Saturday, October 19, 2024
Home Blog Page 876

Is it time to move the administrative Capital out of Delhi?

Hariharan
-
0

When it was decided to shift the capital from Calcutta to Delhi in 1911, Lord Curzon, who had been eased out by then for his failed project to partition Bengal, retorted that the government would be “shut off…from the rest of India.” How clairvoyant!

Consider the following.

Elections to MP, Rajasthan, Chattisgarh and Delhi were held in Dec 2013. BJP swept in three states—44.34% of the 7.78cr voters of MP, Rajasthan and Chattisgarh chose BJP. Still what did capture media space and attention during election analysis? The confused mandate of the 78.74 lac Delhi-ites! The fact that AAP secured 28 seats —a minority in Delhi Assembly—trumped the decisive mandate of 7.78 cr voters of three states.

While Delhi’s increasing pollution level is a matter of serious concern and should attract media attention (including of course the hilarious odd-even formula), how does it justify ignoring Chennai floods for days?

The rape of Nirbhaya outraged the entire nation, rightfully so. But why did similar incidents across the country not evoke any such response? Is the modesty of a woman in interior India any less sacred than that of a Delhi-ite?

But then why don’t they get reported? Why don’t they generate interest?

Simply because Delhi is the media capital. Simply because there is no India for media beyond the 1,500 sq. kms of Delhi or a few more thousand sq. kms that cover the National Capital Region.

The 85 years of being the seat of power has infested Delhi with a pompous class—a mafia— of media personalities, which has come to think that it is the only representative of India, and that it alone decides what India is and how it should be perceived by the rest of the world. The onset of electronic media in early 90s has accentuated the clout of this class.

Consider the following.

Elections to the legislative assembly of Delhi are scheduled for February 2015? This group starts its preparations two months in advance. Sporadic incidents of petty thefts are spun as motivated attacks on churches so that the right thinking people—and there is no dearth of such people in secular Delhi—start wondering whether the entire Christian community, all of a sudden, has been pushed to live in fear. That this group succeeded in its attempt is borne out by the election results.

Bihar elections are scheduled for November 2015? This group swings into action a month ahead of the elections and bloats the Dadri incident. The resources at its beck and call are amazing. Within days, intellectuals across the country rush to surrender the awards they had gotten in the past more by pulling the strings than by exhibiting talent. An impression of intolerance is created. Foreign media latch on to this make-believe scenario. A couple of Bollywood personalities add fuel to fire. Result: Bihar elections are won by Nitish & Co.

It is not that this group is successful in influencing the results of all elections. Examples of its failed ventures are the Lok Sabha elections of 2014 and the recent by elections in UP, MP, Bihar, Karnataka and other states. What is the common thread through these two elections? They are spread over a large geography and this pompous Delhi group has not yet acquired the clout or capability to distort elections spread over different territories. But it is only a matter of time before this group equips itself for the task.

What should be done now?

The first and natural response will be to confront this elite class and call its bluff. But it is sure to fail for the following reasons.

  • It is an amorphous and shameless group. Faced with a reverse, it disintegrates, hibernates and surfaces after a while. One can never be certain that the group has been defeated and put down once and for all. Take for example the Radia tapes. Vir Sanghvi went out of circulation for a few months and resurfaced with a book. Barkha Dutt, on the other hand, decided that an unconvincing debate in her channel gave her the moral authority to continue. Take another example – crime against women. After drawing flak for trying to defend her boss in the indefensible sexual assault case, Shoma Choudhury disappeared from media space for a few months only to come back as editor-in-chief of a web-based magazine. Within days of being caught in paedophilia sting in London, Hasan Suroor is back with his column in The Tribune.
  • Facts and logic do not matter to this group. That the attacks on churches were isolated incidents and were not a choreographed assault on a religion or that the nun in West Bengal was raped by Bangladeshi nationals and it had nothing to do with intolerance of Hindus or that the Dadri incident might have resulted from personal grudge does not make any difference to their narrative.

In view of the above, the best way to deal with the media mafia is to cut it down to size. To isolate it. Consider for a moment the capital is shifted out of Delhi. Where does it leave the media mafia? Action will shift to a new city. Lutyens where the media personalities have invested their life’s fortunes will become just a piece of real estate—much like what Kolkata has come to be now a days after the capital was shifted out of it in 1931. If a simple fact that Modi ignores mainstream media and communicates through twitter can make the mainstream media so insecure that the Editors’ Guild of India cries foul, imagine what a major move like shifting the capital will have on the mainstream media?

Arguments that it will amount to running away from the problem are frivolous. For 13 years that Modi was the Chief Minister of Gujarat, Gandhinagar was just a capital from where he ruled the state. But twenty months into power at the centre, Modi government is yet to rise above the cacophony of the Delhi media and focus on national issues. Add to these the nuisance Arvind Kejriwal, a pliable ally of the Delhi mafia, creates every other day, by raising centre-state issues one after another to divert the attention from his non-performance.

Modi cannot afford to waste the remaining three years. Shifting the capital out of Delhi is, after all, not a new idea. While this article argues for shifting it to Jabalpur because of rising inflation, poor infrastructure and unproductive political activities like protests and dharnas, another one in Swarajya prefers Pataliputra as the new capital.

Finally, Arnab Goswami’s admission in this video that being away from Delhi helps him in not getting emotionally attached to any politician or a political party merits attention.

Why now?

Interestingly one of the reasons Lord Hardinge gave for shifting the capital in 1911 was the strong presence of nationalist forces in Calcutta and the ‘burgeoning opposition to British rule’. By implication, was Delhi, which was the capital of Mughals for 150 years, less nationalistic in Brits’ view? We would not know.

What is known is that a part of JNU and a few senior media celebrities pride themselves as anti-nationals. As of now the TRP’s of these channels and therefore their reach, are negligible when compared to those of Times Now, which strongly supports the nationalistic sentiments. One wonders why these channels want to risk their viewership and go against mass sentiment. The argument that it is their commitment to a principle is laughable given their reluctance/refusal to air video clips, which show the anti-national slogans of the students. Profit and cash flows are paramount. The questionable methods by which at least one media house seems to have raised money in the past go to prove this. This being so, if media houses continue to profess views, which result in a sharp fall in their viewership, does one have to infer that they are adequately being compensated for airing unpopular views and suffering a TRP drop?

