Hacker News Reader

Comment by efuquen | Hacker News Reader

I find it amazing the attitude that the 2002 Gujarat riots should be brushed under the rug. There is still plenty of controversy about what happened there and Modi's and the states role in those riots, regardless of what any Supreme Court ruling has said. But I guess we should just let bygones be bygones and forget the 1000+ deaths and 100,000s of displaced lives due to riots that are widely believed to have been encouraged, if not caused, by the state.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-17200961

View on HN

As I said, riots are far too frequent in India; even 1 riot is 1 too many.

I was in Delhi in 1984. I saw the result of Congress goons going after Sikhs. And yet there was no Supreme Court enquiry. The Prime Minister (Rajiv Gandhi) was never held accountable, since Delhi was a UT at that time.

How come no tears are shed for my Sikh brothers?

This. and the fact that Modi was actually praised that Gujrat did not have any riots after 2002/3 and the stable socio-economic climate. Other secular/pro-muslim governments were unable to prevent quite a few during that time

I don't think you understand how this works. It's not "Congress gets one communal violence pass free, it's only fair if the BJP gets a communal violence pass too!"

No, I don't think you understand how it works.

If you are going to hold someone to a standard, then hold EVERYONE to that standard. You can't just hold someone to an arbitrary standard just because you don't like them.

I'm more than happy to condemn Narendra Modi and Rajiv Gandhi equally. Hell, I'll say Rajiv Gandhi was much worse. Neither of them would have gotten my vote in the last election. The former because he was complicit in communal violence in 2002, the latter because he was complicit in communal violence in 1984 and not running and dead.

> If you are going to hold someone to a standard, then hold EVERYONE to that standard.

True. However, the question is, does it need to be stated explicitly every time someone gets criticized, or asked to be held accountable for something.

> You can't just hold someone to an arbitrary standard just because you don't like them.

I don't think that was happening here. Modi wasn't being held to an "arbitrary standard" because he wasn't "liked". His actions were the point of discussion here.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_India#Caste_...

As a voter I care more about better roads, 24 hour electricity, less government interference in my life than some 1000 people died in a riot 10 years ago.

Those who want to take a moral position by preferring few pamphlets of secularism over real development are free to do so but I think the probability that I will remain alive and prosper is a magnitude higher than under the corrupt Antonia Maino government.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com