Actions Taken by Narendra Modi to Control the Riots following Godhra Train Massacre

Short article with just the facts and no opinions: http://www.manushi.in/articles.php?articleId=1688&ptype=&pgno=1

The article also includes clarification on Modi's "action-reaction" comment.

If after reading this article, people don't shut up with their complaints about Modi's actions or inactions during the 2002 riots, they are either idiots or blatantly dishonest.

I have no hopes for the likes of Rashmunni. But Max, Carvaka, Jeremiah and others: Will you guys refrain from your anti-Modi complaints on the 2002 riots topic from now on, or will you admit that you are either idiots or are dishonest?

SomeProfile wrote:Short article with just the facts and no opinions: http://www.manushi.in/articles.php?articleId=1688&ptype=&pgno=1

The article also includes clarification on Modi's "action-reaction" comment.

If after reading this article, people don't shut up with their complaints about Modi's actions or inactions during the 2002 riots, they are either idiots or blatantly dishonest.

I have no hopes for the likes of Rashmunni. But Max, Carvaka, Jeremiah and others: Will you guys refrain from your anti-Modi complaints on the 2002 riots topic from now on, or will you admit that you are either idiots or are dishonest?

The best they can do is to admit that they are brilliant.

SomeProfile wrote:Short article with just the facts and no opinions: http://www.manushi.in/articles.php?articleId=1688&ptype=&pgno=1

The article also includes clarification on Modi's "action-reaction" comment.

If after reading this article, people don't shut up with their complaints about Modi's actions or inactions during the 2002 riots, they are either idiots or blatantly dishonest.

I have no hopes for the likes of Rashmunni. But Max, Carvaka, Jeremiah and others: Will you guys refrain from your anti-Modi complaints on the 2002 riots topic from now on, or will you admit that you are either idiots or are dishonest?

This is the definitive work on this issue:

http://www.amazon.com/Gujarat-Making-Tragedy-Siddharth-Varadarajan/dp/0143029010/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1364683415&sr=8-1&keywords=Gujarat+varadarajan

The book does a good job of exposing Modi.

SomeProfile wrote:Short article with just the facts and no opinions: http://www.manushi.in/articles.php?articleId=1688&ptype=&pgno=1

The article also includes clarification on Modi's "action-reaction" comment.

If after reading this article, people don't shut up with their complaints about Modi's actions or inactions during the 2002 riots, they are either idiots or blatantly dishonest.

I have no hopes for the likes of Rashmunni. But Max, Carvaka, Jeremiah and others: Will you guys refrain from your anti-Modi complaints on the 2002 riots topic from now on, or will you admit that you are either idiots or are dishonest?

I am not able to access the link. I receive a 509 message saying "bandwidth limit exceeded."

The site is up and available now. It has turned out to be very popular and must have gone down for that reason.

hi.

Rashmun wrote:

This is the definitive work on this issue:

http://www.amazon.com/Gujarat-Making-Tragedy-Siddharth-Varadarajan/dp/0143029010/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1364683415&sr=8-1&keywords=Gujarat+varadarajan

The book does a good job of exposing Modi.

Siddharth Varadarajan has personal reasons to dislike Modi (just like Burkha Dutt has). So, he behaves like Mani Shankar Iyer Khan when discussing Modi. Let us wait until after the 2014 election and see if BJP made a mistake in choosing him as its face. If Modi wins, Siddharth may decide to go back to the US (if they are willing to give him his old job). If he doesn't, Sidharth may become the media adviser to CONwallahs (if he can put up with their corrupt ways).

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:If Modi wins, Siddharth may decide to go back to the US (if they are willing to give him his old job).

what job?

we were friends in college once (now merely e-friends). i don't think he would want to settle in usa.

He was a faculty member.

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:He was a faculty member.

i just googled him. he was a visiting professor. THAT is not a job. even markandey katju can be a visiting professor. it does not mean they will give him tenure.

Was he a visiting professor in NY State U as well? Even if he were, he now has the reputation (and enough left leaning thinking - thanks to London Sch of economics), to find a job.

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:Was he a visiting professor in NY State U as well? Even if he were, he now has the reputation (and enough left leaning thinking - thanks to London Sch of economics), to find a job.

may be. see the post on nirad chaudhuri in this forum meanwhile -- you might find it interesting.

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:Was he a visiting professor in NY State U as well? Even if he were, he now has the reputation (and enough left leaning thinking - thanks to London Sch of economics), to find a job.

may be. see the post on nirad chaudhuri in this forum meanwhile -- you might find it interesting.

Very interesting. I wouldn't be surprised if Nirad Chaudhuri was a British spy. The unfortunate thing about SC Bose was that, not just the British, but also many influential people in the Congress party (Gandhi, Nehru, etc.) were uncomfortable with him. CONartistry existed even during Gandhi's time. Modern India is modeled for 60 years by CONwallahs to lose its identity, self-respect and culture. How many Americans or Brits will self deprecate like that?

