Home Blog Page 735

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.

Open Letter to Akshay Kumar : How Padman Publicity Campaign is a big FAIL!

pankajcgupta
-
0
Open Letter to Akshay Kumar : How Padman Publicity Campaign is a big FAIL!

Dear Padmashri Akshay Kumar,

I am writing this open letter to point out a few things that have been bothering me since last few days. I pray to God that you get a chance to read this letter & reply to the points that I raise, however, both are very unlikely to happen.

Your new movie Padman (which is based on the real life story of Arunachalam Muruganantham) is about to release. It was scheduled to release on January 25 & has now been shifted to February 9. Nonetheless, the publicity campaign for the movie started long back since November 2017. Although movie stars go to any lengths to promote their movies, the kind of campaign that Padman has picked up is very disturbing, to say the least. How? let us see.

1. In an article on Outlook, dated 15 Jan,  you said “Women are going for tax-free sanitary pads, but I say it should be completely free. Cut the five percent money from defence, make one bomb less and give it to women to get the sanitary napkin.”

Cut the defence money by 5% for sanitary pads? Is there even a comparison! I know the line is catchy, but did you even think before saying? National security can go for a toss, why, because you seek publicity for Padman!

Akshay, go on & talk about anything, but DO NOT, at any cost, involve my nation’s national security or defence in this.

Will you care to explain your thought process behind recommending the 5% cut?

2. During the whole promotion of Padman, you & your wife Twinkle Khanna have been continuously demanding that sanitary pads should have “No GST”. 

I don’t understand as to how a “NO GST” will encourage more women to buy sanitary pads and how many won’t buy regardless of GST or No GST. A significant size of women in the urban part of India spends a lot of money on stuff such as makeup items, beauty parlours etc. They are capable enough to pay for the sanitary pads & rightly so.

When it comes to women from Rural India or the ‘urban poor’, the Government’s National Health Mission is already running a scheme where sanitary pads are given at a fixed price of Rs. 7.50/- per pack of six sanitary napkins. Check here.

Over & above everything else, FM Arun Jaitley dubbed critics of GST rate on sanitary pads as “ill-informed” & explained pretty nicely on why this product attracts GST.

Also, on one hand, you ask for “No GST” but you have never mentioned or talked about the tax rebates that women of India get compared to men. Why should I pay for the sanitary pads of a lady who earns much more than me?

Again, this is a clear case of misplaced priorities & pure publicity.

3. Why NO GST when you can do a lot on your own?

You are a big movie star. You earn pretty well. Why cannot you start a small firm which produces sanitary pads for women and distributes them for free? When you are so noble in your intentions, why not start something on your own, however, small the size may be. I am sure you would get a lot of funding & even CSR funds from MNCs if you plan to do so. My suggestion: Take a part of your income & open a small factory. This would also prove that the sanitary pads-gimmick is not just limited to the movie promotions but you are actually concerned. Do something, even if it is on a small scale.

You also said, “Aim Is To Create Awareness, Not Earn Money”. Well, great then. I am most eager to know how you have already planned to donate any & every rupee that you earn from the movie.

4. Toxic campaign against MEN

I have still not understood how the whole campaign for the movie turned into a smear campaign against men. Anything, & I mean anything was & is said about men.

Take this:

DUJr1atUQAAhMdU.jpg

Is she crazy? What has erectile dysfunction got to do with policy making? Her arguments have been thoroughly rebutted here.

She also said, “Sanitary pads are taxed to make women pay for being a woman whereas a man is born free and is even encouraged for his perverse desires by no taxes on Viagras!”. Madam, why are you dragging men into this?

She also said “Apparently, there are no taxes on brooms. I think they feel that women should keep their houses clean but it’s not as important to keep themselves clean.” How did she assume that keeping houses clean is only a women’s job?

She tweeted:

Again, why is she converting this into pro women & anti-men? Can’t both live in harmony? why this misandry & gynocentrism? Why are you people so deep in your women appeasement that you are painting men as villains & creating issues out of nothing. Themyscira much?

5. Again, blaming men for no reasons

In one of your dialogues in the movie, you are seen saying “Bloody Man half hour man bleeding like a woman… They Straight Die…”. 

Why are you blaming men, again? God has given a beautiful gift to women, that is about giving birth to a new life. God did not give that gift to men, just like a lot of other things that God either gave men or women. Why don’t you ask God as to why he/she did not give menstruation to men? Why don’t you complain to God as to why did he/she give the gift of giving birth only to women? Why are you claiming that a man will die if he has to go through menstruation even for half an hour?

There are numerous men, who work tirelessly & endlessly to protect their families and to provide the best of everything to their families. There are men who are at the borders, fighting against enemies in extremely cold weather, having not slept since days. There are men who work as security guards, carpenters etc in Mumbai, Delhi so that their kid can get a good education & facilities in his native village.

How inhuman of you that you chose to pass such a derogatory remark on men! Will you apologize for such a careless statement?

6. Lastly, since you & your team have this opinion that MEN are the villains, I draw your attention to some burning issues men all over the world are facing. These issues receive very little help & I will appreciate if you can speak about this, even 1% of what you are doing for Padman. 

Reports from the UK suggest that the research for prostate cancer is “lagging” due to lack of funds, even though it is the most common male cancer. Another such report says that breast cancer received much more funding and publicity than prostate cancer, despite of the fact that both the cancers have a similar number of victims.

