Talk:2020 Delhi riots/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Admins to take note of latest verdict and fix the wrong narrative

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This article is a biased one as 9 muslims were convicted for causing planned communal riots on Hindus. Hope someone can fix the conspiracy theory by bunch of admins spreading Hinduphobia. It is still time to fix as the upper part of article is already contradictory with judiciary verdict. 2401:7400:6005:8A0A:4494:3B77:7F0F:5302 (talk) 10:55, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Please offer a reliable source for your claim, as well as sources that say this radically changes the portrayal of this event. I don't see how convictions of Muslims erase everything else that happened here. Hypothetically, if Ukraine commits war crimes, does that erase Russia's war crimes? 331dot (talk) 11:11, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

So we no longer use WP:NPOV and resort to Whataboutery 171.76.86.138 (talk) 05:09, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not saying "what about" I'm making a hypothetical analogy. And you dodged the question. Muslims being convicted of their individual actions does not erase the well documented actions of other rioters nor does it change the overall event. 331dot (talk) 10:59, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

So the courts found that it was not " caused chiefly by Hindu mobs attacking Muslims"? And I doubt an appeal to admins not backed up by sources will work. Slatersteven (talk) 14:56, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Have the courts ruled otherwise that Hindus are the sole perpetrators? You and 331dot are acting in violations of multiple WPs including WP:NPOV 171.76.86.138 (talk) 07:49, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

It is not claimed in this article that "Hindus are the sole perpetrators", quite the opposite actually- "The 2020 Delhi riots, or North East Delhi riots, were multiple waves of bloodshed, property destruction, and rioting in North East Delhi, beginning on 23 February 2020 and caused chiefly by Hindu mobs attacking Muslims. Of the 53 people killed, two-thirds were Muslims who were shot, slashed with repeated blows, or set on fire. The dead also included a policeman, an intelligence officer and over a dozen Hindus, who were shot or assaulted." NPOV does not mean whitewashing the article to portray any particular group more favorably than reliable sources state. 331dot (talk) 08:53, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Or, read out article before criticizing it. Also we have not tried to use the courts as a source, so we do not have to demonstrate they said anything.Slatersteven (talk) 11:22, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. “I find it well established that all the named accused persons did become part of an unruly mob, which was guided by communal feelings and was having a common object to cause maximum damage to the properties of persons belonging to the Hindu community,” the judge said.

Source: https://www.news18.com/india/2020-north-east-delhi-riots-court-convicts-nine-for-arson-theft-7294813.html

So the suggested change is communal riots started by Anti-CAA protestors.

“It can be said that the localised conspiracy involved in the instant case had emerged out of the larger conspiracy alleged in case FIR No. 59/2020, and the same may also turn out to be a part of such larger conspiracy, but the fact of the matter is that both conspiracies had been hatched at different places, at different times, by different persons and with distinct objects in mind,” said the court.

Source: https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/delhi/tahir-hussain-not-only-a-conspirator-but-a-rioter-delhi-court

This also states as per observed by court that it was conspired in advance and thus he is still behind bar.

Sources 12 and 13 used in your article citing Hindu attacked muslims are biased as if you dig the author contributions across platform. My earnest suggestion is to take reference from all leading news sources of India eg TimesOfIndia, NDTV, News18, AajTak, etc who are less on opinions and mostly reporting on events.

Please avoid banning IP as objective is to have a logical and healthy communication to ensure that neutrality is maintained. 2401:7400:6003:1277:4DC8:4283:9299:2A59 (talk) 11:34, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Indian media has been pressured by the Indian government to report a certain narrative(See this and here) so they aren't being used here; India does not have a strong history of freedom of the press despite its Constitution.

This conviction doesn't erase everything that is depicted in this article. We can and should certainly discuss in this article any convictions related to this event, and we can even state what the court itself said- but everything else that has been said doesn't go away because of this. 331dot (talk) 13:05, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, everyone is pressured or is lying except you. It's a shame that Wikipedia has biased and Hindu hating editor like you who is clearly and shamelessly motivated by a propaganda. RonyEdits (talk) 17:54, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

source:the court, as it happened:

https://www.barandbench.com/news/delhi-riots-2020-delhi-court-frames-murder-charges-tahir-hussain-10-others-death-ib-officer-ankit-sharma RonyEdits (talk) 18:11, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

" Tahir Hussain, who was an AAP councillor, was arrested for allegedly murdering Sharma." we mention his arrest for murder "AAP leader Tahir Hussain was denied bail. The court said there's enough material on record to presume the former councillor was present at the spot of crime and was instigating the rioters." and that he was denied bail. Slatersteven (talk) 18:17, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Nope.

You seem to be quoting Radical Leftist media like New York Times which has a history of anti India and Anti Hindu bias as the ultimate Gospel of Truth.https://www.thequint.com/amp/story/news/india/new-york-times-job-advertisement-india-sparks-row-pm-narendra-modi-government 171.76.87.2 (talk) 04:53, 23 March 2023 (UTC) You keep saying "gospel of truth"; I accept nothing as the "gospel of truth". We summarize independent reliable sources here, we do not claim they are the "gospel of truth". If the link you provided is intended to support your position, it doesn't really. If you believe the NYT is "radical leftist" or "anti-India/Hindu" to the point where they make things up out of whole cloth, at least with regards to India, you may challenge the NYT as a reliable source at WP:RSN, but you will need much better evidence than this. Consider why your government might be controlling the information that you get, telling you what it wants you to think, and if that's okay with you. If you want to discuss how to incorporate these convictions into this article, let's do it. If you just want to pontificate about how the West is against India or Hindus for some reason because they don't stick to the position of the Indian government and don't say what you want them to say, I'm done with that. 331dot (talk) 08:57, 23 March 2023 (UTC) It's very obvious you are not qualified to moderate a page about India because the whole repository of your knowledge is perception based on NYT and WaPo. India or Indians do not need certificates from US media especially in times when the current US administration panders to a certain group with Pseudo liberal pretense to help cover up it's incompetence in return for kinder coverage from Radical Leftist Media. 171.76.87.2 (talk) 15:23, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Not a word of this is accurate. 331dot (talk) 15:34, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Oh yes. because NYT said so and anyone who says otherwise is pressurized by Indian Government 😆 Typical Semi Literate White Trash Mentality 171.76.87.2 (talk) 15:38, 23 March 2023 (UTC) SlaterSteven submits multiple block requests every week. That's his modus operandi. He does not have the spine to have an open discussion. 171.76.87.2 (talk) 04:57, 23 March 2023 (UTC) This is not about me. Slatersteven (talk) 10:48, 23 March 2023 (UTC) But somehow everything they goes on the page or doesn't is all about what you perceive. 171.76.87.2 (talk) 15:23, 23 March 2023 (UTC) As this is not longer about improving the article, but is being used to attack users I move for a close (in violation of wp:npa). Slatersteven (talk) 15:30, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Here we go again..Lord SlaterSteven and his Wiki Fascism in it's full glory 171.76.87.2 (talk) 15:38, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Reported to WP:AIV. 331dot (talk) 15:42, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Are we going to have to ask for PP? Slatersteven (talk)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2023

