Loren Pechtel

Repeatedly been attacked, yes. Far bigger than them, though, and not seriously threatened by the attacks.

PsycheDelia

what do you suggest as an alternative to restraint? and what do you expect international reaction to a large india-pakistan war would be? correct me if you think i am wrong, but i believe that india is at war with pakistan already, and has been for decades, its just that the conflict is contained to the border areas.


but then those blasts were largely a reaction to the riots in bombay, where for two months any muslim was too terrified to go out in the streets, where the police either turned a blind eye to attacks on muslims or were actively involved in those attacks, and the politicians encouraged the violence. read the findings of the srikrishna commission :

i think what i am saying is that violence only creates more violence.

Blixy Sticks

Amen to that!!!

hinduwoman

Oh really? then what about BEFORE either of us got nuclear bombs?
when we were limited to conventional warfare then why did not USA support a fellow democracy and instead chose to support a dictatorship that promote terrorism?
why don't you leave off your desperate attempts to show USA is moral and confess the truth --- USA does not give a damn about the principles it spouts about, or how many non-Americans die, but only about is own intersts?

That is why every USA ambassador who came around to supporting India's stand was removed before he could complete his term, like with Blackwill now.

hinduwoman

Psychedelia, I suggest we be like USA, international opinion be damned. The international community cares nothing for us, their media and our clone English ones ignored the recent massacre of 86 pandits. Some might be angry, but we will give them enough trade deals to soothe their outraged consciences.

As for Bombay blasts, which came first: the riots or the blasts, though Srikrishna commission insists on the former.

http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/sep/23varsha.htm

The second part is complicated. I stated -- and not "suggested" -- that Bombay burned after the Radhabai arson; the contrary theory -- as set forth by the Commission -- asserts that the Shiv Sena instigated and indulged in the rioting and murders. Indeed, the NGOs, "secularists," etc, have founded an entire industry based on laying all the evils at the door of Hindutva for destroying the derelict structure that was imposed on temple land. Which evil was pushed as the root cause of the Bombay riots then -- and is for the Gujarat unrest, now.

That Hindus -- including Dalits and Adivasis -- unaffiliated to political organisations can rise in anger is an event rejected by pinkos. This denial serves two purposes: One, to lull the submissive Hindus into thinking they are the nice-nice majority segment of Hindus while the rest are the "rabble" brainwashed by Hindutva; and, two, to keep the minorities believing that they never are at fault and that communal riots are spawned and perpetrated by the few rotten fundamentalist Hindus. How I wish.

Even so, following are excerpts from the Srikrishna Gita, which backup my conviction about when Bombay burned and why:


Volume I, Chapter II, Term No. (I), Section 1.7: iv) The last week of December 1992 and first week of January 1993, particularly between 1st to 5th, saw a series of stabbing incidents in which both Hindus and Muslims were victims, though the majority of such incidents took place in Muslim-dominated areas of South Bombay and a majority of victims were Hindus.

ix) On the night of 5th January 1993 a Mathadi worker... was set upon by miscreants who stabbed him to death. Three more Mathadi workers who came out of the godown to help him were also stabbed to death... Huge meetings were held which were addressed by leaders of Mathadi Unions. Speeches were made during this meeting to condemn the police and Government for their ineffectiveness with exhortations that Hindus might have to pick up swords to defend themselves...

Section 1.8: i) On 6th January 1993 there were several cases of stabbing... in which the victims were innocent pedestrians who were stabbed after ascertaining their identity... In all, 18 cases of stabbing were reported by the evening of this day... These stabbing cases resulted in 1 Hindu, 1 Muslim and 2 others being killed... Mob violence accounted for the deaths of 7 Hindus and 1 Muslim... [Killed: 8 Hindus, 2 Muslims]

Section 1.9: Curtains went up for the second phase of the riots in the city.

