And why would UK govt be the purported neutral source ? They have a political interest in India and consequently interest in not ruffling the political class in power in India.
This is even more ridiculous than calling Amritpal Singh a terrorist. The pogroms / religious riots in 2002 weren't genocide, and Modi did not perpetrate them, though he should bear responsibility for allowing them to happen on his watch either out of malice or incompetence. This has been well established by court inquiries.
Precisely. Out of no malice at all, the bodies ended up incinerated, the incriminating evidence, files, phone call records some how managed to get lost, police staff working on the case transferred, whistle blower minister pursuing the issue died out of not at all mysterious circumstances [0]. All in all it set a new standard on how pogroms are to be run.
But the bottom-line lies in the fact that it had implicit support of the majority, and the party had a keen ear for that.
darth_avocado|2 years ago
honkler|2 years ago
[deleted]
cscurmudgeon|2 years ago
https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.6776069
Hardly a neutral source.
srean|2 years ago
Neutrality, bias etc matter less than truth.
truthsayer123|2 years ago
[deleted]
ummonk|2 years ago
programmer_dude|2 years ago
srean|2 years ago
But the bottom-line lies in the fact that it had implicit support of the majority, and the party had a keen ear for that.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haren_Pandya#2002_Gujarat_riot...