Numerical analysis of Gujarat 2002 riot kills

1. In the whole of Gujarat, Muslims make up about 9.1% of the population and Hindus about 89.1% (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gujarat#Demographics). In an urban place like Ahmedabad, Muslim population is around 12%. All other non-Hindu populations are so low in numbers that we can consider the Hindu population to be approximately 88% in Ahmedabad.

2. So, in all the areas where killings happened during the 2002 riots, the Hindu population ranged from 88%-89% and Muslim population ranged from 9%-12%.

3. If anti-Modi people are to be believed, most (if not all) of the violence was perpetrated by Hindus against Muslims. It is reasonable to assume that most Hindu women, children and old people were not among the perpetrators of violence. It is also reasonable to assume that most Muslim women, children and old people were definitely among the victims of violence. To put it simply: not all of the Hindus meted out violence, but most of the Muslims were at the receiving end of the violence. This means, we have a large Hindu group indiscriminately killing Muslims leading to a much higher number of Muslims killed, as compared to the Hindus.

4. Further, anti-Modi people claim that there was state inaction (at best) and active state support (at worst) for the killing of Muslims. panileni paparao refers to the "extent and directness" of "state complicity and support from senior politicians" (source: https://such.forumotion.com/t11339p50-never-forget-godhra#88354). So, the number of Muslim deaths compared to the number of Hindu deaths must be even more higher.

5. Combining #3 and #4, what would be a reasonable ratio for the number of Muslim deaths to the number of Hindu deaths in this type of a "pogrom" (as Rashmunni terms it)? 100 Muslim deaths for each Hindu death? 50:1? 20:1? 10:1?

6. The actual number of Muslims killed was 790 (not 2000 as the hysterical Rashmunni claims) and the actual number of Hindus killed was 254. (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Gujarat_violence). That means, the ratio was actually about 3:1. For about every 3 Muslims killed, one Hindu was killed!

When the population of Hindus is 88-89% and Muslims is 9-12% (that is 1 Muslim for about every 7 Hindus), when this overwhelming Hindu majority indiscriminately targets the helpless Muslim minority, when the state is complicit and supportive in this targeting, how is it possible that 3 Muslims were killed for every 1 Hindu killed? Is this the definition of genocide? Pogrom? Inaction by the government? Complicity by the government? Either the Hindu majority was extremely inept in its killing and/or the government was extremely bureaucratic and inefficient in its complicity with the killers. I don't have the time to analyze other genocide cases from around the world, but I am willing to bet everything I have that in every single case where the so-called perpetrator population enjoys such high strength in numbers as the Hindus did in Gujarat 2002, and the majority perpetrators are said to have the government's support, the number of minorities killed would be much much higher than this and the number of the majority killed would be much much lower than this.

Instead, the actual kill ratio of Muslims and Hindus in Gujarat 2002 is consistent with a scenario where it's a pure riot (meaning, both sides are killing each other), while one side has a higher strength in numbers. Even then, considering the much lower number of Muslims in the population, it appears that they were much more successful in killing Hindus than the other way around.

Those who claim that this was mostly a Hindu perpetrated violence against Muslims, with government complicity and support, cannot explain these numbers. Their imaginary allegations are not support by the actual numbers. If they have an alternative explanation that is consistent with their allegations, I would love to hear it.

Some Poopile's rubbish has been effectively exposed by Justice Khare. Read my previous post. It is sad to see Some Poopile attempting to shield and deflect criticism from the state sponsored pogrom in Gujarat.

A "kill ratio" would be germane to the argument if either side is arguing that the entire male population of metropolitan Ahmedabad was actively engaged in violence. That is not the argument of either Modi's accusers or his defenders. The violence was concentrated around neighborhoods where Muslims were in higher concentrations than in the rest of the city. So establishing a more relevant "kill ratio" is much harder. What is known, however, is that much of the violence occurred in close proximity to police stations and outposts, with the police staying out of it. It is also known that Modi made statements justifying the "anger" of the mob even as the mob was on its killing spree.

trofimov wrote:A "kill ratio" would be germane to the argument if either side is arguing that the entire male population of metropolitan Ahmedabad was actively engaged in violence. That is not the argument of either Modi's accusers or his defenders. The violence was concentrated around neighborhoods where Muslims were in higher concentrations than in the rest of the city. So establishing a more relevant "kill ratio" is much harder. What is known, however, is that much of the violence occurred in close proximity to police stations and outposts, with the police staying out of it. It is also known that Modi made statements justifying the "anger" of the mob even as the mob was on its killing spree.