As explained earlier, the Delhi media group has been having reasonable success in establishing a perception it wants to create. And you have to give it to them for their perseverance. Even after 14 years, it has not accepted defeat in the Gujarat riots issue.

One day or other, sooner or later, they may establish that it is “cool” to be anti-national.

Before that, let us move the capital out of Delhi.

भारत के मुख्य न्यायाधीश के नाम एक खुला पत्र – कृप्या जेएनयू मामले में दख़ल करें

naklichanakya
-
0

माननीय मुख्य न्यायाधीश महोदय,

मैं आज आपको एक आम भारतीय की हैसियत से एक खुला पत्र लिख रहा हूँ। मुझे नहीं पता कि मेरा यह पत्र आप तक पहुँचेगा भी या नहीं। मुझे एक उम्मीद है कि एक लोकतांत्रिक देश में एक आम भारतीय की भी आवाज भारत के सर्वोच्च न्यायालय के मुख्य न्यायाधीश तक पहुँच सकती है। बस उसी उम्मीद से यह पत्र लिख रहा हूँ।

माननीय मुख्य न्यायाधीश महोदय जिससे पहले मैं अपनी बात कहूँ मैं यह साफ कर देना चाहता हूँ कि मैं यह खुला पत्र आपके नाम पर ही क्यूँ लिख रहा हूँ। महोदय भारत एक लोकतांत्रिक देश है जिसमें संविधान की सर्वोच्चता को अपनाया गया है और संविधान की सर्वोच्चता बनाये रखने का दायित्व भारत का मुख्य न्यायाधीश होने के नाते आपके कंधों पर ही है।महोदय मैं एक आम भारतीय हूँ, जिसकी इस देश के संविधान एवं न्यायपालिका में पूर्ण आस्था है। जब न्यायपालिका इंसाफ की कसौटी पर सच और झूठ को तोल कर सच्चाई का निर्धारण करती है, तो मुझ जैसे अनेक आम भारतीयों को उम्मीद की एक किरण दिखायी पड़ती है।

महोदय अभी हालिया समय में जे०एन०यू० प्रकरण में जो कुछ भी हुआ, वो हर आम भारतीय की तरह मुझे भी सोशल मीडिया, इलैक्ट्रॉनिक मीडिया आदि के माध्यम से पता चला। कहा गया कि देश के विरुद्ध नारे लगाये गए, देश को तोड़ने की कोशिश की गई और सबूत के तौर पर कुछ वीडियो भी सामने आये।

स्वाभाविक सी बात है जब देश के शीर्ष शिक्षण संस्थान में ऐसी घटनायें घटित हों, तो एक आम भारतीय आहत होता ही है। लोगों का यह गुस्सा सोशल मीडिया पर सबसे पहले फूटा और फिर एक मुहिम सी इस देश में शुरु हो गई, जिसमें उन कथित छात्र नेताओं और उस आयोजन के आयोजकों के खिलाफ कार्यवाही की मांग की जाने लगी। सरकार ने भी शायद जनता का दबाव महसूस कर देर से ही सही लेकिन आनन-फानन में जे०एन०यू० ते छात्र नेता कन्हैया कुमार को आई०पी०सी० की धारा 124 के तहत राष्ट्रद्रोह के आरोप में गिरफ्तार कर लिया।

अब कन्हैया ने राष्ट्रद्रोह किया या नहीं यह कहने का मुझे कोई अधिकार नहीं है। यह मामला माननीय न्यायपालिका के विचाराधीन है और मुझे पूरी उम्मीद है कि माननीय न्यायपालिका हमेशा की तरह इस प्रकरण में भी जो न्यायसंगत होगा वो ही निर्णय देगी।

माननीय मुख्यन्यायाधीश महोदय अब मैं मुख्य विषय पर आता हूँ जिसके लिए मैं आपको यह पत्र लिख रहा हूँ। महोदय जे०एन०यू० में जो कथित तौर पर सांस्कृतिक कार्यक्रम आयोजित किया गया था, उसके पोस्टर का जो शीर्षक था वो ही मेरे इस पत्र का केंद्र बिंदु है। उस शीर्षक में कहा गया कि अफज़ल गुरु की “न्यायिक हत्या” (Judicial Killing) की गई।

contempt of court
ओमर खालिद के संगठन की तरफ से लगाया गया पोस्टर

महोदय जहाँ तक मुझे पता है स्वयं माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय ने अपने दिशा निर्देश में कही है कि किसी भी व्यक्ति को फाँसी की सजा “दुर्लभ में दुर्लभतम” (rarest of the rare) परिस्थितियों में ही दी जायेगी। ऐसे में जब माननीय न्यायालय ने उपलब्ध साक्ष्यों के आधार पर अफज़ल गुरु को 2001 के भारतीय संसद पर हमले के आरोप में दोषी ठहराये जाते हुए फाँसी की सजा दी, तो मुझे इसमें रत्ती भर संदेह भी नहीं हुआ कि अफज़ल गुरु भारतीय लोकतंत्र पर हुए उस खौफनाक हमले का दोषी होगा।

अफज़ल गुरु ने अपने बचाव कि लिए उपलब्ध सभी विकल्पों को अंतिम समय तक अपनाया परंतु उसे हर बार न सिर्फ दोषी पाया गया अपितु माननीय न्यायालय ने उसकी सजा की प्रवृत्ति को बदलने या फिर कम करने से भी मना करते हुए यह स्थापित कर दिया कि अफज़ल गुरु अपने अपराध के लिए मृत्यदण्ड का ही हकदार है। भारतीय संविधान जो किसी व्यक्ति के प्राण एवं दैहिक स्वतंत्रता के अधिकार को इतना महत्वपूर्ण मानता है कि राष्ट्रीय आपातकाल की स्थिति में भी अनुच्छेद 21 निलंबित नहीं होता है। अगर ऐसे प्रावधानों के बाद भी अफज़ल गुरु को फाँसी दी गई तो इसमें कोई संदेह नहीं है कि माननीय न्यायालय ने पूर्ण विवेक से इस निर्णय को लिया होगा।

