If Mush comes to India and claims that terrorist organisations are born in Pakistan due to discrimination in India, what do you expect. You expect the Indian audience to clap and agree to that. Answer my question. Why werent terrorist organisations born when your countrymen were treated like dirt in BD. You guys dont have an answer for that. How did Mush give enough to shut his mouth. I can only see Mush being humilated by the moulana’s answer and not the other way round.
Your arguement does not make any sense. Talk about Gujarat riots by all means, but also talk about Godhra in the same breath since both of them are inter-related.
No both are not inter-related.
Godhra might have been done by some muslim bigots, but relating this incident to Gujrat carnage has no justification at all. those who were killed in Gujrat post Godhra didnt relate to Godhra incident. Godhra was a henious crime......But Gujrat was 100 times henious crime than Godhara, a blot on the face of Nation. Hindus who were involved in Gujrat did more harm to India and Hinduism than anyone else has ever done so far.
Indian muslims have evolved into a hybrid..-** A Mixture of Hinduism and Islam.... **
Raj Kumar Aslam, Daleep Rafique would be their names........who cares what they think of Pakistan and Islam. Let them dance and sing with the Hindus.
Thaiyya Thaiyya Thaiyya...Nachak Thannay Thannay..>Sare gama pada Nese.....Be happy!
Are Pakistani muslims anything different to their Indian counterparts?
^ It is ridiculous to doubt the credentials of Justice Nanavati. Just because it was appointed by the Gujarat govt does not make the Nanavati commission biased. One must remember that it is the same justice Nanavati who inquired into the anti- Sikh violence following the assassination of Mrs Indira Gandhi in 1984. On the basis of the Nanavati report, two Congress leaders, Sajjan Kumar and Jagadish Tytler were put in the dock. Tytler was even forced to resign from the Union Government.
Mods, if you feel that this discussion is useful pls split the thread. I do not want to hijack the original thread through this tangential discussion.
Your response has given a twist to the usless and unwanted seeds that you have sowed in your previous post by saying that Godhra fire was responsible for Gujrat riots, since discussing nanavathi's work in 1984 is not attol needed here.These two cases are completely different.
To prove that Godhra was accident and not preplannned i gave you crystal clear information to proof that your statement is baseless. . i would like to add further more to give more strong proofs and base to my previous post. I found few more interesting points from tehelka.
1) The two salesmen — Ranjitsingh Patel and Prabhatsingh Patel — who claimed they sold 140 litres of petrol to Muslim hawkers in their statements were actually bribed by the chief investigating officer, Noel Parmar, to say this and falsely identify people. TEHELKA caught Ranjitsingh on camera admitting to this. The amount paid to each was Rs 50,000.
2)The nine BJP members who identified 41 Muslims were actually not even present at the station that day. The TEHELKA undercover reporter caught two of them — Kakul Pathak and Murli Mulchandani — on camera, categorically admitting that they were not there that day, and that the police had filed statements in their name without their knowledge and they had colluded to serve Hindutva.
3) Illias Hussain and Anwar Kalandar who were arrested by the police and made to claim that they had turned the discs that stopped the train at Cabin A were actually tortured by Noel Parmar and his team into doing so. Illias told the TEHELKA reporter that while they were in custody, Parmar’s men would put a log on his leg and walk on it. Kalandar said they had put electric current on his genitals. A year after their statements to the police, the two had returned from enforced exile and retracted their statements through an affidavit in court.
4) Ajay Baria, the inexplicable Hindu vendor whose statement seemed to stitch the police’s theory neatly into place, is no longer allowed to live in Godhra. He is tailed by two policemen round the clock. TEHELKA could not speak to him directly but spoke to his mother. The mother said Baria had become a police witness out of fear.
5) Maulvi Umarji, whose alleged role in the conspiracy, is crucial to uphold the police’s theory was not present at the site during the incident. The allegations against him rest on two statements. Significantly, Jabir Bin Bahera, who first named him, later retracted his statement. Sikandar Siddik, the other witness who named Umarji, proved himself unreliable — he had named Maulvi Yakub Punjabi as well as Umarji. It turned out Punjabi wasn’t even in India on the day of the incident.
6) The forensic report had effectively demolished the police and State’s contention that S-6 was burnt by inflammable liquid either thrown in through broken windows or sprinkled outside the coach. The new and current theory that S-6 was burnt because of petrol thrown along its floor is based on the statements of three karsevaks who, just three months earlier, had said they had fainted due to the smoke and thus seen nothing.
