Talk:2012 Assam violence

Extensive copyright problems

This article appears to me to have extensive copyright problems; I've compared the text of four additions by User:Vaibhavgupta1989 to their sources, and all have been only a word or two short of straight cut-and-paste. As all of this editor's additions appear suspect, I've thus reverted the article to the version previous to their edits. If I've removed any useful content by mistake, please feel free to re-add. Khazar2 (talk) 01:02, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, as a general rule it's better to more properly synthesize content than to remove it entirely, if it's properly sourced, though of course you're not required to do that if you don't want to. I'll take a look at it briefly and see if I can't do something about replacing the info in a more appropriate format. Snow (talk) 01:52, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Sure; unfortunately I didn't have the hour or two to do so at that point. Since this was under discussion to head to the main page, though, I figured I'd just remove the plagiarized content and post a note here instead. Thanks for taking a look. Khazar2 (talk) 02:11, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree you did the right thing; better to temporarily remove potentially plagiarized material altogether than to leave it in as is, if time constraints leave you only those two options. And speaking of time constraints, might have to slide this project until tomorrow. Snow (talk) 05:22, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Misleading image caption

The reader of the caption makes a reader confused whether the districts mentioned in the caption have been marked in the map or only the state of Assam has been described.Regards, theTigerKing  15:26, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Looks like someone has fixed this. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 06:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

About the clashes

The conflict is between indigenous Assamese people, and illegal Bangladeshi immigrants. Not just Hindu's and Muslims, even the wiki page says that and besides it's a conflict between Assamese's and illegal immigrants from Bangladesh not a religious conflict. Don't mislead it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.178.151.10 (talk) 21:38, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Origin of Bengali Muslim settlers

There are two prevalent views - one that they came during the British Raj and two, that they are from East Pakistan (refugees from Op. Searchlight) and later on from Bangladesh. Both views are covered in the background sections. Both viewpoints have adequate sources. Lets not make a reference to any one specific viewpoint in the lead section, so I am removing the same. Please discuss before reverting. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 06:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I've no position on either the label or whether the content should be included in the lead, but this seems an appropriate place to the note that many of the involved editors here have forwarded opinions both here, on the article itself and in edit summaries which suggest a lack of familiarity with WP:Verifiability and WP:NPOV. Specifically I'd like to point out that we are not here to present our own understanding of the subject even to include information which we know for a fact to be true. On Wikipedia, we report what the sources say, not what we know to be the case. There's been a lot of removal and alteration of perfectly well-sourced content and that should stop. Snow (talk) 02:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Fair point. I agree that sourced content should not be removed and I can see from the edit history why you are concerned. But just to clarify in relation to the specific removal I made above - it was duplication of an already existing point that was adequately covered in the Background section. But placing that parcel of information alone in the lead without the rest of the information (or the counter-point, if you will) leads to POV. The only other removal I did was of a perfectly sourced content from a "reliable source" (the NDTV news website) which said that a C-135 (Boeing) was sent with supplies to Assam - but India doesnt have even a single C-135: so thats a clearly factually incorrect statement. It most probably was a reference to a C-130J (Lockheed Martin). IMO, we shouldnt be forced to include factually incorrect statement just because some intern was too lazy to check his facts at the NDTV office! Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 06:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't commenting on your contributions, really, I just thought it was a good place to make that point. As to the C-135 issue, if someone wanted to contest you on the matter, I'd have to support them, since we go with the sources, even inaccurate ones, until we have citations to the contrary. That being said, I think it's a non-issue here (what manner of plan delivered the supplies seems to be to be more or less entirely immaterial to the subject at hand and removing that detail (and simply noting that the supplies were air-lifted in) does not detract from the reader's understanding of the subject, so I see no reason to revert your change, regardless of NDTV's accuracy in the matter. Snow (talk) 06:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

