistol and it has been further revealed that she came in her car and had distributed swords to the mob.

by Rishi Fri Mar 01, 2013 7:27 pm

If he is nominated by his party, and his alliance wins, he will be the PM.

If BJP announces before the elections that he is their nominee for PM, the Congress party will be back in power.

by Petrichor Fri Mar 01, 2013 7:31 pm

Thanks for these links - I will read them with interest.

So, you do not believe Raghavan (appointed by SC) rendered an accurate account?

You do not believe Ehsan Jaffrey fired at the mob?

I couldn't get the newshopper link that you gave above but did see your opinion on this here:

"And evidence of his complicity is in the public domain. When he made statements justifying the rioters' actions to the media, he was essentially signaling to both the police as well as the rioters the intent of his government -- that it saw the riots as a legitimate reaction to the Godhra train burning. Those statements exist, and I don't think he needed to do anything more formal in order to have contributed to those riots. Modi's complicity in the Gujarat riots is similar to Rajiv Gandhi's complicity in the Delhi riots of 1984. In that case, I doubt any evidence can be found of Rajiv Gandhi telling the cops to not stop the rioters. He didn't need to -- the police knew which way the political wind was blowing."

I get where you are coming from.

by Rishi Fri Mar 01, 2013 7:34 pm

My question is this. What were the Muslims thinking when they gathered there at the Godhra railway station and then set fire to that train compartment?

I think they must have not expected such a reaction from Hindus. They have been getting away with rioting and violence towards Hindus for many years because no government ever prosecuted them for such behavior.

by Idéfix Fri Mar 01, 2013 7:43 pm

Rishi wrote:My question is this. What were the Muslims thinking when they gathered there at the Godhra railway station and then set fire to that train compartment?

I think they must have not expected such a reaction from Hindus. They have been getting away with rioting and violence towards Hindus for many years because no government ever prosecuted them for such behavior.

I don't know Gujarati Muslims very well. I am not familiar with their sociopolitical history and their relative political power compared to Hindus prior to European colonization and before and after independence. But if I had to hazard a guess, I would say they might suffer from the same delusions that Akbar Owaisi and his supporters suffer from, which are also shared by the Pakistani establishment as so well analyzed by that blogger on Dawn. Delusions of superior strength and ability to kill.

by Idéfix Fri Mar 01, 2013 7:53 pm

Muezzin-Bar'chu wrote:So, you do not believe Raghavan (appointed by SC) rendered an accurate account?

I think we should take all accounts with a pinch of salt, I think none of them are completely true because of political influences.

Muezzin-Bar'chu wrote:You do not believe Ehsan Jaffrey fired at the mob?

I don't know. It is plausible that he fired at the mob. The bigger issue for me is not the actions of the mob or the victim, but the actions of the state. It is clear that the state failed in its duty, most visibly in the case of a high profile political leader like Jaffrey.

Muezzin-Bar'chu wrote:I get where you are coming from.

I never considered Rajiv Gandhi fit for his office because of his callous disregard about the lives of citizens he is supposed to protect. I have the same problem with Narendra Modi.

by Guest Fri Mar 01, 2013 7:54 pm

panileni paparao wrote:
Rishi wrote:My question is this. What were the Muslims thinking when they gathered there at the Godhra railway station and then set fire to that train compartment?

I think they must have not expected such a reaction from Hindus. They have been getting away with rioting and violence towards Hindus for many years because no government ever prosecuted them for such behavior.
I don't know Gujarati Muslims very well. I am not familiar with their sociopolitical history and their relative political power compared to Hindus prior to European colonization and before and after independence. But if I had to hazard a guess, I would say they might suffer from the same delusions that Akbar Owaisi and his supporters suffer from, which are also shared by the Pakistani establishment as so well analyzed by that blogger on Dawn. Delusions of superior strength and ability to kill.

The closet Chaddi reveals his true colors. Hyderabadi Muslims are 40% of the population, whereas in Gujarat the Muslim population is less than 9 %.

by Merlot Daruwala Fri Mar 01, 2013 8:43 pm

Muezzin-Bar'chu wrote:

So, you do not believe Raghavan (appointed by SC) rendered an accurate account?

So you believe that Modi would give written orders to the cops to allow "Hindus to vent out their anger against Muslims"?

Or that the DGP and Police Commissioner would give their advice against bringing the Godhra victims' bodies to Ahmedabad in writing?

Do you actually think Modi would allow for police records of who was where on the morning of that crucial meeting to be found?

Uff, so many questions...are you really so innocent? Or is it your disingenuity masquerading as curiosity?

by MaxEntropy_Man Fri Mar 01, 2013 8:58 pm

bar'chu please also read this report:

we have no orders to save you: state participation and complicity in communal violence in gujarat.

by truthbetold Fri Mar 01, 2013 10:52 pm

India and italy seem to haveone thing in common. Both are hell bent on scoring self goals. Vajpayee should have fired modi in 2002 march and it may have saved nda govt. I hoped at least supreme court will find evidence against modi.
Roits for a day or two after godhra would not be unimaginable in india. But the level of voilence and the continuation of voilence for weeks (at least two) is a clear indicment of state govt. It is either involved or it is gross incompetence.
i am not aware of indian pulse these days but feel modi and bjp will not get enough seats for him to become pm.
Modi seems to be competent cm and is not accused of any corruption. That is rare for a three time cm. But his unrepentent attitude and constant muslim baiting makes him unpalatable to most indians. I put my money against modi.

by MaxEntropy_Man Fri Mar 01, 2013 11:33 pm

TBT: why do you keep spelling violence as voilence?

by yogi Fri Mar 01, 2013 11:37 pm

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.