So, we don't want to talk about the kill ratio because it is hard to establish. But we have absolutely no problem throwing all kinds of speculations and allegations against Modi, although they have been equally hard to establish. If we can allege that Modi was personally complicit in the riots, without having any proof to back it up, I think we should be free to talk about the kill ratio.

I am not convinced by the "much of the violence occurred in close proximity to police stations and outposts", where the implication is clearly that it was done under police protection. What do you mean by "close proximity"? What is the density of police stations and outposts in the riot areas. For example, if you define "close proximity" as 5 kms, is it possible to find any 5 km area that is not in close proximity to one police station or another? As long as we are speculating about the role of the police, I would speculate thusly:

1. I don't think the entire police force was 100% innocent and non-complicit. Police are humans too, many of them were Hindus and they most probably shared the same sense of outrage as the general public participating in the riots. So, some of them would have certainly participated.

2. But I don't think the police participation was an institutional directive passed down the chain of command from the chief minister to the frontline constable.

3. I think that many cases of police inaction was not due to police complicity but because of the sheer number of rioters. The number of police personnel was small. Police are not like the army people who are trained to lay down their arms for the mission's success. I wouldn't blame a police constable or inspector who did not take action and put his life in danger, when he felt it was impossible for him to stop the rioting due to the number of rioters.

SomeProfile wrote:I think we should be free to talk about the kill ratio.

You are free to talk about it, but it wouldn't be relevant to the debate, because it uses assumptions that neither the pro-Modi nor the anti-Modi side is making!

SomeProfile wrote:I am not convinced by the "much of the violence occurred in close proximity to police stations and outposts", where the implication is clearly that it was done under police protection. What do you mean by "close proximity"? What is the density of police stations and outposts in the riot areas. For example, if you define "close proximity" as 5 kms, is it possible to find any 5 km area that is not in close proximity to one police station or another?

Sure, here is an example of what close proximity means:
A Muslim hotel was burnt right across from the police commissioner's headquarters. Human Rights Watch visit to Ahmedabad, March 22, 2002.

SomeProfile wrote:1. I don't think the entire police force was 100% innocent and non-complicit. Police are humans too, many of them were Hindus and they most probably shared the same sense of outrage as the general public participating in the riots. So, some of them would have certainly participated.

I agree.

SomeProfile wrote:2. But I don't think the police participation was an institutional directive passed down the chain of command from the chief minister to the frontline constable.

I agree. Modi would have to be exceedingly stupid to give explicit directives to frontline constables. Whatever he is, I don't consider him stupid.

SomeProfile wrote:3. I think that many cases of police inaction was not due to police complicity but because of the sheer number of rioters. The number of police personnel was small. Police are not like the army people who are trained to lay down their arms for the mission's success. I wouldn't blame a police constable or inspector who did not take action and put his life in danger, when he felt it was impossible for him to stop the rioting due to the number of rioters.

The army was not deployed for a full 24 hours at the height of the rioting, after troops had reached the state.

SomeProfile wrote:

trofimov wrote:A "kill ratio" would be germane to the argument if either side is arguing that the entire male population of metropolitan Ahmedabad was actively engaged in violence. That is not the argument of either Modi's accusers or his defenders. The violence was concentrated around neighborhoods where Muslims were in higher concentrations than in the rest of the city. So establishing a more relevant "kill ratio" is much harder. What is known, however, is that much of the violence occurred in close proximity to police stations and outposts, with the police staying out of it. It is also known that Modi made statements justifying the "anger" of the mob even as the mob was on its killing spree.

So, we don't want to talk about the kill ratio because it is hard to establish. But we have absolutely no problem throwing all kinds of speculations and allegations against Modi, although they have been equally hard to establish. If we can allege that Modi was personally complicit in the riots, without having any proof to back it up, I think we should be free to talk about the kill ratio.