With this iam closing this topic since i dont want to trouble our mods by digging it further and misleading this thread . :)
No both are not inter-related.
Godhra might have been done by some muslim bigots, but relating this incident to Gujrat carnage has no justification at all. those who were killed in Gujrat post Godhra didnt relate to Godhra incident. Godhra was a henious crime......But Gujrat was 100 times henious crime than Godhara, a blot on the face of Nation. Hindus who were involved in Gujrat did more harm to India and Hinduism than anyone else has ever done so far.
Thats your opinion and you are entitled to it.
Godhra was the work of Muslim bigots and Gujarat was the work of Hindu bigots in retaliation for Godhra. Do you really think if Godhra had not happened, the Gujarat riots would have taken place ?
I condemn the Gujarat riots, but one cannot condone Godhra either.
As I said earlier, selective reading is not good. Since you have brought up Tehelka’s report let me point out the loopholes & inconsistencies in their report -
=======================================================
Tehelka versus Nanavati Commission report
They refuted the Nanavati Report with their sting camera footage, much of which had already been shown in November last year on Aaj Tak. But DIPU SHAW finds holes in Tehelka’s version.
Two days after the Nanavati-Shah Commission gave a clean cheat to Narendra Modi, Tehelka organized a press conference to publicly deny the claims of the Commission. The latest issue of the weekly magazine also rebuts the Nanavati Report in great detail.
The Nanavati Commission had submitted the first part of its report on Godhra to Chief Minister Narendra Modi on 18th September, 2008. The report was tabled in the assembly a week later.
The Nanavati Commission findings state that the burning of the Sabarmati Express on February 27, 2002 was “a pre-planned conspiracy, not a spontaneous act of mob fury.” It makes it plain that 140 litres of petrol was procured from a nearby petrol pump certified by Ranjitsingh Patel and Prabhatsingh Patel, two attendants at the petrol pump. This was then used to burn Coach S-6, the subsequent day.
The magazine labeled the Nanavati report as “extremely controversial” and called its findings a “manufactured theory”.
Tehelka, which claims to have conducted an exhaustive investigation in 2007 on the Godhra incident raised questions about the authenticity of the Nanavati Report at a press conference at Women’s Press Club recently and also does so in its latest issue.
Tarun Tejpal, editor in chief of Tehelka and his team of investigative journalists however had nothing new to offer. They refuted the Nanavati Report with their sting camera footage, much of which had already been shown in November last year on Aaj Tak.
Tarun Tejpal accuses the Godhra police of “staging this conspiracy” while he calls the outburst “a spontaneous action” in the latest issue of his weekly magazine. He claims that his team investigated to find out that the attendants of the petrol pump were bribed to say that they had sold 140 litres of petrol to Muslim hawkers. And that Tehelka has even caught Ranjitsingh Patel on sting camera “admitting that the chief investigating officer had paid him and Prabhatsingh Patel Rs 50,000 each to falsely identify some Muslims as conspirators.”
The camera footage that Tehelka showed at Women’s Press Club and also distributed to other media persons recently in support of their argument however does not make the editor’s claims clear.
The latest issue of the weekly magazine details their argument how the Nanavati Commission report is “manufactured”.
The Tehelka version of the story
The Sabarmati Express carrying many karsevaks arrives at the Godhra station at 7.43 am on 27 February, 2002. At first there is a minor feud between few karsevaks and a tea vendor over payment of money for the tea that they had bought.
Then one karsevak tries to abduct a Muslim girl from the platform. This leads to rumours that Muslims have been abducted and taken aboard the train. The feud gets bitter and ends with the burning of coach S-6.
When I asked Tarun Tejpal how such a huge crowd assembled at the station in such short interval and how did they manage the inflammatory material to set the coach on fire, he did not have a convincing answer. (It must be remembered that the train had first stopped for only about five minutes at the station when the crowd had gathered).
“Throw a stone at somebody and see how many people assemble,” said the veteran journalist in his defence.
Within five minutes a mob of “more than 1000 Muslims had gathered and started pelting stones at the train,” (according to Tehelka’s own reports) seems an a bit unconvincing. Since Tehelka puts the outburst as spontaneous, prior preparations for the burning or assemblage of the crowd was out of question.
Loopholes in the story
The report by Ashish Ketan (Manufacturing a Conspiracy, Cover Story, Tehelka, Saturday 11 Oct, 2008) quotes few of the passengers in the Sabarmati Express to prove the same point - that there was a quarrel between the karsevaks and tea vendor at the station. A minor feud over the price of few cups of tea (only few karsevaks had bought tea) definitely does not lead to the burning of a train.
