Talk:2002 Gujarat riots/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Martha Nussbaum's quote at the end of the lead section.

Why is that quote in the lead? What purpose does it serve? Why only Martha Nussbaum's quote and not any other writer? And can I put a quote by someone like Madhu Kishwar that would disagree with that quote? Ankit2 (talk) 07:32, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Please see previous discussions on this topic in the archives. Primarily, because Nussbaum is providing an overview of scholarly opinion, and because Kishwar's view's on Modi are not shared by most scholarly sources. Vanamonde (talk) 07:38, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I have looked at the concerned quote in Nussbaum's "The Clash Within". The full quote is - "The outcome of the Modi case shows that there is by now a broad consensus that the Gujarat violence was a form of ethnic cleansing, that it was in many respects premeditated, and that it was carried out with the complicity of the state government and officers of the law."

The "case" that Nussbaum is referring is the one where Modi was denied Visa by US state department due to his alleged involvement in the riots. Nussbaum is using the denial of Visa by US as a proof of the supposed "broad consensus". This is contrary to the argument that Nussbaum is providing an overview of scholarly opinion. It should also be noted that the quote was published in 2007. Since then, the travel restriction on Modi has been removed. In light of this, I think Nussbaum's quote can only be taken as overview of consensus in US academic circle in the year 2005, the year of the travel ban. I propose that this quote be moved from the lead section to Aftermath or Diplomatic Ban section. I also propose that the entire quote be used so that readers can understand the context behind this quote. Ankit2 (talk) 07:56, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

This was the concluding paragraph of a chapter on "Genocide in Gujarat", a chapter in which Modi's name appears some 40 times. Nobody is going to accept your analysis that this was just about the visa issue and has now become irrelevant. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:58, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

More like *you* don't agree with the analysis. The reason stated for the inclusion of this quote in the lead section is that it is providing "an overview of the scholarly opinion". Looking at the source I don't see any meta analysis done by the author to determine the said consensus. Her conclusion is derived from the fact that the US State Department denied a diplomatic Visa to Narendra Modi after lobbying by various groups. To me it seems a few editors here have determined for themselves that this quote in fact represents the supposed consensus and are pushing their POV by putting it in the lead section. Reading the quote in the lead makes me think that the article wants to me believe it instead of coming to my own conclusions. Ankit2 (talk) 17:00, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Folks have frequently complained here about Nussbaum's nationality and supposed outdatedness. Without exception, they have failed to provide in-depth reliable sources providing a contradicting narrative (and really to change this we need several such, because there's several scholars who broadly support Nussbaum's description). Vanamonde (talk) 17:12, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I am not here to provide any counter narrative. My only problem is with the quote being present in the lead. The reason given is that it provides an overview of scholarly opinion. I don't see how. The author's conclusion is derived from the Modi Visa denial. The full quote says as much. But this context is missing from the lead. Ankit2 (talk) 17:24, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Kautilya3 If you disagree with the change then please discuss it in the talk page. Specifically why should the first part of the quote "The outcome of the Modi case shows" be ignored. Ankit2 (talk) 08:12, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

As I already mentioned, the paragraph represents the conclusion of a detailed chapter on Gujarat riots. The idea that it just deals with the "outcome of the Modi case" is your interpretation. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:21, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

The author says "The outcome of the Modi case shows". What other Modi case is she referring to? I am saying the conclusion that "there is a broad consensus" is derived from the fact that Modi was denied Visa by US. Ankit2 (talk) 08:24, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

As Kautilya says, the text is referring to the "Modi case" in the generic sense, not just to the Visa kerfuffle. You have still to provide any source demonstrating that Nussbaum is misrepresenting scholarly consensus. Vanamonde (talk) 08:52, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

