Jump to content

Talk:2002 Gujarat riots/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Archived on 12:31, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Lack of history and context

No event can be viewed in isolation. A little bit of india's riot history will provide a much greater understanding to an avg. reader who may not know about it. Godhra killing may be the immediate provocation of post-godhra riots but it cannot be dubbed as the only reason. Just like WW1 played an indirect role in causing WW2. Similarly, Past riots like 1980 riots (which lasted longer then 2002 riots and is full of bloody incidents like dabgarvaad massacre) played an indirect role in causing 2002 riots.

India has a long history of riots some like Great-Calcutta-Killing, Post-Indira Gandhi, Post-Mahatma Gandhi, Mopllah Rebellion, Ahmedabad rath-yatra etc. Some of them were much more bigger then post-godhra riot. Why focus on few of them and white-wash all others?


Wikipedia is on online encyclopedia. Information is entered here not for propaganda but for the sake of information. Feel free to add articles related to other riots as well. I'll contribute to them to the best of my ability. Gaurav Arora 21:53, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

NPOV compromised. Article's Defect

-The fact that Fire-bombing and fire happened at the same-time at same-spot is suppressed. -Fire-bombing and train attacks are an important fact. This fact is not mentioned. -An important fact that most passengers who died were women and children is omitted. Their death is dubbed as death of 'Kar Sevak' who had a dispute with tea-vendor. -Fact that couch S6 was a ladies-only couch is missing. On the other hand, Brazen lies eg. abduction of girl are mentioned in the article.

Thanks for pointing it out. I've included the fact that the coach was reserved for women & children in the introduction, as were reportedly most of the train fire victims. The current version of the introduction gives equal coverage to all the hypotheses without asserting any of them as fact. I accept that there was a fire. I don't assert that it was an accident, nor do I assert that it was an attack. These are two of the hypotheses put forward by different agencies. Please check the intro for subtle NPOV points that I may have missed. -- Brhaspati (talk, contribs) 08:38, 2005 Feb 28 (UTC)
I think the paragraph is pertty NPOV. As the official enquiry is still ongoing, until the courts establish what really happened we cannnot support one hyposthesis over the other. We also need to work on the rest of the article as a number of paragraphs are still pretty POV. kaal 18:16, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A more balanced view

I edited the discussion of how the riots started in order to present a more neutral point of view. What is known that 58 Hindu pilgrims died due to a firebombing of a train by an alleged Muslim mob. Whether the mob did it or not, subsequent riots killed at least 1000 people, mostly Muslims. user: 67.106.157.231

Frankly, those statistics too are disputed. I would like to divert your attention to a report by REDIFF a considerably balanced newspaper. The death toll is about nine hundred. The media although often says "mostly muslims" i doubt that the hindu deaths are much smaller in number. csjoshi

arrests of alleged perpetrators and alleged torture

Removed the sentences on torture and harassment. This edit was POV, in the sense that it is incomplete and seems to suggest a portrayal of sympathy in the arresting of alleged Muslim perpetrators and a sense of retribution in the fact that the alleged Hindu perpetrators have been recognised as such and punished. When one deals with such topics one has a responsibility, even while presenting facts, to present it in a neutral and palatable manner. One can't put just the facts that one chooses to know and ignore other facts. A partial or incomplete truth could do a greater damage than a blatant lie. Please give a balanced argument, it is precisely these kind of arguments that is making moderate, neutral people in India go to extremes and inciting the revert wars.