We need to request a semi-protection on this article. Too many people edit the article and change to "Ethnic-communal clashes between Bodo and illegal Bangladeshi Muslim immigrants" etc. --IRISZOOM (talk) 18:20, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Its a fact that millions of illegal bangladeshi muslims have flooded Assam and usurped Bodo land. This is the root cause of the violence which user IRISZOOM is trying desperately to hide. But the truth will always comes out.117.204.0.48 (talk) 03:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be laboring under a misunderstanding about how Wikipedia operates. We do not report our own opinions on the subject, nor even facts which we are certain are true; we report only what reputable sources say on the matter. Furthermore, your accusations against other users, both here and in edit summaries, are entirely inappropriate and in violation of WP:Civility, a pillar policy of Wikipedia (please read it before contributing again). And, if anything, after reviewing the sources again and looking at the changes you've made to the content on the article, I would say it's you who is showing considerable bias in interpreting facts which are not in evidence in said sources and in the wording you employ, which is inconsistent with the encyclopedic tone and neutral point of view we strive for here. Honestly, I was about to tell IRISZOOM I thought he was jumping the gun in suggesting semi-protection, but you're making a pretty strong case to the contrary. I'm reverting part of your changes as per WP:Verifiability; you are welcome to contest these changes if you think you can garner consensus for them, but you're going to have to come up with new sources that support your view and alter your approach to other editors radically to achieve that. If you continue to make unilateral changes that are inconsistent with the content of sources and slander fellow editors by speculating on their malevolent ulterior motives, I'll be drawing the attention of an admin to the matter. Snow (talk) 05:49, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I now support a request for semi-protection; it's clear that this continual edit warring and POV pushing (mostly on the part of IP's unfamiliar or unconcerned with WP:Verifiability and WP:Consensus) is not going to stop anytime soon. I'm busy over the next couple of days, so I don't think I'll approach an admin myself until I have enough time to be fully engaged with the request, but in case someone else initiates the request themselves in the meantime, they are welcome to cite my support for the move, for what it's worth. Snow (talk) 08:11, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Too many Edits going on. Lets take a minute before making Edits before discussion. The Pune Voilence should be elaborated a bit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.195.250.117 (talk) 12:40, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

This article is out of control, really. I have now changed big parts of the article. --IRISZOOM (talk) 05:22, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Is "retaliated" a neutral word?

Look att this:

According to NDTV, two Bengali-speaking Muslim settlers were killed in early July, followed by two more killings on July 19. The police failed to identify the killers.[1] On July 20, four former Bodo Liberation Tigers men were killed in Kokrajhar. Certain news sources also trace the violence to the death of the two student leaders of the All Bodoland Minority Students’ Union and the All Assam Minority Students’ Union in Kokrajhar on 4 July 2012.[13] The Bodos retaliated by attacking Bengali-speaking settlers and the clashes began.[1][14]

Does the word "retaliated" (though better than "revenge") imply that it is a fact that it was Bengali-speaking Muslims who attacked the members of the Tigers and the Union Leaders (which then led to Bodos attacking Muslims)? If so, then we need to change the word. --IRISZOOM (talk) 17:30, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Assam riots

plz i request the assam government to put an immediate metting b/w the two groups and try to shought out the problems---------------akram — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.82.215.238 (talk) 08:56, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Disputed

Hello. I dispute the latest edits in this article. There is many NPOV-violations like this change: http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=2012_Assam_violence&diff=508088466&oldid=508088010. Mostly it is about editors which constantly change the Background section. I could not say it better than this:

There are two prevalent views - one that they came during the British Raj and two, that they are from East Pakistan (refugees from Op. Searchlight) and later on from Bangladesh. Both views are covered in the background sections. Both viewpoints have adequate sources. Lets not make a reference to any one specific viewpoint in the lead section, so I am removing the same. Please discuss before reverting. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 06:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:2012_Assam_violence

Also, there is the more general question about branding the Bengali-speaking Muslims as "illegal immigrants" etc.