Section 1.10: i) The violence and riots spread to several parts of the city... The stabbing incidents resulted in deaths of 16 Hindus and 4 Muslims... 11 cases of mob violence occurred... killing 2 Hindus... 7 cases of arson were reported... [in which] 2 Hindus were killed... Violent mobs of Hindus and Muslims kept attacking each other... [Killed: 20 Hindus, 4 Muslims]

Section 1.11: i) During the wee hours of 8th January 1993... [6 residents of] Radhabai Chawl in Jogeshwari jurisdiction were locked from outside and set on fire by miscreants...

ii) The Hindu 'backlash' commenced. The communal riots spread... 66 stabbing cases were reported... [by which] 11 Hindus, 15 Muslims and 2 others were killed... 48 cases of mob violence occurred in which 6 Muslims were killed... 31 cases of arson were reported... A dargah and mosque in Pydhonie jurisdiction, a kabrastan and a madrassa in Jogeshwari jurisdiction and a temple in Byculla jurisdiction were attacked... [Killed: 17 Hindus, 21 Muslims]

iii) That the rioters had become defiant and the authority of the police was considerably eroded, appeared clear when a crude bomb was hurled at the police commissioner's car... Curfew was imposed...
Do you see the difference in the figures of the stabbings, arson and mob violence before and on January 8? Do you see which community suffered more violence on January 8...? And I haven't yet gone into the killings from January 9 to 12! These are the bare figures, as per the Report:


January 9: 57 cases of stabbing, killing 8 Hindus and 18 Muslims; 97 cases of mob violence, killing 1 Hindu and 6 Muslims; 73 cases of arson, killing 3 Hindus and 6 Muslims.

January 10: 81 cases of stabbing, killing 10 Hindus and 39 Muslims; 25 cases of mob violence, killing 2 Hindus and 9 Muslims; 108 cases of arson, killing 1 Hindu and 5 Muslims.

January 11: 86 cases of stabbing, killing 11 Hindus and 44 Muslims; 129 cases of mob violence, killing 4 Hindus and 19 Muslims; 93 cases of arson, killing 2 Hindus and 12 Muslims.

January 12: 56 cases of stabbing, killing 3 Hindus and 27 Muslims; 71 cases of mob violence, killing 1 Hindu and 6 Muslims; 70 cases of arson, killing 2 Muslims. To top that, "The army column, detailed to rescue a group of besieged Muslims in Antop Hill jurisdiction is attacked by a violent Hindu mob."
Yes, they attacked even the army! This is what the undamming of repressed anger, a backlash, is all about. Such a backlash isn't caused by incitement from politicians -- it's triggered by inequities fostered by "secularists."

Now for the third part -- the Sena's lie to cover its crimes before January 8. To answer that, I have to go into the first phase of chaos: from December 6 to December 12, 1992.

On December 6, at 4:40 pm, a cycle rally of about 300 local Sainiks went on the road in Dharavi, passing through Muslim areas and terminating at a meeting addressed by local leaders. Obviously, they rejoiced at the liberation of the Ram Janmabhoomi. Which is pinned by the Report as "the irresponsible act of the Hindutva parties in celebrating and gloating over the demolition of Babri structure."

Point to ponder: How does ONE rally in Dharavi, in Mumbai North, cause stabbings in South Mumbai...?

Apart from that, a series of incidents occurred on the same day, like the decapitation of a Ganesh idol, stone/bottle throwing, attempted arson and firing in Muslim-dominated areas in Jogeshwari, Chembur, Minara Masjid, Bhendi Bazar, Mohammed Ali Road, etc. That is, all over Bombay.

So far, the only nit Justice Srikrishna could pick against Hindus was the cycle rally... About the next day, facts forced him to state: "From 7th December 1992 onwards there was a qualitative transformation in the situation. Large mobs of Muslims came on the streets and there was recourse taken to violence without doubt. This time the Muslim mobs appear to have come out with the intention of mounting violent attacks as noticed from their preparedness with weapons of offence. There were violent attacks on the policemen in Muslim dominated areas..."