Please add that the riots were to cause fear in the minds of Hindus and eleven people have been sentenced to life imprisonment for the riots - these can be used as sources: https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/delhi/delhi-riots-court-charges-hindus-fear-7676631/ and https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/delhi/3-years-after-delhi-violence-verdicts-in-less-than-a-tenth-of-riot-arson-cases-8466792/2406:7400:98:7B4C:BD85:C840:E276:7949 (talk) 09:14, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

•  Not done Edit requests need to be made in the format of "change X to Y"- please create a specific edit to propose. 331dot (talk) 09:22, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I am not asking for any change, I am only asking for a sentence to be added, based on the latest news.

Please change the last sentence of the lead, "For at least two weeks after the rioting, they avoided each other during the day and at night blocked their lanes with barriers.[47]" to, "For at least two weeks after the rioting, they avoided each other during the day and at night blocked their lanes with barriers.[47] The riots were to cause fear in the minds of Hindus and eleven people have been sentenced to life imprisonment for the riots. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2406:7400:98:7B4C:BD85:C840:E276:7949 (talk) 09:42, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Any edit is a change, even if you are not requesting the removal of content. The point is that the edit request process is only for proposing specific changes. If you just want to discuss adding something without a specific proposed edit, it should just be a standard discussion that is not marked as an edit request. Someone will review this(I may later). 331dot (talk) 09:48, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I see that you are an admin, so please add the sentence to the lead (as the last sentence). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2406:7400:98:7B4C:BD85:C840:E276:7949 (talk) 09:52, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Any editor with access may make the edit, not just admins. I am not presently in a position to do so and will be leaving for a bit, someone will evaluate your request. 331dot (talk) 09:59, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Your second source does not seem to say anything about fear. At best your first source could be used for "and then Indian courts claimed that 10 men charged with rioting "created fear in minds of Hindus"", I am unsure what this really adds. Slatersteven (talk) 13:42, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

References

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. M.Bitton (talk) 13:57, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Slatersteven I don't know much about Wikipedia. You can add whatever you proposed but instead of 11 charged, it should be eleven were convicted (as per the second source).-2406:7400:98:7E90:7F4C:679C:E6F5:FEF2 (talk) 14:38, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

We already say 9 were convicted. Slatersteven (talk) 14:43, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Now updated to say two more have been convicted. Slatersteven (talk) 14:48, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Admins take note of the Anti Muslim rhetoric and purge all mentions of Islam

I request the Moderators and Admins to purge any mention of Islam and Muslim as it fuels a rhetoric of Islamophobia. 171.76.80.135 (talk) 17:26, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Given the events (and what wp:rs say) this is not going to happen. Slatersteven (talk) 17:35, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

You are fueling Islamophobia. I condemn your behavior and Ideology to defame Islam which is a religion of peace 171.76.80.135 (talk) 17:53, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I can't help but wonder if the OP is trolling; the language is very similar to that used above. It's not unlikely it's the same person, presenting the opposite argument in the expectation that we'd confirm their opinions of our biases. Regardless: Slatersteven is entirely correct. Wikipedia's method is summarizing what reliable sources say. Our policies do not allow such a removal. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:59, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Too biased article

i feel this article is too biased on the premonition that minorities are being tortured during Modi rule. This article is too one sided and clearly aims to denounce Hindus and promote Hinduphobia. In my opinion the words "predominant" and "Hindus against Muslims" clearly depict the colonial hatred of the "Liberal" people who have written or contributed strictly to the article. With all respect, I would like to remove these words and add neutrality questioned template to this article. Thanks Science nerd11112007 (talk) 12:46, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Please read wp:soap, it is hard to take seriously a post that posits that Hindus are subject to colonial hatred as Muslims were also colonial subjects. Also if it was not "Hindus against Muslims" who was involved? As to "predominant", do you have a source that says the tire market was not "predominantly owned by Muslims"? Slatersteven (talk) 12:55, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Listen to the Colonialists. They know what they did 171.76.85.40 (talk) 06:57, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

You ask for respect and then make a personal attack that others like me harbor "colonial hatred", so as Slatersteven says it's difficult to take this seriously. This article is not about colonialism, it is about a riot involving two groups of Indian citizens who(largely) happen to have different religions. The words involved are correctly used by reliable sources. If you disagree with their characterization of this event, you need to take that up with them, not us. 331dot (talk) 08:58, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Copyvio

Hi Slatersteven and 331dot. I see you have reverted my removal.

Source:

A fact-finding committee on the February 2020 communal riots in north-east Delhi headed by former Supreme Court judge Madan B. Lokur concluded that the Union home ministry conspicuously delayed deploying additional forces in the violence-hit areas, even as the communal riots continued unabated between February 23 and 26, 2020.

Article:

In October 2022, a fact-finding committee found that the Union home ministry delayed the deployment of additional forces in the violence-hit areas. The committee headed by a former Supreme Court judge Madan B. Lokur concluded that the communal riots continued unabated between February 23 and 26, 2020.