Give me your opinion on this. And do you also support a semi-protection on this article? --IRISZOOM (talk) 21:42, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that both views as to the origins of the populations involved must be presented, as both are adequately covered by sources. Ideally we should try to find sources which explore the debate between these views itself and include such details as well. Unfortunately, viewing the record for this article over the last couple weeks, I doubt very much that framing the debate in detail will stop further NPOV edits, since the parties doing it (mostly a couple of IP's) are pretty unrepentantly partisan in their views and apparently here for the sole purpose of expressing those views and not editing Wikipedia in a way that is consistent with it's policies. Not only do I support a temporary semi-protection for the article, I'd like to have an admin explore the possibility of a temporary ban on a couple of IP ranges; I and other editors have tried multiple times to try to give warnings to involved IPs (one in particular) who have violated policy multiple times in their edits here, but either they are jumping IP's so fast that they haven't seen them or they have chose to ignore them. Regardless, the issues with NPOV and verifiability have been reference ad nauseum in the edit summaries and here on the talk page and if these IP's cannot acclimate themselves to Wikipedia's rules they need to be removed from active editing.

In the meantime, the page definitely needs semi-protection; we are not serving our readers very well in our exploration of this important ongoing issue by allowing such radical POV to creep on to the page multiple times daily. I also happen to agree that the "illegal immigrants" terminology is not really consistent with encyclopedic tone (especially given the constraints of the debate on the origins of the peoples involved). Frankly, anytime someone insists upon referring to a group as "illegals", I get on guard about their POV and in this case, you can see that concern borne out; the IPs who keep switching the term back to "illegal immigrants" are also the ones who have several times changed the wording in sentences concerning various Muslim groups and institutions to declare them "known radicals" (and make other such POV comments) when such is not at all supported by the sources for those sentences. In short, there are some ardent partisans editing this article on a daily basis and, seeing as they are seemingly here to edit on this one narrow issue and are unconcerned with Wikipedia's policies and goals, we can't expect them to stop of their own accord. Time to approach and admin. Iris, if you would like to do it, that would be great since my time is limited right now, but if you don't have time to do it by tomorrow, I will make the request myself. Snow (talk) 01:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I fully agree with your writing. Regarding the request to an admin, I am sorry but I have never done that since I mostly read - not write - on Wikipedia, so I would be happy if you did such a request :)

By the way, IRISZOOM is a game engine - not my personal name. --IRISZOOM (talk) 06:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any sources here, just a series of biased rants. Most of the articles in Indian media such as this one blame illegal immigration from Bangladesh. PCWren&HMartin (talk) 08:08, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

What are you specifically talking about?

That edit I did, which you called for "Removed blatant Original Research", was things which were there before - and are there now. --IRISZOOM (talk) 16:33, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

About the origin of the Bodos in Assam

I have never heard that Bodos are immigrants of China. If you see the article regarding Bodos in Wikipedia, you will find that it mentions Bodos as indigenous people of Assam. Many newspapers in India reported that this violence is between Bodos and illegal immigrants from Bangladesh. Illegal immigration from Bangladesh in Assam is a fact which was mentioned in many Indian media reports. But in this article, the facts about the origin of both the groups are wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raju4545 (talk • contribs) 05:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

the author seems to be biased against the indigenous people of Assam. the article reeks of a sinister propaganda from radical elements with vested interests, working against the interests of the general public or greater good. it is evident in the fact that there are no NPOVs in it.

the "Repercussions" section has racial comments in it. also kindly look into the factual errors in the other paragraphs.

Would like to call everyone's attention to the very first paragraph of the page concerned,where it has been mentioned that the clashes are between "illegal bodo immigrants" and the indigenious muslims of Assam,which is so not true. My first point is: How did the bodos become "illegal immigrants"? For a tribe who came to the nation like a thousand years back,how does the concept of illegality hold?Does that mean all South Indians who originally are from africa(dravidian roots)are also "illegal". Whoever the author is,he definitely should have researched more before writing something. My second point is: Get those facts right.Its not a clash between muslims of Assam who have been there since the 15th century or so,but it is between the "illegal Bangladeshi immigrants" who have littered the entire state.Its more of a question of nationality ,rather than a question of religionism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trishanu borah (talk • contribs) 07:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Those were malicious unreferenced edits made by User:Sirahman. They have been removed. WBRSin (talk) 17:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Repeated vandlism by 203.199.104.66