But that's not what infuriates me; it is what follows: "The jurisdictional areas affected were mostly Muslim dominated or mixed localities in which the misguided and irresponsible Hindu youths aggravated the situation by engaging the rioting Muslims..."

Excuse meeee? Since when is it "misguided" and "irresponsible" to defend oneself against an armed mob with an intent to kill???

Here's an example of violence that he wanted us to ignore: "Two Constables in Deonar jurisdiction were killed with choppers and swords by the rampaging Muslims. While one lay on the ground bleeding to death, the body of another was dragged and thrown into the garbage heap from where it was recovered seven days later."

Thing is, in Volume II, none of these event are mentioned in the details of the respective police stations. While the Report bundles the incidents between January 1 and 5 as "a series of stabbing incidents," it remains silent on the details where "a majority of victims were Hindus" -- which stabbings were going on before the Radhabai killings. Even the statements of then Commissioner of Police, S K Bapat, are conveniently brushed off with: "the memory and information of Shri Bapat is either selective or that he had been selectively fed with only such material..."



http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/oct/07varsha.htm

2.3: The first reaction to the demolition of Babri Masjid came on 7th December 1992, during which angry Muslims directed their anger at the police or BEST buses by stoning them (CR No 354 of 1992). In another incident (CR No 357 of 1992) which occurred on 8th December 1992 at 1315 hours in Rajiv Gandhi Nagar, a mob of 300 to 500 persons set fire to some of the huts therein... However, the two huts in Rajiv Gandhi Nagar which were set on fire were occupied by Hindus and, it may be correct to presume that the aggressive mob was one of Muslims. The slogans shouted by the mob also lend support to this assumption.

2.4: On 9th December 1992, between 2300 to 2330 hours, a mob of 100-150 Muslims attempted to attack the Hindu settlement at Vijaynagar and was marching towards the local Ganapati Mandir. There was stone throwing by the said mob and slogans shouted that all the huts should be set on fire.

2.5: January 1993 saw thick rumours being floated around in the area that there was an imminent attack by Muslims...

2.6: By far the most serious incidents took place in January 1993 in Pratiksha Nagar and Kokri Agar. All the action in this area took place on 9th and 10th January 1993...

2.7: On 9th January 1993 a violent mob of Hindus attacked the house of a Muslim in Pratiksha Nagar with stones, ransacked the articles inside and set fire to them. On 10th January 1993, one Mohamad Hanif Quereshi was killed by a mob which attacked him with lathis and swords...

2.8: On 9th January 1993, at about 1200 hours, a Muslim, returning from the open field after answering the call of nature, was assaulted and stabbed.

2.9: On 10th January 1993, two bodies were found in badly mutilated condition in Pratiksha Nagar. One was discovered near the Tata Power line at about 1800 hours and the other in the night...

2.10: On 11th January 1993, at about 0600 hours, two Muslims were stabbed in Pratiksha Nagar, resulting in the death of one and injuries to the other...

2.11: There was an attack on a Masjid known as Markaz-E-Tamir-Millat Masjid by Hindu mob (CR No.20 of 1993). The mob threw stones at the masjid and the adjoining huts of Muslims and torched vehicles...

2.12 A Muslim driving his vehicle in Pratiksha Nagar near the Santosh Hotel was attacked by a violent mob of Hindus on 11th January 1993 at about 1300 hours...

2.13 A Hindu driving a vehicle was attacked by a violent mob on 12th January 1993 at about 1703 hours opposite the Kokri Agar Church. Surprisingly, in this case, the accused arrested are both Hindus (CR No 23 of 1993).

2.14: Three Muslims travelling in a Maruti car in Pratiksha Nagar were pulled out, severely assaulted, put back in the car and the car was set on fire resulting in their being burnt alive. The incident occurred opposite Building No.20, Manohar Kini Memorial Library, Sardar Nagar No.1, Pratiksha Nagar on 14th January 1993 at 1430 hours (CR No 27 of 1993).
Do you get this, at least? Maruti car -- not taxi. Three Muslims -- not two. January 14 -- not 7. Six days after Radhabai -- not one day before.