The other and more important argument that the report gives is that one of the karsevaks had tried to abduct a Muslim girl. The report however does not provide any evidence. It is unlikely that no one in the station saw this incident though they saw the small feud between a tea vendor and the few karsevaks. The “ordinary passengers (not the karsevaks)” travelling in the Sabarmati Express who are otherwise incessantly quoted to testify that there was feud between a tea vendor and few karsevaks and that there was stone pelting do not bear testimony to the attempted abduction of a Muslim girl which is likely to grab more eyeballs.
The report also quotes the Muslim girl, Sophia Bano. She says that she was caught by one man from behind but was left as soon as her mother raised an alarm - An incident which is not testified by anyone else. But raised such hue and cry that a mob of 1000 Muslims gathered instantaneously.
Both these incidents (the tea vendor feud and the attempted abduction) took place within four minutes (between 7.43 am and 7.47 am) according to Tehelka’s own cover story report and its graphical illustration of the events. And within the same time interval the huge mob of 1000 Muslims had gathered.
The report disputes the use of any inflammatory material for the burning of Coach S-6 because the eyewitnesses that the Nanavati Commission has are the karsevaks. The forensic reports in this case will be of greater help than mere claims of those who “did not see the inflammable material.”
Eyewitnesses absent ?
Kakul Pathak, media cell convenor of the BJP in Godhra and Murli Mulchandani, the vice-president of the Godhra Municipal Corporation were two of the key eyewitnesses for the police. Tehelka claimed that it caught both of them admitting on camera that they were not even present at the station on the day of the incident. The video that was shown to the media persons in support of this argument, also there on the website, was however too unclear to deduce anything from it. The rest of the videos that had the other eyewitnesses “admitting that they were not present at the scene of the incident,” were out of sync. It made it difficult to deduce anything from it.
Tarun Tejpal when asked why the video was out of sync, reasoned that it was captured by hidden cameras and the Tehelka team “only showed what they had investigated”. He further added that “we are a group of only four or five reporters who are committed to truth.”
========================================================================
Bottomline is that Muslims will never accept that Godhra happened and wholly or partly served as the provocation for the Gujarat riots. What happened in the Gujarat riots was condemnable, but to say that the Muslims were totally innocent is called living in denial.
Re: What Indian Muslim said to Musharraf
^ So one thing is very clear. **
Hindus really did Gujrat crimes without any doubt.
**Godhra incidence has too many doubts against muslims being involved.
It is also at least doubtful that two events were related.
It is presumptive for some people to say that the Gujrat event somehow was in 'retaliation' and these some people are not even ashamed of talking about a made up excuse for Gujrat event.
Big question:
There is no excuse for killing innocents in Gujrat or should there be any?
Good reality based answer. 
^ So one thing is very clear. **
Hindus really did Gujrat crimes without any doubt.
**Godhra incidence has too many doubts against muslims being involved.
It is also at least doubtful that two events were related.
It is presumptive for some people to say that the Gujrat event somehow was in 'retaliation' and these some people are not even ashamed of talking about a made up excuse for Gujrat event.
Big question: There is no excuse for killing innocents in Gujrat or should there be any?
"Riots" are nothing but mob frenzy in retaliation for a real or perceived wrong. In this case the Godhra incident acted as a catalyst for some vested interests to whip up that mob frenzy and go on a killing spree.
All communal riots in India (including the 1947 riots) and elsewhere have started in a similar fashion.
Punjabee in USA just once go through your previous posts which you started as loopholes in tehelka investigation report. I felt that they are improper, unwanted and almost irrelavent to my tehelka report which i stated. Are these called loopholes??That what they have shown was previously shown by some other TV channel and they were four.... five or six... does this all matter how many people are investigating and all stuff?? Stick to main points.
Before punching holes in tehelka report prove all the six points in detail with proofs if you have then i will proceed further. Further more you didn't even gave proper response to NGO report. Anyways i dont want to drag it in a boring way. So i suggest you not to go for selective reading and read all reports and information related to Godhra and Gujrat riots.
Secondly just for argument sake if i say that muslims were behind godhra then i anathematize that, but just to use this Godhra incident or accident as a shield for Gujrat riots can no longer be appreciated or tolerated since every thing is in front of your eyes, its different whether you accept it or deny it. I dont think a true Indian lack ability to judge between rigth and wrong. Just don't correl these two(Gujrat n Gudhra) to say or prove TIT FOR TAT.