इसके बावजूद अफज़ल गुरु ने अंतिम विकल्प के रूप में महामहिम राष्ट्रपति महोदय से क्षमा याचना की, जिसे माननीय राष्ट्रपति महोदय ने भी पूर्णविवेक के आधार पर खारिज कर दिया और अफज़ल गुरु को उसके कुकृत्य का यथोचित दण्ड प्राप्त हुआ।

इतनी कठिन प्रक्रिया को अपनाने के बावजूद जब ऐसे अपराधी के दण्ड को “न्यायिक हत्या” बोला जाये, तो माननीय मुख्य न्यायाधीश महोदय क्या यह माननीय न्यायालय की अवमानना (Contempt of Court) नहीं है? क्या यह भारत के महामहिम राष्ट्रपति और माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय के विवेक पर प्रश्नचिह्न लगाकर उसे विवेकहीन नहीं बताता है?

महोदय यह कोई पहला वाकिया नहीं है। महोदय अभी कुछ समय पहले की ही बात है जिस दिन याकूब मैमन को फाँसी की सजा दी जाने वाली थी, उस दिन रात को ढाई बजे भी माननीय न्यायालय ने आखिरी सुनवाई का मौका दिया था। मुझे नहीं मालूम कि दुनिया के किसी और देश में इतना स्पष्ट न्याय किया जाता हो। फिर भी याकूब मैमन के संबंध में भी हैदराबाद के एक विश्वविद्यालय में ऐसा ही आयोजन हुआ और पुन: न सिर्फ माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय अपितु महामहिम राष्ट्रपति के विवेक को चुनौती दी गई। क्या यह माननीय न्यायालय की अवमानना और महामहिम राष्ट्रपति के विशेषाधिकार का हनन नहीं है?

जो लोग ऐसी बातें करते हैं उनका बस एक ही तर्क होता है कि हमें बोलने की आजादी है। माननीय मुख्य न्यायाधीश महोदय मैं कोई संविधान विशेषज्ञ नहीं हूँ, फिर भी मुझे इतना पता है कि संविधान का जो अनुच्छेद 19(1) बोलने की आजादी देता है, उसी अनुच्छेद की धारा 19(2) इस आजादी पर युक्तियुक्त निर्बंधन भी लगाती है। इसमें लिखा हुआ है कि यह निर्बंधन राष्ट्र की एकता अखण्डता को खतरे, न्यायपालिका की अवमानना के आधार पर लगाया जा सकता है। ऐसे में माननीय न्यायालय ने क्यों अफज़ल के मृत्युदण्ड को “न्यायिक हत्या” कहे जाने को न्यायपालिका की अवमानना नहीं माना और इसका स्वत: संज्ञान लेते हुए क्यों कोई कार्यवाही नहीं की, यह मेरी समझ से परे है।

माननीय मुख्य न्यायाधीश महोदय मुझे समझ नहीं आता है कि मीडिया द्वारा कैसे यह प्रचार किया जा रहा है कि “भारत की बर्बादी तक जंग रहेगी” और “भारत तेरे टुकड़े होंगे इंशा अल्लाह” जैसे नारों को कुछ लोगों का सरकार के प्रति विरोध करार दिया जा रहा है? महोदय अाप इस देश के सबसे बड़े न्यायाधीश हैं और संविधान की सर्वोच्चता ही नहीं देश की एकता और अखण्डता को भी सुनिश्चित रखना आपका उत्तरदायित्व भी है और आप इसके सक्षम प्राधिकारी भी हैं। मेरी आपसे विनती है कि माननीय न्यायालय सारे देश को बताये कि बोलने की आजादी कहाँ तक है और कितनी है? वरना ये मीडिया वाले और राजनेता इस आजादी की आड़ में इस देश को कहाँ ले जायेंगे, इसका ईश्वर ही मालिक है।

मेरा निजी तौर पर मानना है कि अगर माननीय न्यायालय इस विषय पर स्वत: संज्ञान लेकर कार्यवाही करती, तो इस देश के लिए शायद ज्यादा अच्छा होता क्योंकि तब न तो राजनीतिक रोटियाँ सिक पातीं और न ही खबरों का धंधा हो पाता। माननीय मुख्य न्यायाधीश महोदय मुझे उम्मीद है कि इस आम भारतीय की आवाज इस देश में न्याय की सबसे बड़ी अदालत के सबसे बड़े न्यायाधीश तक अवश्य पहुँचेगी।

महोदय अगर मुझसे कोई गलती हो गई हो तो इसे मेरा अल्प ज्ञान समझ कर क्षमा कर दें।

* इस पत्र को मैं छद्मनाम से इसलिए भेज रहा हूँ ताकि न तो इस पर कोई राजनीति हो सके और न ही मुझे या मेरे पत्र को मीडिया वाले अपने धंधे की कमाई बढ़ाने जरिया बना सकें।

– नकली चाणक्य उवाच
( एक आम भारतीय )

How Ravish Kumar endorsed Arnab’s brand of journalism

abhik
-
0

Ravish Kumar is an anchor par excellence. His oratory, presentation and ability to be nuanced on complex issues make him, arguably, the best news presenter in Hindi. The show in question has generated a lot of buzz on social media. On this show Ravish launches a scathing attack on his own fraternity – the media and with great dramatic effect makes the screen go black while he speaks about his views on how the whole JNU issue was mis-handled by the media as well as the derogatory activities of the lawyers at the Patiala House Court where they allegedly beat up Kanhaiya (the student arrested for raising anti national slogans at JNU), some journalists and abused Kanhaiya’s lawyers.

In this show, however, Ravish used his gift of the gab to to mislead his audience on several issues.

Ravish chastises those who inflamed nationalist passions using the JNU slogans. But Ravish said nothing when people inflamed passions during Dadri or over Rohith Vemula’s suicide in Hyderabad. Shockingly Ravish had nothing to say about Rahul Gandhi going to the JNU campus in the middle of the night and spewing venom against the establishment in a charged atmosphere. This sadly reeks of partisanship on the part of Ravish Kumar.
Selectivity can never be the attribute of a good journalist.