The wiki article has been turned into a mess by repeated vandalism by I.P:203.199.104.66

Trying to clean up the mess, but the task is huge. Multiple references have been blanked out, as can be seen from the references section at the end of the page. WBRSin (talk) 11:19, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The User:Sirahman seems to be a sock puppet of IP:203.199.104.66. Deleting references and falsely accusing indigenous Bodos as immigrants are his modus operandi.WBRSin (talk) 17:19, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --110.234.136.74 (talk) 16:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

because whatever is written here are all false.................

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --59.95.26.194 (talk) 16:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC) Sensitive issue and has communal reasons

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --72.163.217.102 (talk) 16:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Information cited here is totally wrong and unworthy!

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because... ( There is NO SUCH REASON )

Edit request on 21 August 2012

please change the information about BODOS because actually BODOS are the Natives of Assam. Its the Illegal immigrants from Bangladesh which are the cause of the problem. This is a very sensitive issue. Bodos Are natives of assam. The information provided is absolutely false. No one has immigrated from china. Tons of people have migrated from Bangladesh Illegally, The condition of unrest is between Bodos and Illegal migrants from Bangladesh. Because Bodos feel like they have to safeguard their interests, from the intruders.

Please see the link "http://news.outlookindia.com/items.aspx?artid=772704"

Leogaurav1 (talk) 17:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Not done: Looks like POV-pushing to me. A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 11:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Instead of relying on your spider sense to determine the accuracy of the statement, try reading the link provided. PCWren&HMartin (talk) 08:11, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. Please state in your request the exact, verbatim text you'd like added, removed or changed. Rivertorch (talk) 09:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --14.98.93.160 (talk) 17:16, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The page was incorrectly tagged. A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 11:11, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions

Since this page has been overrun with edit warring, with no signs of letting up, I'm imposing discretionary sanctions on this article. Read the notice at the top of this page and familiarize yourself with them. There have already been a couple of blocks for edit warring, and people who continue reverting on this page will quickly find themselves blocked and/or banned from editing this page. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:25, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this , there were unbelievable many editors with many personnel stories added in just two days. Shrikanthv (talk) 06:11, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Updating on the issue of Exodus of north east people of India

I am updating the repercussions of the exodus of people from Bangalore concerend , on what happend after false warning dates. trying to bring wiki POV and balance the article to neutrality and making it wikipedia worth. Shrikanthv (talk) 06:11, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Pradeep Brahma

Pradeep Brahma, the only Indian politician to stand up against illegal immigration, should be given due weight here. PCWren&HMartin (talk) 08:18, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed.Axxn (talk) 03:55, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Background section

The violence is due to the conflict between Bodos and Muslim immigrants not Muslims of Assam. Even the reference that is used in the background section this says the same thing. It is a gross misinterpretation of the source. This violent outbreak follows pre-existing ethnic tensions between the indigenous Bodo community and Muslims in Assam, due in part to rising ethnic nationalism (most notably Bodo nationalism) and diaspora politics. This sentence should be changed as per the source. The source doesn't say anything about ethnic nationalism or diaspora politics.--sarvajna (talk) 07:52, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

There has been domestic concerns in Assam with demographic changes. It has been claimed by some that out of the 27 districts in Assam, 11 of them are going to be Muslim majority districts once the 2011 census figures, religion-wise, are published by the census authorities. Above lines are repeated in the article, as they are, in two simultaneous sections. The repeition in the background part has been done away with. Chetanshaw (talk) 06:14, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Copy editing

