Friday, November 1, 2024
Home Blog Page 735

7 times I felt Nation is not important to some people in India

anupampandey
-
0
7 times I felt Nation is not important to some people in India

In school, we had a morning assembly which was compulsory to attend. The assembly gathered for prayers, pledge and last but not the least, the National Anthem. After completion of Anthem, one last thing that happened before going back to our respective classes in queues, the command boy shouted aloud ‘Bharat Mata Ki’ and the whole assembly roared with thunderous echoes of ‘Jai’, not once but thrice.

I didn’t see it happen in a school assembly recently when I went to drop my cousin in the same school. I held back and stood there to go through the euphoria of morning assembly all over again but I was left disappointed to witness a bizarre lackluster morning assembly with no essence or spirit of India in it. This made me wonder, is the nation not important anymore? Are our future generations not expected to follow those essential nationalistic values?

And then, I open up the newspapers coming every morning. I find a broad first page with the cover story about why patriotism shall not be enforced on people! There are articles every other day which try nonchalant manipulations to prove our nationalistic ethos deny the right to freedom of expression. That our culture is regressive and our religion is downtrodden. And what not?

Yes, these articles are against my views and I am nobody to respond back with a befitting reply to their arguments right at their face. I know nobody cares even if I write it somewhere but I need to start.

Better something than nothing.

No Freedom Without the Nation

I still believe in what I think about nationalistic virtues and I find it necessary to explain how it is that important for us to keep the nationalistic flavour up and growing when it is being pulled down every other day. We should never hesitate from using our Nationalistic aura to inspire ourselves. They say, it is not always about the product, sometimes being a brand alone is enough. Being a Brand serves a sense of responsibility to carry forward the quality benchmarks your brand has set. I don’t want an outrage but it is necessary to put things in a rational perspective.

Our love for the Nation makes us whatever we are and disregard for it can break us too. I see many people trying to defame our Nation because the nation allows them to do so. They curse the nation and question each and everything about it but they forget that they can only do this if the nation exists. In their hatred for specific reasons, they are tearing the nation itself as if the nation is not important to them.

Let me discuss few such events which placed nationalism under scrutiny and signal us about time when India was not important…

1. The Debate of Intolerance

If any sane person still sees any truth in the whole mockery of a situation which occurred under the garb of that intolerance drama, then he is probably not sane enough as he thinks himself to be. What has changed about the country due to intolerance? Nothing. I see every Muslim living the same life if not better, as they had been living throughout this life. But still the fire of Intolerance was kept alive for a long time with many other catalyst coming in to raise the relevance of the issue. This overall narrative of Intolerance gave India a bad name all over the world as proven when Barack Obama in one of his speech during India visit reciprocated the narrative of Intolerant India.

2. The Award Wapsi Campaign

After the drama of Intolerance started to lose its grip in the mainstream, few awarded artists all of a sudden realized that the Intolerance issue deserved some more debate than it got. So they took their pious awards and went for a press conference to return those awards. To my surprise, for doing that whole drama, their reason was that the ruling government was imposing a situation of an emergency. For reference, they gave example of one Muslim youth who got killed by a mob for some reason. It was wrong and many of the people involved in it have been put behind bar. Apparently, the event held by those awarded men shall be remembered as one of the biggest minority appeasement campaign ever seen by this country’s non political elites. No need to tell you, this also did a greater damage to India’s image globally.

3. The Evidence of Surgical Strike for Pakistan’s Help

When Indian Army took the revenge of Uri attacks by conducting surgical strikes across the border, not many people were happy and they were rather confused. No matter what, it was a fearless statement which India made by announcing those strikes that sent a strong message to our enemies. It was an open rebellion against Pak Army and surely caught them by surprise in no position. Probably the reason why Pak neglected the claims to preserve their image on a safer side. But few Indians loved the perspective of Pak army and started to raise doubts in media openly. They not only questioned the credibility of Indian Army but also lost a track of the situation in which the nation’s pride was at stake. The political hatred had turned them blind to the national priorities.

4. Against the Flag and the Anthem!

The famous incident of Jadavpur University in Kolkata refusing to hoist national flag caught media limelight for differing opinions but it had one thing in common with another issue raised on playing the national anthem. When people openly confer these subjects of national identity as a threat to freedom of expression, logic is certainly the most under used aspect behind such arguments. There Plis nothing that can be argued against the national pride and to stand against it, is the lowest you can fall.

5. Bash Hindu, Hail Secularism!!!

The implications of word Secularism has been exploited by certain political parties and intellectual elite of this country. People openly bash Hindu community for the act of one individual, allow defaming Hindu culture to flaunt their progressive secular values, use exaggerations and false interpretations to malign the religious sentiments in the name of free speech and still, everything goes for a toss once Muslims get involved in similar or even worst case scenarios. There is an absolute silence about issues of Kairana and Kandhla. So much so that many of you will never know that Kandhla was also suffering from the issue of religious exodus. The riots in Dadri didn’t get media limelights. Appeasement of Muslim and bashing the Hindu mindset has become the new trend of Secularism in India.