POTA was brought to combat terrorism attacks in India- who ever may have caused it; if you want to discuss the problems of implememnting POTA where innocent people also are affected(I don't know about that), then it belongs to that discussion. Please don't link it directly to this one incident so that further hate wars are avoided.KRS 02:45, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

With due respects to your viewpoint, I fail to see how quoting a reputed human rights organisation, becomes a PoV. Seeing that the source link is still there as a part of External Links in the article; I would expect that the source can be quoted in the article without any qualms. At least in wikipedia, Amnesty International (AI) is yet to recieve any negative comments or disputed claims (Check Amnesty International.) So, as a reader I would expect the claims of AI to hold a lot of weight. The website of AI contains only two articles related to the incident, one immediately after the incident, and the other recently published (The latter was quoted.) And if AI, deemed it fit to mention this "side of the story" (as always, there is more than one), I would expect a lot of people to believe AI's judgement of the severity of the crimes in "this side" than on the "other side".
Regarding your views that crimes under POTA can be described under the appropriate section, I would say that AI chose to title the article
India - Abuse of the law in Gujarat. Muslims detained illegally in Ahmedabad
and not as
Human rights violations under POTA
So, it is fairly obvious, that AI views the crimes not under the "seemingly bigger" picture of "POTA abuse", but as a specific case of wrongful retribution against one particular community.
None of what is stated above is my PoV of the incident. However, I would like the more forceful, and accepted claims on the incident given the appropriate weightage. If you still feel, it amounts to "partially presenting the facts", you are welcome to complete the picture, by quoting alternate reputed sources that balance the viewpoint, but not by deleting a reference to a potentially powerful indicator to the true picture. I am waiting for your response before reverting the edit chance 06:54, Nov 26, 2003 (UTC)
I must confess that I don't know much of the facts for the other side and I don't have the time to research and present it. So you can revert if you want to. But if one reads through the page one gets an impression that there is some subtle connection established in the way the whole paragraph is worded. Probably rewriting the sentences might help.
Though I am not up-to-date on current affairs(thats why I can't actively participate in this page),I know enough to get worried about the general tone of all the India related articles where there seems to be crusades going on at two extremes- tending towards left or right( I followed the mailing list). I know that the way the English media in India reported the incidents has made ordinary people react in a much more harsher way. One need not go the extreme left to counter the right, which is what seems to be happening in some India related articles in wikipedia.
For example, if you take incident 1- the train fire, it is constantly left ambiguous and reverted to reflect concrete proof and not speculations though we all know what happened. This is good and NPOV. But when you take incident 2- the riots, it was titled as active 'killings' before I changed it to riots. This is not good and POV. Why should this be the case when the trials are still ongoing? Why not just say people were killed in the riots, mostly Muslims, which is equally bad in meaning but not inciteful? As a very neutral person who has minimal interest in politics, if I seem to get hassled by such phraseology, one has to imagine the effect it would have on the extreme right side. I think there is an element of moral responsibility in presenting the truth in an acceptable manner. KRS 16:51, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)


Dear User:KRS,

You wrote

a sense of retribution in the fact that the alleged Hindu perpetrators have been recognised as such and punished.

i do not understand this. In the text i added yesterday, there was nothing about any of the arrested alleged perpetrators being people who identify themselves as Hindu. The most interesting information which should be added (if someone can find it and reference it) would be if they are members of the Sangh Parivar.

Maybe you are referring to information which you know but which hasn't been included yet in the text? In any case, i don't understand.

You wrote

One can't put just the facts that one chooses to know and ignore other facts. A partial or incomplete truth could do a greater damage than a blatant lie.

Agree with the first sentence.

i also agree with the second sentence, but only in the context where the statement is widely distributed without the practical possibility of rapid negative feedback. For example, if the Gujarati language press or the English-language press in Gujarat present a partial or incomplete truth regarding political/religious conflict to one crore (10 million) people, your second sentence is extremely relevant.

But wikipedia is very different. Long before even one lakh (100 000) people can read a correct but incomplete truth on the wikipedia, there is a very high chance of negative feedback adding more correct information.

I must confess that I don't know much of the facts for the other side and I don't have the time to research and present it.

Well, the rest of us do make some efforts to seek the facts. If you don't have the time, someone else will sooner or later seek the facts and complete the information. Probably by the time 100 or so people have read it, or maybe 1000 people. In any case, long before the reading audience reaches one lakh or one crore, the article (or any similar article) should have reached a pretty good consensus on what are agreed facts and what are the different POVs.