But selectivity is what Ravish indulged in when he espoused the importance of free speech in the case of the JNU students (never mind that they called for ‘Bharat ki barbadi’) but looked the other way when Kamlesh Tiwari was jailed for calling the Prophet Mohammad gay. What is abominable about this duplicity is that this is a tacit approval for arrest due to blasphemy but not due to sedition. Make no mistake. Ravish’s silence on Kamlesh Tiwari does in no way strengthen free speech. All it does is expose his double standards on the topic of free speech.

Ravish laments the fake videos doing the rounds on social media showing the political group of Kanhaiya in poor light. A responsible and neutral journalist should have also spoken about a fake video of the rival political group named ABVP that did the rounds on social media. Again, if this is not doublespeak and partisanship, I don’t know what is. (I am not condoning the circulation of fake videos of Kanhaiya, I am condemning both the sets of fake videos).

Ravish goes on to launch a blistering attack about how people raised slogans of ‘Bharat Maata Ki Jai’ and used that to hide their cloak of hatred and dress it up in nationalism. This tends to make his viewers despise the feeling of nationalism. Just like a Sakshi Maharaj does not represent Hinduism, these goons who attack people using nationalism as their excuse do not represent the silent majority of the population that is inherently patriotic. Why then did Ravish not care to put out the actual words calling for the destruction of India which incited the lawyers to raise the above slogans in the first place? Without the actual words that incited passions, it is extremely hard to understand the emotions and sentiments of the people on the streets out to protest them.

This is journalistic dishonesty – helps in driving one’s point of view with total blacking out (pun intended) of the contrarian view.

Finally, let’s be honest. This show by Ravish was an attempt at his self righteous rant against Arnab masquerading as self introspection. Various eminent journalists, some of Nira Radia fame, have come out openly to launch a direct attack on Arnab Goswami as he did not toe the ‘liberal intellectual’ line in his dealing of the JNU issue. He displayed all the slogans raised on the campus, went ballistic (as is his peculiarity) against those defending the slogans. But, Arnab also ripped apart the lawyers in the Patiala House Court who resorted to physical attacks.

Arnab’s video taking on Umar Khalid went viral on social media and even apolitical people shared it. It resonated with their feelings. Arnab got hold of the pulse of the common man. Heck, one of my American friends shared it and said ‘he was in awe of this Indian journalist’. Yes, Arnab is dramatic. Yes, Arnab is sensational. But he is not apologetic about it. By self admission he practices opinionated journalism. Ravish conducting a dramatic show, thereby breaking away from his own sober and nuanced brand of journalism is an approval for the brand of journalism practised by Arnab which he set out to flay in the first place! It is drama that gets you TRPs. Some do it openly, some hide it in the garb of intellectual and moral superiority.

Remember, the Indian army does not watch news channels, the army does not read columns penned by arm chair intellectuals when when they are involved in an ambush by terrorists or when they are guarding our borders at Siachen. It requires passion, emotion and ‘josh’ and nobody else than a veteran can better understand them.

Mr. Rajdeep Sardesai, will you allow dissent of employees at India Today?

Manithan
-
0

Rajdeep Sardesai has written in his own website, a brief account of how he is proud to be an anti-national. If you can ignore the small banner on the right which serves as an advertisement for his ‘greatest book of the century’ and get to read the whole article, you can see how painstakingly Rajdeep had tried to prove he is an anti-national. It is purely his choice to be an anti-national, as long as he doesn’t end up in Times Now studio sitting next to his junior Arnab Goswami who had beat him in the race (not in the street) long back.

Filmmaker and columnist Vivek Agnihotri had already written an open letter to Rajdeep in his latest post. As there is already a point-by-point breakdown in that article, I have zeroed in on just two paragraphs in Rajdeep’s article. Those two paragraphs are:

Yes, I am anti-national because in a plural democracy I believe we must have a dialogue with Kashmiri separatists as we must with those in the North-East who seek autonomy. I will listen to student protestors in Srinagar or Imphal as I will to those in an FTII or a JNU.

Prosecute all those who break the law, incite violence, resort to terror but don’t lose the capacity to engage with those who dissent. The right to dissent is as fundamental as the right to free speech: shouting down alternative views, be they on prime time TV or on the street, is not my idea of India.

Mr. Rajdeep, I believe India Today is a workplace that encourages pluralism. Let us consider that there is a section of workers at India Today office who are not happy with the benefits that the management pays for it and stops working. Instead of you being a consulting editor, place yourself in the position of someone in the management. Being a responsible person for the happenings of the company, you call upon the workers and request them for a talk. Your management group and the worker’s group undergo various levels of talk and you either appease them with pay rise or they give up and get back to work. Extrapolating this situation to a national level, this is what happens whenever government employees protest for rise in benefits or people protest when they face some hurdle. The group of ministers meet protesting workers and the protest ends whenever the round of talks reach an end.

In the protest by your Digital section employees, one of them badmouths the management of India Today and threatens the management of dire consequences if you do not bend to their demands. High chances would be, you might end up terminating that employee. In a real situation, an ideal democratic nation aka India had not killed anyone who had badmouthed its government and had warned of voting for opposition parties en masse if they do not meet their demand. It had happened a lot of time and that is how governments had met its end in India. Exception was the Emergency period in 1975-77 where such activities ensured arrest. If India has to behave like you or your management, the person doing the activity of that Digital section employee must be sent to Pakistan or China or anywhere but India.

The above two scenarios are manageable. Now comes the freak scenario. What if a group of employees, say, the Web Content division, demand the breakup of India Today? You might wonder, break-ups and acquisitions are part and parcel of corporate industry. But the real twist here is, the dissenting workers demand that they want complete freedom along with the office-space that they hold. We can call them separatists. They will continue to destroy your computers within their cubicles, destroy your furnitures, kill their co-workers who try to jump to the management side and continue to throw hazardous materials into other sections too. They suddenly appears in other sections and shout their demand for freedom from your office. They demand that another competitor of India Today should interfere and they raise requests for their management to take over that block of office. Will you accept it merrily, Mr. Rajdeep? Will you request the top executives to give up those office space and continue working in whatever available space you have?