6. Kanhaiya Became a Posterboy of Liberals!

The event in JNU campus was supposed to open eyes, instead many self proclaimed liberals turned the antagonistic deeds into heroism. When students are chanting about breaking the nation, threatening the Indian state with war, hailing terrorists as immortal heroes, then it is better to get a reality check about what is wrong with the students. But Kanhaiya Kumar is all of a sudden conferred as the posterboy of voice of freedom in some media channels. He becomes a hero just because he organized a rally in honour of Afzal Guru the terrorist. How can a person become great after showing sympathy for a terrorist?

7. Poor Stone Pelters, Bash Virtueless Army!

It is all about the narrative. The stone pelting by youth of Jammu and Kashmir has been a big hurdle to deal for Indian Army. There have been clear evidences of these paid protests being orchestrated through funds coming from across the border but still, plethora of news channels highlight the response or rather retaliation by the Indian Army in a bad vein. What would you do if someone is constantly trying to pin you down by throwing stones at you? Even though, there shall be no justification for stone pelting, yet the certain class of people show sympathy and project stone-pelters as innocent. How horrendously it impacts the morale of Indian Army? I really feel sad about it.

Nationalism Is Not Patriotism Anymore!

There is a subtle and certain patriotic feel which is attributed to nationalism. Of late, India has seen many intellectual minds debating against the patriotic values which are flaunted by public in public. In fact, they have given a new term to it, hyper nationalism is a synonym for the word Patriotism to their mind.

Now here is my point. You can say what you want to in front of the media and roam freely. You are accusing the same government which rules the nation and still remain free. No government authority has held you back or punished you or jailed you, even though you feel it is an emergency like situation. Is this how you think dictatorship works? No, just go and try the same somewhere else in the world with dictatorship in place and you will learn the difference.

When all this happens, it deeply disturbs most of the Indians who see it as the nation being ridiculed in front of the world. India allows you to say all this and get away with it and you still don’t realize that these are the National values which are allowing you the privilege to do so. Instead, you shame India globally.

‘People who try to oppose national pride by opposing the virtue of its flag, anthem and slogans are doing no lesser damage. How do you think will it affect the mind of a child?’

These are the values of nation’s identity and it is what makes a nation important. When you malign the national identities, play with the image of nation’s Army, joke around nation’s culture, then it clearly suggests, nation is not important to you anymore.

Perspectives on India-China relationship

etee23
-
0
Perspectives on India-China relationship

The spectacular Guangzhou ballet performance co-hosted by the Chinese Embassy (Indian Council for Cultural Relations) and China Federation of Literary and Art Circles has for the first time reached India. The envoy advocates cultural exchanges to improve people’s understanding of each other countries.

Today in the 21 st century as we see a re-emergence of Asia and move closer towards the term ‘Asian Century’ and a world order termed ‘Easternization ‘ (as propounded by Gideon Rachman). If we trace  the journey of the ‘Asian Century’ by focussing on the historical odysseys of the two oldest world civilizations, India and China we reach the conclusion that China and India have been civilizational neighbours until cartographies changed and new Asian geo-politics took over. Today whether China is a stakeholder or a challenger, in the world order is a matter of much debate. However it was always not so.

Sun Yat-sen (1866-1925) who spent his entire life to the rebirth of China and was also known as the father of Modern China (guofu). Sun Yat-Sen did not never expressed his world view in the form of an autobiography , but every time he spoke of the Chinese revolution and refers to the international situation and often in his public statements spoke of India.

In the use of ‘Europe’ and ‘Asia’ in World Historical Studies, the terminology has an Eurocentric Western bias, which is largely distortive of reality. Marshall G.S.Hodgson writes that these categorizations have made “among Westerners” the illusion that the “mainstream’ of world history ran through Europe”. The other discourses of ‘West ‘ and ‘East’ (or Orient) form another part of the picture still maintaining Western Euro-centric ‘illusions’. The Chinese political leaders have been seen as weak in their ‘Asian perspective’. This is because the concept of ‘Asia’ is a European invention, this has not been so popular in China and in many other Asian countries as well.

Confucius’s refers to a three- tier formulation of jia (family), guo (state) and tianxia (world). This has as we can see no place for ‘Asia’ in between China and the World. However, Sun Yat-sen is an exception, having been exposed to Western ideas and education at an early age. He felt strongly about the domination of white Europeans over non-white Asians, and was also aware of the desire of the Asian nations to be liberated from European repression.

Professor Chen Xiqi of the Sun Yat-sen University of Guangzhou had remarked at a seminar on ‘Sun Yat-sen and Asia’ that took place in 1990, his religious culture was India’s forte, while Chinese religious culture (Buddhism) was imported from India. In the course of several thousand years China and India not only had cultural interactions, but also an economic relationship. As Sun Yat-sen was paying attention to India, he even regarded the Indian national movement as linked to his own career.

As we now live in a moment where the issue of Indians and Chinese understanding each other be placed as an important agenda in India-China relations, we need  to look  back, at a time in history when it was so.

(Dr Etee Bahadur is a faculty at Jamia Millia Islamia)

Left is not about inclusive politics, here is one such example

gururamalingam
-
0
Left is not about inclusive politics, here is one such example

In the last few years, inclusiveness and exclusiveness have been identified with the left-wing and right-wing respectively.  In the context of India, a generic argument is made that the pro-Hindu forces are solely responsible for politics of polarization and exclusivity. Closer examination yields darker, uncomfortable truths.

The lens used to examine this is usually religion. But if one uses another lens, one can see equally divisive, exclusive mechanisms. This article will attempt to take these up.