Boud 20:11, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

To Boud: Though you are logically right, in such a situation, it is best to exercise some discretion. The page is not a topic that can be built up incrementally and unanimously. It has two sides to present and if a neutral well informed person builds up more on one side than the other, it might generate lots of alienation and negative feeling as I witnessed in the mailing list. We have enough of violence in the world without having to generate some more of our own. The issue is not of 1 lakh or 1 crore audience, if you manage to stir one person into a negative feeling, that is enough violence generated to be multiplied on and on.KRS 12:51, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
To KRS and Boud:
it might generate lots of alienation and negative feeling as I witnessed in the mailing list. We have enough of violence in the world without having to generate some more of our own. The issue is not of 1 lakh or 1 crore audience, if you manage to stir one person into a negative feeling, that is enough violence generated to be multiplied on and on.
I have nothing to say regarding the flow of the article itself, or the points it presents. My only two pence is/was that one cannot simply let some "acknowledged" and "reputed" sources unsaid, just because it is unpleasant to a few who may read it. After all, this is a page on riots. If we do away with all talks of violence, we may have to bring down quite a lot of history. That would be quite dystopic, wouldnt it? A person who is here on wikipedia, reading about the violence in Gujarat, HAS to be stirred. That is the purpose of reporting history. To inform humanity, the way it had taken. If the person is stirred to an unbiased disgust over the violence, that is only commendably human. But, a person who gets stirred to a "negative feeling" as KRS puts it and into a feeling of "misplaced retribution", should he/she be considered a fault of history itself? In this world of information explosion, one gets what he wants to hear anyway. It is the individual's choice to pick what he needs and reject the rest. Considering that, an encyclopedia need/should not be a hesitant effort towards presenting history as has been reported and need/should not worry if what it reports will negatively affect a person.
But, having said all that, I desist from reverting the edit. Firstly, because the "owner" of the edit is here, anyway. Secondly, because the source is in the External Links and hence, the deletion doesnt affect the overall neutrality of the article in any big way. I consider it not very worthwhile, to pursue the issue any more. Thirdly because, I am not able to judge if the flow of the article is perfect right now. It seems pretty chaotic still, as a result of the see-saw edit war prior to and after BCorr ¤ Брайен 's mediation process. And a line as minor as that, I feel can wait before finding the "light of the day" :-) chance 14:20, Nov 27, 2003 (UTC)
My feeling is that the deletion does affect the overall neutrality of the article. A NPOV should make it possible to understand each POV by presenting the claimed evidence, without claiming which POV is correct. Without describing the alleged torture of alleged muslim conspirators, someone believing the POV that this was largely an anti-muslim pogrom would be confused as to why muslims are arrested. However, the POV that muslims conspired to organise riots is clear as a POV whether or not the claim of the muslim arrestees being tortured is included. So i'm putting back According to Amnesty International, the arrestees have been subjected to arbitrary and illegal and incommunicado detention, have been denied access to lawyers, relatives, and medical attention, and have been tortured. [1] Boud 22:16, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

the daughter

The article currently says "they abducted his young daughter, they took her in the S-6 coach, locked its doors and closed the windows". "Took her" can be used to mean forcible sexual intercourse, a meaning reinforced by the listing of abduction and taking her as two different activities. Is that the meaning intended? If it isn't, perhaps this should be reworded to "they abducted his young daughter, taking her to the S-6 coach, locking its doors and closing the windows." Jamesday

done - took her to removes the possible misinterpretation IMHO Boud 22:26, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Thanks. That took care of it - no more room for minsinterpretation. Jamesday 13:55, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I edited the discussion of how the riots started to present a more neutral point of view. What is known that 58 Hindu pilgrims died due to a firebombing of a train by an alleged Muslim mob. Whether the mob did it or not, subsequent riots killed at least 1000 people, mostly Muslims. user: 67.106.157.231