I too agree what you said except on MP issue. The entire story of Ehsan jaffrey was cooked up by Arundhati roy. What she wrote about the killing of ehsan jaffri was even denied by his eldest son who lives in India. He was neither stripped nor burnt alive. That was the reason why SC didn't accept the zakia jaffri's petition against modi. As Meenakshi lekhi pointed out the killing infact was carried out by a congress mla called Meghsingh Chaudhary.

by Guest Fri Mar 01, 2013 11:44 pm

yogi wrote:
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.
I too agree what you said except on MP issue. The entire story of Ehsan jaffrey was cooked up by Arundhati roy. What she wrote about the killing of ehsan jaffri was even denied by his eldest son who lives in India. He was neither stripped nor burnt alive. That was the reason why SC didn't accept the zakia jaffri's petition against modi. As Meenakshi lekhi pointed out the killing infact was carried out by a congress mla called Meghsingh Chaudhary.

http://www.hardnewsmedia.com/2012/02/4566

by yogi Sat Mar 02, 2013 12:18 am

Rashmun wrote:
yogi wrote:
Merlot Daruwala wrote:
panileni paparao wrote:
Vidya Bagchi wrote:

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.
I too agree what you said except on MP issue. The entire story of Ehsan jaffrey was cooked up by Arundhati roy. What she wrote about the killing of ehsan jaffri was even denied by his eldest son who lives in India. He was neither stripped nor burnt alive. That was the reason why SC didn't accept the zakia jaffri's petition against modi. As Meenakshi lekhi pointed out the killing infact was carried out by a congress mla called Meghsingh Chaudhary.

http://www.hardnewsmedia.com/2012/02/4566

Mate, You seem to have got me wrong. What i said was i don't buy the graphic story of arundhati roy. she said the mob broke into the house. They stripped his daughters and burnt them alive. Then they beheaded Jaffri and dismembered him. Jaffri was killed in the riots but his daughters were neither 'stripped' nor 'burnt alive.' T.A. Jaffri, his son, in a front-page interview titled Nobody knew my father's house was the target (Asian Age, May 2, Delhi edition), says, "among my brothers and sisters, I am the only one living in India. And I am the eldest in the family. My sister and brother live in the US. I am 40 years old and I have been born and brought up in Ahmedabad. So if Ehsan Jaffri had only one daughter (singular) who was safe and sound in the US, where did Roy get her facts about not one, but daughters (plural) being stripped and burnt? Was it the fantasy of a writer's mind?
Arundhati Roy did apologise for her mistake in a letter published in Outlook May 27, 2002.

by Idéfix Sat Mar 02, 2013 12:41 am

yogi wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
yogi wrote:
Merlot Daruwala wrote:
panileni paparao wrote: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.
I too agree what you said except on MP issue. The entire story of Ehsan jaffrey was cooked up by Arundhati roy. What she wrote about the killing of ehsan jaffri was even denied by his eldest son who lives in India. He was neither stripped nor burnt alive. That was the reason why SC didn't accept the zakia jaffri's petition against modi. As Meenakshi lekhi pointed out the killing infact was carried out by a congress mla called Meghsingh Chaudhary.

http://www.hardnewsmedia.com/2012/02/4566
Mate, You seem to have got me wrong. What i said was i don't buy the graphic story of arundhati roy. she said the mob broke into the house. They stripped his daughters and burnt them alive. Then they beheaded Jaffri and dismembered him. Jaffri was killed in the riots but his daughters were neither 'stripped' nor 'burnt alive.' T.A. Jaffri, his son, in a front-page interview titled Nobody knew my father's house was the target (Asian Age, May 2, Delhi edition), says, "among my brothers and sisters, I am the only one living in India. And I am the eldest in the family. My sister and brother live in the US. I am 40 years old and I have been born and brought up in Ahmedabad. So if Ehsan Jaffri had only one daughter (singular) who was safe and sound in the US, where did Roy get her facts about not one, but daughters (plural) being stripped and burnt? Was it the fantasy of a writer's mind?
Arundhati Roy did apologise for her mistake in a letter published in Outlook May 27, 2002.

The problem with Arundhati Roy is her too-fertile imagination. People like Roy do not realize that by embellishing the tragedies that did occur, they actually do a huge disservice to the victims, and give more ammunition to the apologists of Modi and the like.

by Petrichor Sat Mar 02, 2013 12:44 am

panileni paparao wrote:
Muezzin-Bar'chu wrote:So, you do not believe Raghavan (appointed by SC) rendered an accurate account?
I think we should take all accounts with a pinch of salt, I think none of them are completely true because of political influences.

That would be the real tragedy - in India today, it is impossible to obtain truly independent voices even if that voice is supposedly neutral and above reproach (viz., that the SC directly appointed Raghavan). The mutual acrimony has risen to such levels that just about anyone with an axe to grind gets a megaphone. Witness the likes of MD, Rashmun etc. And yes, while I pin the moral blame on Modi, I was interested in seeing if there could be a legitimate case made out against him at least on a gross negligence charge. And to me it is telling that someone deputed from the Delhi establishment (Raghavan) could not pin anything solid.

panileni paparao wrote:
Muezzin-Bar'chu wrote:You do not believe Ehsan Jaffrey fired at the mob?
I don't know. It is plausible that he fired at the mob. The bigger issue for me is not the actions of the mob or the victim, but the actions of the state. It is clear that the state failed in its duty, most visibly in the case of a high profile political leader like Jaffrey.

I agree - I was merely trying to see if you were weighing the sides in the same manner I was and it looks like you do. And yes, it is definitely not in question that the State machinery failed and to that extent Modi at its head table deserves the blame.

However, what I have trouble with, is the quickness with which the English-media consuming intelligentsia throws presumption of innocence to the winds and see sinister machinations by Modi. I like the analogy you drew with Rajiv Gandhi in the wake of Indira's death. Yes, Modi was upset and angry at the Godhra carnage and yes he did make ambiguous statements that could well have been taken as marching orders by bajrang dal and other outfits. He might even very well have said to some police officers something to the effect, "rehne do...the mobs will vent their slogans for sometime and it is best not to engage them with force". To go from there to full-scale orders of "dont take calls from muslim neighborhoods, just stay put when mass killings are taking place" is in my opinion a stretch - a stretch limo that accommodates strange bedfellows from human rights watch to corrupt congressmen to so-called secularists.

