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

by Uppili Wed Apr 03, 2013 12:46 am

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.

There is NOT a single Indian politician who does not have blood on his hand.

You should also ask ALL indian american academics 1) whether Modi is justified in having blood on his hands AND 2) what would have been their response to the Godhra killers if their own family members had been burnt.

by Uppili Wed Apr 03, 2013 12:51 am

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.

Rite....what made you believe? why do you think his arch enemies in UPA with all their police, intelligence service, etc at their disposal is hiding all that "proof" against Modi?

by SomeProfile Wed Apr 03, 2013 12:53 am

MaxEntropy_Man wrote: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.

Allen was actually found to be innocent of any wrongdoing. What happened with him is truly sad. But do we want that to happen to everyone who is accused of something? That is the question. There was an earlier hypothetical situation of one of your students accusing you of something. In such a situation, should you be forced to leave your job and/or prevented from advancing in your job?

by Merlot Daruwala Wed Apr 03, 2013 1:01 am

SomeProfile wrote: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.

How does one prove what a person didn't do?? If there is a small fire in the building next door, I can either rush over, trigger the fire alarm and try to douse it with an extinguisher or I can take my time to stroll over, do a look-see, stop some civic-minded neighbors trying to douse the fire on their own by giving a little lecture on how the fire is a consequence of people's carelessness and they should learn a lesson, lounge around a bit and finally call the fire brigade by which time that small fire might have become a roaring inferno.

Even in the latter case, for the record, I did the right thing by the letter of the law. And that might be enough for my half-witted fan-boys to applaud me and challenge anybody who accuses me of inaction and complicity to provide the proof. But that doesn't change the facts.

by Vakavaka Pakapaka Wed Apr 03, 2013 1:02 am

Uppili wrote:
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.

There is NOT a single Indian politician who does not have blood on his hand.

You should also ask ALL indian american academics 1) whether Modi is justified in having blood on his hands AND 2) what would have been their response to the Godhra killers if their own family members had been burnt.

Must Indian voters worry about what some Indo-american academics think when they choose their PM?

by SomeProfile Wed Apr 03, 2013 1:14 am

Impedimenta wrote:hi.

Hello.

by SomeProfile Wed Apr 03, 2013 1:24 am

Merlot Daruwala wrote:
SomeProfile wrote: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.

How does one prove what a person didn't do??

Wait what? Some fine selective quoting there by you. Why didn't you quote the full comment from where you took the above quote? I was responding to Max where he specifically accused Modi of doing the following two things. It was an accusation of action. Not inaction. The two things that Modi was accused of:

1. "the attacks had Modi’s blessings."

2. "Modi gave instructions to the police to allow the attacks on Muslims."

By selective quoting of my response, you admitted one of the two options I gave in my original post: "you are either idiots or are dishonest". Or perhaps, you admitted both? I leave the conclusion as an exercise for the honest reader.

Merlot Daruwala wrote:
If there is a small fire in the building next door, I can either rush over, trigger the fire alarm and try to douse it with an extinguisher or I can take my time to stroll over, do a look-see, stop some civic-minded neighbors trying to douse the fire on their own by giving a little lecture on how the fire is a consequence of people's carelessness and they should learn a lesson, lounge around a bit and finally call the fire brigade by which time that small fire might have become a roaring inferno.

Even in the latter case, for the record, I did the right thing by the letter of the law. And that might be enough for my half-witted fan-boys to applaud me and challenge anybody who accuses me of inaction and complicity to provide the proof. But that doesn't change the facts.

Did you read the original article I posted? No you didn't. If you did, you wouldn't be coming up with idiotic analogies like this. The original article is a long list of actions that Modi / his administration took in response to the riots, with the timeline of when the actions were taken. I am asking this for the nth time in this thread, if you are such an expert at fighting fires or riots, why don't you give a list of 5 actions or 3 actions or 1 action that Modi should have done that he did not do? A negligence which proves deliberate malice on his part? If you can't do that, please either shut up or admit that you are an idiot and/or you are dishonest.

by Guest Wed Apr 03, 2013 1:37 am

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~~ by media. no one of them are comparable with hitler. i would like to see modi as PM.

by Merlot Daruwala Wed Apr 03, 2013 2:29 am

SomeProfile wrote:Did you read the original article I posted? No you didn't.

That's absolutely right. You are a genius, you! I saw the gratuitous name-calling in your original post and automatically switched off. I might have taken up the bait a few years back, but these days, I have no interest in engaging with half-witted chaddi fan-boys.

SomeProfile wrote:please either shut up or admit that you are an idiot and/or you are dishonest.

Bwahaha...you'll need to do better than that. You might be quite happy to swallow whatever paper trail your idol hands you, but I would rather believe Sanjiv Bhat's testimony on Modi's verbal instructions to the police top brass, even if there is no paper trail to back it up. Not because I have any special regard for Bhat, but based on the actual outcome i.e. police inaction even in the face of frantic calls by residents of Gulbarg society to the local police stations and even the DGP, police commissioner etc on Feb 28, 2002 even while the mob outside grew slowly over several hours right through the first half of that day. The top cops had information of the mob build up as reported by the few cops on the ground (records of which are now conveniently missing for that day in the wireless logbook) and could have dispersed the crowds any time they wanted. And yet they didn't. EOD.

by Idéfix Wed Apr 03, 2013 11:51 am

SomeProfile wrote:Once again - did you even read the article? Did you digest the facts?

Yes and yes.

SomeProfile wrote:He (or his administration) did all of these things you say he should have done.