Hi. I am from the Guild of Copy Editors. I have just worked on about half of this article to improve the readability and remove what looks to me like non-neutrality. I have little background knowledge of this subject, so I can only work with the understanding I am getting from the current version. If I have made a mistake, let me know. Thanks. Rumiton (talk) 14:08, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for editing, I have made a small change to this edit. Please note the violence is not between Bodos and whole of muslim community in Assam but between Bodos and immigrant muslims, even the source says the same thing.--sarvajna (talk) 15:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the edits but some are them are wrong. The bodos are not the only ones alleging illegal immigrants from bangladesh are cause of demographic invasion, even the other native inhabitants of North East like Assamese http://www.sunday-guardian.com/analysis/assams-tragedy-has-roots-in-history and the Nagas are threatened by the unabated influx of bangladeshis http://www.morungexpress.com/letters_to_the_editor_public_discourse/84403.html

An article which traces the history of the problem and helps understand the long lingering problem. http://www.asianage.com/columnists/stateless-remedy-illegal-problem-829 .Will makes changes that reflect the reality of the problem WBRSin (talk) 15:41, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

OK. I will stand back and watch for a few days. Thanks. Rumiton (talk) 00:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Why was this well sourced part deleted?

Investigators have traced the source of hate messages to Pakistan. In India, Islamist groups Popular Front Of India, Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami, Manita Neeti Pasarai and Karnataka Forum for Dignity circulated the messages to mask the true origin of the messages and make it seem as they were originating from within India. The SMS campaign was designed to create panic among people from north east forcing them to flee and to damage the social fabric and economy. WBRSin (talk) 13:11, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Makes no sense to me, lets wait for the person who removed it calling it inflammatory paragraph not supported by sources given. It was the Indian govt which made these claims, these are not just some inflammatory things. --sarvajna (talk) 13:25, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello. I deleted that paragraph. The three sources cited are:

Ref 59: An unsigned opinion piece, not usable on Wikipedia for any purpose.

Ref 58: Rediff news, an online news source for overseas Indians. Not clear what reputation they have for fact checking. They don’t tell us anything about themselves or about the person who wrote that article. Without that, it is really just words on a screen.

Ref 60: This is the best source, the Hindustan Times, but it doesn't support the content of the paragraph, rather pointing towards Bangladeshi groups or radical Hindus. It mentions the HuJI and says: The HuJI, formed by former Bangladeshi jihadists who took part in the Afghan civil war, was involved in the attack on Sheikh Hasina, now Bangladesh PM, in 2004.

The agencies, monitoring Facebook and Twitter, are also examining the possible role of the Hindu radical groups and the underworld.

And finally: Even though home secretary Raj Singh has largely put the blame on Pakistan, experts are equally convinced of internal sabotage and are trying to find out who gained from the exodus.

It seems to me this source might be used, but the text needs a lot more discussion. Rumiton (talk) 14:16, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I can get better sources, I am on a restricted network now. Also Rediff is considered a better source and please note most of the news item do not mention the name of the person covering it when it is just a general news item. We can go with Rediff but I will get you other sources as well. --sarvajna (talk) 14:36, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

That would be fine, but the information supplied by the Hindustan Times needs to be taken into account as well, to achieve balance. That will take some discussion, as I said. Rumiton (talk) 14:40, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Ref 59: Is an editorial, and Chandhan Mitra is the editor of dailypioneer, so its natural to conclude chandhan wrote it.

Ref 58: Rediff is a credible news source and widely referenced on wikipedia, The article is written by Vicky Nanjappa who has extensively reported on security issues.

Ref 60: HuJi has a pan-south asia network of terrorists and has been involved in many terror attacks in India, see this http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Harkat-ul-Jihad-al-Islami#Militant_attacks_claimed_by_or_attributed_to_HuJI

If you find Hindustan Times credible then see the headline "Northeast exodus: rogue SMSes traced to HuJI, Kerala group", clear mention of HuJi and the kerala group is Popular Front of India, new avatar of banned Student Islamic Movement of India(SIMI).

and the clear mention for the reason for sending mass SMSes threatening violence. Some of the messages hold out communal threats of retribution for alleged atrocities on Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar, a community in the Arakan state linked with Bangladesh, traditionally backed by Islamist and jihadist groups, such as the HuJI.