In the end, the question is - will the shrill voices manage to block Modi's candidacy or has the ground moved beneath them and the new reality will see him on national stage? It would be interesting to watch.

by yogi Sat Mar 02, 2013 5:37 am

panileni paparao wrote:
yogi wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
yogi wrote:
Merlot Daruwala wrote:

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.
I too agree what you said except on MP issue. The entire story of Ehsan jaffrey was cooked up by Arundhati roy. What she wrote about the killing of ehsan jaffri was even denied by his eldest son who lives in India. He was neither stripped nor burnt alive. That was the reason why SC didn't accept the zakia jaffri's petition against modi. As Meenakshi lekhi pointed out the killing infact was carried out by a congress mla called Meghsingh Chaudhary.

http://www.hardnewsmedia.com/2012/02/4566
Mate, You seem to have got me wrong. What i said was i don't buy the graphic story of arundhati roy. she said the mob broke into the house. They stripped his daughters and burnt them alive. Then they beheaded Jaffri and dismembered him. Jaffri was killed in the riots but his daughters were neither 'stripped' nor 'burnt alive.' T.A. Jaffri, his son, in a front-page interview titled Nobody knew my father's house was the target (Asian Age, May 2, Delhi edition), says, "among my brothers and sisters, I am the only one living in India. And I am the eldest in the family. My sister and brother live in the US. I am 40 years old and I have been born and brought up in Ahmedabad. So if Ehsan Jaffri had only one daughter (singular) who was safe and sound in the US, where did Roy get her facts about not one, but daughters (plural) being stripped and burnt? Was it the fantasy of a writer's mind?
Arundhati Roy did apologise for her mistake in a letter published in Outlook May 27, 2002.
The problem with Arundhati Roy is her too-fertile imagination. People like Roy do not realize that by embellishing the tragedies that did occur, they actually do a huge disservice to the victims, and give more ammunition to the apologists of Modi and the like.

Why does then Roy continues to be portrayed as an crusader by our media after such deliberate lies. I'm sure she would have been far gone had she been in any other country with honest media.

by Merlot Daruwala Sat Mar 02, 2013 5:43 am

Muezzin-Bar'chu wrote:
panileni paparao wrote:
Muezzin-Bar'chu wrote:So, you do not believe Raghavan (appointed by SC) rendered an accurate account?
I think we should take all accounts with a pinch of salt, I think none of them are completely true because of political influences.

That would be the real tragedy - in India today, it is impossible to obtain truly independent voices even if that voice is supposedly neutral and above reproach (viz., that the SC directly appointed Raghavan). The mutual acrimony has risen to such levels that just about anyone with an axe to grind gets a megaphone. Witness the likes of MD, Rashmun etc. And yes, while I pin the moral blame on Modi, I was interested in seeing if there could be a legitimate case made out against him at least on a gross negligence charge. And to me it is telling that someone deputed from the Delhi establishment (Raghavan) could not pin anything solid.

panileni paparao wrote:
Muezzin-Bar'chu wrote:You do not believe Ehsan Jaffrey fired at the mob?
I don't know. It is plausible that he fired at the mob. The bigger issue for me is not the actions of the mob or the victim, but the actions of the state. It is clear that the state failed in its duty, most visibly in the case of a high profile political leader like Jaffrey.

I agree - I was merely trying to see if you were weighing the sides in the same manner I was and it looks like you do. And yes, it is definitely not in question that the State machinery failed and to that extent Modi at its head table deserves the blame.

However, what I have trouble with, is the quickness with which the English-media consuming intelligentsia throws presumption of innocence to the winds and see sinister machinations by Modi. I like the analogy you drew with Rajiv Gandhi in the wake of Indira's death. Yes, Modi was upset and angry at the Godhra carnage and yes he did make ambiguous statements that could well have been taken as marching orders by bajrang dal and other outfits. He might even very well have said to some police officers something to the effect, "rehne do...the mobs will vent their slogans for sometime and it is best not to engage them with force". To go from there to full-scale orders of "dont take calls from muslim neighborhoods, just stay put when mass killings are taking place" is in my opinion a stretch - a stretch limo that accommodates strange bedfellows from human rights watch to corrupt congressmen to so-called secularists.

In the end, the question is - will the shrill voices manage to block Modi's candidacy or has the ground moved beneath them and the new reality will see him on national stage? It would be interesting to watch.

Dang. Despite my best efforts at unbiased, balanced opinionation, I've been outed as someone with an axe to grind. So my opinions are now irrelevant to your utterly dispassionate and entirely unbiased quest for the truth. Sanjiv Bhatt too has an axe to grind (now) and his sworn affidavit is equally meaningless. Only Raghavan* has absolutely no axe to grind. His inability to come up with any written evidence (beyond the he-said-she-said claptrap of the axe-grinding Bhatt) is no reflection of his motivations nor of any attempt at cover-up by the state administration. Only axe-grinders would make up stories about officials closing ranks, police wireless records going missing etc. And since the non-axe-grinding Raghavan could find no evidence to the contrary, it is safe to assume that Modi is pure as driven snow. This is evidenced by Muslims in Gujarat overwhelmingly voting for Modiji's party. Those riots were an unfortunate failure of the state machinery for which Modi should not be penalized. It's now time to move on. Modiji for PM. Jai Shri Ram.

*Eerie coincidence: I bumped into that gentleman in Goa of all places just a couple of hours back. Never thought I'd be dropping names, but axe-grinding is now giving me all kinds of leverage.

by Merlot Daruwala Sat Mar 02, 2013 5:54 am

Talking about Raghavan and his unbiased quest for the truth, here's an interesting nugget:

Even if Narendra Modi instructed his officials to allow Hindus to vent their anger against Muslims, the instruction would “not constitute an offence” if it was given within the four walls of a room. This is the opinion of the Special Investigation Team that probed Zakia Jafri's complaint against Mr. Modi and 61 others for their alleged involvement in the 2002 anti-Muslim violence.