No they didn't.

SomeProfile wrote: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.

I suggested above that he ought to have requested central help on day 1. His party was in power in Delhi -- he should have requested army deployment right away, knowing the police was partisan and ineffective. Instead, he waited more than 36 hours to do that. At which point the Army had to scramble to find units to airlift there. An earlier request would have meant the troops would have arrived earlier.

It is normal practice for Army units to rely on local transportation and guides. Several news reports at the time, which you presumably have not read, said that the Army could not deploy immediately because the state failed to make those available right away.

SomeProfile wrote:Why don't you read up on the facts before arguing emotionally and irrationally?

I have read the facts, as well as opinions from both sides. I am arguing calmly and rationally. It is you who has been calling people names from the outset on this thread.

SomeProfile wrote: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.

Be that as it may, the Chief Minister of a state is not a journalist. His job is to protect the innocent people who were still being killed, not find ways to describe the killings that were going on. As the Chief Minister, Modi ought not to have used any framing of the situation that might be interpreted as a justification of the mob's actions. He consciously chose to do it anyway, presumably because he wanted to be seen as supporting the rioters. His actions after the riots -- promoting Kodnani, expressing no contrition at all, etc. -- are consistent with my interpretation, and they are inconsistent with yours.

SomeProfile wrote: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.

You presume too much.

by Idéfix Wed Apr 03, 2013 11:56 am

SomeProfile wrote: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.

The readiest believers of Holocaust-deniers are those who deliberately block out all news between 1933 and 1945, and then rely on all subsequent accounts. They can then portray themselves as relying on facts only, and argue that Hitler himself was personally not responsible for any killing of the Jews that may or may not have happened. "Show me proof!" they earnestly and sincerely demand.

by SomeProfile Wed Apr 03, 2013 12:13 pm

Merlot Daruwala wrote:I saw the gratuitous name-calling in your original post and automatically switched off. I might have taken up the bait a few years back, but these days, I have no interest in engaging with half-witted chaddi fan-boys.

You are doing a fine job of being switched off and not engaging. Great consistency in words and action.

Merlot Daruwala wrote:
You might be quite happy to swallow whatever paper trail your idol hands you, but I would rather believe Sanjiv Bhat's testimony on Modi's verbal instructions to the police top brass, even if there is no paper trail to back it up. Not because I have any special regard for Bhat, but based on the actual outcome i.e. police inaction even in the face of frantic calls by residents of Gulbarg society to the local police stations and even the DGP, police commissioner etc on Feb 28, 2002 even while the mob outside grew slowly over several hours right through the first half of that day. The top cops had information of the mob build up as reported by the few cops on the ground (records of which are now conveniently missing for that day in the wireless logbook) and could have dispersed the crowds any time they wanted. And yet they didn't. EOD.

Great logic! Let's totally discount the fact that the policemen were overwhelmed by sheer number of people in the mob. Let's disregard the fact that the policemen are not trained nor expected to go on a suicide mission to stop a rampaging mob. Let's just reject all simple and straightforward explanations. Let's go with the conspiracy theory that they had orders from the CM to not act. After all, if the police or DGP fail to do anything anywhere in India, it's always because of direct orders from the CM and the CM is always directly held responsible.

There you go, folks, yet another anti-Modi person on this thread acknowledges that they won't accept facts, but they will go only by their own hunch and feelings. At this rate, you don't have to admit you are an idiot or dishonest, nor do I have to label anyone. The honest reader can work out for themselves.

by SomeProfile Wed Apr 03, 2013 12:17 pm

trofimov wrote:
SomeProfile wrote: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.
The readiest believers of Holocaust-deniers are those who deliberately block out all news between 1933 and 1945, and then rely on all subsequent accounts. They can then portray themselves as relying on facts only, and argue that Hitler himself was personally not responsible for any killing of the Jews that may or may not have happened. "Show me proof!" they earnestly and sincerely demand.

Except, the majority of Holocaust-believers in the world today were either not at all born between 1933 and 1945, or they were too young to be following the news during those years. Ergo, the majority of Holocaust-believers today were convinced by the facts presented to them well after 1945.

Why don't you take a break from this thread? You are losing objectivity and logic (assuming you ever had those in the context of this topic), and are starting to sound like an idiot on this thread.

by Idéfix Wed Apr 03, 2013 12:19 pm

SomeProfile wrote:Let's disregard the fact that the policemen are not trained nor expected to go on a suicide mission to stop a rampaging mob.

Before you presume too much due to your lack of information from when all this happened -- because you had deliberately tuned out while the killings were going on -- let me remind you of a slogan from the rioters: yeh andar ki baat hai, police hamare saath hai ("this is the story on the inside; the police is on our side.")

by Idéfix Wed Apr 03, 2013 12:20 pm

SomeProfile wrote:Why don't you take a break from this thread? You are losing objectivity and logic (assuming you ever had those in the context of this topic), and are starting to sound like an idiot on this thread.

Thank you for keeping up your name-calling. I have no intention of taking a break.

by Idéfix Wed Apr 03, 2013 12:22 pm

SomeProfile wrote:
trofimov wrote:
SomeProfile wrote: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.
The readiest believers of Holocaust-deniers are those who deliberately block out all news between 1933 and 1945, and then rely on all subsequent accounts. They can then portray themselves as relying on facts only, and argue that Hitler himself was personally not responsible for any killing of the Jews that may or may not have happened. "Show me proof!" they earnestly and sincerely demand.