I read the article. I am not planning to "shut up" my complaints about Modi's handling of the 2002 riots. The article is a long list of bureaucratic actions that took place, and they are consistent with what I understood happened in 2002 before I read this article. You are welcome to call me idiotic, dishonest, or whatever else you please. You wouldn't be the first, and I am sure you won't be the last.

i am willing to condone the actions attributed to modi to abet communal violence. congress and bjp did it too but only modi was caught below the IT or technology radar. no one of them are comparable with hitler. i would like to see modi as PM.

trofimov wrote:I read the article. I am not planning to "shut up" my complaints about Modi's handling of the 2002 riots. The article is a long list of bureaucratic actions that took place, and they are consistent with what I understood happened in 2002 before I read this article. You are welcome to call me idiotic, dishonest, or whatever else you please. You wouldn't be the first, and I am sure you won't be the last.

Why won't you shut up? Your main complaint is that he didn't take action and allowed the riots to continue. The article proves that he took action and plenty of it. What more do you think he should have done or could have done, and didn't do?

The article proves your accusations to be blatantly false. If you continue with your accusations after this, without providing any factual backup of your criticism, then you are being dishonest. I don't want to or need to call you or anyone else dishonest. It's evident in itself.

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:i am willing to condone the actions attributed to modi to abet communal violence. congress and bjp did it too but only modi was caught below the IT or technology radar. no one of them are comparable with hitler. i would like to see modi as PM.

What do you mean? What was Modi caught doing or not doing? The article proves conclusively that he took all the actions that he could to stop the riots. The main accusation against him is that he either deliberately allowed the riots to continue or that he actively encouraged it. The facts as laid out in the article say otherwise.

A few weeks ago, there was another thread on this board on the same topic. People were piling on that thread with numerous anti Modi comments. I find it interesting that in this thread, when faced with the facts, there is mostly silence. Except for one person who replied to say that he will continue with his anti Modi rants even if they are false and another person who made some confusing comment about Modi getting "caught". Guess the rest of the people are just hiding for another opportunity where they can repeat their lies in a thread that's free of facts.

Rashmun wrote:

SomeProfile wrote:Short article with just the facts and no opinions: http://www.manushi.in/articles.php?articleId=1688&ptype=&pgno=1

The article also includes clarification on Modi's "action-reaction" comment.

If after reading this article, people don't shut up with their complaints about Modi's actions or inactions during the 2002 riots, they are either idiots or blatantly dishonest.

I have no hopes for the likes of Rashmunni. But Max, Carvaka, Jeremiah and others: Will you guys refrain from your anti-Modi complaints on the 2002 riots topic from now on, or will you admit that you are either idiots or are dishonest?

This is the definitive work on this issue:

http://www.amazon.com/Gujarat-Making-Tragedy-Siddharth-Varadarajan/dp/0143029010/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1364683415&sr=8-1&keywords=Gujarat+varadarajan

The book does a good job of exposing Modi.

from the amazon.com link in my earlier post:

Is Gujarat a turning point for India?

The events at Godhra and the ensuing communal carnage in Gujarat, like the Babri Masjid demolition and the 1984 massacres, constitute an ugly chapter of our contemporary history. For the sheer brutality, persistence and widespread nature of the violence, especially against women and children, the complicity of the State, the ghettoization of communities, and the indifference of civil society, Gujarat has surpassed anything we have experienced in recent times. That this happened in one of India's most 'well off' and 'progressive' states, the home of the Mahatma, is all the more alarming.
This book is intended to be a permanent public archive of the tragedy that is Gujarat. Drawing upon eyewitness reports from the English, Hindi and regional media, citizens' and official fact-finding commissions - and articles by leading public figures and intellectuals - it provides a chilling account of how and why the state was allowed to burn.

With an overview by the editor, the reader covers the circumstances leading up to Godhra and the violence in Ahmedabad, Baroda and rural Gujarat. Separate sections deal with the role of the police, bureaucracy, Sangh Parivar, media and the tribals, the economic and international implications of the violence, the problems of relief and rehabilitation of the victims, and, above all, their quest for justice. The picture that emerges is deeply disturbing, for Gujarat has exposed the ease with which the rights of citizens, and especially minorities, can be violated with official sanction. The lessons of the violence ought to be heeded and acted upon by the public. For, in the absence of this, can another Gujarat be prevented from happening elsewhere?

maybe we haven't responded because this article does nothing to answer some of the allegations. how about two to begin with (http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/02/24/india-decade-gujarat-justice-incomplete):

An independent media organization, Tehelka, used hidden cameras to capture some of the accused speaking openly of how the attacks had Modi’s blessings.

In September, another senior police officer, Sanjiv Bhatt, was arrested after his former driver filed a complaint alleging that Bhatt had threatened him into signing a false affidavit that on February 27, 2002, after the Godhra attack, Chief Minister Modi had, in Bhatt’s presence, instructed the police to “allow the Hindus to vent their anger.” Bhatt alleges that this showed that Modi gave instructions to the police to allow the attacks on Muslims.