One of the charges in Ms. Jafri's complaint was that at a late night meeting of top officials held at his residence on February 27, 2008, the Gujarat Chief Minister had said Hindus must be allowed to carry out retaliatory violence against Muslims in the wake of the Godhra carnage. Eight officers attended the meeting. Another officer, Sanjiv Bhatt, who was then with the State Intelligence, said he was present at the meeting, and had heard Mr. Modi give the anti-Muslim instructions.

The SIT dismissed Mr. Bhatt's claim on two main grounds. Mr. Bhatt was a tainted witness who was involved in criminal cases of a serious nature. Secondly, seven out of eight officers present strongly denied that he had attended the meeting. One officer, Swarnakanta Varma, said she was unable to recollect if she had seen him at the meeting. All eight officers also refuted Mr. Bhatt's claim that Mr. Modi had given illegal instructions to them.

The SIT said the Chief Minister had repeatedly announced — in public, at press briefings and on the floor of the legislative assembly — that he would not spare the culprits of Godhra and “the state government has taken this heinous, inhuman and organised violent act very seriously and is committed to give exemplary punishment to the culprits so that such incident never occur anywhere.”

Further, in an appeal on Doordarshan, Mr. Modi said that “the culprits would be awarded such exemplary punishment so that no one would dare to involve himself in such an incident.” The SIT noted that at least on five occasions between February 27, 2002 and February 28, 2002, “the Chief Minister addressed Media, Assembly and General public and everywhere the genesis and intention was one and the same, i.e, to punish the culprits responsible for the Godhra incident in an exemplary manner so that such incidents did not occur ever again.”

The SIT said in the light of these statements, Mr. Bhatt's claim about any illegal instructions would “appear to be without any basis.” Then it concluded: “Further, even if such allegations are believed for the sake of argument, mere statement of alleged words in the four walls of a room does not constitute an offence.”

The big axe I carry is coming in the way of my making sense of the unbiased SIT's leaps of conclusion here. Perhaps the equally unbiased Barchu can explain why Modi's public threats to the culprits of Godhra make his let-the-Hindus-vent private statements unlikely.

by Idéfix Sat Mar 02, 2013 4:27 pm

MB, I sense a distrust of HRW in your comments. Is it just me or do you have reason to distrust their findings?

by Idéfix Sat Mar 02, 2013 4:30 pm

MD, I had missed that interesting angle, thanks for sharing. What the SIT says makes absolutely no sense. It is like saying catching someone with a smoking gun after a murderous shoot was fired is not enough reason to suspect the person caught with the smoking gun!

by Petrichor Sat Mar 02, 2013 6:39 pm

panileni paparao wrote:MB, I sense a distrust of HRW in your comments. Is it just me or do you have reason to distrust their findings?

I do not distrust any account of the massive failure of command and control of state machinery and large-scale insubordination in the aftermath of Godhra. I do not doubt the active participation of political elements both fringe and mainstream in the collective action - sheer numbers of Hindus and to a lesser degree but not insignificantly of Muslims as well. I do not doubt steps were taken by some sections of Police to curb the violence including inflicting gunshot wounds on Hindus in certain cases. It is just the quickness with which people jump to conclusions about Modi's actions and culpability that I find irksome.

And yes SIT's remit was limited in scope to evidentiary value of actionable claims by Jaffrey's wife. However, he blew open some of the significant claims by Bhatt including the very telling conclusiion that he may never have been at the CM's residence when he says he was. The wiki entry on Sanjiv Bhatt is a fair summary of both sides.

Re. HRW, my reasons for not buying their report wholesale is primarily due to their funding sources and the rather one-sided views on communal violence in India. Here is the founder of HRW
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/20/opinion/20bernstein.html?_r=0

There are many wheels within wheels and one must just be aware of the manufacture of 'facts'.

PS> Kai Po Che is a good movie/commentary on the state of Gujarat.

by Hellsangel Sat Mar 02, 2013 6:59 pm

Is that movie based on Chetan Bhagat's novel?

by MaxEntropy_Man Sat Mar 02, 2013 10:50 pm

i haven't read anything by chetan bhagat, but is he one of those many IIT alumni turned fiction writers who seem to be mushrooming all over the place? i find most of them tiresome.

by bw Sat Mar 02, 2013 11:16 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:i haven't read anything by chetan bhagat, but is he one of those many IIT alumni turned fiction writers who seem to be mushrooming all over the place? i find most of them tiresome.

who are the ones you've read and found tiresome?

by Idéfix Sun Mar 03, 2013 4:22 pm

Muezzin-Bar'chu wrote:It is just the quickness with which people jump to conclusions about Modi's actions and culpability that I find irksome.

Let me put it this way. In the last 11 years, Modi has had several opportunities to own up to the mistakes of his administration and distance himself from the politics that led to the riots. But he has consistently chosen to not take that path. Instead, consider this as an example of the path that he actually took: in 2007, he promoted Maya Kodnani to Minister. Kodnani was the MLA from Naroda (where one of the worst massacres occurred), and has since been convicted of murder and conspiracy to murder in the massacre of 95 people by a mob she personally led. Kodnani's role in the riots was not a secret when she was elevated to Minister in 2007; the Modi administration filed an affidavit several months later admitting her role. It is Modi's completely unrepentant combination of denial of facts and reaping political benefit from mass murder that makes him an easy -- and IMO deserving -- target for condemnation.

