Muslim firebomb attack on train leaves 57 dead By Nick Meo in Delhi 28 February 2002 India was braced for revenge attacks last night after at least 57 people died when a Muslim mob set fire to a train filled with Hindu extremists. The passengers were burnt alive when petrol bombs were thrown through barred windows by hundreds of armed attackers who then locked the carriage doors to prevent passengers escaping. Most of the victims were activists with the World Hindu Council (VHP), although 14 children also died when four coaches of the Sabarmati Express were attacked at Godhra in the western state of Gujarat, according to the district administrator Jayanti Ravi. The militants were returning from Ayodhya, site of a mosque demolished in 1992 by Hindus campaigning to build a temple in its place. Rakesh Kimani, who lives near by, said: "I heard screams for help. I saw a huge ball of fire. I saw people putting out their hands and heads through the windows trying to escape. It was a horrible sight." Tension was growing even before yesterday's massacre as the VHP plans to start building a temple at Ayodhya on 15 March in defiance of court orders. The mosque's demolition sparked riots across India in which 2,000 people died. India's Prime Minister, Atal Behari Vajpayee, cancelled his trip to the Commonwealth summit in Australia this weekend and described the Godhra massacre as, "a very unfortunate and tragic incident". He urged the VHP, allied to his BJP party, to shelve plans to start rebuilding the temple. "I appeal to the VHP to stop their campaign and co-operate with the government in establishing peace and brotherhood in the country," he said. But the extremists refused claiming they were on a "do-or- die" mission to rebuild a temple which they claim stood before the mosque on the birthplace of the god Ram. Gordhan Zadaphia, Gujarat's home minister, said security had been tightened in Muslim areas of the state. "It is clear from the statements of survivors that the attack was carried out by local people belonging to the Muslim community and because of the chances of retaliation we have already instructed our police officers to arrange special security cover for the Muslim population," he said. here
Violence rages over disputed holy site By Anne Penketh 01 March 2002 Internal links Rampaging Hindus burn Muslim children alive The tit-for-tat bloodletting that has gripped northern and western India since Wednesday stems from a dispute over plans to build a Hindu temple at Ayodhya, on the site of a mosque razed by Hindu extremists in 1992. The destruction of the mosque triggered India's worst violence since partition, leaving more than 3,000 dead, mainly Muslims, in sectarian clashes between Hindus and the Muslim minority. The site at Ayodhya is holy to Hindus and Muslims: Hindus believe that it is the birthplace of the god-king Rama, and have set up a camp where hundreds of stone masons are carving sandstone pillars for the new temple. The temple's supporters claim they are redressing past wrongs because the Mughal emperor, Babar, built the Babri Masjid mosque in 1528 on the site of a Hindu temple, but this is disputed by Muslims. The mosque was annexed in 1859 by the British, who created separate Muslim and Hindu places of worship to put an end to the rising tensions between the two communities. In 1949, two years after partition, the gates were locked when Muslims claimed Hindu worshippers had placed deities of Lord Rama inside their worship area. Later, a court ordered that the mosque's doors be unlocked. Hindu militants and Muslim mullahs drove to the town to set out their rival claims. In 1984, the World Hindu Council launched a campaign to build a temple at the mosque site to honour the birthplace of Lord Rama, one of the most revered deities in Hinduism. Five years later, the first foundation stone was laid on land next to the disputed mosque. The dispute reached a climax in 1992 when Hindu zealots, with the support of Bharatiya Janata party (BJP), which was in opposition at the time, tore down the mosque with sledgehammers, crowbars and their bare hands. The BJP rode to power in 1998 on a wave of Hindu nationalism. Since forming a coalition government led by Atal Bihari Vajpayee as Prime Minister, the party has sought to defuse the row by appealing to the World Hindu Council to stop its campaign. All activity at the site has been frozen while a state court rules on the dispute. But the Hindu nationalists have set a deadline of 15 March to start construction and have vowed to push ahead on that date. here
Definitely. I am a Muslim and I cant understand the Muslims position on this stand. The Babri (?) mosque was virtually a ghost house prior to 1991. Meaning the Muslims could have cared less about this isolated mosque. Then the Hindus find out that this could be the birth place of Rama. Of course the Hindus were not very diplomatic in their demands that the mosque be torned down. I believe they could have handled it a tad bit better. They (by "they" I mean the BJP and other leftist parties) could have offered to build a better mosque right next to the present site. But of course not. They gather their forces and tear down the mosque like a bunch of uneducated idiots that they are. This latest episode of violence was definitely a stupid idea by the Muslims. These extremists on the Hindu and Muslim side dont have anything better to do with their time I guess?