Wikipedia:Current disputes over articles

There's a rather intense little edit war happening -- if that's the right term for someone adding in serious POV and other repeatedly reverting it to the NPOV version. see the page history. -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 05:12, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The edit war (if such) is continuing. Either LibertarianAnarchist or Democrate2003 is repeatedly reverting to what appears to me a far less balanced article, sometimes coming back after a break of several hours. I added an NPOV notice to that version, which still exists, but I think at this point the page needs to be reverted and protected. In addition, LA is making questionable edits on other pages, such as Babri Mosque, (and can anyone verify the new info on Mount Everest?), and D2003 has made what seem POV changes to Jammu and Kashmir and (maybe) Kashmir. This looks like it's becoming a serious problem. -- VV 05:23, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I should also add that similar questionable alterations have been made to Genocide, but have all been undone (and discussed on Talk:Genocide). -- VV 05:26, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Can someone intervene on this? The same war is continuing unabated, this time with the latest user incarnation Conradx, whose sole contributions to date have been to this article and its talk page. (However, notably, his/her latest version is a vast improvement, POV-wise, over the previous one, giving some glimmer of hope for consensus.) -- VV 00:15, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Hello, I am LibertarianAnarchist. It is sad to see that you propagate the Communist POV. I am open to a neutal investigation on this issue. I am sorry to say this but your questioning my point on Radhanath Sikdar shows that you either hate Indians which is to say you are a racist or you are a Communist from India since all Indians know about Radhanath Sikdar and only Communists deliberately deny it.

All points on Babri Mosque are correct and verified. I removed all points which were pointed out to be unverified allegations. Notice how your friend Arvindn propagates ALLEGATIONS and posts them everywhere. By that logic, shouldn't the massacre at Jedwabne make the list on the Genocide page? I came across the information while reading a book and I made a sincere post. It is sad that VV, Arvindn, Wik and Boud have been hunting down my posts and editing them.

Note that if I make a single post on any Indian mailing list, you'll get thousands of people posting on Wikipedia and your dreams of propagating the Communist Party of India's fictitious propaganda will be shattered. I suggest you not resort to jingoism of CPI(M) and discuss things in a rational manner and I am sure we can come to some agreement.

On Gujarat, why don't you or some neutral person contact the person named in the chain email since his phone number is given there and you will see that I am right.

I've also noticed that whenever Communists make unsubstantiated allegations, you post them as one part of a controversy while you want only facts and no allegations if it suits you! That is amazing.

Your post on Kashmir denying that India is a secular country also proves that you are here wih an agenda.

I think all contentious posts be investigated by REALLY neutral people and Wikipedia not be made an outlet for the propaganda of Communist Party of India (Marxist).

Hi. Okay, lots to say. First, I did not deny the point on Sikdar; I asked if anyone could verify it, because (obviously) I don't know. I don't see how asking the question makes me an Indian-hater or a Communist, and I don't think such accusations are productive. I am in fact fairly neutral, knowing little about the Gujarat riots, the Babri Mosque, and so on. (I even suspect some of your facts may be right, but that does not make them neutral.) But many of your edits are problematic on their face, regardless of the facts. Your reckless accusations of everyone being communists is a case in point. I find the suggestion laughable that I possess "dreams of propagating the Communist Party of India's fictitious propaganda"; I'd never heard of the CPI until this dispute.
I did not deny India has a secular state. Your text actually says that "It was decided" (presumably in 1947 by Britain) that an "Islamic Pakistan" and "secular India" would be formed. It's not clear to me that it is true that this was the initial decision, and, given your other edits, I will doubt it. In any case, it came amid a host of other edits to Kashmir, most much more problematic, which I reverted as a unit.
Yes, we have been reversing most of your edits. That is because they are hugely biased and stylistically one-sided, accompanied by constant accusations that anyone who disagrees is a communist, and posted under three different identities. I think these facts are clear to most observers, such as the four of us you named, who I really doubt are all India-hating communists. If and when you contribute useful and constructive content, I am sure it will be welcomed. -- VV 05:30, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I have removed this from the Wikipedia:Current disputes over articles page as there have been no edit edits in a month, so it doesn't seem like a current disputes any more. Angela. 00:56, Jan 22, 2004 (UTC)