SomeProfile wrote:The article proves that he took action and plenty of it.

SomeProfile wrote:The article proves your accusations to be blatantly false.

It does neither of those things. The article just lists a lot of very little bureaucratic actions to make them seem like much was done. The reality is that the army was deployed late, that the police either collaborated with the mob or stood idly by, and Modi himself made statements about action and reaction, and told the national media that the Gujarati people were showing a lot of restraint.

On a more serious note, he is also accused of actively helping some of the mob leaders hide. Babu Bajrangi claims that Modi called to congratulate him regarding the Naroda-Patiya massacre. Modi actively promoted political leaders who his government later admitted had led the mob: for instance, he promoted Maya Kodnani to Minister in his cabinet. His own government now admits that Maya Kodnani was guilty. Kodnani and Bajrangi have both been convicted for their role the massacre of 95 people.

If Modi did not really like what happened in the 2002 riots, he should not have promoted someone who was guilty of leading the mob to minister in his cabinet. He not only allowed the riots to occur, but he also exploited them for political benefit, by protecting and promoting its leaders.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:maybe we haven't responded because this article does nothing to answer some of the allegations. how about two to begin with (http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/02/24/india-decade-gujarat-justice-incomplete):

An independent media organization, Tehelka, used hidden cameras to capture some of the accused speaking openly of how the attacks had Modi’s blessings.

In September, another senior police officer, Sanjiv Bhatt, was arrested after his former driver filed a complaint alleging that Bhatt had threatened him into signing a false affidavit that on February 27, 2002, after the Godhra attack, Chief Minister Modi had, in Bhatt’s presence, instructed the police to “allow the Hindus to vent their anger.” Bhatt alleges that this showed that Modi gave instructions to the police to allow the attacks on Muslims.

Just to play the devil's advocate.
Suppose one of your students rapes a girl and if video/audio footage shows him under the influence of drugs and claiming that committing rape is one of your course assignments , will you be held responsible for the crime ?

b_A wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:maybe we haven't responded because this article does nothing to answer some of the allegations. how about two to begin with (http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/02/24/india-decade-gujarat-justice-incomplete):

An independent media organization, Tehelka, used hidden cameras to capture some of the accused speaking openly of how the attacks had Modi’s blessings.

In September, another senior police officer, Sanjiv Bhatt, was arrested after his former driver filed a complaint alleging that Bhatt had threatened him into signing a false affidavit that on February 27, 2002, after the Godhra attack, Chief Minister Modi had, in Bhatt’s presence, instructed the police to “allow the Hindus to vent their anger.” Bhatt alleges that this showed that Modi gave instructions to the police to allow the attacks on Muslims.

Just to play the devil's advocate.
Suppose one of your students rapes a girl and if video/audio footage shows him under the influence of drugs and claiming that committing rape is one of your course assignments , will you be held responsible for the crime ?

One can be reasonably certain if such allegations arose, Max would be very unlikely to be elected to high office.

trofimov wrote:

b_A wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:maybe we haven't responded because this article does nothing to answer some of the allegations. how about two to begin with (http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/02/24/india-decade-gujarat-justice-incomplete):

An independent media organization, Tehelka, used hidden cameras to capture some of the accused speaking openly of how the attacks had Modi’s blessings.

In September, another senior police officer, Sanjiv Bhatt, was arrested after his former driver filed a complaint alleging that Bhatt had threatened him into signing a false affidavit that on February 27, 2002, after the Godhra attack, Chief Minister Modi had, in Bhatt’s presence, instructed the police to “allow the Hindus to vent their anger.” Bhatt alleges that this showed that Modi gave instructions to the police to allow the attacks on Muslims.

Just to play the devil's advocate.
Suppose one of your students rapes a girl and if video/audio footage shows him under the influence of drugs and claiming that committing rape is one of your course assignments , will you be held responsible for the crime ?

One can be reasonably certain if such allegations arose, Max would be very unlikely to be elected to high office.

the analogies are not even related. Modi was in power. Max wasn't. Besides, if the two are related, why wouldn't he be elected to be, say a dean? When he can prove he gave no such assignment?

But as a lawyer, just coz some cop-goon is claiming that he has "blessings" from higher ups mean nothing. He could be just bluffing to make a bigger impact on others. You can choose to believe it, but technically, it means nothing.

Vidya Bagchi wrote:

trofimov wrote:

b_A wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:maybe we haven't responded because this article does nothing to answer some of the allegations. how about two to begin with (http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/02/24/india-decade-gujarat-justice-incomplete):

An independent media organization, Tehelka, used hidden cameras to capture some of the accused speaking openly of how the attacks had Modi’s blessings.

In September, another senior police officer, Sanjiv Bhatt, was arrested after his former driver filed a complaint alleging that Bhatt had threatened him into signing a false affidavit that on February 27, 2002, after the Godhra attack, Chief Minister Modi had, in Bhatt’s presence, instructed the police to “allow the Hindus to vent their anger.” Bhatt alleges that this showed that Modi gave instructions to the police to allow the attacks on Muslims.