In many states, linguistic chauvinism comes under a left-liberal umbrella. Take for example Tamil Nadu,  where an upcoming  leader Thirumurugan Gandhi denounces the BJP and its “fascist” notion of Hindu majoritarianism, and in the same breath abuses Brahmins who constitute less than 3% of the population. He all but asks for them to be kicked out of the state as their bonafide credentials of being Tamil enough doesn’t pass his test. He merely takes an existing narrative propagated by E.V Ramasamy Naicker forward.

Looking dispassionately, this is no different from how Hitler viewed the Jews, a minuscule minority. Blaming a community with the most progressive record in inter-caste marriages for casteism is expedient. The powerful upper castes will not mind while a minority can be the scapegoat for all of Tamil society’s evils. This is the definition of Fascist politics. This kind of smear campaign that leads to sacred threads of priests being cut. Any society has evils, and a true leader will create systemic incentives to affect a behavior change, not a vilification campaign. This politically myopic reason is also the reason why “rationalism” is so weak in Tamil Nadu compared to Ganesha temples at every street corner.

Secondly up, why are the majority of Hindus scaremongered to believe that anything to the right of center is a prescription for pogroms? It’s not that pogroms have been the preserve of the right wing. For every Hilter (who by the way identified himself as ‘socialist’ too), there is a Pol Pot, a Mao, Guevera who have been equally, if not more brutal. Liberalism is not equivalent to left. If anything leftist movements have been known to be merciless.

Thirdly, both the left and the right are but means for a few people to impose their will on the rest and enjoy privileges. While crony capitalists ensure their reign through influencing policies and subsidies on the right. The left has its share of “grassroots” leaders who will not have a blade of grass on them. Crony socialists will enjoy the same level of privileges that crony capitalists do.

bottom-line: Exclusion politics is reprehensible, be it religious or caste. There is plenty of blame to go around.  Let us stop throwing righteous indignation at others and look within ourselves to be inclusive. That will pave way for an egalitarian society.

Is India democratic only because of Nehru?

Chandra Mauli Singh
-
0
Is India democratic only because of Nehru?

Chacha Nehru is in news again. The critics of the present NDA government have been vociferous in their condemnation that this government not only refuses to acknowledge the contribution that Nehru made to this country but also wants to undermine his legacy. According to them, the biggest Nehruvian legacy has been the survival of India as a democracy. Critics of Nehru, on the other hand, argue that Nehru’s contribution to democracy in this country has been overemphasised.

Speaking recently in parliament, the Prime Minister stated, ‘Loktantra Congress ya Nehru ji ki den nahi hai, Loktantra hamari ragon mein hai, hamari parampara mein hai.’ (Democracy is not a gift (to this country) by Nehru or the Congress. Democracy is in our blood, our traditions). So where does the truth lie?

I would argue that while Nehru significantly contributed to strengthening Indian democracy and that that his tendencies were basically democratic, yet attributing the survival of democracy in this country only to his legacy would qualify as hyperbole. Lest we forget, Nehru also betrayed significant anti-democratic or authoritarian tendencies.

Here are a few examples:

First, let us have a look as to how he forced his way to become the PM of the country, post-Independence. Nehru was not the unanimous choice for the job of the President of the Congress in 1946. The President of the Congress who was to be elected by the Pradesh Congress Committees (PCCs) would have subsequently become PM of India after independence. 12 of the 15 PCCs wanted Patel as President while 3 PCCs abstained from naming anyone. It was only at the insistence of Mahatma Gandhi that Patel backed out from the race, paving the way for Nehru to become President of the Congress and subsequently the PM of India. Not only had Nehru made it clear to the Mahatma that he coveted the post but had also made it clear that he would not serve as deputy to anyone. In his book “Nehru: A political biography”, Michael Brecher wrote, ‘If Gandhi had not intervened, Patel would have been the first Premier of India, in 1946-47’.  Is it democratic to get popular opinion overturned by bringing Mahatma’s moral pressure to bear on one’s opponents?

Second, while there is no denying the fact that Nehru attended Parliament regularly and took active part in parliamentary debates, he also used constitutional provisions to, at times, bypass parliament. One such provision was ruling through Ordinances. Article 123 of the constitution allows the executive to issue ordinances when either house of parliament is not in session but it should be resorted to only when circumstances dictate that immediate action is warranted. Promulgation of ordinance as a matter of routine to avoid seeking timely parliamentary approval is neither good governance nor a very democratic practice. Lately, President Pranab Mukherji had voiced his concern about the repeated promulgation of the Land Acquisition Ordinance by the present Government. Shubhankar Dam in his book ‘Presidential Legislation in India: The Law and Practice of Ordinances’ writes that the practice of promulgating Ordinances had become so commonplace under Nehru that the first speaker of India G.V. Mavalankar had written to Nehru warning that ‘the house carries a sense of being ignored and the Central Secretariat, perhaps, gets into the habit of slackness,’ neither of which ‘was conducive to the development of the best parliamentary traditions.’ Nehru, however dismissed his warning. Three ordinances were issued by his government on the very first day of the promulgation of the Constitution i.e. 26 January 1950. During his tenure (till 1964), Nehru government issued 102 ordinances, thus setting the tone for and providing justifications for future governments. Dam’s research shows that during the period 1952 to 2009, different governments brought 177 ordinances either 15 days before the commencement of a legislative session or within 15 days of the end of the legislative session. Not a very great democratic legacy to leave behind!