I moved this from the article as it seems to be possible retaliatory attacks:

==Reprisal Attacks==
Following the riots in Gujurat, there have been several terrorist attacks on Hindu civilians by Islamic extremists, which have been suspected to have been acts of revenge.
On September 26th, 2002, two gunmen entered the Hindu Akshardham temple in Gandhinagar, Gujurat and started firing indiscriminately at worshippers. After a 13-hour siege, National Security Guard commandos gunned down the terrorists and nearly a 100 Hindu devotees were left wounded and 30 were killed, including 11 women and children. Letters found in the pockets of the attackers revealed that they belonged to the Tehrik-a-Khasas ("Movement for Revenge"). A Muslim priest later read letters recovered from their bodies and said the contents spoke of the need for revenge after the Godhra riots.
On August 25th, 2003, at least 48 people were killed and 150 injured in two blasts in south Mumbai - the Gateway of India and the other at Zaveri Bazaar in busy Kalbadevi area. The explosives were placed in two seperate and detonated by a Muslim couple. Though the motives for this attack are unclear, many believe that the blast at the Zaveri Bazaar and Mumba Devi Temple, an area with a large concentration of Gujarati Hindu owned shops, was in reprisal for the riots in Gujurat.

Content from Gujarat riots

The following content used to be in Gujarat riots, which now redirects here:

The Gujarat riots are the largest riots ever seen in India. Thousands of women and children were raped and killed. The government of Narendra Modi was accused of turning a blind eye to the rioteers.

It doesn't look to me like there's anything worth merging into the article. dbenbenn | talk 20:49, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC) the largest riots in indian history was riots of 1946 direct action day called by muslim league not the gujarat riots

Added references

Added in the "aftermath" the role of the english media. Added the reference of Arundhati Roy's apology. Corrected references that says "leading magazine" to the name of the actual magazine.

User : abhijna

Please do not remove external references.

http://www.outlookindia.com/rants.asp?type=single&id=20020527133759

The fact that the author of a misleading article apoligized needs to be referenced. [April 12, 2005]


Edit History

Edits : U.C. Banerjee committee was appointed by the railway ministry. References in the article indicating it as an "official inquiry" and/or "government inquiry" is converted to "railway ministry". Since already another CBI inquiry is ongoing and another committee is also investigating Godhra and the subsequent riots.

Abhijna April 14, 2005

Opinionated

"At the same time the riots were further exacerbated by the blatant lies spread in the English media. An apology for some of the lies was issued very late and was not widely circulated." - this claim is not substantiated with any facts (examples or dates). It seems like just some editor's opinion.

-- It is already evident that the English Media spread blatant lies. If not please take a look at the Ehsan Jafri case. The media reported that his entire family was burnt alive and then does not report the *fact* that his only son is alive and well and was in US at the time! Calling people dead even when they are alive is a crime if not a blatant lie.

-- Will put in the apology as well as the date of the blatant lies spread in the English Media into the article. That will definitely not make it non-opinionated. User:Abhijna

--There was no blatant lie by the English media. There were entire familes that were burnt alive in the society where Jafri lived - basically his neighbours. Arundhuti Roy mentioned them as his family, which was incorrect. However, that still didn't change the nature of the crime.

        • The nature of the crime remains. But a spin is put onto it. The fact that people who are alive and well are reported as dead is a blatant lie. And if you have removed the apology of Arundhati Roy in this case, please put it back. Otherwise all the facts are not presented. And "entire families burnt alive"? Where did it come from? The human rights report does not even claim that? Further what about the "entire families burnt alive" in the train carnage?
          • But if people were found burnt beyond recognition in Jafri's house, it would be reasonable to believe that they were his family members, unless someone points out otherwise : [2]. As this report mentioned, there were 35-40 people who were killed in the Gulbarg society, most charred and it included a brother sister who took shelter in Ehsan Jafri's house, falsely believing that his contacts with the police would save them. Not his family members, but close to it, don't you think?
    • Also, there are some sweeping allegations against the English media. Now, you can more or less compare the reports from all of them and find that they would concur. These are reputed organizations - to accuse them all of blatant lies and "making up" the riots is very sweeping (what would be their incentive behind doing such a thing anyway?). And finally, why is this page being used for communist bashing? From former judges to newspapers to other critics of the riots, everyone is being accused of being communist and therefore upto some mischief. This isn't a fair POV.
        • I do not know what you are reading or what are your preconceived notions. Nobody said that the English media made up the riots. However English media acrophycally did add fuel to the fire by publishing rumours as fact in a highly charged atmosphere. User:Abhijna
        • The link from Outlook where Arundhati Roy puts an apology is removed but the link where an unsubstantiated report from the same magazine is published is put back. To make this NPOV, both sides of Outlook needs to be presented.