Just to play the devil's advocate.
Suppose one of your students rapes a girl and if video/audio footage shows him under the influence of drugs and claiming that committing rape is one of your course assignments , will you be held responsible for the crime ?

One can be reasonably certain if such allegations arose, Max would be very unlikely to be elected to high office.

the analogies are not even related. Modi was in power. Max wasn't. Besides, if the two are related, why wouldn't he be elected to be, say a dean? When he can prove he gave no such assignment?

But as a lawyer, just coz some cop-goon is claiming that he has "blessings" from higher ups mean nothing. He could be just bluffing to make a bigger impact on others. You can choose to believe it, but technically, it means nothing.

Well, what is known is this. Modi promoted Maya Kodnani to Minister. After Kodnani led the mob that killed 95 people. Kodnani is now convicted, along with the others who said they had Modi's blessings.

The benefit of doubt goes to the defender. Wonder what modi said about promoting that Kodnani person after the riots and before the convictions. Did anyone ask him?

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:maybe we haven't responded because this article does nothing to answer some of the allegations. how about two to begin with (http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/02/24/india-decade-gujarat-justice-incomplete):

An independent media organization, Tehelka, used hidden cameras to capture some of the accused speaking openly of how the attacks had Modi’s blessings.

In September, another senior police officer, Sanjiv Bhatt, was arrested after his former driver filed a complaint alleging that Bhatt had threatened him into signing a false affidavit that on February 27, 2002, after the Godhra attack, Chief Minister Modi had, in Bhatt’s presence, instructed the police to “allow the Hindus to vent their anger.” Bhatt alleges that this showed that Modi gave instructions to the police to allow the attacks on Muslims.

Isn't it the responsibility of the accuser to provide proof? Anyone can accuse anybody of anything. That doesn't prove anything. That doesn't mean every allegation has to be responded to. Let those who are doing the accusing provide proof, and then we can talk about it. This thread is about facts. Let's deal in facts. Not baseless allegations.

b_A wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:maybe we haven't responded because this article does nothing to answer some of the allegations. how about two to begin with (http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/02/24/india-decade-gujarat-justice-incomplete):

An independent media organization, Tehelka, used hidden cameras to capture some of the accused speaking openly of how the attacks had Modi’s blessings.

In September, another senior police officer, Sanjiv Bhatt, was arrested after his former driver filed a complaint alleging that Bhatt had threatened him into signing a false affidavit that on February 27, 2002, after the Godhra attack, Chief Minister Modi had, in Bhatt’s presence, instructed the police to “allow the Hindus to vent their anger.” Bhatt alleges that this showed that Modi gave instructions to the police to allow the attacks on Muslims.

Just to play the devil's advocate.
Suppose one of your students rapes a girl and if video/audio footage shows him under the influence of drugs and claiming that committing rape is one of your course assignments , will you be held responsible for the crime ?

Good point.

trofimov wrote:

b_A wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:maybe we haven't responded because this article does nothing to answer some of the allegations. how about two to begin with (http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/02/24/india-decade-gujarat-justice-incomplete):

An independent media organization, Tehelka, used hidden cameras to capture some of the accused speaking openly of how the attacks had Modi’s blessings.

In September, another senior police officer, Sanjiv Bhatt, was arrested after his former driver filed a complaint alleging that Bhatt had threatened him into signing a false affidavit that on February 27, 2002, after the Godhra attack, Chief Minister Modi had, in Bhatt’s presence, instructed the police to “allow the Hindus to vent their anger.” Bhatt alleges that this showed that Modi gave instructions to the police to allow the attacks on Muslims.

Just to play the devil's advocate.
Suppose one of your students rapes a girl and if video/audio footage shows him under the influence of drugs and claiming that committing rape is one of your course assignments , will you be held responsible for the crime ?

One can be reasonably certain if such allegations arose, Max would be very unlikely to be elected to high office.

Being elected to high office is the wrong analogy here. The correct analogy is that:

1. You don't want Max to keep the job because of the student's allegations. Just like you don't want Modi to continue being the CM and being elected to be the CM repeatedly.

2. You don't want Max to be promoted to be the dean because of the student's allegations. Just like you don't want Modi to be elected the PM of the country.

Is this correct? Are you saying that anybody who is accused of anything (without any proof) should not keep their current job and not receive any promotions?

when one person makes an allegation, he can be brushed off as a liar. when two people make allegations, they can be brushed off as colluding liars. but when the weight of allegations exceeds a threshold, granted the threshold is different for different people, one is forced to make a reckoning. to state the obvious, that reckoning will be colored by each individual's internal compass. my compass says modi has blood on his hands. it is also my sense that a majority of indians feel that way and hence modi is unlikely to become the PM.

Vidya Bagchi wrote:The benefit of doubt goes to the defender. Wonder what modi said about promoting that Kodnani person after the riots and before the convictions. Did anyone ask him?