Meanwhile, another important group of workers, the ones who run the cleaning services of restrooms, starts demanding that they will take away restrooms. You cannot build yet another restrooms as there are another companies all around you and your employees would have to pee on the road, in case of bladder related emergencies.

A news company that points fingers at others while pluralism takes a hit might not be a hypocrite when it comes to dealing with dissent within. The Web Content separatists and restroom separatists are now dissenting. Will you call them and hold talks like how you would hold talks with Kashmiri and NE separatists or fire them and take control? What if few among them shouts in the middle of your office, “Break India Today into pieces. If you fire me, more workers will appear to destroy your office.”? Will you stand next to them and encourage them to shout that way, or call the police? If you call the police, you are a dictator and a fascist, Mr. Rajdeep. You are a real liberal and you stand for Freedom of Expression, only if you stand next to them and uphold their rights to shout that way. Not only that, you must call the rest of the management “a group of fascists” and ask them to give in to the demands of the dissenting workers. Will you hold a march from office gate to CEO cabin when security of your office tries to manhandle the dissenting workers?

The right to dissent in India Today is as fundamental as the right to free speech. Isn’t it Mr. Rajdeep? If you shout down such alternative views, it will not be your idea of India Today. Since I have built a scenario comparing your India Today with our India, now comes the question: Mr. Rajdeep Sardesai, will you allow dissent of employees at India Today?

If you consider it unanswerable due to your current employment with that news company, just answer these simple questions instead: Will you allow another co-worker to write against India Today, if you happen to be its owner? When you were in CNN-IBN, did you allow your junior to air views against you in live news reports? If a junior worker assigned to you does not obey any of your command and is not willing to carry on any work, will you still allow that dissent or ask for an replacement?

Before ending the article, I’m re-quoting this particular line from your article:

“shouting down alternative views, be they on prime time TV or on the street, is not my idea of India.”

You appeared to have shouted down alternative view of two news channels in a sly tweet, just because they dissented from your gang. You had shouted down alternative view of NRIs, when you were involved in that legendary street fight outside Madison Square Garden. So, with yourself not standing up to your idea of India, how can you expect others to uphold it?

P.S.:  In Post Script of Rajdeep’s article, he has mentioned:

Post-script: Last week, at the Delhi Gymkhana litfest, I suggested that the right to free speech must include the right to offend so long as it doesn’t incite violence. A former army officer angrily got up and shouted, “You are an anti-national who should be lynched right here!” When even the genteel environs of the Gymkhana club echo to such strains, we should all be very worried.

Oh the super-intelligent Rajdeep uncle! That army officer was just exercising his right to free speech. After he spoke, you were not lynched. So he was just using his right to offend you without inciting violence in that stage. If you do not consider that a free speech, you should not be throwing that suggestion in that litfest. Or do you have an exception list of who must use right to offend and who must not?

SC rebuff proves Kanhaiya only pawn in hands of breaking-India forces

kuvalayamala
-
0

Politics of the case apart, I was wondering since yesterday how the Supreme Court was going to hear the bail plea of the arrested JNU student. The established judicial process requires an accused to approach the trial court, and then the High Court before taking the case to the Supreme Court. But all that we heard yesterday amid the cacophony was that a battery of lawyers led by Soli Sorabjee will defend Kanhaiya etc etc. It’s a shame if Soli Sorabjee does not know the law of the land. But that can’t be true. It will be foolish of us to assume that an eminent lawyer like Sorabjee would not know the law. So then what may have happened?

The excuse of the defense team was that conditions were not congenial in Patiala House court for hearing the bail plea. Assuming they are right, their next logical stop must have been the Delhi High Court. That was the next place in the hierarchy. Why didn’t they? Don’t they have faith in the High Court? Why was the High Court overlooked? The answer is simple. A high-voltage drama is on in Delhi with the ISI-marked intelligentsia and anti-national media playing the fifth column. Every opportunity is being made use of by the anti-India gang to win eyeballs to corner Modi sarkar. They care two hoots for Kanhaiya. They were shedding crocodile tears for him. Their aim wasn’t to ensure that Kanhaiya gets justice, but merely to use him for their insane and dangerous political games.

10154165_1133043780048077_1115088821315804710_n

Political brinksmanship is what they are attempting. They want to see the nation plunge into anarchy so that the government will only have time to douse that fire and no time to focus on its pet development theme. Kanhaiya is nothing but cannon fodder to them in their larger nefarious political designs. They were trying to make use of the judiciary too for their dirty tricks, but they have been rebuffed.

As the adage goes, you cannot fool everyone every time. The jackals who thought they could hoodwink the Supreme Court were in for some extreme embarrassment and disappointment today.

The Supreme Court rightly asked them to approach the High Court. It was nothing short of a rap on the knuckles of the dirty tricks department trying to destabilise India. It’s a shame that the media didn’t think it necessary yesterday to discuss this unprecedented development about Kanhaiya’s lawyers trying to overlook the High Court. But the wisdom of the honourable judges has averted what would otherwise have been a black day for Indian judiciary and democracy.

LONG LIVE INDIA. VANDE MATARAM.

 

