"They have seen an attack by an alleged Muslim crowd on a train culminating into the killings of over two thousand people in Gujarat. But all this madness eventually led to nothing for them while a particular political party attained power."

The total number of people killed in that incident were less than 1000. But the old trick ....if you repeat something enough times it becomes true, Right !!!

"So why didn’t Ayodhya erupt in carnage when militants struck there last week?"

During BJP's rule there was indiscriminate killings by terrorists in a temple in Gujarat (Akshardham). Why didnt Akshardham erupt in carnage (besides that done by the terrorist ..and the special forces jawans who were lost) ???

Same trick, make BJP the boogey man so the complicity of Pakistan in causing terrorist attacks in India ... continuously can be overlooked.

The present Govt. may ask the British to solve the India-Pak problem who knows The present PM may ask those who had benefit of India in mind again for help ;)

That there was no widespread violence following the terrorist attack on Ayodhya was due to more basic reasons than changing political climate (although that is a part). First, the terrorists were killed by the Indian troops guarding the area. It’s harder to organize a murderous mob when the attackers are dead. Justice was served.

Second, India suffered a tremendous diplomatic black eye after Godhra. The carnage that went on in Gujarat made the nation appear no better than some civil war torn nation in Africa or strife-driven region in SE Asia. So the moment there is an attack as happened at Ayodhya, troops are out on the streets in major cities to keep the peace.

But while the calm after the storm is a good thing, there are some other troubling signs, which New Delhi seems unwilling to deal with. One, terrorist groups are still quite active, and as the ordinarily useless Foreign Minister Natwar Gandhi pointed out, there is still plenty of terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan. But India seems unwilling to do anything (aside from diplomatic memos and press conferences) to force the Pakistani government to dismantle the camps. And with the Indian gov’t announcing that it will no longer employ American lobbying firms to press India’s case (the diplomatic equivalent of unilateral disarmament), India’s security concerns are going to recede from the global stage.

Also, while the greatest threats are from foreign terrorist groups, there is a sizable number of Indian-born Muslims who believe they have no option but to become terrorists. The attack on a Gujarati temple a number of years ago (I think 2003) and a bomb blast at Bombay marketplace the same year, the chief suspects were Indian-born Muslims. This is a disturbing development since Indian Muslims have generally been opposed to the pleas of extremists.

KXB,
Were they Kashmiris ?
If not, then yes, its a disturbing development.

The Akshardham terrorist had atleast one or more Pakistan national and others I think Kashimiri AFAI remember. (need to do googling)
Ghatkopar, Mumbai blast terrorists WERE NON Kashmiri. I am sure about this one.

Al.

Here was a Time Asian article from 2003 on the Bombay attack:

"Bloody Monday", Sept. 21, 2003
http://www.time.com/time/asia/magazine/article/0,13673,501030908-480330,00.html

The attack on a Gujarati temple a number of years ago (I think 2003) and a bomb blast at Bombay marketplace the same year, the chief suspects were Indian-born Muslims

Indian Hindus kill Indian Muslims. Indian Muslims kill indian Hindus. You could call it terrorism, but it would be better to call it communal violence, the age old Indian tradition of killing people different from you.

Indian-Muslims, those that are left, are there by choice. They tend -- in PK gatherings -- to be absurdly patriotic about India. In my experience, PKers see them with pity -- poor Muslims still stuck in that Hindu dominatesd country, one riot away from being burned alive.

Hard to say whether poeple are really thinking with that bigger picture (peace with Pakistan etc) in mind. I think decline can be attributed to a number of things. Remember, in the eighties during the successful rath yatra campaigns a hindu nationalist party had not yet been in government - hence the parivar's unified front in drumming up a mass base. After being in office for two terms, the inevitable divisions began to weaken the base at the centre.

As far as the voting base is concerned, even people in the Hindu belt didn't entirely buy into the "India Shining" platform. This election was largely a vote on economic progress -- which the neo-liberal BJP led coalition hadn't managed to "trickle-down" to the mass-base level.

Lacking legitimacy among voters and a unified centre -- this is a very different situation than it was in the 80s and early 90s when violent mass mobilization could be oraganized.

...the age old Indian tradition of killing people different from you...

I am aware of a lot of traditions from India but I haven't heard of this one yet. Care to offer us the benefit of your wisdom?

Indian-Muslims... to be absurdly patriotic about India...

And they ought to be patriotic. They are Indians. Maybe its my dense Indian brain (crammed with killer traditions) but I don't quite get the absurdity here.

"Indian-Muslims, those that are left, are there by choice. They tend -- in PK gatherings -- to be absurdly patriotic about India. In my experience, PKers see them with pity -- poor Muslims still stuck in that Hindu dominatesd country, one riot away from being burned alive."

Hmm, considering that India has more Muslims than Pakistan, it must be a little bit hospitable. Contrast that to Paksitan, which was something like 15-20% Hindu at the time of partition, and now I think that number is down to about an apartment block.

Plus, Indian Muslims have a say in selecting their leaders, which the enlightened despots of Pakistan feel their nation is not ready for.

One riot away from being burned alive? Cute, I'll keep that in mind the next time I hear about how splendidly Sunnis and Shias get along in Pakistan.

I'm describing an attitude, KXb. I report, you decide.

Okeley-dokeley

And in contrast to the murderous outrage that used to follow suspected Islamic attacks on Indian soil, there were no reports of reprisals against Muslims in India last week.

The author clearly does not undertand intricasies of Indian politics. If there was a "Islamic attack on Indian soil" then Indian Muslims should also be outraged because of foreign agression on Indian soil.

If Muslims didnt react then the attackers must have been home grown, were anti-national and would represent rest of the Muslim people.

Hopefully, the later is not the case!

Contrast that to Paksitan, which was something like 15-20% Hindu at the time of partition, and now I think that number is down to about an apartment block.

This is an incredible and extremely troubling assertion.
Do you have some evidence which can back up these numbers ?
Note : Dont cite numbers from 1946-1949 when there was a big population shift due to partition.
Lets see some numbers from 1950 onwards.