I have bolded all direct copy-paste. This level of copying and close paraphrasing is incompatible with Wikipedia's copyright policy. The editor that added this has an extensive history of copyright violations and is subject to both indef block and a contributor copyright investigation due to this. Special rules apply in these cases per WP:PDELETE allowing indiscriminate removal of their contributions unless proven not to be violations. (e.g. "How is the a copy vio?" is not a valid reason to add it back) Best, CandyScythe (talk) 20:19, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like a copyvio to me, but I'm certainly not an expert. There are only so many ways to say "fact finding committee". 331dot (talk) 21:03, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

331dot Go cry to your bosses and get me banned for saying this but It's not your job to validate the credentials of the fact finding committee. Stop assuming you are anything more than a petty, said, irrelevant Editor on Wikipedia. 171.76.87.99 (talk) 16:00, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are reading into my comment. This has nothing to do with the subject of this discussion. 331dot (talk) 16:12, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

WP:PDELETE, from my reading, allows for the quick removal of suspected copyvio material, esp. if the editor who added it has a history of such, but it does not address the restoration of the contested material if deemed to not be a violation. One would presume that the original adder of the material is barred from simply reverting your change, but shouldn't any editor in good standing be able to make a judgement call if they happen by the situation, and restore if necessary? Zaathras (talk) 21:12, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Using the same phrases is not a copyvio. It certainly is not when dealing with real names (such as Union home ministry). THis looks very spurious. Slatersteven (talk) 10:35, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

I still think that they copied enough creative expression, not just names and technical terms, to constitute a violation. It's not as blatant as some other stuff by this user, and I can agree to disagree. However, if you revert a CCI removal you really should explain the reason for it (e.g. "This is not a violation because.."). Best, CandyScythe (talk) 13:57, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Forgive me, but how can you say "This is not a copyright Violation" and give any more reason than "because it is not"? Slatersteven (talk) 14:06, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Many possible reasons: "it's a backwards copy", "it's released under a compatible license", "it's PD", "WP:FACTSONLY copied", or "I have read the source and concluded that the paraphrasing is limited enough". Best, CandyScythe (talk) 14:20, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

But if we are telling you its not a copy vio wp:agf means we do not have to say "because we have read it", we (by inference) have. Slatersteven (talk) 14:24, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

It would indeed have been better if you had said "This is not a copyright Violation", but what you said was "How is the a copy vio?" which really felt like you were asking me. Best, CandyScythe (talk) 14:27, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

That is because (per WP:ONUS and wp:consensus) you are supposed to make a case at talk if reverted, so I was asking you to make a case as I could not see one. I was saying "I can't see how you see this as a copy vio". You do not have a consensus, and this is now just a time sink. As such I am bowing out. Slatersteven (talk) 14:31, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that is how it normally works, but WP:PDELETE and the CCI page I linked reverse that: please do not restore any removed text without first ensuring that the text does not duplicate, closely paraphrase or plagiarize from a previously published source.. I'm just saying that in the future that would be appreciated. Best, CandyScythe (talk) 14:40, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

F&f's scholarly sources for the article's revision

Wikipedia's principles relevant to this article

The 2020 Delhi riots are no longer a current event. Although they are not quite a proper historical event yet, they are getting there. In the three and half years elapsed several secondary sources have been published by scholarly publishers. Here are some important principles worth observing for this article:

1. WP:SOURCETYPES: Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources.
2. WP:PRIMARY: Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on. Primary sources may or may not be independent sources. An account of a traffic incident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the event; similarly, a scientific paper documenting a new experiment conducted by the author is a primary source for the outcome of that experiment. Historical documents such as diaries are primary sources.
   1. Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, Primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.
   2. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.
   3. A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label, and an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source.
   4. Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.
3. WP:SECONDARY: A secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources.
   1. Policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if it has been published by a reliable secondary source.
4. WP:TERTIARYTertiary sources are publications such as encyclopedias and other compendia that summarize, and often quote, primary and secondary sources. Many introductory undergraduate-level textbooks are regarded as tertiary sources because they sum up multiple secondary sources.
   1. Policy: Reliable tertiary sources can help provide broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources and may help evaluate due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other.
5. WP:FALSEBALANCE: While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view, fringe theory, or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity.
6. WP:HISTRW: To determine scholarly opinions about a historical topic, consult the following sources in order: (a)Recent scholarly books and chapters on the historiography of the topic; (b) "Review Articles", or historiographical essays that explicitly discuss recent scholarship in an area; (c) Single item "book reviews" written by scholars that explicitly discuss recent scholarship in an area. (d) Introductions to major scholarly works on the topic or introductions to edited collections of chapters often represent a survey of the historiography (e) Signed articles in scholarly encyclopaedia

As stated above, three and a half years have elapsed since the event. Scholarly secondary sources have appeared. The material may not have made it into introductory textbooks yet, but specialized encyclopedias and review articles very likely have appeared and may be utilized to determine due weight. See below:

Books published after February 2020 by major academic publishers

Rotem Geva, Delhi Reborn, Stanford University Press, 2022

1. Geva, Rotem (2022), Delhi Reborn: Partition and Nation Building in India's Capital, South Asia in Motion series, Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, p. 260, ISBN 9781503631199, LCCN 2021051794, In December 2019, the Indian parliament passed the controversial Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA). The act promises an expedited path to Indian citizenship to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi, and Christian migrants from Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan who entered India before 2015. The implication is that Muslim migrants from these or other countries would continue to be treated as illegal immigrants. The act, as political scientist Niraja Gopal Jayal argues, breaks new ground by introducing religious identity into India's legal definition of citizenship. It consummates the gradual erosion of the principle of jus soli in favor of jus sanguinis since the 1980s. The act is coupled with the provocative proposal by the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party to implement a National Register of Citizens across the country to distinguish legal citizens from illegal immigrants. Together, the act and the projected register inherently discriminate on the basis of religion, targeting Muslim migrants while legalizing all others. Furthermore, since many people, especially at the lower socioeconomic strata of society, do not possess identity documentation, there is widespread fear among Muslims that the new citizenship law and national register will be used to harass, disenfranchise, and even dispossess Muslim citizens born in India.
   1. Geva, Rotem (2022), Delhi Reborn: Partition and Nation Building in India's Capital, South Asia in Motion series, Stanford California: Stanford University Press, pp. 260–261, ISBN 9781503631199, LCCN 2021051794, Indeed, the Citizenship Amendment Act precipitated persistent, widespread protests. Agitations erupted in Assam and quickly spread to cities and university campuses across the country. Delhi became a center of the protests, starting with a demonstration at the Jantar Mantar and in the Muslim area of Jamia Nagar, where the Delhi police reportedly forced its way into the Jamia Millia Islamia University campus and used lathi (wooden baton) charges, tear gas, and extreme force to quell the student protests. Over the next few months, protests were held in multiple locations in Delhi, the most famous being Shaheen Bagh, a Muslim locality in south Delhi, where a sit-in by women attracted tens of thousands of visitors as well as media attention and became a symbol of the anti-CAA movement. Another high-profile protest was held by Dalit activist and Bhim Army Chief Chandrashekhar Azad "Ravan," who, violating Section 144 and evading the police, arrived with his supporters at the steps of the Jama Masjid after Friday prayers in solidarity with the Muslim minority.
   2. Geva, Rotem (2022), Delhi Reborn: Partition and Nation Building in India's Capital, South Asia in Motion series, Stanford California: Stanford University Press, p. 261, ISBN 9781503631199, LCCN 2021051794, Events took a grim turn in late February 2020, when clashes between supporters and opponents of the act degenerated into intense communal violence in northeast Delhi, the gravest that Delhi had witnessed in decades, with fifty-three people killed, hundreds wounded, and property burned and destroyed. While two-thirds of the casualties were Muslims, the police filed charges against mostly Muslim student leaders, activists, and protestors, in what it tagged as "the Delhi riots conspiracy case," under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), and protest leaders were in judicial custody for six months.

