3 ms·

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 ye

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?

3apo 12y ago
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
scarmig 12y ago
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!"
- discardorama 12y ago
  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.
  - prakashk 12y ago
    > 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.
  - scarmig 12y ago
    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.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
known 12y ago
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_India#Caste_related_issues https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_India#Caste_...

3apo 12y ago

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

scarmig 12y ago

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!"

discardorama 12y ago
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.
- prakashk 12y ago
  > 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.
- scarmig 12y ago
  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.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

known 12y ago

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