Third, the undemocratic practice of misusing Article 356 by the Central Government to destabilize governments not to their liking started during Nehru’s term. In his tenure as PM, Nehru used Article 356 eight times to dismiss elected state governments. Nehru dismissed the Gopi Chanda Bhargav government in Punjab even though he enjoyed the majority in the house. In 1954, he dismissed the Andhra Pradesh Government on the specious plea that the AP government was about to be taken over by the Communists. Similarly, in 1959, the first elected non-congress government in Kerala was dismissed by the Centre even though it enjoyed the majority in the legislature. The Governors had become instruments in the hands of the Centre with Granville Austin writing that the Congress had “blended its interests with questionable national needs to take over a state government”. This abominable tradition was carried on by the future governments with his daughter Mrs Gandhi, imposing President’s rule 50 times, Rajiv Gandhi imposing it 6 times, PV Narsimha Rao 11 times and Dr. Manmohan Singh 12 times.

Fourth, nothing surprises me more than the ambivalence that Pandit ji displayed in controlling corruption in public life. It is indeed a paradox that while he was a person of absolutely unimpeachable personal integrity, he condoned and tolerated financial impropriety amongst his colleagues. V.K Krishna Menon, then the High Commission of UK was indicted in the Jeep scam of 1948 but ended up becoming Defence Minister in Nehru’s cabinet. Similarly, TTK Krishnamachary was indicted in the LIC Mundra scam (exposed by his son in law Firoze Gandhi) by the Chagla Commission of Inquiry, but Nehru took him back in his cabinet as Finance Minister in 1963. Despite serious charges of corruption against him, Nehru always had high praise for Pratap Singh Kairon, the Chief Minister of Punjab, whom he considered to be ‘a man of the people, simple in his life’. Incidentally, this simple man was indicted by the Das Commission of Inquiry for corruption in 1964, thereby forcing Lal Bahadur Shashtri to seek his resignation.

Fifth, one cannot but feel bemused when the critics of the present government lament the supposed curtailment of free speech by this government. It would be worthwhile to remind them that the first amendment which curtailed the right of free speech, as enshrined in the Constitution was brought in 1951 by the Nehru government. Interestingly, Nehru was even opposed to incorporating the term ‘reasonable’ before restrictions for he thought the word reasonable was ambiguous and gave the courts too much leeway in deciding the cases as per their interpretation. The Press (Objectionable Matter) Act, placing restrictions on what could be published was also promulgated by his government in 1951. In his interview with Michael Brecher, Nehru justified the promulgation of this Act stating that the press here was doing terrible things, was no good and so had to be restrained.

The left liberals of this country who never tire of calling this government a fascist incarnate and go the ridiculous extent of calling the PM a Hitler need to be reminded of the democratic tolerance of their liberal hero, Pandit Nehru.  When India joined the Commonwealth post-independence, Majrooh Sultanpuri, the leftist poet composed and read out the following poem in a worker’s rally;

‘Aman kaa jhandaa is dharti pe
kisney kahaa lahraane na paae
ye bhii koii Hitler kaa hai chelaa,
maar le saathii, jaane na paae!
Commonwealth ka daas hai Nehru
maar le saathii jaane na paae!’

‘अमन का झंडा इस धरती पे
किसने कहा लहराने न पाए
ये भी है हिटलर का कोई चेला
मार ले साथी जाने न पाए !
कामनवेल्थ का दास है नेहरू
मार ले साथी जाने न पाए।’

The democrat that was Nehru was so agitated by these lines that a warrant of arrest was issued against Sultanpuri and he was put behind bars in Arthur Road Jail for two years. Similarly, the Times of India was forced to discontinue the column that civil servant A.D Gorwala wrote under the pseudonym ‘Vivek’ as Nehru found those pieces too critical of him. So much for the present government and the PM being a fascist!

In the final analysis, while uninterrupted Nehruvian leadership of 17 years’ post-independence did allow democracy to take roots, institutions to entrench and their capabilities to enhance, equal credit is also due to all the other players in the democratic game as well as the capable personnel who manned many important institutions of the state. If Nehru played by the rules of the book, so did the opposition who never questioned their democratic defeat at the hands of the ruling Congress party. Thankfully, we did not have an opposition like in Pakistan where the losing party never accepted/accepts the democratic verdict. India was indeed lucky to have as its founding fathers, both in the government and the opposition, leaders who were seeped in the tradition of constitutionalism and rule of law (most of them lawyers), be it rightists or leftists. Thankfully this great tradition continues till date.

Let us not forget that democracy cannot be a gift to a country by any one person how so ever great he or she might be. It needs constant nurturing and reaffirmation to its core values. If Nehruvian tradition was all that the country needed to continue as a democracy for ever, how come Emergency happened in 1975? How was it that all democratic rights were curtailed and all institutions muzzled? God alone knows what would have been the future of democracy in this country had Mrs. Gandhi not been misled by the false reports of her impending victory and called for elections in 1977? If the Nehruvian democratic tradition was so strong then what was the need for the further checks and balances on the authoritarian power of the executive by the 44th amendment?

So while we must respect and celebrate Nehru, let us not delude ourselves that democracy was only his ‘gift’ to this country and continues to survive only because we were fortunate to have him as our leader in the early years of our Republic.