I am not convinced by the "much of the violence occurred in close proximity to police stations and outposts", where the implication is clearly that it was done under police protection. What do you mean by "close proximity"? What is the density of police stations and outposts in the riot areas. For example, if you define "close proximity" as 5 kms, is it possible to find any 5 km area that is not in close proximity to one police station or another? As long as we are speculating about the role of the police, I would speculate thusly:

1. I don't think the entire police force was 100% innocent and non-complicit. Police are humans too, many of them were Hindus and they most probably shared the same sense of outrage as the general public participating in the riots. So, some of them would have certainly participated.

2. But I don't think the police participation was an institutional directive passed down the chain of command from the chief minister to the frontline constable.

3. I think that many cases of police inaction was not due to police complicity but because of the sheer number of rioters. The number of police personnel was small. Police are not like the army people who are trained to lay down their arms for the mission's success. I wouldn't blame a police constable or inspector who did not take action and put his life in danger, when he felt it was impossible for him to stop the rioting due to the number of rioters.

In the Gulbarga Society case in which the former Congress MP Ehsaan Jaffery was cut up with swords and burnt alive, and numerous other people were also burnt alive, the police station was 1 km away.

trofimov wrote:

SomeProfile wrote:I think we should be free to talk about the kill ratio.

You are free to talk about it, but it wouldn't be relevant to the debate, because it uses assumptions that neither the pro-Modi nor the anti-Modi side is making!

It wouldn't be relevant to what debate? The debate in this thread is the kill ratio and that is what I want to focus on. If pro-Modi or anti-Modi sides want to discuss some other topics, they are welcome to do so in other threads.

Sorry, but you come across as being insincere. You don't want to even talk about or explore this topic because it doesn't neatly fit into the typical narratives on the 2002 riot topic.

SomeProfile wrote:

trofimov wrote:

SomeProfile wrote:I think we should be free to talk about the kill ratio.

You are free to talk about it, but it wouldn't be relevant to the debate, because it uses assumptions that neither the pro-Modi nor the anti-Modi side is making!

It wouldn't be relevant to what debate? The debate in this thread is the kill ratio and that is what I want to focus on. If pro-Modi or anti-Modi sides want to discuss some other topics, they are welcome to do so in other threads.

Sorry, but you come across as being insincere. You don't want to even talk about or explore this topic because it doesn't neatly fit into the typical narratives on the 2002 riot topic.

You compared the kill ratio to the Hindu-Muslim ratio in the population of metropolitan Ahmedabad and concluded that the difference proves that there was no state complicity. That is ridiculously flawed, because nobody to my knowledge ever suggested that the entire male population of metropolitan Ahmedabad was actively engaged in the violence. There is nothing more to be said about the kill ratio until you come up with a more reasonable estimate of the numbers of combatants on both sides.

It is interesting that nobody here compares this ratio to similar ratio in Anti-Sikh Riots conducted by Congress Goons. There pretty much everyone killed was a Sikh.

rawemotions wrote:It is interesting that nobody here compares this ratio to similar ratio in Anti-Sikh Riots conducted by Congress Goons. There pretty much everyone killed was a Sikh.

Compare the ratio in Muslim-Sikh vote bank.

Uppili wrote:

rawemotions wrote:It is interesting that nobody here compares this ratio to similar ratio in Anti-Sikh Riots conducted by Congress Goons. There pretty much everyone killed was a Sikh.

Compare the ratio in Muslim-Sikh vote bank.

All congress leaders who had a hand in the 1984 riots were sidelined. In contrast Modi was being projected as PM material by a section of the BJP. I am glad Advani had the sense to put an end to this Modi nonsense by declaring his preference for Swaraj.

Rashmun wrote:

Uppili wrote:

rawemotions wrote:It is interesting that nobody here compares this ratio to similar ratio in Anti-Sikh Riots conducted by Congress Goons. There pretty much everyone killed was a Sikh.

Compare the ratio in Muslim-Sikh vote bank.

All congress leaders who had a hand in the 1984 riots were sidelined. In contrast Modi was being projected as PM material by a section of the BJP. I am glad Advani had the sense to put an end to this Modi nonsense by declaring his preference for Swaraj.

So you agree that Modi issue is only a POLITICAL problem and not actually a criminal one.