The references are clear on this matter and the deleted text should be reinstated as before. WBRSin (talk) 14:44, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be a consensus that HuJI and the Kerala group were implicated, but I am still not seeing a clear trail to Pakistan. Let's see what else Ratnakar finds. Rumiton (talk) 14:57, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

There are multiple sources indicating the pakistani source of the messages and posting of morphed youtube videos and pictures on facebook to instigate violence, some of them,

Pakistan group morphed pictures to spread panic, says ministry report http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/news/article3795413.ece New Delhi, Aug. 19:

A Pakistan-based hardline group is suspected to have been involved in doctoring images and spreading them across social networking sites such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube to incite Muslims and create a scare among people of the North-Eastern region living across India.

Most of the online content started getting posted from July 13 and fake profiles were created for spreading morphed pictures, according to a Home Ministry report prepared in the wake of the mass exodus of people belonging to the North-East from Bangalore, Pune, Chennai and Mumbai following rumours about possible attacks on them.

“Pictures have been taken from different places such as Tibet earthquake, Thailand, etc, and most of the fake profiles have been created since the end of July,” the report, a copy of which was with PTI, said.

The ‘Preliminary report on use of social media to generate unrest and violence among different communities’ said that some Indians, who had uploaded the online content, images and videos, have linked the Myanmar and Assam issues.

“It is just a small sample of what is available, most of the posts are in vernacular mediums, translation of which have not been attempted,” it said.

The report noted that social media, e-mail, Internet chat rooms and VOIP calls were rampantly being used to spread disinformation and rumours to provoke unrest in Assam and other parts of the country.

“Within a short duration, threats and counter-threats have been spread far and wide using the digital media. A lot many threats have been made in the open while certain plans and coordination activities are being carried out in chat rooms and on mails.

“These unidentified Muslim extremists are waging an online campaign after the outbreak of violent clashes in Myanmar between Buddhists and Muslims,” it said.

These elements are using the Internet and its social media sites for the dissemination of exaggerated accounts of the violence in Assam and for re-circulating fabricated evidence to inflame the passions of Muslims in different parts of India during the fasting period of Ramzan, it said.

The investigators have also found that those behind the online content indicated a step-up in violence after Eid.

The report also said that fake profiles were created around the end of last month to push the online content aggressively on social networking sites such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube to provoke violence.

In the online campaign, the Assam violence has been shown as part of events where Muslims were allegedly being persecuted.

Ministries gathering evidence of Pak hand in hate messages http://www.thestatesman.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&show=archive&id=420692&catid=36&year=2012&month=08&day=21&Itemid=66

NEW DELHI, 20 AUG: India today decided to step up consultations between the foreign and home ministries to compile evidence on the alleged Pakistan-origin of the morphed images of Assam violence.

As a result, foreign secretary Ranjan Mathai met external affairs minister S M Krishna, and briefed him about the alleged role of Pakistan-based elements in the morphed images on the Internet that triggered an exodus of North-eastern people from other states, government sources said.

It was decided that the external affairs ministry will await inputs from the home ministry before deciding on how to take up the issue with Pakistan, said the sources. A final decision on presenting the evidence to Pakistan will be taken after inter-ministerial consultations, said sources. The external affairs ministry and home ministry were in touch on the issue, sources said.

Hate posts a vicious attempt at polarising people: Govt http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_hate-posts-a-vicious-attempt-at-polarising-people-govt_1732360 Published: Friday, Aug 24, 2012, 20:14 IST

The Centre today said the hate posts and SMSes regarding the Assam violence is a "vicious" attempt by fundamentalist elements to polarise the people on communal lines.

"It is a very vicious attempt by fundamentalist elements to polarise the people on communal lines," Union Home Secretary RK Singh told reporters at Octroi border outpost in RS Pura sub-sector of Jammu district.

He was replying to a volley of questions on the steps the government was initiating in the aftermath of the violence in Assam and the ensuing hate campaign against people from the northeast in some parts of the country.