Except, the majority of Holocaust-believers in the world today were either not at all born between 1933 and 1945, or they were too young to be following the news during those years. Ergo, the majority of Holocaust-believers today were convinced by the facts presented to them well after 1945.

Holocaust-denial originated soon after the Holocaust. And its key figures relied on the same tactic: deliberately block out all news between 1933 and 1945, and loudly and repeatedly shout, "show me proof that Hitler was responsible!" and called anyone who believed that Hitler was responsible irrational idiots.

by Idéfix Wed Apr 03, 2013 12:27 pm

Here is evidence of Modi's failure to deploy the army promptly. The report provides references for its claims.

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2002/india/India0402-03.htm#P386_67534

After allowing thirty-six hours to pass without any serious intervention, the first of several contingents of army troops were deployed into Ahmedabad, Rajkot, and Vadodara on March 1. Many had to be flown in from reserves' stations in south Indian as the bulk of Indian forces are stationed along the India-Pakistan border. Though the army arrived in Gujarat soon after the Godhra carnage, the state government refused to deploy the soldiers until twenty-fours hours after they arrived and only once the worst violence had ended. The army's inability to rapidly intervene was also hindered by the state government's failure to provide requested transportation support and information regarding areas where violence was occurring. Speaking on why the army took so long to quell the violence, an Indian army source stated, "We are ordered to be deployed only when such incidents happen. And once we are there it is up to that state administration how they use us."

by Idéfix Wed Apr 03, 2013 12:35 pm

Here is a news story from the time.

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2002-03-02/india/27118957_1_godhra-carnage-ahmedabad

Despite it becoming immediately apparent that the Gujarat police was simply not acting to put an end to the communal disturbances which broke out throughout the state Thursday [Feb 28] morning, the state government and the centre made little effort to deploy central forces... Apart from the apparent delay in requisitioning the army, the state government did not reportedly provide ''sufficient logistical support in time''.

As for the Rapid Action Force (RAF), which was created especially to quell riots speedily, it was deployed soon after the Godhra carnage on Wednesday. However, the state government appears to have taken its own time in putting it to use. RAF sources here told the Times of India that four companies of the force have been deployed at Ahmedabad, Godhra, Surat and Vadodra. Asked why the RAF was not deployed earlier, a senior official said, ''We are ordered to be deployed only when such incidents happen. and once we are there it is up to the state administration how they use us.''

by MaxEntropy_Man Wed Apr 03, 2013 12:38 pm

SomeProfile wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote: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.

Allen was actually found to be innocent of any wrongdoing. What happened with him is truly sad. But do we want that to happen to everyone who is accused of something? That is the question. There was an earlier hypothetical situation of one of your students accusing you of something. In such a situation, should you be forced to leave your job and/or prevented from advancing in your job?

that's a silly analogy. i am not a law enforcement officer and i am not the head of any state. modi is accused of failing in his duty to protect the citizens of his state. it is not in my job description to provide security and manage law and order. of course if i came to know of any potential harm to anyone that i am associated with in any capacity, i will take the necessary steps to warn them of the danger and notify the authorities. however, i fail to see any parallels.

by Idéfix Wed Apr 03, 2013 12:41 pm

Here is another news story from the time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

by SomeProfile Wed Apr 03, 2013 12:41 pm

trofimov wrote:I suggested above that he ought to have requested central help on day 1. His party was in power in Delhi -- he should have requested army deployment right away, knowing the police was partisan and ineffective. Instead, he waited more than 36 hours to do that.

trofimov wrote:Be that as it may, the Chief Minister of a state is not a journalist. His job is to protect the innocent people who were still being killed, not find ways to describe the killings that were going on. As the Chief Minister, Modi ought not to have used any framing of the situation that might be interpreted as a justification of the mob's actions.

So, the only concrete accusations against Modi we could get so far in this thread (after much difficulty) are the following:

1. He delayed army deployment by THIRTY SIX HOURS!

2. And... And... AND... he made some statement about chain reaction that could be interpreted by twisted minds as justifying the riot.

OMG! This is enough to call him a Hitler, enough to label the riots as genocide and pogrom. That's enough to conclude that he actively supported the riots, doesn't deserve to be a CM and doesn't deserve to be a PM, and has blood on his hands. Give me a F.U.C.K.I.N.G. break! All those complaints about deploying the army after 36 hours is just next day arm chair captaincy. It's easy to come up with great decisions the next morning when you are not the captain in the middle of the field making decisions when the game is in progress.

Firstly, when these riots happened, Modi had been a first time CM for just FOUR months. So, it's understandable if their responses were most efficient and speedy. Which leaders / administration in India has a record of speedy response? Often, political leaders take 36 hours or more just to get information about what is going on, understand and make a decision on what actions to take. Secondly, what is the turn-around time, bench mark for army to be deployed in any troubled region from far away locations (there were no army units available locally for immediate deployment)? I wouldn't be surprised if it is around 24 hours. The other 12 hours in the 36 were spent deploying forces that they already had on hand and asking the neighboring CMs to send police help (which they refused to do). Thirdly, we don't know if there was any way of knowing on the very first day that army help was needed, especially when the administration didn't know that the unprincipled CMs from neighboring states would refuse help. So, let's forget all these simple and straight forward explanations. Instead, let's choose to believe that Modi deliberately delayed taking action. Let's ascribe to ill-intent and malice, what can be explained by mere inefficiency and physics.

trofimov wrote:
SomeProfile wrote:Why don't you read up on the facts before arguing emotionally and irrationally?
I have read the facts, as well as opinions from both sides. I am arguing calmly and rationally. It is you who has been calling people names from the outset on this thread.