What do you mean "generic sense"? Please explain. The quote follows right after the description of the Visa denial. Also you are the one claiming that Nussbaum's quote is representing scholarly consensus. You need to show that this is true. At the moment you are just asking me to take your word for it. Ankit2 (talk) 09:05, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Your argument is getting rather tired. The lead is a summary of the article, and since we weight scholarly sources more than ambassadors and government spokespeople, the lede must summarize scholarly views. There are three scholars cited in the body, apart from Nussbaum, saying much the same thing. There are no scholarly sources saying otherwise. Furthermore, Nussbaum is writing a section of her book based on a number of other sources, and summarizes her conclusions from these sources. The "Modi case" is not only the decision to deny him a visa; it's the mobilisation by academics against his visit, the statement by Hindu groups in the US against the same, the US house resolution recommending against a visa, and so forth. When Nussbaum says "Modi case", she is referring to this entire process, not just the visa decision, which is an outcome of this process. Vanamonde (talk) 09:28, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

"When Nussbaum says Modi case, she is referring to this entire process, not just the visa decision, which is an outcome of this process".

Exactly. Nusbaum's exact words are "The outcome of the Modi case shows that" which as you said yourself is the visa denial to Modi. This is why I put the full quote in the Diplomatic ban section which contains the "outcome" and the "Modi case" that Nussbaum is talking about. Ankit2 (talk) 10:16, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I have provided a lot of evidence that Nussbaum's statement represents scholarly consensus. All you're doing is splitting hairs. I suggest you find sources supporting your view, or find something else to edit. Vanamonde (talk) 10:20, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I am saying that the quote should be used in full. The context of the quote is necessary. Ankit2 (talk) 10:58, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

The context of the quote is the numerous demands for the US state department to deny Modi a visa. That is too much detail for the lead. Vanamonde (talk) 11:02, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Which is why it doesn't belong there. Ankit2 (talk) 11:24, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• If you're really so bothered, find a better way to present scholarly consensus. We could easily drop the quote and replace it with "Scholars studying the 2002 riots state that they were premeditated and constituted a form of ethnic cleansing, and that the state government and law enforcement were complicit in the violence that occurred". But of course that's not a solution that will appeal to you, is it? Vanamonde (talk) 11:34, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• I'm okay with that. Add a note listing few of those scholars. Ankit2 (talk) 11:46, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• Hmm, okay. Here's the sources about complicity. A subset discuss ethnic cleansing/genocide. Please don't rush into making any changes; Kautilya3 should definitely weight in first (as the other participant in this discussion). Vanamonde (talk) 11:56, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

What's the point of including Jeffrelot in the list? He is talking about election strategy of Modi. And Buncombe isn't a scholar, is he?Ankit2 (talk) 12:58, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• Ankit2, Vanmonde has pointed out to me that an agreement has been reached between the two of you that essentially the same content can remain but with attribution to "Scholars" in general. If you can confirm that you have agreed to that, I am happy to withdraw the RfC. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:20, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• @Kautilya3: Ankit explicitly said above that he agreed with this formulation, and has been inactive, so I think the RfC can be withdrawn to save everyone time and trouble. We can always open an RFC should it prove necessary later. Vanamonde (talk) 05:00, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

References

Nussbaum's analysis

Ankit2 wants to argue that the Nussbaum's quote used in the lead was just a comment on the denial of US Visa for Modi. Despite my pointing out that it was the concluding paragraph of a chapter titled Genocide in Gujarat, he still persists. So, here is more detail. The last section of the chapter is titled Genocide, Law, and the International Community. She starts by asking the question: How should concerned citizens of the world think about these terrible events?

Then she answers it. Here are a few selected quotes:

• p.44: Since genocide is a central category in international law and morality today, we must begin by stating the undisputed fact that in Gujarat there were mass killings and rapes on grounds of religion.

• p.45: In light of these facts, it seems beyond dispute that the violence in Gujarat meets the definition of genocide offered in the United Nations Convention on Genocide.

• p.45: India is a democracy committed to the rule of law. And yet the rule of law broke down in Gujarat. To most commentators on the events, their most profoundly disturbing feature was the complicity of officers of the law at all levels.

• p.46 The very existence and meaning of India’s pluralistic democracy are deeply compromised by these events, which show that some citizens can count on the law’s coming to their aid and others cannot.