Christophe Jaffrelot, Modi's India, Princeton Unversity Press, 2021

1. Jaffrelot, Christophe (2021), Modi's India: Hindu Nationalism and the Rise of Ethnic Democracy, translated by Schoch, Cynthia, Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, pp. 384–385, ISBN 9780691206806, The Delhi Riots: Militants and Police vs. Muslims: The communal riots that took place in February 2020 in North East Delhi—a very densely populated district where, according to the 2011 census, Muslims represented more than 29 percent of the population and Hindus, about 68 percent—were primarily due to the BJP's reaction to the anti-CAA movement in the context of the state elections. During the election campaign, BJP leaders targeted protesters against the CAA in Delhi—not only in Shaheen Bagh but elsewhere in the city, including in North East Delhi, where many sit-ins were held—in order to polarize voters along communal lines. Amit Shah himself, during a meeting on January 27, declared: "When you press the button [of electronic voting machines] on February 8, do so with such anger that its current [poll result] is felt at Shaheen Bagh. . . . Your vote to BJP candidate will make Delhi and the country safe and prevent thousands of incidents like Shaheen Bagh."162 Another member of the Modi government, Anurag Thakur, one week before, according to the fact-finding mission appointed by the Minorities Commission after the riots, had raised a slogan in an election rally in Delhi "where he incited the public present to repeat: 'Desh ke ghaddaron ko, goli maaron saalon ko' (Shoot down the rascals/the traitors to the country). Captured widely in print and electronic media, it is clearly shown and heard how he shouted the first part of the slogan, and directed the listening crowd to respond with the second half."
   1. Jaffrelot, Christophe (2021), Modi's India: Hindu Nationalism and the Rise of Ethnic Democracy, translated by Schoch, Cynthia, Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, p. 387, ISBN 9780691206806, For four days, until curfew was imposed, North East Delhi saw a scenario unfold that had been observed before elsewhere, including in Gujarat in 2002—but on a smaller scale. Thousands of assailants, led by Hindu nationalist cadres, including BJP former or sitting MLAs and municipal councilors, came from outside the locality to help the local activists. They forcibly entered houses to attack men and women; 600 houses were burned and shops looted with a remarkably accurate selectivity, as adjacent houses and shops were spared when they belonged to Hindus; markets were razed as well; mosques were systematically targeted—they were looted, desecrated, and burned.Sometimes those praying inside were attacked. Madrassas and cemeteries were damaged as well. Most of the time, the attackers were chanting "Jai Shri Ram" and tried to force Muslims, including imams, to chant it too. The other slogans they kept repeating were "Har Har Modi," "Modiji, kaat do in Mullon ko" (Modiji, cut these Muslims into pieces), "Aaj tumhe Azadi denge" (Today we will give you freedom), and "Hindustan Hamaara hai, ek bhee Musalmaan nahi rahega yahaan" (India is ours, not even one Muslim will stay here!). Kapil Mishra's slogans were similar: "Desh ke gaddaron ko, goli maaro saalo ko" (Shoot the traitors of this nation), "Jai Shri Ram" (Hail Lord Ram), and "Kattue Murdabad" (Down with the circumcised [a very derogatory expression to designate Muslims]). Visual and oral aspects of the riots were widely known to the public because both witnesses and assailants alike made videos: the former to testify, the latter to boast of their deeds to the world and terrorize their victims.
   2. Jaffrelot, Christophe (2021), Modi's India: Hindu Nationalism and the Rise of Ethnic Democracy, translated by Schoch, Cynthia, Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, p. 388, ISBN 9780691206806, After four days, the official toll was fifty-five dead, including thirteen persons with non-Muslim names. According to a police affidavit still full of loopholes, 13 mosques and 6 Hindu temples had been damaged; out of 185 damaged properties, 50 were identified as Muslim and 14 as Hindu, and out of 468 damaged shops, the breakdown was 173 and 42, respectively (among those whose owners' religion had been identified). Thousands of people fled and found refuge in relief camps, but many preferred to stay with relatives and friends or returned to their ancestral places—they were therefore not counted as refugees. Few returned after the riots. On the contrary, the hostile attitude of the local Hindus persuaded many Muslims who could still live in their house to sell them below market price for safety, following the usual post-riots ghettoization process.
      The fact that the state was involved in the Delhi riots was evidenced by the way the government interfered with the judiciary. Justice Muralidhar, in the Delhi High Court, was known for his pronouncements against communal violence. He delivered the verdict convicting members of the Uttar Pradesh police for the 1986 killing of Muslims in Hashimpura, and he convicted the former Congress MP Sajjan Kumar in a case related to the 1984 anti-Sikh pogrom. On February 25, 2020, he heard the petition filed by Harsh Mander to register an FIR against BJP leaders (including Kapil Mishra, Parvesh Verma, and Anurag Thakur) whose inflammatory speeches had contributed to the unleashing of violence. During the hearings he castigated the Delhi police for the way it failed to maintain law and order and protect citizens. "Hours after the proceedings were completed, the Ministry of Law and Justice issued a notification for Justice Muralidhar's transfer from the Delhi High Court to the Punjab & Haryana High Court." This transfer had been recommended by the Collegium. The Delhi High Court Bar Association condemned it, considering it "detrimental to our noble Institution."

Jaffrelot has almost 10 pages on the riots. What appears above is a small sample.