"Riots" are nothing but mob frenzy in retaliation for a real or perceived wrong. In this case the Godhra incident acted as a catalyst for some vested interests to whip up that mob frenzy and go on a killing spree.
All communal riots in India (including the 1947 riots) and elsewhere have started in a similar fashion.
Try not to use riots word please. This undermine the act of 'terrorism' or even better word as 'massacre'.
Also using catalyst word is another pathetic attempt to undermine the seriousness of the crime committed by extremist Hindus.
Same hindus who keep electing this man again and again.
Off course one has to have enough feeling of being ashamed or a simple courage to not even come up with any excuses.
You obviously lack both of them. Thanks for mentioning that you actually support and standing by the act of terrorism against muslims in India.
Re: What Indian Muslim said to Musharraf
I am glad that the Indian maulana's verbal slap to Musharaf and through this video, to all those who seem to believe that they can create a rift in India, is getting widespread exposure.
Musharaf's facial expression after the slap was I am sure typical of all those who tried such hankypanky and got caught! Poor guy, but then he got paid for being there, so ...
Re: What Indian Muslim said to Musharraf
It is obvious that Maulana had put Musharraf in a state of conflict.
Should he blast/humiliate this guy who looks like a devout muslim in front of public or accept this man's ludicrous remarks.
He chose a middle ground and was successful in sending a good message to people like maulana.
Thats why Pakistani officials should avoid going to these staged/pre-planned events.
Re: What Indian Muslim said to Musharraf
What was ridiculous about that man's remarks? If you watch the video, that man is educating and properly dressing down Musharaf in public. I'm being diplomatic here. And Musharaf did get paid to participate, so in a way he has earned his fee by providing this public opportunity to get the truth out
Re: What Indian Muslim said to Musharraf
^ My answer will remain same as my above post. This mualana person was an idiot.
Before punching holes in tehelka report prove all the six points in detail with proofs if you have then i will proceed further. Further more you didn't even gave proper response to NGO report. Anyways i dont want to drag it in a boring way. So i suggest you not to go for selective reading and read all reports and information related to Godhra and Gujrat riots.
Pls provide a link or substantiate your charges if you expect me to respond to conjectures. As of now you are just parroting the typical pseudo-secular lines.
Secondly just for argument sake if i say that muslims were behind godhra then i anathematize that, but just to use this Godhra incident or accident as a shield for Gujrat riots can no longer be appreciated or tolerated since every thing is in front of your eyes, its different whether you accept it or deny it. I dont think a true Indian lack ability to judge between rigth and wrong. Just don't correl these two(Gujrat n Gudhra) to say or prove TIT FOR TAT.
Who are you to say that ? Do you really think any politician or extremist leader would have been able to exhort mobs to go on a rampage in Gujarat if Godhra had not happened ? So how can you say that they are not correlated ?
You need to come out of your victim mentality first before you try and debate such issues.
Try not to use riots word please. This undermine the act of 'terrorism' or even better word as 'massacre'.
Also using catalyst word is another pathetic attempt to undermine the seriousness of the crime committed by extremist Hindus. Same hindus who keep electing this man again and again.
Off course one has to have enough feeling of being ashamed or a simple courage to not even come up with any excuses.
You obviously lack both of them. Thanks for mentioning that you actually support and standing by the act of terrorism against muslims in India.
You can call a riot a football match but it will not change a thing. It was a communal riot which took place because of the Godhra incident.
One can keep debating whether the Godhra incident was pre-planned or an accident, but that incident is what was used as a catalyst to exhort mobs to go on a rioting spree.
Its pathetic how you use the victim mentality when its convenient.
Re: What Indian Muslim said to Musharraf
^ My answer will remain same as my above post. This mualana person was an idiot.
no, he is a smart guy. Because he figured out providing a candid lesson to Musharaf on camera is the surest way to get it through to people like. He accomplished what he set out to do.
You can call a riot a football match but it will not change a thing. It was a communal riot which took place because of the Godhra incident.
One can keep debating whether the Godhra incident was pre-planned or an accident, but that incident is what was used as a catalyst to exhort mobs to go on a rioting spree.
Its pathetic how you use the victim mentality when its convenient.
You can call a massacre a riot but it does not change a bit. It was a pre-planned massacre by Hindus against muslims and bigots like you are consistently finding a made up excuse for it. One has to be a cold blooded insensitive person to find excuse for death of innocent people. *How pathetic and sad.
*
That is a victim mentality when people go and kill other people to supposedly think it was revenge of people death in **totally unrelated event **which could easily be an accident.