Muezzin-Bar'chu wrote:Re. HRW, my reasons for not buying their report wholesale is primarily due to their funding sources and the rather one-sided views on communal violence in India. Here is the founder of HRW
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/20/opinion/20bernstein.html?_r=0

I think the complaint against HRW on the Israel vs. rest of the Middle East matter has nothing to do with its record in places like Gujarat or Sri Lanka. Yes, HRW exposes the failures of democratic states to abide by their own established constitutional freedoms, rights, and due process, and I see that as a good thing. I agree that their report is bound to be blurred by the "fog of war" just as much as any other; after all it relies on eyewitness reports from players whose perspectives may be sharply at odds with one another. But I don't see any reason to suspect systemic bias on their part any more than I would in the SIT's report.

Muezzin-Bar'chu wrote:PS> Kai Po Che is a good movie/commentary on the state of Gujarat.

I am planning to catch it today.

by rawemotions Sun Mar 03, 2013 4:56 pm

There is so much analysis of the Communal Riots in Modi's administration.
But there have been so many riots in previous Congress administrations.
I really wonder nobody analyzes those.

Data is at
List of Communal Riots in India till 1992

YEAR TOWN_CITY KILLED INJURED ARRESTS DURATION_I
1969 Ahmadabad 600 850 2500 10
1969 Vadodara 12 111 500 6
1974 Borsad 5 15 1
1980 Godhra 6 31 1
1981 Dhoraji 63 59 1
1981 Godhra 3 8 18 1
1981 Vadodara 1 30 30 4
1981 Vadodara 4 99 296 4
1982 Vadodara 7 7 550 5
1982 Vadodara 12 55 515 5
1985 Ahmadabad 13 120 800 4
1985 Ahmadabad 5 50 1
1985 Ahmadabad 13 89 3
1985 Ahmadabad 27 100 78 7
1985 Ahmadabad 8 7 1
1985 Ahmadabad 17 14 37 3
1985 Ahmadabad 7 19 1
1985 Ahmadabad 6 60 2
1985 Ahmadabad 40 125 100 8
1986 Ahmadabad 7 35 576 2
1986 Ahmadabad 7 120 1
1986 Surat 6 1
1986 Ahmadabad 5 7 1
1986 Unknown 4 15 1
1986 Verawal 11 34 20 2
1986 Ahmadabad 55 300 1673 7
1986 Vadodara 7 50 3
1987 Ahmadabad 10 17 66 3
1987 Ahmadabad 6 40 2 1
1987 Bharuch 6 5 168 3
1987 Vadodara 8 13 167 5
1990 Ahmadabad 40 238 5
1990 Ahmadabad 8 11 900 5
1990 8 1
1990 Palanpur 7 1
1990 Godhra 5 6 1
1990 Ahmadabad 37 12
1991 Vadodara 12 9
1991 Vadodara 7 15 1
1992 Ahmadabad 24 189 7
1992 Surat 175 536 6
1992 Ahmadabad 58 100 25
1992 Unspecified 69 25
1993 Ahmadabad 19 2
1993 Ahmadabad 20 78 3
1993 Surat 5 25 11

by Idéfix Sun Mar 03, 2013 5:03 pm

rawemotions wrote:There is so much analysis of the Communal Riots in Modi's administration.
But there have been so many riots in previous Congress administrations.
I really wonder nobody analyzes those.

Three reasons why:

The people at the helm during those other riots are no longer at the helm
Extent of state complicity and support from senior politicians to the rioting mobs was not as direct (the only real comparable to the Gujarat rioting of 2002 is the 1984 anti-Sikh rioting orchestrated by Congress in Delhi)
Increased penetration of TV news and more extensive documentation of what happened in 2002

by rawemotions Sun Mar 03, 2013 5:24 pm

That is a load of bull.

You think rioters could have killed 40 folks for 8 days without state complicity. The only difference then was many of the dead were Hindus. Muslims goons had allegedly Congress support. Now how do you know politicians were not involved in supporting them. Because they would repeatedly come out of their ghettos kill with impunity and then disappear.
Hindus were being tormented by this repeated rioting. Look at the list in original excel. the numbers in Gujarat are mind boggling. All these riots were reported in Press.

1985 Ahmadabad 40 125 100 8

Modi controlled it in 2 days.

What about J&K riots where genocide was committed on Hindus. That did not have state complicity ?

What about Nellie Riots ? That did not have state complicity ?

I know riots in Hyderabad during Chenna Reddy administration. That did not have state complicity ?

by Idéfix Sun Mar 03, 2013 6:21 pm

You are disputing one of the three reasons I gave. Even in that, as I said, what is different is extent and directness. The extent and directness of state complicity needed to kill 800 people over 2-3 days are much more than those needed to kill 40 over 8 days. Even common criminals can potentially manage the latter but the former requires greater support from the state.

by Petrichor Sun Mar 03, 2013 7:20 pm

panileni paparao wrote:
Muezzin-Bar'chu wrote:It is just the quickness with which people jump to conclusions about Modi's actions and culpability that I find irksome.
Let me put it this way. In the last 11 years, Modi has had several opportunities to own up to the mistakes of his administration and distance himself from the politics that led to the riots. But he has consistently chosen to not take that path. Instead, consider this as an example of the path that he actually took: in 2007, he promoted Maya Kodnani to Minister. Kodnani was the MLA from Naroda (where one of the worst massacres occurred), and has since been convicted of murder and conspiracy to murder in the massacre of 95 people by a mob she personally led. Kodnani's role in the riots was not a secret when she was elevated to Minister in 2007; the Modi administration filed an affidavit several months later admitting her role. It is Modi's completely unrepentant combination of denial of facts and reaping political benefit from mass murder that makes him an easy -- and IMO deserving -- target for condemnation.