Neeti Nair, Hurt Sentiments, Harvard University Press, 2023

1. Nair, Neeti (2023), Hurt Sentiments: Secularism and Belonging in South Asia, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, pp. 1–2, ISBN 9780674238275, LCCN 2022018054, The Citizenship Amendment Act, which was to enable a quicker path to Indian citizenship for religious minorities—explicitly listed as Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, Parsis, Buddhists, and Jains—in the three neighboring nations of Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh, was criticized by the opposition parties for explicitly excluding Muslims (ostensibly because they were not persecuted in Muslim-majority countries) and for excluding persecuted minorities in neighboring Myanmar and Sri Lanka (who were Muslim). The act was widely regarded as having the awesome potential to target and disenfranchise Indian Muslims, often described as "illegal" and "Bangladeshi" in the writings and speeches of BJP leaders.
   In the weeks and months that followed, citizens across India, frequently led by Muslims, chanted the Preamble to the Constitution, raised slogans of azadi (freedom), narrated episodes of Muslim sacrifice during India's independence, held public seminars on secularism, opened libraries and reading rooms at protest sites, affirmed the place of Muslims in India, and declared the Constitution Amendment Act of 2019 unconstitutional.
   Although the protests spread across India from Lucknow to Chennai, it was Delhi, India's capital, that bore the brunt of the backlash unleashed against nonviolent protesters. In December, days after the bill passed in Parliament, Delhi police responded to some of the Muslim-led protests by vandalizing the premises of and brutalizing students at the Jamia Millia Islamia, a central university in a Muslim-dominated part of Delhi. In January 2020, when students and activists were brutally beaten up by members of a rival student political party at Jawaharlal Nehru University in the heart of Delhi, the police helped the rioters escape. In February, videos showed the Delhi police assisting Hindu rioters hurl stones and homemade bottle missiles toward Muslim homes and shops during riots in the northeast quadrant of the capital. In a Kafkaesque twist, the police later arrested Muslim and Hindu student activists who spoke for love and harmony between communities; they did not pursue investigations against politicians whose hate speech had called for "anti-nationals" (desh ke ghaddar) to be shot, on the eve of the Delhi riots. The onset of COVID-19 a few weeks later led to a nationwide lockdown. The largest protests in post-partition India against an explicitly religion-based citizenship law and in favor of secularism were silenced.

Khaled Beydoun, The New Crusades, University of California Press, 2023

1. Beydoun, Khaled A. (2023), The New Crusades: Islamophobia and the Global War on Muslims, The Lawrence Grauman, Jr. Fund series, Oakland, California: University of California Press, p. 115, ISBN 9780520356306, LCCN 2022036126, CJ Werleman, a journalist who closely examined the New Delhi massacre, wrote, "Attackers also marked Hindu-owned properties with saffron-colored flags to help their terrorists-in-arms identify Muslim targets . . . thus mimicking a sinister measure used on the eve of the 2002 Gujarat riots, which left more than 2,000 Muslims killed and thousands more battered, raped, and abused."
   1. Beydoun, Khaled A. (2023), The New Crusades: Islamophobia and the Global War on Muslims, The Lawrence Grauman, Jr. Fund series, Oakland, California: University of California Press, p. 116, ISBN 9780520356306, LCCN 2022036126, Shortly after Trump left India, the mobs burned the homes of Muslims to the ground. They desecrated and destroyed longstanding mosques. They violently accosted elders and Muslim women wearing the hijab while walking with children in their very own neighborhoods. They raged and rioted, ransacked and ripped through anything and everything that appeared to be Muslim. ... Modi stood idly by as the city burned and Muslim citizens were assailed. His "failure" to reign in the mobs and stop the massacre was perceived by many beyond India, and even more within, as approval. Mira Kamdar, an expert on modern Indian politics, concluded in a compelling article written in the early stages of the violence that "what happened in Delhi was a pogrom." Modi had seen this before, in 2002 in Gujarat. And with renewed vision and rising power, he sowed that very violence again in the heart of the nation's capitol in 2020. ... Violence fell upon India and its Muslim population. Then came the coronavirus, which descended squarely on their collective back. A back that could not take any more yet would face a novel strand of Islamophobia in the very city, Delhi, where the Muslim massacre unfolded.

Menon, Making Place for Muslims, Cornell University Press, 2022

1. Menon, Kalyani Devaki (2022), Making Place for Muslims in Contemporary India, Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, pp. 162–163, ISBN 9781501760587, LCCN 2021031531, Visibly and vocally claiming place in Modi's India is a dangerous act, especially for Muslims. Indeed, the claim to place voiced in the anti-CAA protests was met with violent retribution. Hours after the BJP's Kapil Mishra threatened to call on his supporters to shut down a nonviolent protest near the Jafrabad Metro Station, North East Delhi erupted in anti-Muslim violence in February 2020. According to the report of the Fact-Finding Committee of the Delhi Minorities Commission on the North East Delhi riots of February 2020, Kapil Mishra's speech "clearly incited violence in words and intent" (Delhi Minorities Commission 2020, 30). In an eerie reminder of the Gujarat Pogrom of 2002, many reported that the police did nothing to stop the rioters as they destroyed Muslim lives, homes, and property, while others insisted that the police were participants in the violence (Delhi Minorities Commission 2020, passim, see especially 101–104; see also Mustafa 2020). The chairperson of the Fact-Finding Committee notes in his foreword to the report that while the charge sheets filed by the police construct a narrative "of violence on both sides," it was in fact "a pogrom" in which the state was complicit (Delhi Minorities Commission 2020, 13–14). Old Delhi remained peaceful during this period, but Muslims there worried about friends and family who lived in North East Delhi. They made place for them in their already crowded homes, collected food and essential items for the now homeless and dispossessed, and continued their protests.

Snyder, Appealing to the crowd, Oxford University Press, 2024

1. Snyder, Jeremy (2024), Appealing to the crowd: the ethical, political, and practical dimensions of donation-based crowdfunding, New York, NY: Oxford University Press, p. 125, ISBN 9780197658130, LCCN 2023017330, Crowdfunding campaigns may themselves contain hateful messages or attitudes as well. Fundraisers for so-called conversion therapy meant to change recipients' sexual orientation or gender identity typically include bigoted language about gay, lesbian, and bisexual people—language that is often highly personalized and directed at the campaign recipient by close family. To take another example, a crowdfunding campaign on the Indian platform Milaap sought to aid victims of a riot that took place in Delhi. This campaign was organized by Kapil Mishra, the Delhi-based leader of the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)—who was also accused of having instigated these riots. While aiding riot victims is laudatory, Mishra chose to explicitly allow only Hindus to benefit from the campaign and propagate a message of Hindu superiority over Muslims.