Open Letter to Barkha Dutt from a Communal Saffron Lunatic Fringe Element

omkarpatil
-
0
Dear Eminent Intellectual Journalist Barkha Dutt,
I got to read your open letter to PM Modi, which prompted me to reply.
As usual, your opening argument is :
“In any case, ever since I reported on the 2002 riots in Gujarat, I am among the journalists you have clearly shunned and disliked – that is, of course, entirely your prerogative.”
I am not surprised that this letter starts with the mention ‘2002’. It is natural for anyone to brag about one’s only achievement, particularly if its the only issue on which you build your career. But unfortunately, you are not the only one in the league. There are dozens of such ’eminent journalists’ who have built their career on ‘2002’. Sure, we Indians do believe in ‘I am anti-nationals’, instead of SC.
You say :
“If you remember those years – and I am told you never forget (or forgive) – you would recall that I first cut my teeth as a journalist reporting a war from the frontline in Kargil in 1999.”
Thanks for doing such a huge favor to us poor Indians. But we also remember your coverage of 26/11 and the threat such coverages possess to our national security.
You said :
“So I write this as a sentimental and proud Indian who has often been teased by my more left-leaning friends and colleagues for my rather maudlin and unintellectual patriotism. I would submit that the binaries that spokespersons of your government have created (aided by the hyper-nationalist drum-beating of channels like Times Now and News X) are absolutely false.”
So you call names so easily to other journalists, but get pissed off at ‘Bhakts’ like us when you are labelled as ‘anti-national’, ‘bazaru’, ‘presstitute’ etc.
You said :
“Where Vajpayee promised that Humanism would override the literal application of the law as he stretched out a hand even to pro-Azaadi separatists, this week we have seen a singular absence of generosity or empathy from the team you lead.”
Quoting a ‘Sanghi’ PM? Is it just for your convenience, in order to prove a political point?
You say:
“Now that it’s clear that the “Azaadi” Kanhaiya Kumar spoke of was not from India, but from Hunger, Inequality, Communalism and Caste Bias, will the government apologize to him?
Do you consider us Indians so stupid, that we will believe such ridiculous excuses? There were only 2 fake videos. One was alleging Kanhaiya, other was alleging ABVP activists. All falsehood should unconditionally be condemned. The jingoistic act by few lawyers also need to be condemned. But this shouldn’t become an excuse to divert the actual issue. The whole issue is not about whether Kanhaiya Kumar is innocent or guilty. It is not about any particular person.
Nobody can deny that DSU had organised the event and a lot of people from outside were invited. There are videos which show Umar Khalid shouting anti-national slogans too, first prove them fake. NDTV has accepted in this report that Umar Khalid’s father SQR Ilyas is an ex-SIMI chief (at that time SIMI wasn’t banned). Umar Khalid belongs to DSU which recognises itself as a Maoist outfit. There is a reason why CPI(Maoist) is banned and I don’t see any reason to excuse its student wing which is showing no different behavior.
You said :
And in any case, do you really think the Indian State is so fragile that it would come undone by a clutch of “Hum Kya Chahate – Azaadi” cries?
By that logic, do you really think the Indian state is so fragile that it would be undone by few rapes, murders, terrorist attacks? Should we forgive every criminal then? We do have sedition laws and it is for the courts to interpret. But I see no reason to even avoid proper court trials.
All these non-sense debates about free speech are possible in India today because India is protected from anti-India forces. The moment India loses its sovereignty, it will also lose this basic freedom. This is why free speech always comes with some reasonable restrictions. DSU is following the ideology preached by Mao, the person responsible for killing 45 million people. Any such ideology should be considered as a threat to our national security.
You have written :
“Do you not, Mr. Prime Minister, agree that if you can visit Lahore to greet Nawaz Sharif on his birthday despite the specter of terrorism (and I thought it was spectacularly bold of you), if you can negotiate with Naga secessionists and proudly announce a peace accord (the details of which are still awaited), if you can ally with the PDP whose leader Mehbooba Mufti believes not just that Afzal Guru should not have been executed, but has, as part of her father’s “healing touch”, often visited the families of dead militants because she does not think their children should be punished – if you can take these decisions and never have your patriotism questioned, do you not think it’s a crazy over-reaction of the government to arrest a young man for slogans that it now turns out weren’t even his own?”
The question of negotiation comes when the enemy has an upper hand. Just because one is negotiating with few particular enemies, this doesn’t mean one should start milking all unnecessary enemies with one’s breast.
In the end, you quoted Tagore to say humanity should be preferred over patriotism. Which humanity are you talking about? What happened to Kashmiri Pandits, was it humanity? Is the Maoist ideology responsible for 45 million deaths a piece of humanity? In all such cases, it is the patriotic Indian who stands for humanity and protects humanity from radical Islamists and Maoists. Also, I don’t know where was this humanity and freedom of speech when Kamlesh Tiwari was jailed for hate-speech & there were riots in Malda because of this. Perhaps it didn’t suit your line of journalism.

A chilling possibility: a much bigger conspiracy been pre-empted at Pampore?

prasunc
-
0

Following news item appeared on a news outlet : “As the anti-terror operations continue in Papmore area of Jammu and Kashmir on Sunday, the Entrepreneurship Development Institute building, where terrorists are holed up, has been set on fire. Five soldiers – three Army paratroopers and two CRPF jawans – and a civilian have lost their lives”.

The question which keeps bothering is : How come we lost three fine officers .. That too from the Paramilitary? It’s difficult to understand this unacceptable high loss as 10 Para SF is one of the best we got! We will have to wait for the facts from the officials on this.

Meanwhile the other curiosity is this : Why do we rush in our special forces in everything? Shouldn’t they be brought in sparingly? A logical explanation is perhaps because of recent failures like Pathankot and Uri. Or the other more likely reason could be that our security forces must have realised these are not regular terrorists.. Experts I spoke to believed that Pakistan has sent in their SSG as militants (the Pak eqivalant of SF).

That these may be SSG is borne by other facts too. In operations such as these, the command remains with the GOC .. outer cordon by CRPF .. inner cordon by army and then the SF teams enter. This house entry always buys casualties .. but the SF are very well trained for such ops. The number of casualties on SF is proof enough that these are  not usual LeT or JeM kind of militants who are easily neutralised in short time but SSG cadre of the standard used in the Parliament attack.

The question which begs answering now : assuming enemy is rational, Why would Pakistan send in their SSG level force for such low impact operation? Or is it that our forces have prempted something bigger that was on the cards?

Coming as it does closely on the heals of manufactured belligerence among the Red corridors and other internal disturbances,  it’s a very chilling reality we seem to be looking at!

There was most certainly something much bigger planned through these incursions, and out security forces seemed to have got wind and neutralised the plan. Let’s wait and watch as this story unfolds.  Our tributes to our brave martyrs from the Army and Paramilitary forces! JAI Hind.

