Fred Bauder [mailto: fredbaud@ctelco.net] wrote:
No problem if that's what it was.
Unfortunately, it doesn't meet even that standard. Pogrom is an organized crime. What happened in Gujarat was riots. Stop pretending that only Whites are civilized while the rest of the world is barbaric.
Pogroms (Which really only happened in Russia and what is now Belarus and Ukraine) were both spontaneous and government tolerated mass murder which gave the majority population a way of letting of steam, and are really quite comparable to the events in Gujarat.
You sure seem to have some ax to grind against Hindus. You are factually wrong on so many points.
1) The Govt didn't tolerate the riots in Gujarat. The Army was called in to control the riots. In the entire history of post-independent India, this Govt showed the fastest response.
2) Riots are not comparable to pogroms.
3) The riots in Gujarat happened both ways.
4) The events in Gujarat were triggered by Muslims who firebombed a train. Keep denying it as much as you want. It only shows your bigotry.
Of course, they exploit the outrage generated by Hindu attacks on minorities
Which is not my complaint. Rioting is wrong. Rioting in Gujarat was not the correct response even though it was an act of rage in the wake of firebombing the train. Two wrongs do not make a right. If you think I am disputing the exitence of the riots, you have completely missed the point.
The point is this - I want facts to be represented in the entry. 1) Muslims firebombed a train. 2) This triggered off riots. 3) Both Muslims and Hindus died in the ensuing riots with Muslim casualties outnumbering the Hindu casualties.
The above are facts. Self appointed Communist organizations which use terms such as "human rights," "peasants and workers" "union for civil liberties", "solidarity" "people's" and so on in their title does not necessarily make them credible sources of information. Also a fact is the point about the indian english media blaming the victims immediately after the frebombing occurred. Fortunately, you can still see the editorials in the archives of major newspapers and this will prove my point.
Why are you shy of criticising the firebombing of the train by Muslims unconditionally but you quickly jump to conclusions when Hindus are involved? Is it because you are afraid of Muslims while you have found Hindus to be docile people in your country who are quiet and hardworking doctors and computer engineers and hence soft targets of criticism? Shame on you. You pick weak people to bully.
I also notice that you have cleverly avoided commenting on the links I gave where Times of India in its editorials quoted Leniin and bashed capitalism and fondly wished for Communists to unite. Just as you have avoided commenting on the specific points I gave.
I think you should be honest enough to look at the points I made instead of making the "Muslim good Hindu bad" and "Islam = peace, Hinduism = barbaric terrorists" claims. You haven't commented on Arvindn, Wik and VV's urge to go about branding Hindus as "fascists" but you find my usage of the term "Communist" objectionable even though it is a fact.
-libertarian
_______________________________________________ No banners. No pop-ups. No kidding. Introducing My Way - http://www.myway.com
At 07:33 PM 11/8/03 -0500, you wrote:
Fred Bauder [mailto: fredbaud@ctelco.net] wrote:
No problem if that's what it was.
Unfortunately, it doesn't meet even that standard. Pogrom is an organized crime. What happened in Gujarat was riots. Stop pretending that only Whites are civilized while the rest of the world is barbaric.
Huh? Nobody is saying anything of the kind. Pogroms are something that white people have clearly committed--whether or not the term applies to the actions we're discussing in India, it definitely applies to Russia, and to specific crimes committed by people who are generally classified as white--and I don't think anyone is claiming that pogroms are evidence of civilization.
The point is this - I want facts to be represented in the entry. 1) Muslims firebombed a train. 2) This triggered off riots. 3) Both Muslims and Hindus died in the ensuing riots with Muslim casualties outnumbering the Hindu casualties.
Ok on 2 and 3, but 1 is just not factually established. Additionally I think the article needs to mention the ambient political athmosphere that produced 2 and 3 (regardless of the cause of 1). Adequately describing that athmosphere involves discussion of the Hindu Nationalist government of Gujurat and the climate of polarization which exists.
Fred