Kohli, Memories in the Service, Cambridge University Press, 2023

1. Kohli, Pranav (2023), Memories in the Service of the Hindu Nation: The Afterlife of the Partition, Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, p. 310, ISBN 978-1-009-31868-6, If my detailed exposition on the CAA and NRC leaves my readers feeling confused, disoriented and fatigued, then that is something of a deliberate performative element of my discussion of the crisis of meaning. It is through this strategy of deliberate obfuscation through rhetoric, rumour, dog whistles, misinformation and double-speak that the BJP has been successful in deflating some of the opposition to the CAA and its larger Hindu fascist project. Where in other times this Nuremberg-like legislation that writes Hindu supremacy into law might have been met with an immediate loss of confidence in the prevailing regime, the CAA has been met with opposition, yes, but also confusion, disinterest and even celebration.
   This was visible, especially in the aftermath of the Delhi pogrom of February 2020, an anti-Muslim pogrom that was a violent reactionary Hindu nationalist response to the anti-CAA protests (I. Ahmad 2020). The violence in north-east Delhi was instigated by BJP leader Kapil Mishra and openly executed by organised mobs of Hindutva 'activists' with the complicity of the police (Bedi 2020; Dwivedi 2020; Hindustan Times 2020). However, under the direction of the BJP-controlled Home Ministry, the Delhi Police has worked tirelessly to present the anti-CAA protestors as the 'real' conspirators of the pogrom. The result is that the very pogrom that disrupted and killed the anti-CAA movement is now being paradoxically blamed on the leaders and organisers of this movement (Lalwani 2020; Pasha 2020).

Naseemullah, Patchwork States, Cambridge University Press,2022

1. Naseemullah, Adnan (2022), Patchwork States: The Historical Roots of Subnational Conflict and Competition in South Asia, Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 3–4, ISBN 978-1-009-15842-8, On December 11, 2019, the Modi government in India promulgated the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), which allowed non-Muslims from surrounding countries to become Indian citizens. Many saw this legislation as a fundamental challenge to principles of secularism enshrined in the Indian Constitution. As a result, citizens staged mass protests throughout India throughout the winter. A group of Muslim women established an activist encampment in Shaheen Bagh, gathering together thousands in the cold, smoggy Delhi winter for four months between mid-December and mid-March. Many similar protests took place throughout the country, from Assam to Punjab and from Kerala to Bihar.1 Student protests against the actions of the government met with violence from right-wing activists and from the police, including at Jawaharlal Nehru University and Jamia Milla Islamia in New Delhi and Aligarh Muslim University in Uttar Pradesh. Violent altercations between protestors and the police on December 20 led to several deaths in the northern cities of Meerut and Kanpur. In the context of both these protests and then-President Donald Trump's visit to India in February, Hindu nationalist activists conducted a pogrom among lower middle-class neighborhoods in northeastern Delhi, in which fifty-three people were killed over the course of four days. Most of the fatalities were Muslim, and the police kept hundreds of the wounded from receiving medical attention while subjecting them to physical abuse. The riots began when a local leader of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) called for the removal of a sit-in against the CAA. But the ensuing social violence fanned out through neighborhoods and targeted Muslim communities and businesses, following well-established patterns of Hindu–Muslim riots implicated in organized crime, police complicity, electoral politics, and the absence of social integration across religious communities.

Lall, Anand, Bridging Neoliberalism and Hindu Nationalism, Bristol University Press, 2022

1. Lall, Marie; Anand, Kusha (2022), Bridging Neoliberalism and Hindu Nationalism: The Role of Education in Bringing about Contemporary India, Bristol, UK: Bristol University Press, pp. 117–119, ISBN 978-1-5292-2321-7, The protests in Delhi turned violent on 23 February 2020, lasting for five days and resulting in at least 53 people killed and more than 250 injured — most of them Muslim (IMMC, 2020, p.17). These numbers are likely to be just the tip of the iceberg. Bodies and body parts were still being recovered in drains as fact finding missions drew to a close, and a number of families have still not been able to locate their loved ones (Youth for Human Rights Documentation, 2020). The violence across localities of north-east Delhi included the looting and arson of homes, shops, businesses, vehicles, and other properties (IMMC, 2020), leading to the destruction of 122 houses, 322 shops, 301 vehicles, and 3 schools."⁴² Mosques of the area were attacked by the mob, who even placed a saffron flag on top of one of them (Youth for Human Rights Documentation, 2020). Reflecting the violence in Gujarat almost two decades earlier, the police was again accused of not intervening to protect those being attacked, and in some cases even helping when Hindu mobs attacked Muslims, their houses, and their businesses. The government saw things differently — Home Minister Amit Shah, who oversees the Delhi police, praised them for 'effectively containing the riot within 36 hours' (Amnesty, n.d., p.32).
   As contesting reports on what happened in Delhi emerged, there has been a debate on whether this was a riot with both communities at fault or an anti-Muslim pogrom. Wahab (2020) has called it 'the war of the narratives'.⁴³
   (Footnote ⁴²: North-east Delhi includes Shiv Vihar, Khajuri Khas, Chand Bagh, Gokulpuri, Maujpur, Karawal Nagar, Jafrabad, Mustafabad, Ashok Nagar, Bhagirah Vihar, Bhajanpura, and Kardam Puri.)
   (Footnote ⁴³: The 'Report of the DMC fact-finding Committee on North-East Delhi Riots of February 2020'; the Youth for Human Rights Documentation (YHRD) 'An Account of Fear & Impunity: Preliminary Fact-Finding Report on Communally- Targeted Violence in North-East Delhi, February 2020', and HRW's detailed report titled '"Shoot the Traitors": Discrimination Against Muslims under India's New Citizenship Policy' regard what happened in Delhi in February 2020 as targeted anti-Muslim violence. The report published by the Group of Intellectuals and Academicians (GIA) of Advocate Monika Arora (Supreme Court of India) titled 'Delhi Riots 2020: Report from Ground Zero — The Shaheen Bagh Model in North East Delhi: From Dharna to Danga' and the report by Nupur J. Sharma and Kalpojyoti Kashyap of OpIndia titled 'Delhi Anti-Hindu Riots of 2020: The Macabre Dance of Violence Since December 2019', view the violence as 'Anti- Hindu riots'. According to OpIndia, 'the fact of the matter is, it all began when Ladeeda Sakhaloon, Barkha Dutt's Jamia "shero", gave a call for Jihad on the 11th of December 2019. The entire cycle of violence in Delhi began soon afterwards. And since then, it has never been peaceful. It is also pertinent to remember that the Shaheen Bagh protest was masterminded by Sharjeel Imam, a radical Islamist who wished to cut off North East India from the rest of the country' (Sharma and Kashyap 2020, p.15, cited in Wahab, 2020).
   1. Lall, Marie; Anand, Kusha (2022), Bridging Neoliberalism and Hindu Nationalism: The Role of Education in Bringing about Contemporary India, Bristol, UK: Bristol University Press, pp. 117–119, ISBN 978-1-5292-2321-7, (p. 218) The Delhi Minority Commission (DMC, 2020) that investigated the events concluded, however, that the violence was 'seemingly planned and directed to teach a lesson to a certain community which dared to protest against a discriminatory law'. The DMC chairperson spoke of a 'pogrom' (DMC, 2020, p.13) and the DMC described the sequence of events as follows. There were anti-CAA protests in several parts of Delhi.'⁴⁴ The protests against the CAA in Shaheen Bagh had started in mid-December, with Muslim women organizing a round-the-clock peaceful sit-in to show solidarity with the Jamia Milla university students who had been protesting against the CAA and had been beaten by the police. According to the DMC, Shaheen Bagh came to represent a social movement not only against the CAA, but also against 'unemployment, poverty, caste and religious discrimination, and a host of issues at the heart of struggles for social justice and equality in India' (IMC, 2020, pp.24-5). The protests were met with threats by BJP politicians, not only in Delhi. For example, on 3 January Somasekhara Reddy, a Member of the Legislative Assembly of the BJP, warned of serious repercussions in blatantly divisive and dangerous terms at a pro-CAA rally in Bellari:
      "It's just a caution for those who are protesting against the CAA (Citizenship Amendment Act). We are 80 per cent and you (Muslims) are 18 per cent. Imagine what will happen if we take charge... Beware of the majority when you live in this country. This is our country. If you want to live here, you will have to, like the Australian Prime Minister said, follow the country's traditions... So, I warn you that CAA and NRC are made by Modi and Amit Shah. If you will go against these acts, it won't be good .... If you wish, you can go to Pakistan. We don't have any issues. Intentionally, we would not send you .... If you will act as enemies, we should also react like enemies."
      (Footnote ⁴⁴: Locations included Shaheen Bagh, Jafrabad, Chand Bagh, Khajuri Khas, Old Mustafabad, Seelampur, Turkman Gate, Kardam Puri, Sundar Nagari, and Lal Bagh, and Inderlok, Nizammudin, Hauz Rani, and Sadar Bazar.)