DAMN these communal clashes!!!!! When I first heard of the train incident, I was hoping Govt. would do more. They would call in special police forces and so on. but did not happen. That place already had a history of communal clashes. They should have foreseen this. It's the govt. failure that lead to the second incident. Sometimes I think lots of this is political. My heart bleeds for all those innocent people that lost there lives in these insane incidents. My personal opinion is that majority of these incidents that happen in India are not started as communal or religious clashes. Its generally some evil political motive that triggers them. There are so many anti social elements that try to derive benefits of these clashes and so promote them.
Exactly. Some power hungry leaders decide to take advantage of religious fervor to get into power. Treeman, do you think the Pakistanis could have anything to do with this? Striking up a religious civil war in India at this time would sure devert the military from Kashmiri borders.
At least my motherland, Bangladesh, is steering clear of this mess. We've got problems of our own, and don't get involved in this Muslim-Hindu conflict.
Err... it seems to me that the only reason that Bangladesh is not currently involved, is that the battle has already been decisively fought there. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I belive that, after contentions over Kashmir, the first signs of malace between these two countries was in 'East Pakistan' aka Bangladesh. We've had arguements about this before, but IMO, (and I'm not trying to piss anybody off) alot of the Pakistani hatred for Indians comes from their involvement, correctly or incorrectly, in the succession of the state of Bangladesh from Pakistan.
That could be a possibility .. but in this case I dont think pakistan has anything to it. It very much seems like a Domestic disturbance.. and I saw these kinda things happen few times. so I would not blame pakistan for any of this.. If there was even a slightest hint, we could have heard it by now. Ottomaton, I think you are right on Pakistani hatred towards India. Man!!! I sincerely hope this incident dies away and not turn into a Hindu-Muslim rift. It'll only kill more innocent people. I was in India when the infamous 1992 incident happened.. that was so unneccesary . I would consider that as one of the saddest days in Indian history.
Yes, orginally when the British Empire granted independence to India, there was a Muslim majority on two sides: became known as Pakistan and East Pakistan. The Bangladeshis were basically pissed off that they were being ruled by a country 1000 miles away and didn't have proportional representation in the government. Hence the age old slogan: "No taxation without representation." India, knowing that it could weaken Pakistan, helped us Bangladeshis fight for freedom. The Pakistanis could take our lives, but they would never take our freedom. I would compare Bangladesh gaining independence Pakistan, to Scotland getting freedom from England. Damn, I love Braveheart....
I'm not saying that Bangladesh didn't deserve independance, or didn't have a just cause. I'm only saying that the fact that the Indian government stared out by providing safe havens and training grounds for those seeking independance. These rebels would cross the border and do stuff, and then retreat back to the saftey of India. Later, when the Pakistani gov't started threatening the Indians in order to prevent this, the Indian gov't basically gave them the proverbial finger. Imagine this -- what would happen if the US provided a safe haven for French-Speaking Canadian seperatists, and made it obvious that, no matter what, we wouldn't prevent them from doing their terrorist stuff, but if the Canadians tried to chase them into our country, we'd fire at the Canadians. If this policy lead to the eventual succession of Montreal as a seperate country, and lead to a war between the US and Canada, in which Canada was resoundingly b****-slapped, I'd imagine that the general disdain of the US among Canadians would tend to quietly grow until it became overwhelming.
....but Jinnah played on the dislike between Muslims and Hindus when he pushed for the country of Pakistan in the belief that a secular India would never treat the minority Muslims properly. So, it is hard to point out the initiator of the dislike between Pakistan - India. Did Indian aid to Bangladesh intensify Pakistani hatred of India? Perhaps, but the dislike was already well-rooted before that. Mango