I asked people to admit the names themselves. I must say they have done a fine job of admitting it so far. Not by verbally mentioning the labels I offered, but by their actions on this thread. Every anti-Modi comment on this thread has been idiotic or dishonest so far. Often both.

by SomeProfile Wed Apr 03, 2013 12:43 pm

trofimov wrote:
SomeProfile wrote:Let's disregard the fact that the policemen are not trained nor expected to go on a suicide mission to stop a rampaging mob.
Before you presume too much due to your lack of information from when all this happened -- because you had deliberately tuned out while the killings were going on -- let me remind you of a slogan from the rioters: yeh andar ki baat hai, police hamare saath hai ("this is the story on the inside; the police is on our side.")

So? I have talked about this earlier in the thread. It is natural that some or many of the policemen would have the same feelings and motivations as the rioters. But that in no way proves that the police were orders from the CM's office or by the administration to not take any action. So, this argument is irrelevant to the topic of this thread which is about what Modi did or did not do that he shouldn't have done or should have done.

by Idéfix Wed Apr 03, 2013 12:54 pm

SomeProfile wrote:he made some statement about chain reaction

He also made another statement that the 50 million people of Gujarat were showing a lot of restraint in the face of grave provocation -- and he said that even as the killings were going on.

SomeProfile wrote:Let's ascribe to ill-intent and malice, what can be explained by mere inefficiency and physics.

If all Modi did was bungle the handling of the riots and delay the deployment of the army, I might be willing to accept the inefficiency hypothesis. But what Modi said during the riots, and what did after the riots is clear proof of where his sympathies lie. He actively promoted Kodnani, one of the leaders of a mob that massacred 95 people. Nobody forced him to make those statements about action-reaction or restraint in the face of provocation, and nobody forced him to promote a riot leader to minister. He chose to do those things because he supported their actions.

SomeProfile wrote:Every anti-Modi comment on this thread has been idiotic or dishonest so far. Often both.

As I said, to Holocaust-deniers, any claims that Hitler was responsible for the killing of Jews will sound idiotic or dishonest or both.

by SomeProfile Wed Apr 03, 2013 12:55 pm

trofimov wrote:Here is evidence of Modi's failure to deploy the army promptly. The report provides references for its claims.

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2002/india/India0402-03.htm#P386_67534

After allowing thirty-six hours to pass without any serious intervention, the first of several contingents of army troops were deployed into Ahmedabad, Rajkot, and Vadodara on March 1. Many had to be flown in from reserves' stations in south Indian as the bulk of Indian forces are stationed along the India-Pakistan border. Though the army arrived in Gujarat soon after the Godhra carnage, the state government refused to deploy the soldiers until twenty-fours hours after they arrived and only once the worst violence had ended. The army's inability to rapidly intervene was also hindered by the state government's failure to provide requested transportation support and information regarding areas where violence was occurring. Speaking on why the army took so long to quell the violence, an Indian army source stated, "We are ordered to be deployed only when such incidents happen. And once we are there it is up to that state administration how they use us."

1. It's not true that 36 hours passed without any serious intervention. During that time, the following things were done (already mentioned in the original article posted in this thread and in another reply I gave in this thread): entire police force was deployed, 62 companies of State Reserve Police Force and Central Para Military Forces companies were deployed, the central govt was requested for help from the army.

2. The army was deployed within 20 hours of the start of violence. The reasons for the delay in deployment has been described in this article http://www.rediff.com/news/2005/mar/03spec1.htm that I posted multiple times on this thread.

3. Regarding the assistance provided by the administration to the army, the original article I provided in this article explains it with timeline:

a. Army reached by the midnight of Feb 28th.

b. The District Magistrate Ahmedabad provided 6 buses, 9 trucks and 15 jeeps for use by the army by 2:30 a.m. of the Mar 1st. Note the time. That was 2.5 hours after midnight of Feb 28th.

c. During the day 39 other vehicles were also provided to the army personnel. 18 mobile phones were provided to the army on 1st March itself to facilitate better communication. Liaison officers and escort officers from the police were also provided to the army by the morning of 1st March.

d. In addition 7 Executive magistrates were provided to the army by 7:30 a.m followed by three more. A total of 32 Executive magistrates were provided to the army because the army cannot shoot without a magistrate’s orders. Note the time again. 7:30 AM of March 1st. The morning after the army landed at midnight.

I don't know about you, but I don't see any deliberate delays in providing what the army needed and helping them to deploy. I certainly see no evidence of blatantly delaying the army so that the riots could go on.

by Idéfix Wed Apr 03, 2013 12:55 pm

SomeProfile wrote:
trofimov wrote:
SomeProfile wrote:Let's disregard the fact that the policemen are not trained nor expected to go on a suicide mission to stop a rampaging mob.
Before you presume too much due to your lack of information from when all this happened -- because you had deliberately tuned out while the killings were going on -- let me remind you of a slogan from the rioters: yeh andar ki baat hai, police hamare saath hai ("this is the story on the inside; the police is on our side.")

So? I have talked about this earlier in the thread. It is natural that some or many of the policemen would have the same feelings and motivations as the rioters. But that in no way proves that the police were orders from the CM's office or by the administration to not take any action. So, this argument is irrelevant to the topic of this thread which is about what Modi did or did not do that he shouldn't have done or should have done.

