Death Toll from Delhi's worst Riots in Decades Rises to 38 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#15070513
The death toll from Delhi’s worst riots in decades has risen to 38, as a political row broke out over the transfer of a judge who criticised the police and government’s handling of the crisis.

Tensions remained high in India’s capital, as thousands of riot police and paramilitaries patrolled streets littered with the debris from days of sectarian riots.

Justice S. Muralidhar, a Delhi high court judge, sharply criticised the police and called on officers to investigate politicians from Narendra Modi’s governing Bharatiya Janata party for inciting violence.

Muralidhar was transferred to another state court in a late-night order, prompting an outcry among opposition politicians and on social media. Manish Tewari, opposition Congress party leader, said every lawyer and judge in India should strongly protest what he called a crude attempt to intimidate the judiciary.

Ravi Shankar Prasad, the law minister, insisted it was a “routine transfer”.

The violence began over a disputed new citizenship law on Monday, which led to clashes between Muslims and Hindus in which hundreds were injured. Many suffered gunshot wounds, while arson, looting and stone-throwing also took place.

As the nation reeled from the bloodshed, a heavy deployment of security forces brought an uneasy calm on Thursday.

At the heart of the unrest is a citizenship law which makes it easier for non-Muslims from some neighbouring Muslim-dominated countries to gain Indian citizenship. UN human rights chief Michelle Bachelet said the new law adopted last December is of “great concern” and she was worried by reports of police inaction in the face of assaults against Muslims by other groups. “I appeal to all political leaders to prevent violence,” Bachelet said in a speech to the UN human rights council in Geneva.

Critics say the law is biased against Muslims and undermines India’s secular constitution. Prime minister Narendra Modi’s Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata party has denied having any prejudice against India’s 180 million Muslims, saying that law is required to help persecuted minorities.

On Wednesday the US Commission on International Religious Freedom, which advises Washington but does not set policy, voiced “grave concern” about the violence as president Donald Trump was visiting.

Anurima Bhargava, a commissioner appointed by Democrat house speaker Nancy Pelosi, also expressed alarm at reports that Delhi police “have not intervened in violent attacks against Muslims”.

Trump, asked at a news conference in the capital about the violence, said the issue was “up to India” and praised Modi’s “incredible” statements on religious freedom.

The Guardian



I hope this will dispel any belief that India is democratic / free, or even just better than China / Pakistan. The Indians are literally repeating 89.6.4.

Trump's response is expected, but seems that not even the Congress is concerned (they were quick to pass legislation when we Hongkongers suffered). Shame on both of them.

EDIT: Americans had already made the mistake of helping China to curb down Russia half a century ago. Now they are pulling the same trick on India (being lenient on it to get its help on curbing China)? What next if India goes rogue?
#15070519
Obviously, the violence is negative, and nobody here is endorsing it.

I am disappointed that the article did not list who is at the heart of the violence..? Are Hindus, who have really just gotten their way, really going around and doing this, while the police do nothing? Is that an accurate description of the events? It feels a bit like we are only getting one side of the story but I am not suggesting that this is not the case. I just saw some Muslims post about this saying that this is the case.

Regardless, the police must do their job and the Indian government must come up with some answers fo rus.

I think the Hong Kong issue is actually different because this involves governmental policies that are directly related to violence, but if some idiot Hindus are going around and attacking Muslims after... getting their way?..., it really isn't an international political issue but a law and order issue.
#15070521
Kapil Mishra the local BJP leader literally said that if protesters at Shaheen Bagh (the protesters who are protesting against the new Citizen Amendment Act and National Register of Citizens) are not cleared, not even police can stop him from clearing them and after that his supporters ran amok instigating the riots. We know exactly why the riots erupted. Was it Hindus or Muslims? No, but was it BJP? Yes a resounding yes and their fascistic Hindutva ideology.

And as per China and India comparison, its simple really, west doesn't care about nations going rouge or things like that, the simple fact is China is a threat to Western hegemony while India is not.
#15070523
Verv wrote:Obviously, the violence is negative, and nobody here is endorsing it.

I am disappointed that the article did not list who is at the heart of the violence..? Are Hindus, who have really just gotten their way, really going around and doing this, while the police do nothing? Is that an accurate description of the events? It feels a bit like we are only getting one side of the story but I am not suggesting that this is not the case. I just saw some Muslims post about this saying that this is the case.

Regardless, the police must do their job and the Indian government must come up with some answers fo rus.

I think the Hong Kong issue is actually different because this involves governmental policies that are directly related to violence, but if some idiot Hindus are going around and attacking Muslims after... getting their way?..., it really isn't an international political issue but a law and order issue.


This is more of a battle for the identity of India, whether it proceeds as a pluralistic and secular democracy or the chauvinistic homeland of the Hindus.
#15070524
Verv wrote:Obviously, the violence is negative, and nobody here is endorsing it.

I am disappointed that the article did not list who is at the heart of the violence..? Are Hindus, who have really just gotten their way, really going around and doing this, while the police do nothing? Is that an accurate description of the events? It feels a bit like we are only getting one side of the story but I am not suggesting that this is not the case. I just saw some Muslims post about this saying that this is the case.

Regardless, the police must do their job and the Indian government must come up with some answers fo rus.


I think the core problem is that people just do not care about India because it affects the world less than China or Hong Kong, which is sad or even disgusting, since India's population is second only to China, and events like this mean there are a whole lot of people suffering like we do.


Verv wrote:I think the Hong Kong issue is actually different because this involves governmental policies that are directly related to violence, but if some idiot Hindus are going around and attacking Muslims after... getting their way?..., it really isn't an international political issue but a law and order issue.