(The views expressed by the author are personal)

Modi at Ramallah, Pakistan worried?

GAURAV SURIYAL
-
0
Modi at Ramallah, Pakistan worried?

The ‘historic’ visit to Palestine by Prime Minister Modi embarked a new chapter in the history of Indo-Palestine ties. It’s historic as no other PM of India had made a visit to Palestine ever before.

The visit is eye-catching and gathered media attention as it is being seen through the prism of recent bromance between Modi and Netanyahu. Palestine sees India, the world’s largest democracy and a growing global power, as a genuine partner in resolving the decades old dispute on “two state solution”.

Visit only Symbolic?

Modi touched down at Ramallah with his contingent along with two Israeli helicopters escorting him. It seems, Israel was already taken into confidence before the visit was planned.

Prime Minister held talks with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas & met Prime Minister Rami Hamdallah and reiterated India’s commitment on two state’s solution. Thereafter, he laid a wreath to Abu Ammar popularly known as Yaseer Arafat (founder of Fatah political party). The fact that the visit lasted for merely 3 hours is indicative enough that there is nothing much in the itinerary of Mr.Modi.

India signed 6(six) MoU’s with Palestine in building infrastructure like schools, hospitals and providing development assistance in setting up National Printing Press. India is also providing help in construction of India Palestine Centre for Empowering women, “Turathi” at a cost of US$ 5 million.

However, no joint statement was issued by the two world leaders making the visit more symbolic and a balancing act by Mr.Modi in the delicate Arab relations.

Pakistan’s Envy

The historic visit by Indian Prime Minister is in itself enough to envy Pakistan which was trying to cozy up its relations with Palestinian Authority. Pakistan sees the issue of Palestinian conflict with an opportunity to rake up and highlight the internal Kashmir problem on the world stage. However the recent withdrawal by Palestine of its ambassador in Pakistan on sharing dais with a UN designated terrorist Hafiz Saeed at the request of India does not go down well within Pakistan. And now with this historic visit followed by a scheduled meet with the heads of UAE and Oman is making the Pakistan establishment envy with its nearest neighbour.

No place for Pakode in ‘Suit Boot’ Congress Raj

abhishekdalal
-
0
No place for Pakode in ‘Suit Boot’ Congress Raj

A furore has broken out over Prime Minister Modi’s recent comments on self-employment. In a recent interview, Modi outlined that vast swathes of self-employed citizens were left unaccounted for in the official job statistics. In particular, his remarks about considering pakoda-sellers earning Rs. 200 a day as employed received much flak. There are several legitimate concerns about PM’s outlook on employment not to mention the fact that a significant proportion of the people Modi describes as adequately self-employed may not earn enough.

It was however, astonishing and repugnant to see members of the opposition parties, including former Cabinet ministers callously deride this section of society. Mr. Chidambaram’s recent Twitter comments follow a habitual trend within the Congress top brass that repeatedly belittles hardworking citizens while simultaneously claiming to champion their cause. Such statements reek of elitism and are deeply offensive to thousands of Indians attempting to earn an honest living. From Mani Shankar Aiyer’s jibes against Modi’s humble background to Rahul Gandhi’s ill conceived rationalization of dynastic politics, the Congress party has repeatedly perpetuated an image of a holier than thou old boys’ club. They have become the very embodiment of the British aristocratic class we fought valiantly against in India’s Independence movement.

The bigger issue at play is the Congress party’s belief that they hold a monopoly over India’s parliamentary democracy, thereby festering within them a sense of moral and intellectual superiority. By repeatedly attacking those that were not a part of the freedom movement, the Congress has displayed its deep belief in entitlement to Indian power structures on the basis of the events leading upto 1947.

This is partially why the PM has made the the right noises in his recent speech in the Lok Sabha imploring the Congress party to recognize its arrogance and accept the mistakes of 1947 – the partition and Kashmir. Meanwhile, the Congress seems to have undergone an intellectual internalisation that has reduced its self-image to that of then outgoing British elite. The constant high handed claims of Congress being solely responsible for the country’s freedom hasn’t help society move ahead.

While there may be no denying that not many dream of selling pakode for a living, must we really stoop down to the levels of dismissing their hard work with contempt? Not to mention, he hails from a party that was the architect of a rural employment scheme that guaranteed Rs. 120 a day to unemployed rural workers for public works related labor. Extending his logic to NREGA, was Mr. Chidambaram questioning the beneficiaries of his own party’s landmark welfare schemes? Of course, he didn’t expect his comments to be dissected to such granularity, which makes them even more insidious and unforgivable.

Mr. Gandhi, for his part, only condemned statements from his party members when it became politically expedient. We invite him or Chidambaram to provide comprehensive solutions to the massive underemployment challenge India continues to face. As Rahul Gandhi maintains tight-lipped silence over these types of matters, it is worth noticing how senior Congress leaders have jumped directly into the pit to slander and throw mud on different professional communities. The pakoda sellers’ community is a rather small minority in India – a fact many Congressmen are blind towards, as they continue to argue for minorities to exclusively be constructed on the basis of religion.