I didn't have an opportunity to. I am happy to consider anything he said to see if it changes my opinion of him.

SomeProfile wrote:1. You don't want Max to keep the job because of the student's allegations. Just like you don't want Modi to continue being the CM and being elected to be the CM repeatedly.

If Max was in high political office, and there were multiple accusations that he had helped rapists, and it was a fact that he had promoted a person after that person had clearly committed rape, yes, I would not want Max to continue holding that high office.

SomeProfile wrote:2. You don't want Max to be promoted to be the dean because of the student's allegations. Just like you don't want Modi to be elected the PM of the country.

Again, if the position Max is being considered for involves making decisions that have life-and-death implications for ordinary people, yes, allegations against him do factor into my thinking regarding his suitability for that promotion.

SomeProfile wrote:Are you saying that anybody who is accused of anything (without any proof) should not keep their current job and not receive any promotions?

The proof of Modi's support for the rioters is in his promotion of Maya Kodnani, one of the leaders of the Naroda mob. She has since been convicted in the massacre of 95 people.

Even before he promoted Kodnani, I remember when Babu Bajrangi's comments came out, one of Modi's staunchest defenders on old CH (Uppili) said he believed those allegations, and that it is just difficult to prove those allegations in court. Perhaps a lot of Modi's supporters think that as well, but think his role in the riots is a qualification, not a disqualification, for higher office.

trofimov wrote:

Vidya Bagchi wrote:The benefit of doubt goes to the defender. Wonder what modi said about promoting that Kodnani person after the riots and before the convictions. Did anyone ask him?

I didn't have an opportunity to. I am happy to consider anything he said to see if it changes my opinion of him.

yes he did say something, something really lame.

As a keen observer of Indian politics for a long time, I am cynical about applying the principle of "guilty until proven innocent" in matters of political and financial wrongdoing. This applies to my personal opinions about those politicians and their actions, not to the due legal process, which of course should continue to apply that principle. Just like I think Rajiv Gandhi had the blood of Sikhs on his hands, I think Modi has the blood of Muslims on his hands.

Both have plenty of plausible deniability, and both have numerous apologists who will insist that they are pure as driven snow. The cases against them won't stand up in court enough to obtain convictions. But in my personal opinion, they are both guilty as can be.

In general, if there are multiple, independent accusations of corruption, negligence, incompetence, malpractice, goondaism, or any such behavior against a prominent career politician, I tend to view it as more than likely that there is an element of truth in those accusations.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

trofimov wrote:

Vidya Bagchi wrote:The benefit of doubt goes to the defender. Wonder what modi said about promoting that Kodnani person after the riots and before the convictions. Did anyone ask him?

I didn't have an opportunity to. I am happy to consider anything he said to see if it changes my opinion of him.

yes he did say something, something really lame.

No contrition on Modi's part -- not about the riots, not about promoting the leaders of the riots! Perhaps this is why his supporters like him so much.

This is what the court had to say about the person that Modi promoted to Minister:

“This court firmly believes that had the instigation not been done by A-37 (Maya Kodnani), had the offence not been abetted by her, the communal riots would not have spread at Naroda Patiya on such large scale,” designated judge Jyotsna Yagnik held in her 1,969-page judgement...

In the judgement, the court has held that “Kodnani is one of the kingpins of the entire communal riot and the principal conspirators.”

http://www.firstpost.com/india/kodnani-one-of-the-kingpins-of-naroda-patiya-riot-court-442501.html

After Kodnani did that, Modi rewards her with a promotion. Why?

trofimov wrote:It does neither of those things. The article just lists a lot of very little bureaucratic actions to make them seem like much was done.

So, you are the expert to judge what is very little and what is a lot. If you are such a big expert, please list what more he should have done that he didn't do.

trofimov wrote:The reality is that the army was deployed late, that the police either collaborated with the mob or stood idly by, and Modi himself made statements about action and reaction, and told the national media that the Gujarati people were showing a lot of restraint.

Did you even read the article? If you did, you would have noticed the following:

1. The army was deployed late because the army units that would normally be available in Gujarat itself were deployed on the Pakistan border due to the war-like situation there. They could not be pulled back. As a result, army units from far away had to be flown in. Worse, the far away units that were brought in were not prepared to be immediately deployed because they did not know the lay of the land. It took at least a day for them to get prepped and after that they deployed. All this has been explained in this article: http://www.rediff.com/news/2005/mar/03spec1.htm

2a. Regarding police collaborating with the mob: I can believe that some of the policemen collaborated with the mob. They are also humans with the same feelings as the rest of the population. So, it's understandable although not condonable. And, that does not mean it was state sanctioned or state supported. You know this very well.*

2b. Regarding the police standing: What do you think is was the ratio of policemen to mobs during the riots? What do you think the policemen were armed with during the riots? If eye witness reports are to be believed, in most places, the policemen were overwhelmed by sheer numbers of the mob. It was practically impossible for them to control the mobs without endangering their own lives in a futile attempt to prevent mob violence. Futile attempt is the key phrase here. The police are not like the army guys. They are not trained to put their risk their lives in order to achieve an operational objective. Nor are the police like terrorists who commit suicide in futile attempts for their cause.