I agree with you that providing ministerial berth to Maya was a mistake - probably done as a result of political pressures. And yes, he deserves condemnation for this.

panileni paparao wrote:
Muezzin-Bar'chu wrote:Re. HRW, my reasons for not buying their report wholesale is primarily due to their funding sources and the rather one-sided views on communal violence in India. Here is the founder of HRW
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/20/opinion/20bernstein.html?_r=0
I think the complaint against HRW on the Israel vs. rest of the Middle East matter has nothing to do with its record in places like Gujarat or Sri Lanka. Yes, HRW exposes the failures of democratic states to abide by their own established constitutional freedoms, rights, and due process, and I see that as a good thing. I agree that their report is bound to be blurred by the "fog of war" just as much as any other; after all it relies on eyewitness reports from players whose perspectives may be sharply at odds with one another. But I don't see any reason to suspect systemic bias on their part any more than I would in the SIT's report.

When you consider major funding for HRW is provided by Saudi Arabia-donors, and their advocacy for Islamic states, there emerges a certain pattern that cannot be ignored.

by rawemotions Sun Mar 03, 2013 10:27 pm

panileni paparao wrote:You are disputing one of the three reasons I gave. Even in that, as I said, what is different is extent and directness. The extent and directness of state complicity needed to kill 800 people over 2-3 days are much more than those needed to kill 40 over 8 days. Even common criminals can potentially manage the latter but the former requires greater support from the state.

That is interesting argument, but without merit. How do you know what really happened ? It becomes very subjective.
You did not see the list properly in 1969 much more were killed. The one I gave was just one example.

What about 850 in 10 days, what about 300 in 7 days.
1969 Ahmadabad 600 850 2500 10
1969 Vadodara 12 111 500 6
1985 Ahmadabad 13 120 800 4
1985 Ahmadabad 40 125 100 8
1986 Ahmadabad 55 300 1673 7

In addition why are you side stepping J&K ? You think that happened without support from elements in the administration ?
What about Nellie Riots with around 5000 Killed ?

In 1984 things were completely state (Congress Party Goons) sponsored and almost everyone of the 3000 Killed were Sikhs
In Gujarat in 2002 1/3th to 1/4th were Hindus. If everything was controlled by state, how is it that Hindus died ?

You just cannot make an argument evade it by giving subjective reasons, it is a stretch to say around 1000+ riots that happened in where innumerable have been killed were all without politicians support. Even the folks who torched Train, allegedly had Congress connections

by Idéfix Sun Mar 03, 2013 10:41 pm

rawemotions wrote:That is interesting argument, but without merit. How do you know what really happened ? It becomes very subjective.

So let me get this straight. In these subjective matters, I can't know what really happened, but you can. That's a laugh!

Let me ask you this. Why does it make you uncomfortable when people talk about Gujarat 2002? After all, nobody is stopping you from discussing the earlier riots, including those outside Gujarat. Please discuss those to your heart's content, so you don't feel like they are not getting adequate airtime. Depending on how fact-based your arguments are, I might even support your point of view in those cases.

rawemotions wrote:it is a stretch to say around 1000+ riots that happened in where innumerable have been killed were all without politicians support.

And where did I say that they happened "all without politicians' support"? That's a strawman. I am talking about the extent and directness of support from the top, like 1984 Delhi and 2002 Gujarat.

by truthbetold Sun Mar 03, 2013 11:00 pm

Raw,
1979 chenna reddy govt took advantage of communal roits to finish off some old enemies.
1990's chenna reddy govt was.not involved in roits. Raja shekar reddy ( ysr) who later became cm was instrumental in formenting trouble.
Jaffer shareef was also accused.of instigating communalroits in bangaluru.
I am sure you can find many such examples.
but none of them wore them like a badge of honor like modi. He did not give the impressionthat he is interested in stopping the riot. George fernandes has to force him to move army into gujarat. Vajpayee who knows a lot more than any one else was unhappy and expressed his feelings publicly. Modi was complicit in post godhra violence.

by yogi Sun Mar 03, 2013 11:15 pm

Enough of this riots. Let's talk about something positive. cheers

Never forget Godhra - Page 2 UN+Cert+Modi

by Kris Sun Mar 03, 2013 11:50 pm

panileni paparao wrote:
rawemotions wrote:That is interesting argument, but without merit. How do you know what really happened ? It becomes very subjective.
So let me get this straight. In these subjective matters, I can't know what really happened, but you can. That's a laugh!

Let me ask you this. Why does it make you uncomfortable when people talk about Gujarat 2002? After all, nobody is stopping you from discussing the earlier riots, including those outside Gujarat. Please discuss those to your heart's content, so you don't feel like they are not getting adequate airtime. Depending on how fact-based your arguments are, I might even support your point of view in those cases.

rawemotions wrote:it is a stretch to say around 1000+ riots that happened in where innumerable have been killed were all without politicians support.
And where did I say that they happened "all without politicians' support"? That's a strawman. I am talking about the extent and directness of support from the top, like 1984 Delhi and 2002 Gujarat.

>>>>I haven't read all the posts in this thread, but my 2 cents (which may be somewhat tangential to this thread) is that Modi's hands are not clean. At best, it may be a case of looking elsewhere while vigilante justice played out. The flip side is the train didn't self-combust either. The media does exhibit disingenuity in not going to the root cause of the problem. In all the sound and fury, the root cause gets short shrift. The country has experienced terrorist act after terrorist act, with islamic militants being the culprits. Lack of swift action and punishment of the terrorists by the govt and police results in insecurity (and cynicism) in the general populace. The trust vacuum then gets filled with politicos who covertly or overtly go along with the vigilante program i.e. guilt by association and murder of innocents. This movie never ends well. Nipping the problem in the bud by not giving into political pressures and punishing the guilty is the only way to restore confidence and halting the downward spiral.

by Idéfix Mon Mar 04, 2013 1:19 am

yogi wrote:Enough of this riots. Let's talk about something positive.

Thanks for illustrating the "never forget Godhra, but let's quickly forget the riots" mindset that I was talking about in my first post in this thread.

by SomeProfile Mon Mar 04, 2013 1:51 am

panileni paparao wrote:
rawemotions wrote:That is interesting argument, but without merit. How do you know what really happened ? It becomes very subjective.
So let me get this straight. In these subjective matters, I can't know what really happened, but you can. That's a laugh!