Read carefully... that is not about the feelings of the policeman. It is about the feelings of the riotous mob. The mob felt that way because of tacit support and encouragement from the leadership of the ruling party.

by Idéfix Wed Apr 03, 2013 12:58 pm

SomeProfile wrote:
trofimov wrote:Here is evidence of Modi's failure to deploy the army promptly. The report provides references for its claims.

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2002/india/India0402-03.htm#P386_67534

After allowing thirty-six hours to pass without any serious intervention, the first of several contingents of army troops were deployed into Ahmedabad, Rajkot, and Vadodara on March 1. Many had to be flown in from reserves' stations in south Indian as the bulk of Indian forces are stationed along the India-Pakistan border. Though the army arrived in Gujarat soon after the Godhra carnage, the state government refused to deploy the soldiers until twenty-fours hours after they arrived and only once the worst violence had ended. The army's inability to rapidly intervene was also hindered by the state government's failure to provide requested transportation support and information regarding areas where violence was occurring. Speaking on why the army took so long to quell the violence, an Indian army source stated, "We are ordered to be deployed only when such incidents happen. And once we are there it is up to that state administration how they use us."

1. It's not true that 36 hours passed without any serious intervention. During that time, the following things were done (already mentioned in the original article posted in this thread and in another reply I gave in this thread): entire police force was deployed, 62 companies of State Reserve Police Force and Central Para Military Forces companies were deployed, the central govt was requested for help from the army.

2. The army was deployed within 20 hours of the start of violence. The reasons for the delay in deployment has been described in this article http://www.rediff.com/news/2005/mar/03spec1.htm that I posted multiple times on this thread.

3. Regarding the assistance provided by the administration to the army, the original article I provided in this article explains it with timeline:

a. Army reached by the midnight of Feb 28th.

b. The District Magistrate Ahmedabad provided 6 buses, 9 trucks and 15 jeeps for use by the army by 2:30 a.m. of the Mar 1st. Note the time. That was 2.5 hours after midnight of Feb 28th.

c. During the day 39 other vehicles were also provided to the army personnel. 18 mobile phones were provided to the army on 1st March itself to facilitate better communication. Liaison officers and escort officers from the police were also provided to the army by the morning of 1st March.

d. In addition 7 Executive magistrates were provided to the army by 7:30 a.m followed by three more. A total of 32 Executive magistrates were provided to the army because the army cannot shoot without a magistrate’s orders. Note the time again. 7:30 AM of March 1st. The morning after the army landed at midnight.

I don't know about you, but I don't see any deliberate delays in providing what the army needed and helping them to deploy. I certainly see no evidence of blatantly delaying the army so that the riots could go on.

I have posted news stories from when all this was happening that describe what happened. You seem to be treating the one article you read as gospel and ignoring everything else. That is not the way to find out the truth, particularly after tuning out when people were being killed.

by SomeProfile Wed Apr 03, 2013 12:59 pm

trofimov wrote:Here is another news story from the time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am going to summarily dismiss this article for the following reasons:

1. The claims made in this article are not consistent with the documented facts I provided in the previous reply.

2. It only quotes the opinions of some vague 'intelligence officers'.

3. It blatantly and deliberately misquotes Modi's action and reaction comment, and like you, calls it a justification. That was NOT the original quote and the original quote was NOT justification of anything.

Nuff said.

by Guest Wed Apr 03, 2013 12:59 pm

Sorry. My interest in politics lasted as long as the analogy went, which I happened to open by chance. Did not read the rest and don't wanna. All them politicians are goons.

My final personal opinion. Enough power was applied on both the ends to save and convict Modi. If he came out of it fine means he is either innocent or a bigger politician. And he has proved his state record in 10 years henceforth. No one is clean. No one clean will survive anyway.

by SomeProfile Wed Apr 03, 2013 1:02 pm

trofimov wrote:I have posted news stories from when all this was happening that describe what happened. You seem to be treating the one article you read as gospel and ignoring everything else. That is not the way to find out the truth, particularly after tuning out when people were being killed.

I have responded to all of your articles. The one article I chose to ignore, I have provided legitimate reasons why I have ignored it. I am going by the original article I posted because it lays out facts, facts and nothing but facts. No interpretation. No conclusions. Nothing. I am making all my conclusions on my own. The articles that posted, either misrepresent facts or present partial facts, but are big on their own interpretations and conclusions. I have rebutted all the conclusions and interpretations so far.

And yes, I am YET to hear any valid points about what Modi should have done that he did not do during the riots. This thread is FIVE days old by now. Surely, someone can come up with something!

by Idéfix Wed Apr 03, 2013 1:03 pm

SomeProfile wrote:I am going to summarily dismiss this article for the following reasons:

Hahaha! First you deliberately block out all news and current affairs for some time before, during and after the riots. Then you summarily dismiss any articles that are not consistent with the one article that you have elevated to the status of the gospel truth.

by Idéfix Wed Apr 03, 2013 1:06 pm

SomeProfile wrote:Surely, someone can come up with something!

After several prompts, you did come up with a couple of items. (Look above). But you can summarily dismiss that too if you wish to. Anything that suggests that Modi is not pure as driven snow ought to be summarily dismissed. Because once you start from the premise that Modi is perfect and can do no wrong, you will have to reject any facts that might suggest otherwise.

by Idéfix Wed Apr 03, 2013 1:07 pm

SomeProfile wrote:I have responded to all of your articles.