2. Modi's action and reaction statement explained (this is straight from the article I posted): “Kriya pratikriya ki chain chal rahi hai. Hum chhahate hain ki na kriya ho aur na pratikriya” (A chain of action-reaction has set in. We wish to see an end to both action and reaction) Zee TV Interview with Sudhir Chowdhary , Gandhinagar. SIT Investigation established that Zee TV deleted the last line to give the impression that Modi was justifying “ reaction” by way of mob violence to avenge the killings of Godhra. I believe this you know this also very well.* Yet, you are bringing this up.

trofimov wrote:On a more serious note, he is also accused of actively helping some of the mob leaders hide. Babu Bajrangi claims that Modi called to congratulate him regarding the Naroda-Patiya massacre. Modi actively promoted political leaders who his government later admitted had led the mob: for instance, he promoted Maya Kodnani to Minister in his cabinet. His own government now admits that Maya Kodnani was guilty. Kodnani and Bajrangi have both been convicted for their role the massacre of 95 people.

If Modi did not really like what happened in the 2002 riots, he should not have promoted someone who was guilty of leading the mob to minister in his cabinet. He not only allowed the riots to occur, but he also exploited them for political benefit, by protecting and promoting its leaders.

Promoting people when they were accused is not the same as promoting people when they were judged to be guilty. Promoting people is no proof that he did not take sufficient actions during the riots. Incidentally, that is the subject of this thread: did he take the necessary actions during the riots or not? I am yet to see any statement from you which says that he should have taken X (specific details of X needed) action and he didn't.

* The bolded statements above are disturbing and quite indicative of your state of mind. In both instances, you know the facts and you know that those arguments are in no way proof of Modi doing anything wrong. If the discussion was not about Modi but about somebody else and same/similar arguments were presented, you would be the first one to jump in to point out how bad those arguments are logically speaking. Yet, you bring up those same arguments to malign Modi. This is indicative of the fact that you just want to irrationally malign Modi and facts be damned. That's what I call dishonesty.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:when one person makes an allegation, he can be brushed off as a liar. when two people make allegations, they can be brushed off as colluding liars. but when the weight of allegations exceeds a threshold, granted the threshold is different for different people, one is forced to make a reckoning. to state the obvious, that reckoning will be colored by each individual's internal compass. my compass says modi has blood on his hands. it is also my sense that a majority of indians feel that way and hence modi is unlikely to become the PM.

In this instance, you might want to recall that hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of Germans, during Hitler's regime, made lots of allegations against the Jews. So, I suppose we should be forced to reckon that they might have had a point about Jews. Yes? I suppose we should let our internal compasses conclude that there must have been something wrong with Jews and they deserved the holocaust. Facts be damned. Logic be forgotten. Right?

It is highly disturbing that alleged science professor would make statements like these. Advocating that we be swayed by the opinion of the masses and ignore the facts. Arguing that we go by internal instincts and not evaluate the cold, hard facts. Disturbing and disappointing.

SomeProfile wrote:So, you are the expert to judge what is very little and what is a lot. If you are such a big expert, please list what more he should have done that he didn't do.

Yes, I am perfectly capable of judging for myself based on the facts whether what was done was too little or not. The fact is that hundreds were massacred by mobs led by people who believed they enjoyed the support of the government. The behavior of the police did nothing to correct that belief.

He should have requested army support right way, made transportation and local guides available right away, and insisted on immediate deployment of troops. If you and I are expected to know about the partisan attitude of the police, Modi and his government ought to have known that even better, and taken prompt corrective action. He also should not have made statements that signaled any form of condoning the violence. Framing it as action-reaction was something he should not have done.

SomeProfile wrote:2. Modi's action and reaction statement explained (this is straight from the article I posted): “Kriya pratikriya ki chain chal rahi hai. Hum chhahate hain ki na kriya ho aur na pratikriya” (A chain of action-reaction has set in. We wish to see an end to both action and reaction) Zee TV Interview with Sudhir Chowdhary , Gandhinagar. SIT Investigation established that Zee TV deleted the last line to give the impression that Modi was justifying “ reaction” by way of mob violence to avenge the killings of Godhra. I believe this you know this also very well.* Yet, you are bringing this up.

I am bringing this up because even in its entirety, that statement is a justification of the massacres that were still going on.

SomeProfile wrote:Promoting people when they were accused is not the same as promoting people when they were judged to be guilty.

Whatever else Modi did or did not do while the riots were going on, his subsequent action of promoting Kodnani is clear proof of support for leaders of the riots. This action lends credibility to the claims of people like Bajrangi that Modi gave them support.

SomeProfile wrote:Yet, you bring up those same arguments to malign Modi. This is indicative of the fact that you just want to irrationally malign Modi and facts be damned. That's what I call dishonesty.