रविश कुमार की मार्मिक एवं कालात्मक विडियो का जवाब

ironyman0007
-
0

रविश कुमार जी एक बहुत अच्छे वक्ता हैं | 3-4 घटनाओं को ढाल बनाकर शब्दों को कैसे घुमाया जाए कोई इनसे सीखे | हालाँकि जो व्यक्ति आदमी की पहचान करता है “आप कौन जात हो?” उनका राष्ट्र-वाद के बारे में व्यंग्य करना खुद में ही एक व्यंग्य है |

रविश जी ने एक बहुत अच्छी बात कही “कोई अपने समर्थक के विरुद्ध क्यूँ नहीं बोलता” | जिस प्रकार वो आज तक लालू प्रसाद यादव के विरुद्ध व्यंग्य करते कभी देखे नहीं गए | अब ये आपको रविश जी थोड़े ही बताएँगे कि उनके चचा का बेटा महागठबंधन की टिकट पर लड़ा था | उनका प्रेम जायज़ है, हालाँकि ये अलग बात है इतनी मेहनत के बावजूद और अहिष्णुता की मोदी विरोधी लहर के बावजूद वो हार गए |

रविश जी फिर से आपने वही किया | पत्रकारों की विफलता को ढाल बनाकर निष्कर्स यही निकाला जो आप चाहते थे | वही आवाजें सुनाई जो आप चाहते थे| आपका चैनल बहुत भरसक प्रयास कर रहा है TRP बटोरने की | पटिआला हाउस में दर्शकों को खींचने में नाकामयाब हुए तो अब पत्रकारों की विफलता को ढाल बना रहे हैं | रविश कुमार जी, ये अँधेरा अगर मीडिया का, पत्रकारिता का तस्वीर है, तो जनाब आपका चैनल इस अँधेरे का तमराज किल्विस है |

सामने क्यूँ नहीं आते किसी के पीछे रहकर कब तक वार करिएगा ? क्या अब आपके रोज़गार पर बन आई है ? जो आज प्रायश्चित करना चाहते हैं ?

वैसे रविश जी आपके चैनल ने पाप भी कम कहाँ किये हैं | शहादत सर्वोच्य है और इसका राजनितिक इस्तेमाल ठीक नहीं तो ये बताइए आपने रोहित वेमुला के केस में क्या किया ? आपका काम पूछना है विचार प्रकट करना है तो आपका चैनल बार बार न्यायधीश क्यूँ बन जाता है ? क्या आपके बरखा दत्त ने माफ़ी मांगी ? सागरिका घोष के ट्वीट्स ज़रा पढ़ लेते तो समझ आ जाता कि लोग उन्हें हाफ़िज़ सईद से बदतर क्यूँ मानते हैं | एक अपनी किताब बेचना चाहती है दूसरी ज़मीर |

जिस पत्रकार ने अमेरिका में जाकर कैमरा बंद करके लोगों से पिटाई की, शर्ट फटवाये, जो बंदा कहता है हम मालदा नहीं जा पाए क्यूँकि वो थोडा दूर है दिल्ली से, अब लोग उस बन्दे को गालियाँ नहीं देंगे तो क्या फूल बरसाएंगे, आप ही बताइए |

कहते हैं कर्म बोलता है | अब आपका ही दोगलापन देख लीजिये | एक तरफ आप कहते हैं “जो नेता देशद्रोही को गोली मार देंगे कहते हैं क्या वो सही हैं ?” दूसरी तरफ बिहार में आपके परम-पूज्य नेता लालू के चमचों ने दिन दहाड़े 2 नेताओं को गोली मार दी और हमें मिली क्या इन घटनाओं पे “रविश कुमार जी की चुप्पी” | अँधेरा |

वैसे अँधेरे का बड़ा अच्छा प्रयोग किया रविश जी आपने | अब ये बात कितनो को पता होगी कि अक्सर लोगो को हिप्नोटाइज करने के लिए अँधेरे और काले स्क्रीन का प्रयोग किया जाता है | तरीका बेहद अच्छा था रविश कुमार जी पर आपकी नियत नहीं | अगर मालदा पर चुप्पी और सिर्फ एक दल या पार्टी के खिलाफ कटाक्ष करते रहना इमानदार पत्रकारिता है तो रविश जी ये जरुर समझाएँ कि कैसे ?

अगर छात्रवाद के नाम पे देश के विरुद्ध नारा लगाने वालों को छुट दे दी गयी तो आतंकवादी और छात्र में अन्तर क्या रह जाएगा? क्या अगर कोई बम धमाके करे तभी वो आतंकी है ? ये कैसे भूल रहे हैं कि आतंकवाद सबसे ज्यादा लोगो की सोच में है | इसे कभी हरी झंडी नहीं दी जा सकती |

अगर अफजल के साथ याकूब मेमन के साथ बुरा किया गया तो क्या रविश जी जानते हैं कि सरबजीत सिंह के साथ कैसा बर्ताव हुआ था, ये तो फिर भी आतंकवादी थे |

हो सकता है कन्हैया कुमार अपने सहपाठियों की गलती का शिकार हुआ हो लेकिन वो भी उनका नेता था | हम भी जानते हैं रविश जी आपकी मीडिया के हमाम में सब नंगे हैं | कुछ कम कुछ ज्यादा | लेकिन अब आपका चैनल इतना गिर चूका है कि शायद अब आप कुछ सच भी दिखाएँगे तो हमें आप पर शक तो रहेगा | बंद करिए मासूमों के  भावनाओं का  भोग  करना |

भेदिया आया , भेदिया आया ! अब तो बस यही आवाज आती है रविश कुमार जी के चैनल से |

टीवी अंधेरा कर रवीश ने सवाल सही उठाए, पर जवाब कौन देगा?

dusra10
-
0

रवीश कुमार का बहुत बड़ा फैन था और रहूंगा ।

रवीश कुमार ने कहा हमारा मीडिया अंधेरे मे चला गया है, सही कहा जहा एक ओर मीडिया का एक तबका कन्हैया को बेगुनाह साबित कर रहा है वही दूसरा उसे गद्दार । मीडिया मे आपस मे ही मतभेद है ।

वकीलो द्वारा पटियाला हॉउस कोर्ट मे मीडिया कर्मियो के साथ मार पीट कतई ही सही नही है, वकीलो पर इल्ज़ाम है की वे खुद जज बन गए है । सारी गलती वकीलो की ही है । परंतु सवाल कुछ मीडिया से पूछना भी ज़रूरी है ।