Just for the record, this is not true either.

by SomeProfile Wed Apr 03, 2013 1:12 pm

trofimov wrote:
SomeProfile wrote:
trofimov wrote:
SomeProfile wrote:Let's disregard the fact that the policemen are not trained nor expected to go on a suicide mission to stop a rampaging mob.
Before you presume too much due to your lack of information from when all this happened -- because you had deliberately tuned out while the killings were going on -- let me remind you of a slogan from the rioters: yeh andar ki baat hai, police hamare saath hai ("this is the story on the inside; the police is on our side.")

So? I have talked about this earlier in the thread. It is natural that some or many of the policemen would have the same feelings and motivations as the rioters. But that in no way proves that the police were orders from the CM's office or by the administration to not take any action. So, this argument is irrelevant to the topic of this thread which is about what Modi did or did not do that he shouldn't have done or should have done.
Read carefully... that is not about the feelings of the policeman. It is about the feelings of the riotous mob. The mob felt that way because of tacit support and encouragement from the leadership of the ruling party.

Read carefully. The mob felt that the police was with them. Not the leadership of the ruling party. Regarding the leaders of the ruling party, there is no denying that some of the political leaders were also mob leaders. But there is no proof yet that the administration and the CM himself encouraged or allowed the mob to do its killing unchecked. Here's why I don't believe that the administration was supporting the mob:

1. During the riots, police fired 103,559 rounds of bullets. More than half fired in the first 72 hours.

2. Through the period of disturbances, in all 66,268 Hindus and 10,861 Muslims were taken into custody under preventive detention laws.

That doesn't sound like a very cooperative police force / administration there for the rioters.

by SomeProfile Wed Apr 03, 2013 1:14 pm

trofimov wrote:
SomeProfile wrote:I am going to summarily dismiss this article for the following reasons:
Hahaha! First you deliberately block out all news and current affairs for some time before, during and after the riots. Then you summarily dismiss any articles that are not consistent with the one article that you have elevated to the status of the gospel truth.

I have stated the reasons for dismissing the article. And yes, it's good sense to dismiss something that is not consistent with facts. Something that is unsubstantiated accusations. Something that is deliberately misquoting.

You are repeating the same thing that other anti-Modi people said on this thread earlier - let's admit non-factual feelings into this discussion. Sorry, no, we may not.

by SomeProfile Wed Apr 03, 2013 1:14 pm

trofimov wrote:
SomeProfile wrote:I have responded to all of your articles.
Just for the record, this is not true either.

Which ones have I not?

by SomeProfile Wed Apr 03, 2013 1:15 pm

trofimov wrote:
SomeProfile wrote:Surely, someone can come up with something!
After several prompts, you did come up with a couple of items. (Look above). But you can summarily dismiss that too if you wish to. Anything that suggests that Modi is not pure as driven snow ought to be summarily dismissed. Because once you start from the premise that Modi is perfect and can do no wrong, you will have to reject any facts that might suggest otherwise.

I never said or implied that Modi is pure as snow or that he is perfect or that he is wrong. I am only asking about what Modi could have done or should have done during that riots that he didn't do. I am yet to get a valid response.

by SomeProfile Wed Apr 03, 2013 1:17 pm

trofimov wrote:
SomeProfile wrote:
trofimov wrote:Here is evidence of Modi's failure to deploy the army promptly. The report provides references for its claims.

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2002/india/India0402-03.htm#P386_67534

After allowing thirty-six hours to pass without any serious intervention, the first of several contingents of army troops were deployed into Ahmedabad, Rajkot, and Vadodara on March 1. Many had to be flown in from reserves' stations in south Indian as the bulk of Indian forces are stationed along the India-Pakistan border. Though the army arrived in Gujarat soon after the Godhra carnage, the state government refused to deploy the soldiers until twenty-fours hours after they arrived and only once the worst violence had ended. The army's inability to rapidly intervene was also hindered by the state government's failure to provide requested transportation support and information regarding areas where violence was occurring. Speaking on why the army took so long to quell the violence, an Indian army source stated, "We are ordered to be deployed only when such incidents happen. And once we are there it is up to that state administration how they use us."

1. It's not true that 36 hours passed without any serious intervention. During that time, the following things were done (already mentioned in the original article posted in this thread and in another reply I gave in this thread): entire police force was deployed, 62 companies of State Reserve Police Force and Central Para Military Forces companies were deployed, the central govt was requested for help from the army.

2. The army was deployed within 20 hours of the start of violence. The reasons for the delay in deployment has been described in this article http://www.rediff.com/news/2005/mar/03spec1.htm that I posted multiple times on this thread.

3. Regarding the assistance provided by the administration to the army, the original article I provided in this article explains it with timeline:

a. Army reached by the midnight of Feb 28th.

b. The District Magistrate Ahmedabad provided 6 buses, 9 trucks and 15 jeeps for use by the army by 2:30 a.m. of the Mar 1st. Note the time. That was 2.5 hours after midnight of Feb 28th.

c. During the day 39 other vehicles were also provided to the army personnel. 18 mobile phones were provided to the army on 1st March itself to facilitate better communication. Liaison officers and escort officers from the police were also provided to the army by the morning of 1st March.

d. In addition 7 Executive magistrates were provided to the army by 7:30 a.m followed by three more. A total of 32 Executive magistrates were provided to the army because the army cannot shoot without a magistrate’s orders. Note the time again. 7:30 AM of March 1st. The morning after the army landed at midnight.

