Shiv Sena’s ‘call’ sparks anger

[roadrunner]

Gujrat was a case of communal riots, albeit a grave one at that. Equating it with civil war is foolish.

Your contention that Muslims did not fight back is invalid in the light of the number of court cases in progress. The Central Governmant went to the extent of making sure that case proceedings were held outside Gujrat.

You've grossly exagerated the Gujrat riots; further, the tone of your argument suggests that Muslims are always wronged in India. This is incorrect; I'm not denying that Muslims sometimes have to face discrimination, but it is not of the scope and/or extent to which you're imagining it to be.



Gujrat is one of the many states in India. When the Gujrat riots were taking place, few (if any) regions in the rest of India saw any communal clashes. This implies that your argument is moot.

It was proven that the train fire which sparked off the Gujerat rioting was accidental, and not by Muslims. Therefore why were the Muslims targeted?

It's clear this could have spread to the rest of India, if the Muslims had fought back. There was no fight back as you seem to be stating.

It was a case of the majority beating up on the minority, police included sided with the majority.

 

[Flintlock]

It was proven that the train fire which sparked off the Gujerat rioting was accidental, and not by Muslims. Therefore why were the Muslims targeted?

Firstly, there has been no conclusive enquiry about how the fire started.

Even if it was an accident, the hindus perceived it to have been set-off by muslims.

It's clear this could have spread to the rest of India, if the Muslims had fought back. There was no fight back as you seem to be stating.

Your concepts of "fighting back" don't apply, since you have zero understanding of how riots spread, and how societies work in general.

Riots rarely spread outside localities, and are usually politically motivated by the local strongmen.

For a nationwide civil-war that you are suggesting, it will take a far, far more militarized and discontent society.
Try reading up on the rise of Nazi Germany, and the Islamic revolution in Iran to understand better.

It was a case of the majority beating up on the minority, police included sided with the majority.

Gujarati society is polarized no doubt, but the muslim politicians in the region werent exactly the lambs that you are making them out to be.
Muslim mobs went around rampaging as well.

 

[vish]

It was proven that the train fire which sparked off the Gujerat rioting was accidental, and not by Muslims. Therefore why were the Muslims targeted?

The train fire may or may not have been accidental; the conditions then were such that a majority of the populace went ahead doing 2 + 2. The Muslims were targetted because everybody (including Muslims) perceived that Muslims were behind that fire.

It's clear this could have spread to the rest of India, if the Muslims had fought back. There was no fight back as you seem to be stating.

If you're implying "Direct Action," then no Muslims did not "retaliate" anywhere, to a certain extent, not even in Gujrat. Also, anti-Muslims riots were not seen outside Gujrat. The above two facts imply that Gujrat was a locational and isolated incident.

There is no "fight back" because there is no need for one. So, the idea of a civil war is flawed.

It was a case of the majority beating up on the minority, police included sided with the majority.

All riots are anti-week riots.

I do concede that the state machinery was not up to the mark.

 

[vish]

That's the whole problem. Most people assume that this is some sort of historical revenge.
It was never meant to be. Ayodhya is believed by Lord Ram's birthplace by the vast majority of hindus. This wasn't created by the BJP or Sangh Parivar.

The fact that the congress was unwilling to listen to hindus, arrive at some sort of compromise, for 50 years for fear of offending muslims, unnecessarily created the hatred and revenge mindset.

Remember the temple at Somnath? The one that was looted by islamic invaders and rebuilt 7 times?
The current structure was built immediately after independence. There was no rioting, no allegations of discrimination. The mosque at the spot was shifted and rebuilt a few kms away, and everybody was happy.

I understand that it makes no logical sense, but unfortunately, most people don't share our idea of what is sensible and what isn't.

Our logical reasoning isn't going to change the fact that most hindus want a temple at their holy spot.

The only way to diffuse the crisis would be to educate each and every hindu with a strictly secular education in the next 10-15 years, and with the current bureaucracy and corruption, that ain't gonna happen.

The only way to eliminate segregation is to start anew and keep everyone on an equal footing. Appeasing either (majority or minority) is detrimental to the society in the long run, regardless of how the history has been.

A joint mandir/masjid complex is the only way forward for Ayodhya.

UCC must be implemented and quotas need to be rethought.

Stealth, we are getting more and more secular day by day; these hiccups are bound to happen.