User:Abhijna


  • There are entirely too many references to muslim deaths, while none on hindu deaths. Amnesty International, that 'bastion of truth' which called Gitmo a Soviet Gulag, (obviously implying that they lie when required, and have no idea what Gitmo is like and what Gulags were like), is given too much time. Non official reports are also talked about, and the official report under the 'Congress' government (India's left) is also glossed over, in favor of more dramatic versions. Be warned, I will be doing a much bigger edit later, if this skewed POV is allowed to endure. The fact of the matter is, that the entire article has a decided pro-islamic bias. Facts are given short shrift, and allegations are given more time. The single most salient fact is that the electorate right after the election put Modi back into power by an unrecorded landslide. The people have spoken.
  • "People have spoken" cannot be a criteria for judging. The Congress MP blamed for the riots in East Delhi in 1984 won by record margins just two months after the riots. More importantly, the popularity of the nazis and Hitler was unquestionable during the time that they carried out their genocides.

The facts in the article are in sync with all human rights organizations, not just Amnesty as well as most intellectuals and journalists from the mainsteam media. Perhaps you are insisiting on harping the point of view of the Hindutva leader, the co-accused in this pogrom.

    • I notice you have removed the fact that the compartment was a woman and children only compartment. Proof positive of your bias. As for Amnesty and your 'human rights organizations'. Im sure the Gulag in Gitmo attests to their NPOV.
      • About Amnesty, even though it was at odds with US government on the G'Bay issue, it is an organization respected by the US government. On subjects like pograms, it is definitely an organization whose opinions matter.
        • It is sad that Amnesty International does not report on Jihadi Terrorism and the human lives lost in it.
      • Removed the extremely POV biased opinion from SABRANG communications. It is not a non-profit organization and its parent body is not a registered educational institution. Also SABRANG is not a media outlet. User:Abijna

crimes against humanity 540 page report

i have put back the external link to the Citizens for Justice and Peace report Crime against Humanity at http://www.sabrang.com/tribunal/ - it is an NPOV fact that this extensive enquiry collecting a massive number of testimonies from witnesses exists. Whether the witnesses spoke the truth or not and whether or not the synthesis is a neutral synthesis, is POV. However, removing the external link is POV. Please do not remove the link. If someone can point to an external document which claims that the Citizens for Justice and Peace report is biased in some way, then please add that. Boud 12:18, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

    • SABRANG communications "convenor" Ms. Teesta Setalvad has a pending court case against her for coercing witnessses into giving false statements. Till that case is resolved, any articles from SABRANG communications should not be referenced. It is equally wrong to put in articles from sources under investigations. That is also POV.
    • Ms. Teesta Setalvad also came very close to having been charged with a criminal conspiracy. Apparently, she paid witnesses, including those in the Best bakery case, for their testimonies. True or not, I think her report should be kept as far away from this article as possible. I'm sure we can find much better sources of information. Gaurav Arora 09:25, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Electoral consequences

Should this belong to this page? Fuzzynumbers


I was thinking the same. In my personal opinion it's not a NPOV. It bascically says that the whole thing was organised only to win the elections to be held later. I'd vote to remove it. Gaurav Arora 21:58, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2002_Gujarat_riots/Archive_2&oldid=607965398"