Dignity for each profession is a foundational requirement for any country trying to establish itself as an egalitarian society. The Congress’ high handed attitude is diametrically opposite to this ideal and poses an obstruction in the progress of the country. There must be some moral accountability within the Congress that stops such an act from playing out again and disturbing the socio-economic fabric of India. Until then, we sincerely hope Congress doesn’t disrespect millions of hardworking Indians that continue to show more entrepreneurial zeal than its President has ever shown.

 

Abhishek Dalal & Rishabh Mundhra

Casteist elitism of Lutyens’ Media

ashishdwivedi
-
0
Casteist elitism of Lutyens’ Media

For all the grand claims of inclusivity, diversity and other liberal fan favourite words, the Indian media landscape seems to not only be dominated, but to the point of being monopolized by Upper Caste Hindus, a majority of these belonging from the same Brahmin community they constantly blame for every ill in Indian society including the rise of their favourite bogeyman, Narendra Modi. Lack of OBC or Dalit representation is so glaring that one can hardly be blamed for assuming that this might be a deliberate ploy to maintain the insularity in which the coterie of Lutyens’ Media thrives.

One of the ‘star’ anchors of NDTV and self-appointed custodian of truth and justice who wears the mantle of crusader for dalit rights to the point of popularizing the now familiar terms ‘kaun jaat ho? (Which caste do you belong to?) Ravish kumar is a Brahmin from Uttar Pradesh. His family name was not very well known before the much –publicized disgrace caused by his brother (a certain Pandey) came to light. Similarly, another equality and inclusivity warrior from the marshlands that is Lutyens’ Media, Rajdeep Sardesai have even boasted about his ‘Gaud-Saraswat Brahmin’ heritage on twitter, while pretending to keeping the torch of social-equality aloft. It would almost be funny, if it wasn’t tragic.  His wife Sagarika Ghosh who also pretends to be the warrior against casteism and other social ills (as long as there is a BJP angle, which she miraculously always finds) is a Kayastha, an Upper Caste privileged Hindu. Another ‘star’ anchor of NDTV, Nidhi Razdan is a Kashmiri Brahmin who was married to a Brahmin from Uttar Pradesh.

Once upon a time NDTV’s Knight in shining armour and now a belligerent critic of the same organisation, Barkha Dutt, for all her talks on upliftment of OBCs and Dalit communities also belongs to Kayastha community. The problem of elitist casteism in Indian Media is so rampant that one would be hard-pressed to find a single media personality belonging to Dalit Community. Some of the white-dwarfs of Indian Media who now have limited shining capacity on twitter foaming their mouths on the slights of Dalit and OBC communities in Indian society, belong to upper caste Hindu communities. One such white-dwarf, Nikhil Wagle is a Saraswat Brahmin. Another guard of inclusive Indian Democracy who frequently plays the caste card in every news and analysis, Shekhar Gupta of The Print, comes from the affluent ‘Baniya’ community.

The list goes on and on. The total dominance of Upper Caste Hindus in Indian Media begs the question whether these truth and justice warriors are only paying lip service to Dalit causes and playing up caste cards in almost every instance so that their own bigotry and dominance would not be questioned. Given the data, it’s hard to fathom that this Brahminical domination of Indian Media Elites is mere happenstance and there aren’t any deliberate attempts to keep the insularity intact in play. This casteist elitism of Indian Media makes their crusade for Dalit rights look like a complete farce at best and a dangerous ploy to exclude certain groups (based on caste) from the coterie at worst. In comparison, two of the most prominent products of Lutyens’ Media’s favourite nemesis, RSS, are from OBC and Dalit communities and are occupants of Country’s highest offices.

When it comes to question of accountability from Indian Media, the age old saying comes to mind…Who will guard the guards?

How a Sri Lankan Tamil refugee Swamiji was ‘murdered’ by a ‘Christian’ judge

Murali KV
-
0
How a Sri Lankan Tamil refugee Swamiji was ‘murdered’ by a ‘Christian’ judge

How pro-Christian judges in Indian judiciary are destroying Hinduism by targetting Hindu gurus and swamis: from the judicial “torture” of a Sri Lankan Tamil Swami to the present day.

The judge, who is claimed to have committed such perversion of justice by Dr W J Wall, is currently a judge in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

Scarily, the judgement (which Dr Wall claims were against scientific and oral evidence) that this judge gave was upheld by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in Chennai and the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

How deep does the genocidal poison of Hinduphobia run?

Are Hindus safe in India, especially under an unfettered anti-Hindu judiciary?

The following is a verbatim reproduction from the book titled “The DNA Detectives” by Wilson J Wall published by a very respectable British publishing house in 2005 (pg. 162–165):

“One aspect to the short tandem repeat (STR) analysis that is rather unsettling is when an exclusion is ignored. Such a case took place at Pudukkottai in the southern state of Tamil Nadu in India. Pudukkottai is an hour’s drive from the nearest large town, Turichirapalli (sic), known locally as Trichy. This is a six-hour train journey from Chennai, previously known as Madras.

The case, in brief outline, revolved around allegations of the rape of 13 young girls and the murder of a Sri Lankan by the leader of an Ashram, Swami Premananda. The consequence of one of the alleged rapes was a pregnancy, which was terminated. This resulted in arrest and charges being filed against Premananda in 1994. Events on folded in a large courthouse, open on two sides, but the ancient ceiling fan gently stirring the hot and humid air. Dad there was such a large court building in such a relatively small town is for purely historical reasons, dating from when Pudukkottai was a city state. These sorts of court proceedings are carried out in English, as mentioned before. A legacy of British rule has resulted in the wearing of gowns by the lawyers, but they do not wear wigs, which would be far too hot.