मीडिया को टीबी हो गया है या रवीश के मुताबिक टीवी को टीबी हो गया है, पर मीडिया को बीमार करने के लिए ज़िम्मेदार कौन है ? क्या मीडिया कर्मी खुद नही हैं? आप कहते है की लोग आपको क्यों देखते हैं, क्योंकि आप दिखते है ।आप दिखते है एक ज़िम्मेदारी के साथ जो कहीं न कहीं छूटती दिखती है आज ।

अरनब के तरीके से भले ही बहुत लोगो को तकलीफ हो । बरखा दत्त ने तो ट्विट्टर के सहारे अपना विरोध अरनब के लिए भी व्यक्त किया है । क्या टीआरपी की लड़ाई ही इसकी वजह नही है ? क्यों मीडिया आजकल इतना सेलेक्टिव हो गया क्यों सिर्फ सेलेक्टिव मुद्दों पर ही मीडिया वाले राय रखते और बनवाते हैं ?

क्यों रवीश कुमार अदालत से पहले कनहैया को बेगुनाह साबित करने मे लगा है ? कल कन्हैया भले ही बेगुनाह साबित हो जाये इसका ये मतलब नहीं कि आप उसे आज ही बेगुनाह करार दे दें । आपसे अपेक्षा है की आप निस्पक्ष हो, सरकार विरोधी नहीं । बेशक़ सरकार से जटिल सवाल पूछना ज़रूरी है पर सिर्फ विरोध करना नही ।

क्यों नहीं टीवी वाला मीडिया सरकार की उपलब्धियों को उतनी ही उत्साह के साथ दिखाता है जितना की वो खामियों पर डिबेट करता है ? क्या इस नकारात्मकता का कारण मीडिया ही नही है ?

किसी होटल के मेनू कार्ड जैसे हो चला है ये चैनेल । सरकार का समर्थक है तो ये विरोधी जनता को ये ऑप्शन मीडिया वालो ने ही दिया है । आप सब चैनेल और एंकर भाई हैं तो लड़ाई यहा भाइयो मे ही है खामी कहीं न कहीं आपमें भी है ।

ये विचार मेरे निजी है । आपके तर्को का सवागत है ।

Sagarika Ghose spins an optimistic interview by Narayana Murthy into an anti-gov concern

bala
-
0

Recently (16th February, 2016), Times Of India carried an interview of Infosys founder Mr.Narayana Murthy (NM). The title was, “Governments have a controlling mindset. Ease of doing business has not improved: Narayana Murthy”. After reading the contents, I was wondering how she arrived at this title. If you go through the interview, you will find that a passing comment which was made while mentioning that many reforms are taking place was and more need to be done.

Sagarika Ghose starts with: With the exciting discovery of gravitational waves do Indian scientists need to be encouraged to do this kind of world class research?

She probably asked this to Narayana Murthy because he is a technocrat and so it is good to begin with a Science & Technology slanted question. Fair enough. But I doubt if she is sincere enough to have a discussion on Gravitational waves if Murthy happens to deep-dive into it. With her educational background in History, and her occupational background as a “paid media agent”, she would have hardly had any time to understand gravity (oh, that apple falling back stuff…..), if not gravitational wave. Coming to her question, it sounds naïve, though the no-brainer answer is “yes, of course”. Murthy’s answer is as expected, crisp and to the point, but that would have hardly satisfied Sagarika because he did not say anything that implicates Namo as harmful to science in India.

Moving on, couple of questions later, she poses this: Does it worry you that Start Up India, Make in India, Digital India at the moment are slogans and not yet realities? Look at the tone. She wants some agreement from Narayana Murthy so that she can give a title, “Start Up India, Make in India, Digital India are not realities: Narayana Murthy”. In fact, the previous question and answer do not lead to this question. So it is not a naturally flowing interaction. Murthy responds by rightly saying that slogans cannot be dismissed. He also praised that these various initiatives are all very good ideas. However, this didn’t lead to the title: “Government’s initiatives Start Up India, Make in India, Digital India, are all very good ideas: Narayana Murthy”. Sagarika’s agenda is different and it is to discredit BJP Govt. Murthy clearly states that it is not easy to translate dreams into reality and it needs lots of hardwork from all concerned. He talks about issues with our political structure of centre and state and the key role of states to bring about reforms. Sagarika would not have liked this one from Murthy where he says, “there is an air of wanting to do things in Delhi”, which itself could have been made as the title. He appreciates the tax and labor laws exemption announcement.

Once Sagarika senses that Murthy is praising more of Modi Government, she quickly diverts to ask about the reforms in 1991 by Manmohan Singh. Nobody has denied Manmohan’s reforms and PVN’s leadership at that time and even most of the current BJP leaders would readily acknowledge that. All previous Govts were doing so badly that whatever little reform PVN / Manmohan pair did can only be good and cannot be otherwise; the country was in such a bad shape.

Then Murthy talks about the scope of further improvements which he think are needed, like the need of reducing Govt. control which has been in place for decades of Congress rule. He brings up the case of relaxing FCRA (Foreign Contribution Regulations Rules). In fact, Modi Govt has made the entire approval process online in a bid to improve transparency and relaxed several of the procedural steps involved. How much more to relax is debatable. At that very moment, the opportunistic Sagarika creates a small window to ask, “So the ease of doing business has not improved?” and then decides to use this as the title. In fact, many can argue that Murthy’s views on FCRA relaxation are not entirely acceptable in view of the way certain NGOs act in India. But that is another topic. There are many rules in India which need to be reformed (either relaxed or tightened) and if at all, those are legacies of decades of mis-governance by the Congress, and it will take time for this Government to turn it around. It is still a work in progress.

After she managed to squeeze a title out of nothing, she just poses some more questions which all received balanced views of NM. In total, NM was very balanced in his answers, never really said, “Ease of business has not improved”. He only wants more. While things will improve gradually, the biggest curse of India now is the Sagarika, Rajdeep like press. This wife / husband duo is trying to inflict enormous damage to the country, twisting information in the way they want. Hope better sense prevails in the public at large.

1...875876877...890Page 876 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