Hmm... is this why Mr D'Souza wanted me "admit" my "mistake" about the date thing? To prove that Muslims burned the Radhabai Hindus on January 8 only because Hindus had burned these Muslims on January 7...? (BTW, I didn't see an admission on goofing up about the "night of January 7.")

Also, note Section 2.6: "by far the most serious incidents" and "All the action in this area took place on 9th and 10th January." If a taxi had been burned in Pratiksha Nagar on January 7, would the Commission have noted this? What, wasn't the car-roasting serious enough? Or, was the Commission trying to "cover for the Shiv Sena's own crimes in those weeks" before Radhabai...?

Do you think this is a new argument Bhosle's dug up? That the Sena lawyers were blind to this discrepancy? Rubbish! The Report is absolutely littered with such inconsistencies! Such were put forth to the Commission -- and such were ignored. If the Bombay riots case were in the Supreme Court, the sentence imputing the car-burning to January 7 would have summarily been struck off! When one makes allegations of murder and of exhortation to murder, one better have a water-tight case -- not leaky documents. Is that also too hard to get...?

With Antop Hill as a microcosm of Bombay, observe which community went on the offensive when. "One-upmanship of victims" is an useful device to escape facing the fact that -- just as in Gujarat -- Muslims began the violence, and when Hindus rose, the city burned. And that's confirmed by Volume II.

_________________________________

since you said you lived in Bombay during that period, can you attest to who is stating the truth?

Loren Pechtel

Note how things have gotten worse since Pakistan got the bomb.

ThinkDifferent

HinduWoman..........

:notworthy :notworthy :notworthy :notworthy :notworthy

phaedrus

Well blackwill is going back to harvard.....expressing his reservations over the double standards.....anyhows coming to the topic of the thread.......i think pakistan is more worried than india...here is a reuters story


-------------------------

Pakistanis wonder -- will they face Iraq's fate?
By Tahir Ikram

ISLAMABAD, April 21 (Reuters) - It has nuclear weapons, a general as president, an increasingly powerful Islamist fringe, and it is accused of supporting terrorism in another country.

No wonder some Pakistanis worry that their country will one day face a similar fate to Iraq and fall victim to the new American doctrine of pre-emptive strike.

Neighbour and nuclear-armed rival India is already trying to make the connection. Ironically, but for different reasons, so are the Islamists in Pakistan themselves.

"Thinking that our turn will not come is like closing your eyes to the truth," Qazi Hussain Ahmed, leader of Pakistan's biggest Islamist party, told Reuters in a recent interview.

"America...does not want (Muslims) to be able to defend themselves."

Absurd, say Western diplomats. U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell has already ruled out Indian suggestions that Islamabad's government could be compared to Iraq's.

Islamists, diplomats say, are simply trying to scare-monger, and undermine a solid partnership between Pakistan and the West.

"Definitely the West wants to remain engaged with Pakistan," said one Western diplomat. Dialogue not confrontation, he said, was the key to the West's relationship with the nuclear-armed Muslim state of 140 million people.

President Pervez Musharraf may have his faults in Western eyes, but he has been a solid partner in the war on terror, supporting military action in Afghanistan and rounding up several key al Qaeda leaders in Pakistan.

Removing him or trying to forcibly disarm Pakistan would only play into the hands of the extremists and make the country 100 times more unstable, diplomats say.


"DE-FANG PAKISTAN"

Yet behind the politics and propaganda, Pakistan was arguably on the road to becoming a "rogue state" under the chaotic second term of Nawaz Sharif, before Musharraf toppled him in his 1999 military coup.

Pakistan's liberal intellectuals fear the country could easily go down that road again one day, especially as Islamist parties exploit anti-American sentiment to expand their powers.