Various legal arguments in the case were put forward until It came to the point when it became obvious that it was going to be necessary to carry out a paternity test to determine whether Premananda was actually the father of the aborted fetus. This initial analysis was carried out in a laboratory of the University of Hyderabad in 1996 using a number of untried probes to produce single locus and multilocus DNA profiles. These, sadly, gave a very inferior result that could not be accurately interpreted, although the scientist reporting results insisted that he could demonstrate a match. Besides this analysis there was also an STR analysis carried out in the same laboratory, unfortunately only using a single STR, which again it was insisted showed a match, indicating that Premananda was the father. At this point, the senior barrister, Mr Ram Jethmalani, who was also an MP in the Indian Parliament, decided to instruct an independent scientific expert to look into the DNA evidence. The conclusions were damning: The profiling had not been carried out in a forensic laboratory, but by a technician who was not a forensic scientist, using probes that had not been validated for forensic use and STR analysis which was completely unproven to have any probity of any sort.

By pleading to the court it was agreed that the defence expert could take material back to the UK for independent testing. This included a blood sample from Premananda and samples from the frozen foetus. Extraordinarily the blood sample was taken in court, so that everyone could be sure the blood was taken from the right person. The samples were sealed and taken back to the UK where testing in an accredited laboratory could be carried out. Being highly trained scientists it was obvious when the foetal material was looked at it was quite likely that we would be able to produce two profiles from it. This would be one from the foetal material and one from the liquid blood, the second of these most likely coming from the mother. When the six-panel STR analysis was carried out in London on what was now three samples, it was quite plain that we had three clear profiles. By taking out the mother’s contribution to the profile of the foetus it was obvious that Premananda could not be the father. A report to this effect was written and presented to the court. It was necessary to return to court for cross-examination of the results. These were in direct contradiction of the conclusions of the Indian scientist. This was not a disagreement on a small point of interpretation but a massive gulf. The difference we’re a result of the difference in the way the analysis was carried out. We had used validated techniques in a Home Office approved forensic laboratory.

The atmosphere became a little heated, to say the least, and when it was obvious that the UK results had been carried out in the most stringent manner, the prosecution counsel got a bit personal with an outburst.

‘I put it out to you Dr Wall, you are not even a proper scientist.’

To the credit of the judge, she did reprimand the lawyer. At one point towards the end of the hearing, the girl whose foetus had been tested came to court as a potential witness where she said that she would not give evidence. This was understandable as the court was full of spectators. These were of two broad groups, those that had heard about the case locally and were simply curious and those that had heard that Jethmalani was appearing. The second group were mostly gowned lawyers who knew of Jethmalani by his reputation and wanted to see him in action. Although not prepared to appear as a witness the judge asked her a single question: ‘was Premananda the father?’, to which she replied ‘no’. The arguments ran on until the final summing up by the lawyers of both sides. The judge made the final decision as to guilt or innocence alone. The result was a disappointment: he was declared guilty as charged and sentenced to twenty years in prison. Even Jethmalani was incensed by the result. In the written judgement it was said that there seemed no reason for an Indian court to accept the findings of a foreign scientist over an Indian one. At the time of writing, Premananda is still in prison, pending an appeal in the High Court in Delhi (sic).” (Wall 2005; “Judgment That Provoked Jethmalani – Times of India” 2005)

…

References

  1. “Judgment That Provoked Jethmalani – Times of India.” 2005, June 3. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Judgment-that-provoked-Jethmalani/articleshow/1132041.cms
  2. Wall, Wilson J. 2005. The DNA Detectives. Robert Hale.

Sagarika Ghose is a confused Hindu

Priya J
-
0
Sagarika Ghose is a confused Hindu

Sagarika Ghose’s attitude towards Hinduism is a paradox. On one hand she prides herself at being a Hindu, as long as the liberalism and tolerance towards other religions is intact. On the other hand, she has a very limited understanding of the core knowledge of what Hinduism truly represents.

She is the kind of confused Hindu who will quote Swami Vivekananda, Mahatma Gandhi and scores of Western scholars when it comes to Hinduism, but will not quote the traditional gurus such as Shri Adi Shankaracarya, Shri Ramanuja or Swami Dayananda Saraswati. She is the kind of confused Hindu who will not hesitate to interpret traditional scriptures in her own way, by imposing her liberal and feminist ideologies in them. Her recent tweet about Shurpanakha, the sister of Ravana from the Valmiki Ramayana, clearly proves this point.