Or, are you saying that if the congress leaders are involved in riots they should be sidelined and they belong to any other party they should be jailed?

Uppili wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Uppili wrote:

rawemotions wrote:It is interesting that nobody here compares this ratio to similar ratio in Anti-Sikh Riots conducted by Congress Goons. There pretty much everyone killed was a Sikh.

Compare the ratio in Muslim-Sikh vote bank.

All congress leaders who had a hand in the 1984 riots were sidelined. In contrast Modi was being projected as PM material by a section of the BJP. I am glad Advani had the sense to put an end to this Modi nonsense by declaring his preference for Swaraj.

So you agree that Modi issue is only a POLITICAL problem and not actually a criminal one.

Or, are you saying that if the congress leaders are involved in riots they should be sidelined and they belong to any other party they should be jailed?

Actually Congress did NOT sideline the leaders involved in riots. Just like Narendra Modi made Maya Kodnani a minister, Rajiv Gandhi made Jagdish Tytler and HKL Bhagat ministers. It is after several years of protests and complaints -- some of them from people who now reflexively defend Modi -- much before any convictions were obtained, that they were eventually sidelined. I will be happy if Modi and the key players at the helm in 2002 are similarly sidelined.

rawemotions wrote:It is interesting that nobody here compares this ratio to similar ratio in Anti-Sikh Riots conducted by Congress Goons. There pretty much everyone killed was a Sikh.

Well, you can argue with this claim regarding the anti-Sikh riots: https://such.forumotion.com/t9068-20-years-after-do-you-remember-your-reaction-at-babri-demolition#69592

trofimov wrote:

Uppili wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Uppili wrote:

rawemotions wrote:It is interesting that nobody here compares this ratio to similar ratio in Anti-Sikh Riots conducted by Congress Goons. There pretty much everyone killed was a Sikh.

Compare the ratio in Muslim-Sikh vote bank.

All congress leaders who had a hand in the 1984 riots were sidelined. In contrast Modi was being projected as PM material by a section of the BJP. I am glad Advani had the sense to put an end to this Modi nonsense by declaring his preference for Swaraj.

So you agree that Modi issue is only a POLITICAL problem and not actually a criminal one.

Or, are you saying that if the congress leaders are involved in riots they should be sidelined and they belong to any other party they should be jailed?

Actually Congress did NOT sideline the leaders involved in riots. Just like Narendra Modi made Maya Kodnani a minister, Rajiv Gandhi made Jagdish Tytler and HKL Bhagat ministers. It is after several years of protests and complaints -- some of them from people who now reflexively defend Modi -- much before any convictions were obtained, that they were eventually sidelined. I will be happy if Modi and the key players at the helm in 2002 are similarly sidelined.

I am aware of the details... but there is no point in explaining these to our Resident Chief Dumpkopf.

So the congress blamed all the 3000+ sikh killings on 2 guys, and again purified itself into secularism.

So only the congress can indulge in a secular riot killing non-hindus. Anyone else indulged in any alleged riot is a fanatic - muslims and Madanis are excluded, of course.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

trofimov wrote:

Uppili wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Uppili wrote:

Compare the ratio in Muslim-Sikh vote bank.

All congress leaders who had a hand in the 1984 riots were sidelined. In contrast Modi was being projected as PM material by a section of the BJP. I am glad Advani had the sense to put an end to this Modi nonsense by declaring his preference for Swaraj.

So you agree that Modi issue is only a POLITICAL problem and not actually a criminal one.

Or, are you saying that if the congress leaders are involved in riots they should be sidelined and they belong to any other party they should be jailed?

Actually Congress did NOT sideline the leaders involved in riots. Just like Narendra Modi made Maya Kodnani a minister, Rajiv Gandhi made Jagdish Tytler and HKL Bhagat ministers. It is after several years of protests and complaints -- some of them from people who now reflexively defend Modi -- much before any convictions were obtained, that they were eventually sidelined. I will be happy if Modi and the key players at the helm in 2002 are similarly sidelined.

I am aware of the details... but there is no point in explaining these to our Resident Chief Dumpkopf.

So the congress blamed all the 3000+ sikh killings on 2 guys, and again purified itself into secularism.