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:31, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Journal articles or book chapters published by major academic publishers

Nizaruddin, "Institutionalized riot networks," BRILL, 2022

1. Nizaruddin, Fathima (2022), "Institutionalized Riot Networks in India and Mobile Instant Messaging Platforms", Asiascape: Digital Asia, 9, BRILL: 71–94, doi:10.1163/22142312-bja10028, Abstract: The article uses the context of the Northeast Delhi riots in 2020 to examine how mobile instant messaging platforms have changed the nature of riot networks in India. What role does the state's partisan approach play in aiding the use of these platforms by the constituents of such networks? Does the lack of adequate mechanisms to hold technology companies accountable contribute to how their platforms are used to aid the circulation of extreme speech, misinformation, and violence? The article explores these questions and argues for a framework to govern mobile instant messaging platforms that goes beyond attempts at self-regulation as well as efforts by national governments to regulate them. The complications that arise when such platforms are used by networks that favour majoritarian rulers are analyzed to examine the need for placing issues related to the governance of platform ecosystems within the framework of the protection of human rights.

Ahmad, "Muslim Pasts," Modern Asian Studies, Cambridge, 2022

1. Ahmad, Saeed (2022), "Muslim pasts and presents: Displacement and city-making in a Delhi neighbourhood", Modern Asian Studies, 56 (6), Cambridge University Press: 1872–1900, doi:10.1017/S0026749X21000512, Abstract: Through an engagement with the histories of Muslim pasts, presences, and absences in the locality of Jangpura-Bhogal in the Indian capital city of Delhi, this article examines the constitutive relationship between displacements and city-making. It addresses Jangpura-Bhogal's post-colonial history (1947–present) through instances of the erasure of Muslim property, spaces, and histories, and the reoccupations, replacements, and redefinition of spaces, properties, and memories that they constituted. The article shows how protracted material displacements of Muslim property and spaces have contributed to the erasure of a Muslim historical presence from Jangpura-Bhogal. By tracing the afterlives of these material displacements, it tracks how narrative discourses draw on these Muslim absences and the sense of an abstract 'diverse space' to produce new sets of exclusions and practices of Othering in the present. The discussion focuses on the processual/everyday, 'below the radar', and, at times, invisible displacements, more than sudden eruptions of violence or overt ideological projects aimed at a deliberate Muslim erasure. Thus, Delhi's post-colonial history is not only about the well-rehearsed story of migrations and arrivals but equally about departures and displacements that have produced the neighbourhood and the city as particular kinds of majoritarian places and spaces. Current acts of Muslim displacement, that is, the Delhi 'riots' of February 2020 are enabled not only through visible and violent histories of Muslim marginalization, but also by longer histories of non-overt erasures, displacements, and replacements.