During his Rajya Sabha address, Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi encountered a loud laughter from Ms Renuka Chaudary and tactically turned around the mood of the distracted Sabha by repaying Chaudhary with a jibe. He said that after a long time, he was glad to listen to the laughter that brought him back his nostalgic memories of Ramayana. I am not sure how many people caught his retort, but surely some Congress spokespersons did and they pounced onto Narendra Modi on the social media platforms. They alleged that PM Modi was referring to Shurpanakha, and this invited many comments from our “liberal hindus”. One such remark came from none other than, Sagarika Ghose:

Her tweet was meant as a bait, and she obviously tweeted it this way so that she would get many “Bhakts”, especially men, who would come after her. Then she could easily play the female victim card. Instead, Sagarika got schooled on Ramayana by some sensible Hindus. Here are some tweets in reply to her blatantly ignorant comment about Shurpanakha from Ramayana:

https://twitter.com/Gajodhar_007/status/961632366128021504

Aside from her arrogance and self-righteousness when it comes to passing off judgements on Rama, Sita, or even Rani Padmini who committed Jauhar, these tweets show clearly how the confused Hindus like Sagarika interpret our traditional scriptures. They view Sita as submissive while neglecting the fact that Sita always advised Rama in all decisions he made. They regard Draupadi’s life was submerged under patriarchy while neglecting the fact that Draupadi was the only one in the Pandava household who knew exactly how much income the kingdom earned, not the king Yudhisthira. They do not hesitate to misinterpret our scriptures, even deliberately, just so that they can prove their liberal viewpoint that fits their Leftist ideology.

Confused Hindus like Sagarika Ghose, Rajdeep Sardesai, and Shashi Tharoor, do not know or even attempt to understand the value of Sanatana Dharma and the tradition of knowledge that has been passed down through generations. They do not understand why cows have to be protected, why Manu Smriti was not the only Smriti scripture that was prevalent at that time, why rituals are to be followed, how dharmic values are infused within everyday life of Hindus, just by following the five daily duties (i.e. pancha maha yajna). Instead, they express their ignorance like in the tweets below, and still have the audacity to refer to themselves as Hindus:

Sagarika ignorantly thinks that if India had been a Hindu Rashtra at its inception in 1947, India would have been plunged into darkness. She conveniently forgets that this is the land which gave the world the Vedas, Yoga, and Ayurveda, all of which contain Himalayan heights of knowledge that has never been touched by the Western Science! This is exactly how confused Hindus have subconsciously convinced themselves that the Western civilization and science is far better than anything that is Hindu. Hence, their refusal to accept Hinduism anything more than just superstitions and rituals is what differentiates them from the sensible Hindus.

Here is how you can spot a Confused Hindu: Simply look out for words used like, “tolerance”, “liberal”, “feminism”, “patriarchy”, “freedom of thought”, “freedom of expression”, “free-thinker”, “atheist”, “agnostic”. Any of these words used to portray themselves as a liberal-minded Hindu means they are confused. Liberalism is a purely Western idea and thought. Sensible Hindus only seek Truth (supported by logic and experience) and accept it in whatever form it comes. Liberals seek that which makes them feel good about themselves, but disregard truth. For Sagarika, she feels good about supporting a poor lady who got her nose cut by a man simply for falling in love with him. But sensible Hindus know for a fact that the lady who got her nose cut actually deserved more as she was about to devour the wife of the man she desired out of pure jealousy.

When it comes to identifying a confused Hindu, look no further. Just remember Sagarika Ghose.

Attempt to muzzle voices on Quora

amitpandey
-
0
Attempt to muzzle voices on Quora

Quora is a place to gain and share knowledge. It’s a platform to ask questions and connect with people who contribute unique insights and quality answers. This empowers people to learn from each other and to better understand the world.

And I do contribute to many such questions giving my perspective on things. I do it thinking, I am putting my perspective for the community. However of late – I have seen zealous Quora Moderators flagging down my answers – collapsing them for policy claims – all of them being – “Answers that are not in English would be collapsed“.

Now if I have to answer the question in Indian context – and say have to use Indian delicacies name – particularly when the Question itself contains the word “pakoda” and mention a few Indian Delicacies – with not even a single sentence in Hindi – is it strong enough reason by zealous Quora Moderators to flag down my answers – or Quora Moderators are kind of biased and have political affiliations?

My answer to the question – What do you think about the “pakoda” comment of Narendra Modi?

Here is the screenshot of my original answer –

Now after seeing the answer – can anyone help me (I really don’t know how to reach the correct stakeholders at Quora) understand that what part of “Answers that are not in English would be collapsed” is my answer triggering?

Many times in the past, for having Indian words in the answers are collapsed – depriving the community of reasonable opinions and making informed decision as per as Quora tenets – “This empowers people to learn from each other and to better understand the world”.

Or just like Twitter – even Quora platform has been hijacked for muzzling the voices of people whose arguments sounds logical but do not fit into a political narrative being tried to be developed in this country?

A few of the previous answers getting collapsed were –

  1. How few sites were fooling Indians into believing that Government of India is going to introduce a bill that would give them rights to withdraw money from their savings (I should have rubbed the group – The Logical Indian and The Humans of Hindutva the wrong way, I guess)
  2. Peshwa versus Dalits – where I argued that there were 16 Marathas, 8 Rajputs name inscribed on the pillar itself – who died fighting for the British Army, and the very narrative of British observers that most of the dead from the Peshwa Army consisting of Marathas, Arabs and Gosains (Yes Gosains is not an English word, so is Maratha and Rajput) – were Arabs mercenaries.

All these attempts on Quora and Twitter give credence to evidence that the political game for 2019 is going to get dirtier – with a virulent campaign of misinformation, lies, damn lies.

1...734735736...890Page 735 of 890

Contact: [email protected]

About us

User generated chapter of OpIndia. Selected articles submitted here are published at main English or Hindi websites of OpIndia.

ऑपइंडिया

OpIndia

© OpIndia.com