So only the congress can indulge in a secular riot killing non-hindus. Anyone else indulged in any alleged riot is a fanatic - muslims and Madanis are excluded, of course.

the point remains that Bhagat, Tytler, etc. were eventually sidelined after the Nanavati report. In the case of Modi nobody would have been so perturbed if he would have continued being CM of Gujarat. It is only when he started being projected as future PM that secular India stood up unitedly against him.

Rashmun wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

trofimov wrote:

Uppili wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

All congress leaders who had a hand in the 1984 riots were sidelined. In contrast Modi was being projected as PM material by a section of the BJP. I am glad Advani had the sense to put an end to this Modi nonsense by declaring his preference for Swaraj.

So you agree that Modi issue is only a POLITICAL problem and not actually a criminal one.

Or, are you saying that if the congress leaders are involved in riots they should be sidelined and they belong to any other party they should be jailed?

Actually Congress did NOT sideline the leaders involved in riots. Just like Narendra Modi made Maya Kodnani a minister, Rajiv Gandhi made Jagdish Tytler and HKL Bhagat ministers. It is after several years of protests and complaints -- some of them from people who now reflexively defend Modi -- much before any convictions were obtained, that they were eventually sidelined. I will be happy if Modi and the key players at the helm in 2002 are similarly sidelined.

I am aware of the details... but there is no point in explaining these to our Resident Chief Dumpkopf.

So the congress blamed all the 3000+ sikh killings on 2 guys, and again purified itself into secularism.

So only the congress can indulge in a secular riot killing non-hindus. Anyone else indulged in any alleged riot is a fanatic - muslims and Madanis are excluded, of course.

the point remains that Bhagat, Tytler, etc. were eventually sidelined after the Nanavati report. In the case of Modi nobody would have been so perturbed if he would have continued being CM of Gujarat. It is only when he started being projected as future PM that secular India stood up unitedly against him.

Incidentally, Bhagat was eventually expelled from the Congress.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:So only the congress can indulge in a secular riot killing non-hindus. Anyone else indulged in any alleged riot is a fanatic - muslims and Madanis are excluded, of course.

Such twisted logic is beyond me. For me, anyone who kills innocent people based on religion, supports such killers, or makes excuses for such killings, is a fanatic.

trofimov wrote:You compared the kill ratio to the Hindu-Muslim ratio in the population of metropolitan Ahmedabad and concluded that the difference proves that there was no state complicity. That is ridiculously flawed, because nobody to my knowledge ever suggested that the entire male population of metropolitan Ahmedabad was actively engaged in the violence. There is nothing more to be said about the kill ratio until you come up with a more reasonable estimate of the numbers of combatants on both sides.

I already addressed this issue in point #3 of my original post, although the implication may not have been very clear. The fact that it was not the entire Hindu population nor the entire Hindu male population that participated in the riots, where as from the Muslim side, the entire population including males, females, children, old people, etc. were targeted, means that the ratio is even more skewed to favor the Muslims. So, the ratio of Muslim kills to Hindu kills should have been even higher, much higher. That is not the case.

Having said all that, for the moment, let's look at only the kill ratio in isolation. Forget about the over all population. When a majority and minority population clash in a riot, it is reasonable to expect that for every three minority deaths, one majority death happens. On the other hand, when a majority population attacks a helpless minority population with state complicity and help, it is reasonable to expect that for every majority death, there would be many many more minority deaths.

The fact that close to 300 Hindus were killed can mean only one or both of the following things:

1. It was not just the Hindus who were doing the killing. The Muslims were also doing the killing. In other words, it was a riot involving both sides. Not a genocide or a pogrom.

2. The forces of the state killed Hindus in order to stop the rioting. In other words, the state was not complicit actively or passively in the riots.

If you want to ignore all these logical and reasonable conclusions, if you want to ignore the real, factual numbers because they don't support your conclusions, that means you are dishonest in this discussion and there is no point in talking with you any more.

In this context, it is idiotic to compare Tytler and Bhagat to Modi. Tytler and Bhagat were actually out in the streets, personally leading the attacks. There are lots of allegations against Modi, but none of them accuse him of actually being out in the streets. So, if we are going to talk about 1984, the correct person to compare Modi to would be Rajiv Gandhi. And, if anyone claims that if Rajiv Gandhi were alive today he would have been "sidelined" from politics due to his role in the 1984 riots, then he/she is an idiot. Rajiv Gandhi became the PM, he was the head of his party. If he were alive today, he would either be the PM or he would be the PM candidate in the next elections. The same criteria should apply to Modi also.