Allegedly, Hong Kong establishment also employed "patriots" to incite violence, but somehow it turned out that the protesters were stronger.
#15070527
I fundamentally side with all expressions of nationalist identity. I feel like layers of identity are useful for giving meaning, direction, and strength to an individual. The ironic part of this is that the people involved in identity politics and leftist agitation actually affirm this: the POC and queer identities are super-important, and without these identities, the people cannot live or function.

Richard Spencer has taken advantage of this and has incorporated it into his shtick: I don't want to be a minority because it sounds like it's terrible.

What does this mean for Indians..?

Of course, that is for Indians to decide.

Is somebody less Indian if they are part of a religious minority? Well, it certainly means that they are a fundamentally different kind of Indian.

A Korean who has become an Orthodox Christian or a Muslim is no longer representative of any t ypical Korean identity but is now a part of a new sort of idnetity that is simultaneously Korean (they are ethnic Koreans who speak Korean with Korean cultural reference points) but also divergent (they will have significantly different views of life, death, ancestral rites, alcohol, meat, etc.). The Christian example is intersting because, as it stands, maybe a quarter to a third of Koreans identify as Christian and well over half have some Christians in their families, so the distinction between a Korean and a Korean Christian is now somewhat blurred. It's less important. It's like the difference between Ben Shapiro, a conservative Jewish American, and the more typical WASP who consciously is a bit secular. The differences are significant, yes, but there is a very much agreed upon detente...

Maybe what India needs to seek for its healthy identity is a consciously racial identity.

What I mean is this...

Start a rumor, with your friends, with all the aunties and all the uncles, that the Tamils & Indo-Aryans should just be thought of as a singular Aryan-Tamilian people... We can call them "Arya-milians," or AryaTa-Millionaires, because that's what they're going to feel like.

Now there's a new layer, a new dimension, a new wedge point: there's an overarching concept of the Indian self that bridges inter-ethnic strife, and now with a single umbrella to assemble under, religious differences can fade.

Of course, the counter-proposal is that we can just melt all of these things down and function as a secular humanist United States of India. But this has not fully resolved inter-ethnic strife in the US, why would it do so in a developing nation?

OF course, the Arya-millionaire model is ridiculous and will not be tried. But a fantastical model that is out of grasp but simple & clean is better than a fantastical model that won't work, but will be used, and is dirty, dangerous, and tangled.
#15070584
Verv wrote:Obviously, the violence is negative, and nobody here is endorsing it.

The violence of the oppressed is not the same as the violence of the oppressor. The violence of Nat Turner and Jean-Jacques Dessalines was not the same as their slaver masters even if it sometimes made (and still makes) establishment liberals uncomfortable. The good Infidels of South Asia have been suffering under Muslim oppression for a millennium and a half. But now some of them are start to fight back.
#15071074
fuser wrote:And as per China and India comparison, its simple really, west doesn't care about nations going rouge or things like that, the simple fact is China is a threat to Western hegemony while India is not.



No mate, just no.

This has nothing to do with western opinion. Why are you not concerned about SubSaharan African opinion instead? The answer is Westerners are easy targets for Asian prejudice. You are just finding excuses to take cheap shots at the West, your preferred ‘repugnant other’, so you might rally to yourself those who share your bigotry.

Instead of inflicting your racism on others, how about you start taking responsibility for the prejudice in your own country instead of investing weak excuses of why westerners are somehow responsible.
#15071081
foxdemon wrote:Instead of inflicting your racism on others, how about you start taking responsibility for the prejudice in your own country instead of investing weak excuses of why westerners are somehow responsible.


He is not saying Westerners are responsible for current social climate in India (although we could have another discussion regarding The British Empire's role in it), he is saying that the West focuses on injustices when it suits our interests and ignores them when not. Which is factually true e.g. the way Western media portrays the villanous Iran on the one hand and our staunch allies Saudi Arabia on the other. Oppression and injustice does not factor in to that equation, does it?
#15071098
MadMonk wrote:although we could have another discussion regarding The British Empire's role in it),

Asian Infidel cultures have made enormous contributions to our world. To me Asian Religious and Spirituality is clearly superior to Christianity. However it was Europe that saved Asia from Islam. Vasco de Gama, peace be upon his name, reached India in 1498. While the Muslims suffered many temporary set backs their advance into Asia, over the previous less than 900 years was inexorable before the Europeans arrived to stop them. Without Europeans and their technology an Islamic darkness would have covered Asia. It was only a matter of time.
#15071130
@foxdemon, see Madmonk's reply. I am fully aware of the prejudices in this country and not trying to excuse it. And as per western and sub saharan opinion, that's a silly comparison. You always care more about the powerful's opinion, that's a fact. West can have a positive or negative impact on any country/region in a way that is simply not possible for sub-saharan countries.
#15071157
1. Citizenship law for neighbouring countries except Muslims. No big problem
2. All Muslims have to prove their citizenship before1970, this means for poor muslims who have not so long their documents they get stateless. I doubt most Hindus have 50 year old documents in the slums of India


These laws could make over 100 Million People losing their citizenship.

Taj Mahal is a Sufi Muslim Shrine Trump visited.

India has a huge racism problem Dalits (Black Indians) are sometimes worser off then Muslims

@Rich I don't trust the Turks nor do I like th[…]

So tell me... why should Youtube help promote c[…]

Virus Hysteria For Morons

Last week Victorians were told they couldn’t visi[…]

https://i.redd.it/nwu60uy54vp41.[…]