You can call it whatever you wish; that is your prerogative. My opinions about Modi are based on the preponderance of evidence about what happened in Gujarat, and his actions during and after the riots.

we all make judgment calls. it's what helps us survive as individuals and as a species. i don't want him thrown in jail without due process and without incontrovertible evidence. OTOH, i am perfectly willing to make a judgment that he is unsuitable for the PM's office. this happens all the time in politics and in life. the latest was general john allen who if you recall was accused of writing love notes to that floridian MILF slutlet. he was slated to become the commander of NATO. they probably didn't find enough evidence to warrant dishonorable discharge, but they quietly let him go under the pretext of wanting to spend more time with his family.

trofimov wrote:As a keen observer of Indian politics for a long time, I am cynical about applying the principle of "guilty until proven innocent" in matters of political and financial wrongdoing. This applies to my personal opinions about those politicians and their actions, not to the due legal process, which of course should continue to apply that principle. Just like I think Rajiv Gandhi had the blood of Sikhs on his hands, I think Modi has the blood of Muslims on his hands.

Both have plenty of plausible deniability, and both have numerous apologists who will insist that they are pure as driven snow. The cases against them won't stand up in court enough to obtain convictions. But in my personal opinion, they are both guilty as can be.

In general, if there are multiple, independent accusations of corruption, negligence, incompetence, malpractice, goondaism, or any such behavior against a prominent career politician, I tend to view it as more than likely that there is an element of truth in those accusations.

This is a false equivalence between Modi and Rajiv Gandhi. AFAIK, Rajiv Gandhi was never subjected to the kind of witch hunting by the media and NGOs that Modi was. More important, Rajiv Gandhi did not have a powerful Central Govt doing everything it could in its power to bring him down. In Modi's case, forget about legally convicting him, so far, nobody has even been able to make a plausible accusation stick against him. Plausible is the keyword here. This is true even this very thread. I have requested multiple times: What did Modi not do that he should have done during the riots to bring it under control?

SomeProfile wrote:This is a false equivalence between Modi and Rajiv Gandhi. AFAIK, Rajiv Gandhi was never subjected to the kind of witch hunting by the media and NGOs that Modi was.

I am neither the media nor the NGOs. So there is no false equivalency for me to assert that both have blood on their hands.

SomeProfile wrote:More important, Rajiv Gandhi did not have a powerful Central Govt doing everything it could in its power to bring him down.

The central government during the riots was led by Modi's party. Even that government had some reservations about how Modi dealt with the riots.

SomeProfile wrote:In Modi's case, forget about legally convicting him, so far, nobody has even been able to make a plausible accusation stick against him. Plausible is the keyword here. This is true even this very thread. I have requested multiple times: What did Modi not do that he should have done during the riots to bring it under control?

I have already addressed this upthread.

btw, since you have chosen to bring my profession into the discussion, i have to tell you that ALL indian american academics that i have discussed this subject with think modi has blood on his hands. that must really make your disappointment even more acute.

trofimov wrote:No contrition on Modi's part -- not about the riots, not about promoting the leaders of the riots! Perhaps this is why his supporters like him so much.

This is a lose-lose proposition for him. Do you think the media will accept any show of contrition or regret on his part with decency? No way. It will spin it to be an acceptance of guilt. Anybody who believes that any show of contrition or regret or apology on his part will heal anything and make anything better is living in the same paradise as Jawaharlal Nehru.

This is why I his supporters (including myself) like his stand on this issue: he is disciplined enough to stick to his principles and his personal moral compass without trying to mollify the media or anybody else with ineffective words that would only make things worse and not, repeat not, resolve the original issue. He has sufficient sense of self-worth as to not seek approval or acceptance from anybody else with useless actions or words.

Historically, this behavior of trying to mollify others and trying to win their approval has been the Achilles Heel of Indian leaders. This has caused India to lose its advantage many times in big and small issues. The whole nation continues to suffer to this day due to some of the decisions and actions taken by Indian leaders with this state of mind. I am pleased that Modi doesn't suffer from this weakness. It gives me hope for his leadership.

here is something else i believe without incontrovertible proof someprofile. i believe you, someprofile, believe what i do, that modi has blood on his hands.

SomeProfile wrote:

trofimov wrote:No contrition on Modi's part -- not about the riots, not about promoting the leaders of the riots! Perhaps this is why his supporters like him so much.

This is a lose-lose proposition for him. Do you think the media will accept any show of contrition or regret on his part with decency? No way. It will spin it to be an acceptance of guilt. Anybody who believes that any show of contrition or regret or apology on his part will heal anything and make anything better is living in the same paradise as Jawaharlal Nehru.

This is why I his supporters (including myself) like his stand on this issue: he is disciplined enough to stick to his principles and his personal moral compass without trying to mollify the media or anybody else with ineffective words that would only make things worse and not, repeat not, resolve the original issue. He has sufficient sense of self-worth as to not seek approval or acceptance from anybody else with useless actions or words.