In these subjective matters, where we don't know what actually happened, those who are doing the accusing have a greater responsibility to prove the accusations. Those who are NOT doing the accusing don't have to prove anything or justify anything or explain anything. They are free to speculate as much as they want about how and why the accused may be innocent. The judicial systems of the entire civilized section of the human race is build on the "innocent until proven guilty" principle.

by Guest Mon Mar 04, 2013 1:56 am

SomeProfile wrote:
panileni paparao wrote:
rawemotions wrote:That is interesting argument, but without merit. How do you know what really happened ? It becomes very subjective.
So let me get this straight. In these subjective matters, I can't know what really happened, but you can. That's a laugh!

In these subjective matters, where we don't know what actually happened, those who are doing the accusing have a greater responsibility to prove the accusations. Those who are NOT doing the accusing don't have to prove anything or justify anything or explain anything. They are free to speculate as much as they want about how and why the accused may be innocent. The judicial systems of the entire civilized section of the human race is build on the "innocent until proven guilty" principle.

Some Poopile, Supreme Court judges have given their views on what happened. You are free to close your eyes to the facts and keep talking trash befitting a cheap low grade apologist of Modi.

by Idéfix Mon Mar 04, 2013 2:01 am

SomeProfile wrote:
panileni paparao wrote:
rawemotions wrote:That is interesting argument, but without merit. How do you know what really happened ? It becomes very subjective.
So let me get this straight. In these subjective matters, I can't know what really happened, but you can. That's a laugh!

In these subjective matters, where we don't know what actually happened, those who are doing the accusing have a greater responsibility to prove the accusations. Those who are NOT doing the accusing don't have to prove anything or justify anything or explain anything. They are free to speculate as much as they want about how and why the accused may be innocent. The judicial systems of the entire civilized section of the human race is build on the "innocent until proven guilty" principle.

Would this apply to your personal opinion of Rajiv Gandhi's role in the 1984 riots?

by SomeProfile Mon Mar 04, 2013 2:05 am

Rashmun wrote:
SomeProfile wrote:
panileni paparao wrote:
rawemotions wrote:That is interesting argument, but without merit. How do you know what really happened ? It becomes very subjective.
So let me get this straight. In these subjective matters, I can't know what really happened, but you can. That's a laugh!

In these subjective matters, where we don't know what actually happened, those who are doing the accusing have a greater responsibility to prove the accusations. Those who are NOT doing the accusing don't have to prove anything or justify anything or explain anything. They are free to speculate as much as they want about how and why the accused may be innocent. The judicial systems of the entire civilized section of the human race is build on the "innocent until proven guilty" principle.

Some Poopile, Supreme Court judges have given their views on what happened. You are free to close your eyes to the facts and keep talking trash befitting a cheap low grade apologist of Modi.

Fortunately, the so-called (private) "views" of Supreme Court judges or their grandfathers is not worth the toilet paper used to wipe poop. Similarly, you are free to jump up and down and scream hysterically about the 'views' of these person and the 'opinions' of that person. Such hysteria on your part has about as much value as poop stuck to the toilet paper. What matters is the actual judgment passed from the official judge's seat of the Supreme Court. Last I checked, there is no such judgment against Modi. Samjhe, Rashmunni?

by SomeProfile Mon Mar 04, 2013 2:12 am

panileni paparao wrote:
SomeProfile wrote:
panileni paparao wrote:
rawemotions wrote:That is interesting argument, but without merit. How do you know what really happened ? It becomes very subjective.
So let me get this straight. In these subjective matters, I can't know what really happened, but you can. That's a laugh!

In these subjective matters, where we don't know what actually happened, those who are doing the accusing have a greater responsibility to prove the accusations. Those who are NOT doing the accusing don't have to prove anything or justify anything or explain anything. They are free to speculate as much as they want about how and why the accused may be innocent. The judicial systems of the entire civilized section of the human race is build on the "innocent until proven guilty" principle.
Would this apply to your personal opinion of Rajiv Gandhi's role in the 1984 riots?

Of course! I like to think that I measure them all with the same yardstick. Unlike most or all of the anti-Modi brigade (including the esteemed members of this forum), who have a much higher standard to evaluate Modi.

The only thing I know about Rajiv Gandhi's role in the 1984 riots is his famous 'big tree falls' remark, which is pretty much a documented fact. Beyond that, I don't know if he played any active role in getting Sikhs killed and I never accused him of it. Nor did I ever say that he is not eligible to be the elected leader of India due to that 'big tree falls' remark. If he were alive today and he was directly running against Modi in the elections, I would be opposed to him due to a number of other reasons to do with governance, nepotism, etc. But not his role in the 1984 riots.

by Guest Mon Mar 04, 2013 2:13 am

SomeProfile wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
SomeProfile wrote:
panileni paparao wrote:
rawemotions wrote:That is interesting argument, but without merit. How do you know what really happened ? It becomes very subjective.
So let me get this straight. In these subjective matters, I can't know what really happened, but you can. That's a laugh!

In these subjective matters, where we don't know what actually happened, those who are doing the accusing have a greater responsibility to prove the accusations. Those who are NOT doing the accusing don't have to prove anything or justify anything or explain anything. They are free to speculate as much as they want about how and why the accused may be innocent. The judicial systems of the entire civilized section of the human race is build on the "innocent until proven guilty" principle.

Some Poopile, Supreme Court judges have given their views on what happened. You are free to close your eyes to the facts and keep talking trash befitting a cheap low grade apologist of Modi.

Fortunately, the so-called (private) "views" of Supreme Court judges or their grandfathers is not worth the toilet paper used to wipe poop. Similarly, you are free to jump up and down and scream hysterically about the 'views' of these person and the 'opinions' of that person. Such hysteria on your part has about as much value as poop stuck to the toilet paper. What matters is the actual judgment passed from the official judge's seat of the Supreme Court. Last I checked, there is no such judgment against Modi. Samjhe, Rashmunni?