I don't know about you, but I don't see any deliberate delays in providing what the army needed and helping them to deploy. I certainly see no evidence of blatantly delaying the army so that the riots could go on.
I have posted news stories from when all this was happening that describe what happened. You seem to be treating the one article you read as gospel and ignoring everything else. That is not the way to find out the truth, particularly after tuning out when people were being killed.

Why don't you disprove the facts mentioned above in this one single post? You quoted an article that claimed that the army did not get enough support for speedy deployment. I disproved that with facts and timeline. Please rebut it with facts. And we will go from there.

by SomeProfile Wed Apr 03, 2013 1:21 pm

trofimov wrote:
SomeProfile wrote:Every anti-Modi comment on this thread has been idiotic or dishonest so far. Often both.
As I said, to Holocaust-deniers, any claims that Hitler was responsible for the killing of Jews will sound idiotic or dishonest or both.

False equivalence. There is ample proof, undeniable, unarguable proof for the holocaust. Moreover, many of the perpetrators of the crime were tried and found to be guilty. After 5 days, I am yet to find a single valid claim against Modi. Instead, all the anti-Modi commenters, including yourself, are asking for admittance of feelings and hunches, instead of cold hard facts into the argument. Holocaust denier! Hahaha! Classic anti-Modi tactic of bringing in Hitler and Holocaust in this context.

by Idéfix Wed Apr 03, 2013 1:22 pm

SomeProfile wrote:Regarding the leaders of the ruling party, there is no denying that some of the political leaders were also mob leaders.

That was my point.

SomeProfile wrote:But there is no proof yet that the administration and the CM himself encouraged or allowed the mob to do its killing unchecked.

You won't find written proof of such encouragement, because the CM would have to be exceedingly stupid to issue written orders to encourage or allow the mob to do its killing unchecked. Nobody is accusing Modi of being exceedingly stupid.

SomeProfile wrote:Here's why I don't believe that the administration was supporting the mob:

1. During the riots, police fired 103,559 rounds of bullets. More than half fired in the first 72 hours.

2. Through the period of disturbances, in all 66,268 Hindus and 10,861 Muslims were taken into custody under preventive detention laws.

That doesn't sound like a very cooperative police force / administration there for the rioters.

Citing an arbitrarily large number of bullets or detentions does not indicate whether the police force / administration was cooperative towards the rioters. Judge what happened by the results. An MLA distributed swords and led a mob that killed 95 people. In another place, a former MP was lassoed and murdered by a mob in front of his house, as the calls from his housing society were ignored by the administration. Atrocities were committed near police posts and stations. All of that indicates a rather high degree of cooperation.

After the riots, Ahmedabad Police Commissioner PC Pandey said in an interview: “Where the whole society has opted for a certain colour in [sic] a particular issue, it’s very difficult to expect the policemen to be totally isolated and unaffected.”

by SomeProfile Wed Apr 03, 2013 1:24 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
SomeProfile wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote: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.

Allen was actually found to be innocent of any wrongdoing. What happened with him is truly sad. But do we want that to happen to everyone who is accused of something? That is the question. There was an earlier hypothetical situation of one of your students accusing you of something. In such a situation, should you be forced to leave your job and/or prevented from advancing in your job?

that's a silly analogy. i am not a law enforcement officer and i am not the head of any state. modi is accused of failing in his duty to protect the citizens of his state. it is not in my job description to provide security and manage law and order. of course if i came to know of any potential harm to anyone that i am associated with in any capacity, i will take the necessary steps to warn them of the danger and notify the authorities. however, i fail to see any parallels.

It's not a silly analogy. It's very simple. Let me simplify it further for you: Suppose a student who dislikes you for whatever reason accuses you of sexual abuse or asking for sexual favors in exchange for good grades. Should you be summarily dismissed from your current position which brings you contact with more students whom you might sexually abuse? Should you be denied any further advancement in your career which might give you more power to abuse more students? Without proof? Without facts? Based on the hunches and feelings of those involved?

by Idéfix Wed Apr 03, 2013 1:25 pm

SomeProfile wrote:There is ample proof, undeniable, unarguable proof for the holocaust.

Not so fast. What is the proof that Hitler was personally, undeniably, beyond reasonable doubt, responsible for the Holocaust? He was not tried and convicted in a court. People that he supported were, as was Maya Kodnani.

by Idéfix Wed Apr 03, 2013 1:27 pm

SomeProfile wrote:
trofimov wrote:
SomeProfile wrote:I am going to summarily dismiss this article for the following reasons:
Hahaha! First you deliberately block out all news and current affairs for some time before, during and after the riots. Then you summarily dismiss any articles that are not consistent with the one article that you have elevated to the status of the gospel truth.

I have stated the reasons for dismissing the article. And yes, it's good sense to dismiss something that is not consistent with facts. Something that is unsubstantiated accusations. Something that is deliberately misquoting.

You are repeating the same thing that other anti-Modi people said on this thread earlier - let's admit non-factual feelings into this discussion. Sorry, no, we may not.

The article that you -- hahaha! -- summarily dismissed states some important facts. Like the planes that were reading Jodhpur. Like the statement Modi made about the "remarkable restraint" displayed by Gujaratis in the face of "grave provocation." These facts are inconvenient for what you so desperately want to believe, so you have to "summarily dismiss" it!

by Idéfix Wed Apr 03, 2013 1:28 pm

SomeProfile wrote:
trofimov wrote:
SomeProfile wrote:I have responded to all of your articles.
Just for the record, this is not true either.