Jaffrelot, "Hindu rashtra to Hindu raj," Routledge, 2022

1. Jaffrelot, Christophe (2022), "From Hindu rashtra to Hindu raj?", in Widmalm, Sten (ed.), Routledge Handbook of Autocratization in South Asia, London and New York: Routledge, pp. 127–138, 132–134, ISBN 978-0-367-48674-7, LCCN 2021031304, The communal riots that took place in February 2020 in North-East Delhi – a very densely populated district where, according to the 2011 census, Muslims represented more than 29% of the population and Hindus, about 68% – were primarily due to the BJP's reaction to the anti-CAA movement in the context of the state elections. During the election campaign, BJP leaders targeted protesters against the CAA in Delhi – not only in Shaheen Bagh, but elsewhere in the city, including in the North-East, where many sit-ins were held – in order to polarize voters along communal lines. A member of the Modi government, Anurag Thakur, raised a slogan in an election rally that was to be repeated many times: "Desh ke ghaddaron ko, goli maaron saalon ko" (Shoot down the rascals/the traitors to the country) (Shamshad et al. 2020, p. 27)
   On February 11, 2020, the BJP had a rude shock as only eight of its candidates, out of 70, could win a seat, against 62 for the Aam Aadmi Party of Arvind Kejriwal. BJP cadres wanted to take revenge (Mubayi 2020). Their post-election meetings were as aggressive as the pre-election ones. On February 23, 2020, Kapil Mishra, a BJP candidate who had lost the election in February 2020, led a provocative rally in North-East Delhi. Mishra addressed the gathering in the presence of the Deputy Commissioner of Police for North-East District, Ved Prakash Surya, who was standing right next to him in full riot gear. It projected an unexampled visual by associating an expert in communal provocation and a custodian of law and order. Thousands of assailants, led by Hindu nationalist cadres, including BJP former or sitting MLAs and municipal councillors (Singh 2020; Menon and Iyer 2020) forcibly entered houses to attack men and women (Shamshad et al. 2020, pp. 61–69); 600 houses were burnt (Alavi 2020) and shops looted with a remarkably accurate selectivity, as adjacent houses and shops were spared when they belonged to Hindus (Express News Service 2020); markets were razed to the ground as well (Shamshad et al. 2020); mosques were systematically targeted – they were looted, desecrated and burnt (Mody 2020). A businessman who happened to be a BJP cadre said that his factory had been burnt because he had a "Muslim name," suggesting that, like in Gujarat in 2002, the rioters were using lists of residents – maybe the voters lists (Express News Service 2020). In Tyre Market the fire brigade, which had rushed to the place, was attacked physically (Shamshad et al. 2020, p. 48). After four days, the official toll was 55 dead, including 13 persons with non-Muslim names (Shamshad et al. 2020, pp. 111–118)
   1. Jaffrelot, Christophe (2022), "From Hindu rashtra to Hindu raj?", in Widmalm, Sten (ed.), Routledge Handbook of Autocratization in South Asia, London and New York: Routledge, pp. 127–138, 132–134, ISBN 978-0-367-48674-7, LCCN 2021031304, While Hindu nationalists initiated the riots, the police played an important role in them. Not only did they not come to the rescue of the Muslims, but they took an active part in the violence on many occasions. In the complaints filed subsequently, victims declare that the police also incited the activists to attack them (Singh 2020). Police officers also took part in the looting and destruction of mosques, sometimes while chanting "Jai Shri Ram" (Shroff 2020a; 2020b). Possibly in reaction to the attitude of the police, two security personnel were killed during the riot: Ankit Sharma, an Intelligence Bureau staff member (Bhardwaj 2020), and Police Constable Ratan Lal. The New York Times, whose journalists emphasize that "Delhi's Police turned against Muslims," mentions the fact that not only one police officer was killed but that 80 others were injured, especially when Muslim protesters outnumbered the police (Gettleman et al. 2020). Seemingly as a result, the police directly assaulted Muslims even more brutally. One of these attacks, on February 24, 2020, was filmed and the videos went viral on social media. They showed five men beaten by the police in the Kardam Puri Pulia area and told to chant the national anthem. One of them, Faizan, died (Yadav 2020). In other places, the police were pelting stones at the Muslim mob along with Hindu rioters, or, as in Chand Bagh "the police were encouraging the mob to carry out the riots" (Shamshad et al. 2020, p. 74). The police also took part in the looting and destruction of mosques and madrasas – usually after destroying the CCTV cameras (Shamshad et al. 2020, pp. 40, 45). Not only could the victims not file a complaint, but they were accused of being responsible for the violence itself (Lalwani 2020) – whereas no FIR has been registered against Hindu activists who took part in the riots, BJP leaders who made provocative speeches or policemen who were seen attacking Muslims on videos. The detailed report filed by the fact-finding committee set up on March 9, 2020 by the Minorities Commission of the state of Delhi and from which much of the information above was drawn was not even used by the authorities. Not only that, but the chairman of the Delhi Minorities Commission, Zafarul-Islam Khan, was accused of sedition in April 2020 because of a Facebook post (Bedi 2020).
      Instead, the narrative promoted after the Delhi riots by the police and the BJP government – both representing two sides of the same coin, that is, the state – consisted in exonerating the police and accusing the Muslims. On March 10, Amit Shah, the Home Minister to whom the Delhi police report directly, congratulated himself that the police succeeded in controlling the riots "within 36 hours," "not allowing the riots to spiral" (The Wire 2020). Shah concluded that these "riots were 'pre-planned' conspiracy" and that it "will be a lesson for the country on what befalls those who indulge in rioting" (The Wire 2020).
      This enabled the police to resort to a stringent anti-terror law, the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 2019 (UAPA), under which a detainee may have to await trial for up to two years and not be released on bail or be apprised of the charges against him/her for six months. It is noteworthy that the Narendra Modi government had just amended the law to make it possible to label as "terrorists" isolated individuals and not solely men and women belonging to an organization

Amrita Basu, Normalizing Violence, Cambridge University Press, 2022

1. Basu, Amrita (2022), "Normalizing Violence", in Hansen, Thomas Blom; Roy, Sirupa (eds.), Saffron Republic: Hindu Nationalism and State Power in India, Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, p. 67, As Hindutva violence has become normalized, it is less constrained by fear of international opposition. Indeed, it unfolded in New Delhi in February 2020 whenModi welcomed Donald Trump to New Delhi. That month, BJP leader Kapil Mishra instigated violence against anti-CAA protestors, leading to targeted anti-Muslim attacks in northeast Delhi in which fifty-three people, two-thirds of whom were Muslim, were killed. Hindu vigilante groups stormed and destroyed Muslim homes, burned mosques, and attacked Muslims with impunity from the police (Gettleman et al. 2020). Police records did not make note of Mishra's hate speech (Jain, Shukla, and Sanyal 2020).

Jacobs & Kanth, 'Kill Two Million of Them,' Global Responsibility .., BRILL, 2023

• Jacob, Cecilia; Kanth, Mujeeb (2023), "'Kill Two Million of Them': Institutionalised Hate Speech, Impunity and 21st Century Atrocities in India", Global Responsibility to Protect, 15 (2–3), Koninklijke Brill NV: 209–245, doi:10.1163/1875984X-20230002, ISSN 1875-9858

Viswanath, "Hate Crimes Against Minorities," J. Int. Crimin. Just., OUP, 2021

• Viswanath, Raghavi (2021), "Hate Crimes Against Minorities in India: Locating the Value of an International Criminal Law Discourse?", Journal of International Criminal Justice, 19: 611–642, doi:10.1093/jicj/mqab051