• p.47: One thing about Gujarat that should hearten friends of democracy is the vigor and courage of the media at all levels. National newspapers and television, large-market and small-market magazines, work written by scholars for the general public, and even some of the local Gujarati media (newspapers in English and the Muslim newspaper) all leapt into the fray fearlessly, criticizing Modi and the state government and working hard to uncover the facts.

• p.48: The nation, however, responded vigorously and superbly. Rarely has there been such an outpouring of writing, or so much sacrifice of personal time and projects on the part of scholars and activists.... we can see in the response of the nation a tremendous capacity for compassionate involvement, empathic understanding of suffering, and related action.

• p.48-49: The events in Gujarat, however, led to few large-scale public statements in the first years after the massacre. The government of Finland did make a highly vocal protest at the time, and was denounced by the Vajpayee government for foreign interference. The U.S. State Department included an accurate summary of the events in its 2002 International Religious Freedom Report, but the administration did not make these events salient in its foreign policy;... Clinton criticized the national government for its failure to stand against the politics of hate:...

• p.49: Outside India, scholars who study that nation have contributed to the literature condemning the violence.... Until 2005 there was no organized effort by American academics to express moral outrage...

• p.50: The situation has recently improved—thanks in part to the efforts by journals such as Dissent and the Boston Review to keep debating these issues, and thanks in part to concerned activists and scholars who have tirelessly pursued contacts with the State Department. In May 2004 the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom found Modi to have been complicit in the Gujarat violence.

• p.50-51: On March 15 Congressman John Conyers (Democrat from Michigan) submitted a House Resolution cosponsored by Congressman Joe Pitts (Republican from Pennsylvania) condemning the conduct of Modi in inciting religious persecution in Gujarat.... Independently, Pitts wrote a letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice (cosigned by various others), asking the State Department to deny Modi a visa.

• p.51: To almost everyone’s surprise, on March 19 the State Department denied Modi a diplomatic visa and revoked his tourist visa.[48]

• p.51: The outcome of the Modi case shows that there is by now a broad consensus that the Gujarat violence was a form of ethnic cleansing, that it was in many respects premeditated, and that it was carried out with the complicity of the state government and officers of the law.

All this shows that Ankit2's contentions are plain wrong. Nussbaum has indeed done a detailed analysis of the reactions from the concerned citizens of the world, and the final denial of visa to Modi was a culmination of this analysis. The quote should definitely stay in the lead. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:24, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I am sorry but you haven't done any analysis at all. You just listed a few sentences from the chapter, which I've already read. I still maintain my original contention that the supposed consensus reached by Nussbaum is derived from the outcome of the Modi Visa case. She says as much. Ankit2 (talk) 13:34, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Ankit, I wasn't doing any "anlaysis". I was just giving evidence that refutes your statement that the Nussbaum quote was covering the visa issue only. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:38, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I've made no comment as to what Nussbaum's quote is covering. I am saying her conclusion that "there is a broad consensus" is derived from denial of US Visa to Modi and the immediate events that led to it. Ankit2 (talk) 18:10, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I will go with your words. I am saying that the statement is "derived" from all the analysis in that section, for which the State Department's denial of visa was the finale. A lot of information went into that decision, which she pointed out in quite some detail. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:31, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Martha Nussbaum's quote in the lead

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.

---

The lead of this article concludes with the sentence: Martha Nussbaum said that "There is by now a broad consensus that the Gujarat violence was a form of ethnic cleansing, that in many ways it was premeditated, and that it was carried out with the complicity of the state government and officers of the law."[32] Please give your view on whether this quote should be retained or removed (to be placed elsewhere in the body). -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:30, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments

• Retain - as per the above discussion. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:31, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• Remove - The full quote is The outcome of the Modi case shows that there is by now a broad consensus that the Gujarat violence was a form of ethnic cleansing, that it was in many respects premeditated, and that it was carried out with the complicity of the state government and officers of the law. The first part of the quote is necessary to understand how the author came to this conclusion. Since the context behind it is too large to include in the lead, the quote should be moved to the diplomatic ban section, where it will naturally follow. Ankit2 (talk) 15:14, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
• Retain, obviously, unless it's replaced with the alternative above: but Kautilya3, this isn't a good idea. If we remove Nussbaum, we need to replace that quote with a different summary of the scholarly views on complicity. Right now, the RfC is framed as a choice between Nussbaum and nothing; and we all know what the usual suspects will choose. I suggest you reframe it pronto. Vanamonde (talk) 15:34, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Not really. If there is need to remove the Nussbaum quote, then some other summary of the consensus can go in its place. But that will be a separate discussion. I believe the Nussbaum quote itself is good for this, as I argued above. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:05, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: You and me know that something else should; but the way you've framed it, somebody could come and !vote "no" on both Nussbaum and an alternative, and since it's an RFC, the outcome would be fairly binding. If it's okay with you, I will propose the the option I proposed above as the alternative. Vanamonde (talk) 16:55, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

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.

The page is ridiculously written very one sided.

Most of the extensive description of deaths...etc is exaggerated with non of the sources quoting the same. The train attack as “premeditated” for whatever reason out of nowhere was a rumor, the section or tab about the train then starts claiming the passengers brought it among themselves, over shouting and tea? Then the fire is a mystery? The page literally stated although no violence from “so and so” group, when there’s a list of both. Yet coincidentally stating many other articles were rumors. Misusing the incident, especially since it started over a sensitive topic or temple. Shows the problem, sad for very humble Gujarat, around 9/11 too, although American I know this incident well, encyclopedias about cultures will always be changing and easily biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.219.82.204 (talk) 00:08, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

one sided article, maintained by group of specific interests "minority"

The article says one sided predetermind event for a train where people where forced to BURN alive. how strange. Also depicting the aftermath massacre as the only more important event. Please do note that the so called minority has facts and history of world wide violence. after that cry as victims. Hence please try to present the article neutrally if not one sided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsjdki (talk • contribs) 18:24, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Lack of citations for "Allegations of state complicity"

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have added a few citation needed tags for the first paragraph of "Allegation of state complicity". The paragraph makes very specific claims on "several facts", while only citing one source. After reading page 187-188 of this source, it suggests that "the state did little to quell the violence" is true but provides no evidence for any of the other claims. It also brushes over the subject in one paragraph while providing no source or further reading of its own. I think there are better sources that can be used for this topic that go into more detail, such as those used the lead section of this article or sources from the "2002 gujrat riots section" from the Nahendra Modi article.

TheMickyRosen-Left (talk) 21:18, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

The content was inserted here, some 2000 edits ago. It probably came from another article on "Post-Godhra violence", which doesn't exist any more. The-Postman, do you remember? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:50, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Extremely one sided article and then locked for editing

The article is one sided and then locked for editing. What a joke! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.104.7.1 (talk) 20:27, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 September 2021

"According to Teesta Setalvad on 28 February in the districts of Morjari Chowk and Charodia Chowk in Ahmedabad of all forty people who had been killed by police shooting were Muslim."

Change to - "On February 28, in the districts of Morjari Chowk and Charodia Chowk in Ahmedabad, all 40 of the people shot dead by the police were Muslim." Conceivably it could read "On 28 February", depending on the style for this article. The in sentence attribution is unnecessary, as the claim is sourced. Captgouda24 (talk) 00:24, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. If the claim is contentious it's often best to have it attributed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:48, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Why is this locked as if someone wants to protect the narrative?

The narration is extremely biased, It ignores a fact that Court has upheld the verdict, Fire was not under 'unknown circumstances' but was clearly instigated by mob, who added that due to arguments someone will burn the train? 45.125.116.193 (talk) 05:00, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

The real reason of Gujarat riots

The riots where started from well known peaceful committee 2409:4041:2D8A:AC95:0:0:8C0B:8507 (talk) 03:58, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia disappoints!!