Singh said fundamentalist elements in the country and in Pakistan are to be blamed for the campaign and India would send some samples of the hate messages and clippings to Pakistan in this regard.

"Fundamentalists on both the sides were involved in it. Bulk of it (hate messages) were from outside India," he said.

"Religious extremists within our country saw an opportunity here and they tried to exploit it... It was communal in nature and we have dealt with it," he added.

Singh said Pakistan's Interior Minister Rehman Malik had called up Home Minister Sushilkumar Shinde, who told him that rumours were generated from Pakistan through cellular services.

In Hindi, ‘नापाक हरकतों’ पर पाक को सबूत सौंपेगा भारत http://www.amarujala.com/national/nat-india-will-submit-evidence-to-pakistan-on-hate-messages-31220.html इंटरनेट पर आपत्तिजनक तस्वीरों व वीडियो के कारण देश भर में फैले डर के माहौल के संबंध में भारतीय सरकार पाकिस्तान को सबूत सौंपेगी। केंद्रीय गृह मंत्री सुशील कुमार शिंदे ने बुधवार को कहा, ‘हम निश्चित रूप से पाकिस्तान को सबूत सौंपेंगे।’ असम हिंसा के बाद इंटरनेट पर प्रकाशित छेड़छाड़ से बनाई गई तस्वीरों और वीडियो के जरिए फैली अफवाहों के चलते बंगलूरू, पुणे, चेन्नई और मुंबई में स्थिति चिंताजनक हो गई थी। — Preceding unsigned comment added by WBRSin (talk • contribs) 15:20, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I got these from India today this says that messages originated from pakistan and this says almost the same thing. However here it is said that it was not pak govt but individuals from pak. We can attribute the statements to home sec of India.--sarvajna (talk) 15:24, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for these sources. The most recent, from India Today (yesterday) is saying: At the moment, however, diplomatic ties appear to have scored over domestics concerns. Diplomatic sources travelling with the PM reportedly termed Singh's August 18 comments as "inaccurate" and raised question marks on Singh levelling the allegations against Pakistan without enough evidence and before taking the MEA into confidence.

On Wednesday, the home secretary gave a clean chit to the Pakistan government and its agencies like the ISI. "I never said the Pakistan government or its agencies are behind posting the morphed pictures... we have no evidence to say it was a designed conspiracy by Pakistan. But some individuals in Pakistan are behind this act and we expect it to act against those elements. Also, no inflammatory SMS originated from Pakistan," Singh said. As events are unfolding daily and Wikipedia is not a daily news source, I suggest we wait a little longer for some more clarity on this issue. Rumiton (talk) 13:49, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Let's work with what we have and reinstate the text along with "due to diplomatic concerns manmohan singh played down the role of pakistani government role in the transmission of hate SMS'es".WBRSin (talk) 08:34, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely not. This is a serious real-life issue where people's lives are at risk. This is not the time or place for point of view pushing. Wikipedia must do nothing to inflame this international situation, and what we say must be as accurate as possible. Please read the above text from India Today and discuss here. Any further undiscussed insertions will be reported as a matter of urgency to the Administrators' Noticeboard. Rumiton (talk) 11:04, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Rumiton stop threatening!!. Let me quote the section which you just removed Investigators have traced the source of hate messages to Pakistan. In India, Islamist groups PFI, HuJI, Manita Neeti Pasarai and Karnataka Forum for Dignity circulated the messages to mask the true origin of the messages and make it seem as they were originating from within India. The SMS campaign was designed to create panic among people from north east forcing them to flee and to damage the social fabric and economy. However due to diplomatic concerns Manmohan Singh played down the role of Pakistani government role in the transmission of hate messages.. You see you removed important information like the involvement of PFI, HuJI and KFD. Which source said that these organisations were not involved? You could have made few corrections either by adding what home sec said or remove Investigators have traced the source of hate messages to Pakistan. Do not remove the whole section just because you are not comfortable. If you cannot make corrections you can comment on the talk page and editors involved would have made the required changes. We just cannot hide the fact that Indian Gov had suspected Pak's hand and even now the home sec thinks that it is some individuals from Pak who might be responsible.--sarvajna (talk) 11:42, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