Historically, this behavior of trying to mollify others and trying to win their approval has been the Achilles Heel of Indian leaders. This has caused India to lose its advantage many times in big and small issues. The whole nation continues to suffer to this day due to some of the decisions and actions taken by Indian leaders with this state of mind. I am pleased that Modi doesn't suffer from this weakness. It gives me hope for his leadership.

Far from expressing contrition, Modi has exploited the riots to his political benefit. The promotion of Kodnani was a signal to his base of his support for her actions. By not expressing contrition for what happened, he appeals to the people who think that the massacre was a good thing, and that the Muslims had it coming and Modi gave them what they deserved. Those people don't openly say what they think in forums like this because that is seen as too bigoted, but I have spoken to some of those people as well.

trofimov wrote:
He should have requested army support right way, made transportation and local guides available right away, and insisted on immediate deployment of troops.

Once again - did you even read the article? Did you digest the facts? He (or his administration) did all of these things you say he should have done. On the very first day they deployed the entire police force and 62 companies of State Reserve Police Force and Central Para Military Forces. On the very second day, he requested for help from neighboring states, which were all ruled by Congress governments and which refused to provide help. On the same day, he requested for help from Army. As I mentioned in a previous response (and provided this link to an article with more details - http://www.rediff.com/news/2005/mar/03spec1.htm), the Army units which were normally stationed in Gujarat itself were busy on the Pak border. They had to fly in army units from other far away places. The first army units landed in Gujarat by midnight of the second day itself. By the morning of the third day, the army units were already reaching the affected areas. Why don't you read up on the facts before arguing emotionally and irrationally?

trofimov wrote:

SomeProfile wrote:2. Modi's action and reaction statement explained (this is straight from the article I posted): “Kriya pratikriya ki chain chal rahi hai. Hum chhahate hain ki na kriya ho aur na pratikriya” (A chain of action-reaction has set in. We wish to see an end to both action and reaction) Zee TV Interview with Sudhir Chowdhary , Gandhinagar. SIT Investigation established that Zee TV deleted the last line to give the impression that Modi was justifying “ reaction” by way of mob violence to avenge the killings of Godhra. I believe this you know this also very well.* Yet, you are bringing this up.

I am bringing this up because even in its entirety, that statement is a justification of the massacres that were still going on.

Do you know the full context of that quote? How do you interpret as justification? I see that as description or report of what is going on. I see it as a simple statement of fact. Have you witnessed a riot? I have. And that is how they happen. One group attacks and then runs away. The other side groups and then counter-attacks. The first side then regroups and attacks again. This is what is called the chain reaction. If I were to describe the phenomenon, that is exactly how I would describe it. It's just a statement of fact. Not a justification of anything. And in its entirety, it clearly shows that he did not want the chain reaction to continue.

trofimov wrote:My opinions about Modi are based on the preponderance of evidence about what happened in Gujarat, and his actions during and after the riots.

I have lost count of the number of times I have asked this in this thread: please present this evidence, these facts of what he should have done that he did not do during the riots. You presented some lame argument above about the army deployment without reading the facts about when they were deployed and why the deployment followed the timeline that it did.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:btw, since you have chosen to bring my profession into the discussion, i have to tell you that ALL indian american academics that i have discussed this subject with think modi has blood on his hands. that must really make your disappointment even more acute.

Not all of them. Incidentally, I wouldn't be surprised if the proportion of anti-Modi Indian-American academics is about the same as the proportion of anti-Jewish academics in Nazi Germany. And I am sure that like you, all of them are going by their feelings and ignoring the facts. Why should I or anybody else be convinced by the irrational feelings of these academics that are not supported by facts? But disappointed, yes, very much so.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:here is something else i believe without incontrovertible proof someprofile. i believe you, someprofile, believe what i do, that modi has blood on his hands.

No, I don't. I had deliberately been avoiding news and current affairs for a few years before and after the riots. I missed all the real time reporting on the issue. When I resumed following the news a few years later, I read all kinds of reports on the issue. Since then, I have been trying to keep an open mind and ascertain the truth. I have been looking for facts and only facts, and trying not to be influenced by my own prejudices. I want to deal in facts and only facts. Not in feelings and beliefs.

trofimov wrote:Far from expressing contrition, Modi has exploited the riots to his political benefit. The promotion of Kodnani was a signal to his base of his support for her actions. By not expressing contrition for what happened, he appeals to the people who think that the massacre was a good thing, and that the Muslims had it coming and Modi gave them what they deserved. Those people don't openly say what they think in forums like this because that is seen as too bigoted, but I have spoken to some of those people as well.

Perhaps. But none of this proves that Modi did not do what he was supposed to do at the time of the riots. I have no doubt that in a diverse country like India, there are plenty of people with all kinds of opinions. Why or how should that be relevant to my opinion about Modi? Why are you bringing up all these tangential discussions into this thread? Let's stick to what Modi should have done during the riots that he didn't do.