This appears to be a one sided account of events. The article openly accuses people who have not been convicted and infact have been acquitted. The article looks more like a statement of allegation than a summary of the incident. Not expected from wikipedia. 103.58.153.231 (talk) 15:46, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

I think this is a BIASED narrative of the incident

“The argument became violent and under uncertain circumstances four coaches of the train caught fire with many people trapped inside.” As per The Hindu, The Gujrat High Court delivered the verdict that arson was found with Muslim mob nearby, they put petrol inside the couches and burned down the coach carrying “Hindu Sevak”. This is what started the riot. 11 accused have been sentenced to death, rest sentenced to life imprisonment. This is a contentious issue, attention should be paid to critical details. I’m still trying to find reliable sources to know the accurate circumstances for the riots. :)180.188.243.1 (talk) 18:31, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Gujarat 2002

As this topic came accross my mind I started doing research on it hence I found that Wikipedia holds incorrect information of number of deaths occurred. 203.194.96.21 (talk) 22:29, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 April 2022

Change content under heading "Attack on Muslims". There are so many biased fake events that are described there and needed to be removed. 111.223.26.101 (talk) 15:04, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:10, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Add Template

Shouldn't the template {{Violence against Hindus in independent India}} also be added below the other template? Since there has been violence against Hindus as well, both templates should be added in the article. Kpddg ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:41, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

We add the template for violence against Hindus when reliable sources broadly describe the incident as one of violence against Hindus. In this case, they do not. Please take a look at the plentiful previous discussion on this topic. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:39, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Don't the reliable sources state in the start of this article that the riots were started by a murder of Hindus? Many people of both groups have been killed. Kpddg ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:47, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

The template is already present in the article about the Godhra train burning. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:08, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

That's a completely separate article. OP was referring to this article. LΞVIXIUS💬 12:20, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

References

The article casts numerous and repeated aspersions alleging involvement of then Gujarat CM Shri Narendra Modi into the unfortunate riots. It also suspects the findings of Supreme Court appointed SIT, which acquitted Shri Modi of all such charges. However, conspicuously the article fails to mention anywhere that the subject SIT report acquitting Shri Modi of any wrongdoing has been accepted by three layers of Indian Judiciary, the latest being Supreme Court in June 2022. The highest court has also observed that activists like Smt Teesta Sheetalvad and some of her accomplishes tried to keep the matter alive and presented tutored witnesses during the SIT proceedings. A legal investigation into the role of all such persons has been initiated by Gujarat ATS after the subject SC verdict. Puru0506 (talk) 19:32, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

SIT ruling

The S.I.T as well as the supreme court have ruled that Modi was not responsible for the riots, and found no 'material evidence' against him and the other officials in the State. (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). So how is it appropriate to say: 'His administration has been considered complicit in the 2002 Gujarat riots' in the lead, when the apex court has given a clean chit? 223.190.86.17 (talk) 17:49, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Our article is written based on what reliable sources say, and the statement in question has a lot of support among reliable sources. Please note that the SIT investigation was largely into Modi himself, and its statement that there was insufficient evidence against him is included in the appropriate places. Please also read WP:DUE. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:49, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Note that the IP user has copied my comments made several months back from another page. Kpddg ^(talk) 12:11, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

In Popular Culture

Another item to add in popular culture, or perhaps have it's own section is BBC's "The Modi Question" series released in 2022 which has been heavily criticized by the Modi government and subsequently censored. At the moment, a copy of the series can be found uploaded by an unofficial source on Vimeo 68.69.212.180 (talk) 13:49, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 May 2023

Wrong Information given about Godhra Train Burning. The fire was not due to fight between passengers and vendors but the Muslims community pre planned and gathered with petrol bombs and mattress and bombs to kill Karsevaks in tow bogies 103.251.211.92 (talk) 21:00, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

The name of Muslim rioters is deliberately being avoided to show in news and media. 103.251.211.92 (talk) 21:03, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Callmemirela 🍁 00:12, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 July 2023

was called in only on 1st march. The incident took place on 27/28 feb 2002. Not leap year So 1st narch is the day following 28 The Only is misleading 183.82.235.2 (talk) 10:59, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 12:57, 18 July 2023 (UTC)