Do we know what the situation on these is in India? Do we need awareness on these issues? Or will no-one pay attention to this since your wife has already mocked 65 year old impotent men?

 You want publicity for your movie, great – grab publicity on merit or by innovative tactics but this way of grabbing publicity by such theatrics is very cheap.

There are still a few days left in the whole publicity campaign. I hope better sense prevails & you + your team don’t indulge in any more non-sense. I also hope that you leave this seasonal cause alignment & actually work on bringing some concrete change.

In case Akshay’s PR is reading this, if you have some spine, send me a reply to the above-raised questions. All the best!

This post first appeared on Jan 22 here.

Anything but fire and fury: A biased writer writes a book on Trump administration

Naagesh Padmanaban
-
0
Anything but fire and fury: A biased writer writes a book on Trump administration

The State of the Union address on 30th January 2018 by President Donald Trump was welcomed by many as a great speech in which he highlighted the achievements of his first year in office. In his speech, Trump called for unity among law makers and urged them to rise above party lines – something which went well with the American public. One would have thought that this would signal an end to political flame throwing which has so far unsettled the administration and kept it on the defensive in a perpetual firefighting mode.

Apparently not so. The book – “Fire and Fury – Inside the Trump White House” by Michael Wolff that came out in early January of this year – has been the latest in a string of distractions for the administration. It has been a hot favorite of major television channels, social media and chatterati. The author has definitely capitalized on the wide publicity on prime-time national television and made it to best seller lists.

Some background on this book will definitely not be out of place. Firstly, the book is well written and offers an excellent read for the discerning reader. Michael Wolff, the author, has spent a lot of time in cherry picking anecdotes and weaving them into colorful fabric to showcase to the world what he calls “the insider’s view of the Donald Trump White House”.

Michael Wolff seems to be convinced that Trump does not deserve to be the President. He is at loggerheads with Trump’s well-known penchant for undying loyalty from his team and highlights this to underscore his unsuitability for the high office. The detailed depiction of the President, his idiosyncrasies, his disbelief at being elected and the purported disdain of his close advisers may all be true. Regardless, the fact remains that, much to the disdain of media pundits and Beltway lobbyists, it is the American people who fairly and squarely elected Donald Trump and put him in office.

Wolff all along gives the impression that he had unfettered access to the White House. But former Press Secretary Dana Perino and others in the know have asserted that it is impossible for someone to be hanging around in the West Wing of the White House even with proper authorization.

The book contains much of what can be adduced as rumors, unsubstantiated anecdotes and water cooler gossips that seemed to play into the agenda of Trump’s political foes. The glaring inaccuracies, insinuations and innuendos expose the true intentions of the author.

Wolff asserts that the 25th amendment was an issue that was constantly on the mind of the White House. The 25th amendment to the US constitution provides for removal and succession to the office of the US President and Vice President in the event of death or disability of the incumbent. But Wolff admitted on national television (CBS This Morning show) that he never met anyone in the cabinet or the Vice President Mike Pence. If he did not meet or interview any of them nor was he allowed into any of the meetings of the senior leadership of the administration, how could Wolff tell that the issue was on their minds?  No wonder Wolff’s credibility has plunged.

Wolff’s reference to the purported endless discussions on the 25th amendment fueled the media narrative that portrays Trump as mentally unsound and hence unable to discharge his duties as the President. In fact, on the sets of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe”, co-host Mika Brzezinski bluntly declared that she agreed with a North Korean official’s assessment that President Donald Trump is “mentally ill.”

Throughout the book, the discerning reader cannot miss Wolff’s angst and obvious inability to come to terms with the reality of Donald Trump in the highest office. The author does little to screen the obvious impression that he is an obsessive dirt rat on a mission to dig out half-truths, peddle distortions and blatant factual inaccuracies. Many pundits have expressed the view that Michael Wolff in many ways echoes the deepest disappointments of the Hillary campaign and hence it was no surprise that he became the instant darling of the liberal media.

The delectable presentation of anecdotes that appear to be no more than off-the-cuff remarks by administration insiders in unguarded moments or at the height of frustration must not be mistaken as fair impressions of a sincere author that went awry. It boils down to the work of art of someone who, in the words of Democrat Steve Rattner, the former head of President Obama’s Auto Task Force, “turned out to be an unprincipled writer of fiction”.

But what has rankled many are the outrageous insinuations that Trump and Nikki Haley, the US Ambassador to the UN, were having an affair. Wolff gives no details or proof, except that the two were in private meetings. Even the liberal media which was using Wolff to take potshots at Trump, suddenly dropped him like hot potato. Mika Brzezinski abruptly ended her show with Wolf when he struggled to defend his innuendos at Ambassador Nikki Haley.

By his own admission Wolff used his proximity to Steve Bannon to open doors to the White House. Much of his writings appears to be a view of the West Wing of the White House through the eyes of Bannon. It is no surprise that in hindsight, Bannon had to leave.

But herein lies an enormous threat to the integrity of the highest office as well as the inner circle of power of the ruling dispensation from seemingly innocent book writers. Senior administration officials have exposed their lack of experience in putting in place the right checks and balances in clearing people like Michael Wolff. To that extent this episode is a costly learning process for the Trump administration. The White House must acknowledge its lapses and quickly revamp the process of providing access the highest office.

Michael Wolff’s Fire and Fury too has had its two minutes of fame on national television and is now well on its way to being forgotten. The book has proved to be anything but fire and fury.

1...734735736...889Page 735 of 889