Pakistan, some critics argue, is also playing with fire by supporting jihadis, or holy warriors, fighting Indian rule in Kashmir -- something India refers to as "cross-border terrorism", although Islamabad denies the charge.

A.H. Nayyar, research fellow at Islamabad's Sustainable Development Policy Institute, says the world's nuclear powers are worried about a nuclear-armed subcontinent with India and Pakistan constantly on the verge of war.

When push comes to shove, it is India and not Pakistan with whom the West will side, he says.

"So all of them would like to seize the first opportunity that comes their way to de-fang Pakistan," said Nayyar.

"They only have to build up the case, like they have done with other countries and behold, within months you will not find a single person who will be sympathetic to Pakistan."

Nayyar fears the United States would not hesitate to "neutralise" Pakistan's nuclear weapons if that became necessary, or could use India as a proxy for the same purpose.

Selig S. Harrison, director of the Center for International Policy research group in Washington, said that despite "clear evidence" Pakistan had provided communist North Korea with nuclear technology, the United States was doing nothing to punish Islamabad or prevent it from helping a country branded part of an axis of evil along with pre-war Iraq and Iran.

"The United States need not make an either-or choice between keeping Pakistan as an ally against al Qaeda and making sure that it stops transferring nuclear technology," he wrote in the International Herald Tribune.

"Both critical objectives can be achieved with a determined carrot-and-stick diplomacy."

Pakistan denies transferring nuclear technology.

It may sound far-fetched at the moment, but Musharraf knows his country faces some tough choices in the years ahead, and will have to confront Islamic extremism if it is to remain a trusted nuclear power.

"Our power, the atomic power, the missile power, we will not let it come to an end," he told an audience of tribal elders in the North West Frontier Province this month.

"The question arises what should be our attitude toward the world," he said. "We have two paths in front of us. One path is that of confrontation. The other path is of forebearence."

"In my view the path of forebearence is in Pakistan's interest."

PsycheDelia

hinduwoman,

to start with let me thank for you forcing me to read varsha bhosle, a writer that i usually avoid like the plague because i have no time for bigoted fundamentalists who function as mouthpieces for the hindutva brigade. particularly those writers who actually rejoice at growing intolerance and nazism in countries that share what she probably thinks of as her pure aryan identity

lets just look at a couple of your own statements:
riots: december 92 and january 93
blasts: march 93

which came first is simple, unless for some reason the calendar was going backwards at that time.

you only gave me varsha's side of it. who am i supposed to compare that to in order to answer your question? what i can say for certain is that it was a scary time to live in that city... just reading it all over again made me remember the sounds of gunfire that i used to listen to every night, the fires i would watch from my window, the panic, just sheer panic i felt when anyone from my family was out in the streets even just to buy groceries. how many died, and which community they came from seems to be the point of varsha's invective, but lets do the math here (based solely on the stuff you quoted):
hindu: 102
muslim: 220
and considering the fact that the hindus are the majority, that means a larger percentage of the muslim community was killed.

and now can we just stop counting bodies and pointing fingers? i made the point earlier that violence only creates more violence, something i can attest to firsthand. somewhere, sometime, it has to stop, but launching increasingly more violent attacks do not seem to be the way to end it.

lets return to your original post - is india likely to be attacked? sure some people in india are worried - paranoia can be an attractive state of mind, particularly for those with delusions of grandeur. and as phaedrus points out in his post, pakistan seems to share some of the paranoia.

i know i might seem like an idealist when i wish that india - my home, the one country that i truly love - takes the moral highground, but i am first and foremost a pacifist. i will forever remain committed to the idea that peace cannot be bought with war, so please expect to find that sentiment in all of my posts.

hinduwoman

Unfortunately, in the real world, how can you stop someone totally dedicated to destroying you because he thinks he is guided by God?

Bhosle's contention is why is it that when Hindus riot the antecedents of riots are never probed? She is pointing out that Muslims started in a small way by stabbings and stone throwings, but somehow that was never counted as 'riots'.