@Rumiton your attitude is hostile and threatening. Instead of addressing the matter at hand you are just *sitting* on the matter and hoping it goes away. You are starting an edit war by deleting well sourced references and giving lame excuses like this will "inflame the situation" which is laughable. People may get inflamed reading about the violence and deaths that have been reported in the wiki, Are you going to delete the whole wiki page then? I am waiting for a fair response from you which may lead to an conclusion on this long drawn matter, not some threats and excuses. WBRSin (talk) 14:54, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

@Rumiton Are you going to reply or shall I make the changes, no response from you will be construed as an disinterest in this issue? WBRSin (talk) 04:31, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Lets wait for sometime, he might be busy so lets not hurry. --sarvajna (talk) 10:15, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I can only log on once a day, so thank you for your patience, with me and with the article. Also, I was not intending to be threatening, just underlying how serious I consider this to be, that this article takes a mature stance and does not add fuel to a desperate situation. The Indian press reporting seems to be mellowing, which is to be expected, and is the reason for the Wikipedia policy against trying to be a daily source of information. Often, we need to let things settle for a while.

What I am getting so far is that there has been conflict and a lack of information sharing between the Indian Ministry of Home Affairs and the External Affairs Ministry on this subject.

On August 18, Union Home Secretary R.K. Singh had categorically pointed fingers at Pakistan when, referring to the morphed images of victims of cyclones and earthquakes being uploaded on internet as those of violence against Muslims in Assam and Myanmar, he had said: "...this is something that is being done from Pakistan."

We can certainly say the Home Secretary made these allegations, but then we will need to counter this with:

On Aug 30. Diplomatic sources travelling with the PM reportedly termed Singh's August 18 comments as "inaccurate" and raised question marks on Singh leveling the allegations against Pakistan without enough evidence and before taking the MEA into confidence...On Wednesday, the home secretary gave a clean chit to the Pakistan government and its agencies like the ISI. "I never said the Pakistan government or its agencies are behind posting the morphed pictures... we have no evidence to say it was a designed conspiracy by Pakistan. But some individuals in Pakistan are behind this act and we expect it to act against those elements. Also, no inflammatory SMS originated from Pakistan," Singh said.

Elsewhere, we have: More than one quarter of the messages originated in Pakistan. The alleged role of PFI, HuJI and KFD has not been denied, so appears to be fine for the article. Rumiton (talk) 12:20, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Why not seperate article for Azad Maidan riots?

I see Azad Maidan riots as a sub-section of this article, since it is somehow related to Assam Violence. But it is also related to Rakhine-Rohingya problem. Why not create separate article for Azad Maidan riots as it is currently under investigation? We can minimize that section here and move Azad Maidan riots into new article. - Vatsan34 (talk) 06:13, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Created a separate article for Azad Maidan riots. - Vatsan34 (talk) 11:23, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

2014 voilence

Unfortunately there is violence in 2014 again. --Abhijeet Safai (talk) 05:34, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

A new article is started about 2014 Bodo attack, as it seems to be more of terrorist attack than communal violence. - Vatsan34 (talk) 06:18, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Section on Repercussions in other parts of India

Is all of this clearly related to the Assam violence? Certainly it doesn't look as though all the sources say it is. Dougweller (talk) 13:45, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 2012 Assam violence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131103112348/http://www.assamtribune.com/scripts/detailsnew.asp?id=jul2212/at05 to http://www.assamtribune.com/scripts/detailsnew.asp?id=jul2212/at05
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131103112348/http://www.assamtribune.com/scripts/detailsnew.asp?id=jul2212/at05 to http://www.assamtribune.com/scripts/detailsnew.asp?id=jul2212/at05
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140222134930/http://news.outlookindia.com/items.aspx?artid=771790 to http://news.outlookindia.com/items.aspx?artid=771790

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:34, 23 September 2016 (UTC)