SomeProfile wrote:The fact that close to 300 Hindus were killed can mean only one or both of the following things:

1. It was not just the Hindus who were doing the killing. The Muslims were also doing the killing. In other words, it was a riot involving both sides. Not a genocide or a pogrom.

2. The forces of the state killed Hindus in order to stop the rioting. In other words, the state was not complicit actively or passively in the riots.

I think the portions of your statements that I highlighted above both happened. But the rest is leaps of logic. I am calling the Gujarat violence of 2002 "riots" or "rioting" for a reason. I am not calling it genocide. If the forces of the state killed some Hindus to stop the rioting, that does not rule out state complicity.

SomeProfile wrote:In this context, it is idiotic to compare Tytler and Bhagat to Modi. Tytler and Bhagat were actually out in the streets, personally leading the attacks. There are lots of allegations against Modi, but none of them accuse him of actually being out in the streets. So, if we are going to talk about 1984, the correct person to compare Modi to would be Rajiv Gandhi. And, if anyone claims that if Rajiv Gandhi were alive today he would have been "sidelined" from politics due to his role in the 1984 riots, then he/she is an idiot. Rajiv Gandhi became the PM, he was the head of his party. If he were alive today, he would either be the PM or he would be the PM candidate in the next elections. The same criteria should apply to Modi also.

You can call me any names you like, but if Rajiv Gandhi were alive today, I would consider him just as unfit for high office as I consider Modi. I think condoning mass murder is a disqualification, and that's that.

trofimov wrote:

rawemotions wrote:It is interesting that nobody here compares this ratio to similar ratio in Anti-Sikh Riots conducted by Congress Goons. There pretty much everyone killed was a Sikh.

Well, you can argue with this claim regarding the anti-Sikh riots: https://such.forumotion.com/t9068-20-years-after-do-you-remember-your-reaction-at-babri-demolition#69592

It is incorrect to characterize the riot as a riot between two religions. It was a riot where Sikhs were systematically targeted by Congress goons and anti-socials, (a overwhelming majority of them being Hindus is incidental)

trofimov wrote:

SomeProfile wrote:The fact that close to 300 Hindus were killed can mean only one or both of the following things:

1. It was not just the Hindus who were doing the killing. The Muslims were also doing the killing. In other words, it was a riot involving both sides. Not a genocide or a pogrom.

2. The forces of the state killed Hindus in order to stop the rioting. In other words, the state was not complicit actively or passively in the riots.

I think the portions of your statements that I highlighted above both happened. But the rest is leaps of logic. I am calling the Gujarat violence of 2002 "riots" or "rioting" for a reason. I am not calling it genocide. If the forces of the state killed some Hindus to stop the rioting, that does not rule out state complicity.

Condoning any criminal is bad. The entire system needs cleaning up - the rapists, looters, killers, goons, etc.. should all be thrown out of representative politics. Some of the current politicians are such high rated criminals they will qualify for mass murderer title.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

trofimov wrote:

SomeProfile wrote:The fact that close to 300 Hindus were killed can mean only one or both of the following things:

1. It was not just the Hindus who were doing the killing. The Muslims were also doing the killing. In other words, it was a riot involving both sides. Not a genocide or a pogrom.

2. The forces of the state killed Hindus in order to stop the rioting. In other words, the state was not complicit actively or passively in the riots.

I think the portions of your statements that I highlighted above both happened. But the rest is leaps of logic. I am calling the Gujarat violence of 2002 "riots" or "rioting" for a reason. I am not calling it genocide. If the forces of the state killed some Hindus to stop the rioting, that does not rule out state complicity.

Condoning any criminal is bad. The entire system needs cleaning up - the rapists, looters, killers, goons, etc.. should all be thrown out of representative politics. Some of the current politicians are such high rated criminals they will qualify for mass murderer title.

Hey, hey hey! I thought you extended the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" to everyone, including rapists, looters, killers, goons, etc.? No? Or is that "principle" only for Modiji?