Which ones have I not?

https://such.forumotion.com/t12076p50-actions-taken-by-narendra-modi-to-control-the-riots-following-godhra-train-massacre#93491

by Idéfix Wed Apr 03, 2013 1:29 pm

SomeProfile wrote:
trofimov wrote:
SomeProfile wrote:Surely, someone can come up with something!
After several prompts, you did come up with a couple of items. (Look above). But you can summarily dismiss that too if you wish to. Anything that suggests that Modi is not pure as driven snow ought to be summarily dismissed. Because once you start from the premise that Modi is perfect and can do no wrong, you will have to reject any facts that might suggest otherwise.

I never said or implied that Modi is pure as snow or that he is perfect or that he is wrong. I am only asking about what Modi could have done or should have done during that riots that he didn't do. I am yet to get a valid response.

You received a response, and you even summarized it above. Now if you want to pretend otherwise, that's not my problem.

by Hellsangel Wed Apr 03, 2013 1:29 pm

Godwin's law again.

by Idéfix Wed Apr 03, 2013 1:31 pm

Hellsangel wrote:Godwin's law again.

Yeah, that started early in this thread: https://such.forumotion.com/t12076-actions-taken-by-narendra-modi-to-control-the-riots-following-godhra-train-massacre#93409

by Guest Wed Apr 03, 2013 1:36 pm

Hellsangel wrote:Godwin's law again.

LOL. but, hey, modi did nothing different from what the congress did in the aftermath of indira gandhi's killing -- anti sikh riots. these events are bound to get rare in a connected age -- we know that. modi for PM!

by Idéfix Wed Apr 03, 2013 1:40 pm

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:but, hey, modi did nothing different from what the congress did in the aftermath of indira gandhi's killing -- anti sikh riots. these events are bound to get rare in a connected age -- we know that.

I agree with you on this.

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:modi for PM!

I disagree with you on this. "These events" will become rarer if those who are seen to have presided over them do not go on to achieve higher office.

by Idéfix Wed Apr 03, 2013 1:45 pm

More evidence of what Modi did wrong. This article focuses on the question of reforming India's police and reducing the partisanship of police forces, and it makes the same point I have been arguing -- that Modi's role in Gujarat 2002 is similar to Rajiv Gandhi's role in 1984. Government failures -- and complicity -- in both sets of riots are disturbingly similar.

http://www.hrdc.net/sahrdc/hrfeatures/HRF53.htm

Members of the state administration, notably Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi, sought to justify the raging violence with remarkable statements such as, in view of the Muslim attack on Hindus on the train entering Gujarat, the reaction of the Hindus was “understandable”. The police force had not demonstrated bias, he claimed, adding that the state had not inhibited the police and Army from stepping in to control the violence. All in all, he concluded, the government had not erred, the rioting had been brought “under control”, and the state administration should be commended for the “fact” that it had managed to control the spread of violence within three days.

The state administration was also either inexcusably unprepared for or, more likely, wilfully blind to the inevitability of retribution.

As people went on a rampage, setting fire to Muslim homes and business establishments, obstructing fire engines, and refusing to offer shelter to Muslim neighbours, the police in numerous instances either took no action, or reached the spot only after the damage had been done. The Army and paramilitary forces meanwhile stood by, waiting for deployment orders that came too late. In some cases, police officials claimed they had received instructions from state government officials not to intervene.

The handling of the riots in Gujarat bears a disturbing resemblance to police and State behaviour in previous communal riots. On 31 October 1984, armed mobs fell upon Delhi’s Sikh community following Prime Minister Indira Gandhi’s assassination by her Sikh bodyguards. The attacks began that same day. However, the Army was called out only the next evening. In its reply to an inquiry commission, the Army claimed that the government took too long to issue deployment orders. The Army affidavit also stated that it was deployed in the less affected southern and central districts of Delhi. The government, for its part, placed the onus on the Army. A (now-infamous) statement of the slain prime minister’s son encapsulated the pervasive attitude within the government. “When a banyan tree falls,” Rajiv Gandhi stated, “the earth is bound to tremble”.

by Idéfix Wed Apr 03, 2013 2:06 pm

The Modi government's subsequent actions in matters related to the 2002 riots are nothing short of shameful.

Modi elevated Maya Kodnani to Minister. Kodnani was a leader of the mob that massacred 95 people. She has since been convicted.

Rahul Sharma is an IPS officer (and an IIT alumnus) who helped establish Maya Kodnani's guilt. Kodnani tried to get away by claiming that she was in Gandhinagar, not Naroda in Ahmedabad, when the rioting happened. But Sharma obtained records of Kodnani's cell phone and passed them on to investigators. It is those records that proved that Kodnani was lying about being in Gandhinagar; she was in Naroda leading the crowd as alleged. Sharma's actions helped convict mass murderers.

The government tried to make the evidence submitted by Sharma disappear. The CD that he had submitted to his boss mysteriously went "missing" from police records. Sharma had feared this, and retained a copy of the CD, which he then submitted to other investigators.

After trying its best to suppress evidence of what happened during the riots, when Sharma finally managed to get the perpetrators convicted, how did the Modi government react? By charge-sheeting Sharma for obtaining that evidence without obtaining prior permission. If he had requested such permission, Kodnani would have walked free, and people like SomeProfile who deliberately looked away when the killings took place, would have screamed, "proof, proof, proof!" for her guilt.

If the Modi government did not support the rioters, why did it act in this way?

You can read more here: http://www.ahmedabadmirror.com/index.aspx?page=article&sectid=3&contentid=2012032220120322015947113635483e7

by Sponsored content