Some Poopile, we know that your anus is full of piles which is why your bum is throbbing in so much pain that your mind refuses to notice that Modi has NOT been exonerated. The case is still going on in the trial court despite Modi going all out to bury the case. For instance, the Supreme Court ordered the trial court to take into account the testimony of Zakia Jaffery, the widow of Ehsaan Jaffery. Feel free to poop as much as you want in anger and pain but Modi will NOT become the PM of India. Even Advani has indicated his support for Sushma Swaraj over Modi.

by Idéfix Mon Mar 04, 2013 2:19 am

SomeProfile wrote:The only thing I know about Rajiv Gandhi's role in the 1984 riots is his famous 'big tree falls' remark, which is pretty much a documented fact. Beyond that, I don't know if he played any active role in getting Sikhs killed and I never accused him of it.

And I have never accused Modi of "getting Muslims killed." Gandhi's "big tree falls" remark was reported and interpreted as condoning the violence by both the mobs and its victims, Modi's remarks during the violence were interpreted the same way.

SomeProfile wrote:Nor did I ever say that he is not eligible to be the elected leader of India due to that 'big tree falls' remark. If he were alive today and he was directly running against Modi in the elections, I would be opposed to him due to a number of other reasons to do with governance, nepotism, etc. But not his role in the 1984 riots.

I think any politician who publicly condones mass killing of innocent people, just because a few of their coreligionists committed a horrific crime, is unfit for high office. Both Rajiv Gandhi and Narendra Modi fit that bill. I understand you want to hold politicians to a lower standard, and you are entitled to that.

Edited to add: MB posted upthread my views on Modi's role: https://such.forumotion.com/t5656-sup-court-sit-gives-a-clean-chit-to-modi#44532

by SomeProfile Mon Mar 04, 2013 2:46 am

Rashmun wrote:Modi has NOT been exonerated.

Rashmunni - your head is full of poop instead of brains. If not, you would know that a person is innocent until proven guilty.

by SomeProfile Mon Mar 04, 2013 2:50 am

trofimov wrote:I think any politician who publicly condones mass killing of innocent people, just because a few of their coreligionists committed a horrific crime, is unfit for high office. Both Rajiv Gandhi and Narendra Modi fit that bill.

I don't have any disagreement with that in principle. But I am not arguing principles here. I am arguing reality. We have to play with the hands we are dealt. In the political hand that the country is dealt right now, Modi is the best candidate to lead India. There are no better alternatives. If there is anyone better, I am sure millions of Indians will be glad to vote for her/him. They don't owe Modi anything and are not beholden to voting for him and him only.

by Guest Mon Mar 04, 2013 2:52 am

SomeProfile wrote:
Rashmun wrote:Modi has NOT been exonerated.

Rashmunni - your head is full of poop instead of brains. If not, you would know that a person is innocent until proven guilty.

Some Poopile it is clear that the numerous piles in your anus have ensured that there is nothing inside your head except for pain and anger. Otherwise you would recognize the fact that it is not possible that mass murders would be taking place 1 km from a police station and less than 2 km from the office of the police commissioner of Ahmedabad (as happened in the Gulnarga society case) without Modi's knowledge.

by Idéfix Mon Mar 04, 2013 2:53 am

SomeProfile wrote:
trofimov wrote:I think any politician who publicly condones mass killing of innocent people, just because a few of their coreligionists committed a horrific crime, is unfit for high office. Both Rajiv Gandhi and Narendra Modi fit that bill.

I don't have any disagreement with that in principle. But I am not arguing principles here. I am arguing reality. We have to play with the hands we are dealt. In the political hand that the country is dealt right now, Modi is the best candidate to lead India. There are no better alternatives. If there is anyone better, I am sure millions of Indians will be glad to vote for her/him. They don't owe Modi anything and are not beholden to voting for him and him only.

I think there are several alternatives to Modi, both in the BJP and in other parties, who are preferable. That is because I find condoning mass killings a disqualification from such high office, regardless of other qualifications. I hope most Indians agree with me. If they don't, we will see Modi as PM.

by yogi Mon Mar 04, 2013 12:23 pm

trofimov wrote:
yogi wrote:Enough of this riots. Let's talk about something positive.
Thanks for illustrating the "never forget Godhra, but let's quickly forget the riots" mindset that I was talking about in my first post in this thread.

I was trying to divert the topic but no way i intended the aforesaid by you.
As you have raised the point that "never forget Godhra, but let's quickly forget the riots", i've to say what infact is happening
is vice-versa. Never in the debates have we seen the people discuss the case of 57 charred bodies of kar sevaks. We hardly see Hindu victims being asked for opinions. It is as if the whole media has decided that Hindu victims and Hindu pain does not deserve to be discussed about.

by rawemotions Mon Mar 04, 2013 1:09 pm

trofimov wrote:
rawemotions wrote:That is interesting argument, but without merit. How do you know what really happened ? It becomes very subjective.
So let me get this straight. In these subjective matters, I can't know what really happened, but you can. That's a laugh!

Let me ask you this. Why does it make you uncomfortable when people talk about Gujarat 2002? After all, nobody is stopping you from discussing the earlier riots, including those outside Gujarat. Please discuss those to your heart's content, so you don't feel like they are not getting adequate airtime. Depending on how fact-based your arguments are, I might even support your point of view in those cases.

rawemotions wrote:it is a stretch to say around 1000+ riots that happened in where innumerable have been killed were all without politicians support.
And where did I say that they happened "all without politicians' support"? That's a strawman. I am talking about the extent and directness of support from the top, like 1984 Delhi and 2002 Gujarat.

The point of the matter
a) Your argument is subjective. 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.

b) 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.

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

by Sponsored content