Friday, October 18, 2024
Home Blog Page 889

Bihar : from being “Land of Lalu” to being “Land of Lau” again

rahulbihari
-
0

I haven’t watched news or followed anything post the results of Bihar elections came out. I was and am very upset, not so much because BJP lost, but because of these two reasons:

1) I don’t detest Nitish so much as mush I dread Lalu coming back to power in Bihar.

2) I felt really bad for NaMo; as the results of this election would give the guts to every tom, dick and harry to speak against Namo. Even more than what they did in the past.

To be very honest, I haven’t been to many places in Bihar, for me Bihar has always been about Patna. Secondly, since my father was in the administration, I really don’t know what Bihar was for the common man and the poor in the 90s during Lalu’s rule. All I know, is that we didn’t want to travel alone, come back home before it was dark etc. Once you finish school, you leave the state for better education to secure your future. Thirdly, if you’re from the general category, the state has nothing to offer you. 

Lalu Yadav
He’s Back!

Given the background, I don’t think I should be affected by Bihar’s election results, more so as I don’t live there anymore. However, I am not fine, I am upset. I haven’t switched on TV to watch any news channels, infact now I am looking for alternatives to fill in the vacuum created by lack of current affairs and news in my daily schedule. Its not that I won’t follow, but I want the dust to settle, so that I can go back to my normal reading. Meanwhile, I am embracing myself, to endure the new developments in Bihar.

I don’t want to play any blame game, but this time I would definitely talk about the people of Bihar who have actually voted to bring Nitish and Lalu in power. I used to think, that we Biharis are street smart, we are intelligent, even though we are not educated, even though we don’t have amenities. Yes! we Biharis are street smart and intelligent, we are smart enough to know that who could give us immediate free and subsidized stuff, we are smart enough to know that who could give us reservation over reforms.

Let me add, we Biharis are also large hearted and accommodating, we not only gave another chance to Nitish but also brought back Lalu to power in all his glory. In fact, we cemented future for the kins of Lalu. If you don’t believe that how generous and accommodating we Biharis are, you can see our living conditions, in the slums of Mumbai, Delhi, and our new found abode the middle east. We certainly don’t differentiate between humans and animals, thats why we elected one like Lalu to power, and we behave like them whenever and where ever we are.

Now, I understand that why a person from Gujarat, Bengal or even UP, no matter where they are settled or migrate to, they always say that they are from such and such state, but a Bihari, no matter from which strata of the society, would always hide the fact that they are Bihari, they would say we are from Delhi or Mumbai, or we have been living in Bangalore from a long time, so now we are a Bangalorean. 

No matter which era of Indian history we read, Ancient, Medieval or Modern and even the present times, Bihar has always played a very significant role. We have not just been followers but have given leaders to the country and the world. But to my dismay, a state with such a rich history, is known as the ‘Land of Lalu’ and would be known as the “Land of Lalu”.

Reasons why Girish Karnad’s comparison of Tipu to Kempegowda and Shivaji is a perfect case of Intellectual Bankruptcy

durgeshshastri
-
0

I remember Girish Karnad as a teacher, who explained amazing scientific facts and discoveries, in an interesting manner, on the popular show ‘Turning Point’ hosted on Doordarshan in the 90s. I admire him for his multifaceted personality. He writes Novels and plays in both Kannada and English and has immense following. He has acted in several movies and usually portrayed characters that are upright and ‘ideal’ as per society standards. But, in real life, he is working hard to project himself as a controversial figure through his public statements.

Girish Karnad is one of those few writers in Kannada who has won the prestigious Jnanpith Award for his contribution to Kannada literature and theatre in 1998. His play Yayati is translated into several languages and brought him immense fame. Yayati was an ancestor of Pandavas. Columnist Sandeep Balakrishna, who is also the author of ‘TIPU SULTAN: THE TYRANT OF MYSORE’ writes that the success of the play was merely based on the ‘foundation of distortion’ of historical facts. Everybody, these days, writes fiction by distorting history and that’s okay. But presenting a great king in poor light to please your target audience is simply unwarranted.

Controversy is nothing new for Karnad. In the past, the Jnanpith awardee had called Nobel laureate Rabindranath Tagore a ‘second-rate playwright writer’. Denigrating someone who has written the National Anthem as second-rate or third-rate, only amounts to insulting the country. Some thoughts should be best left unexpressed, considering the repercussions they might have on the society. But for some people, personal gratification and satisfying one’s ego seems to be the top priority and a matter of solace.

Girish Karnad
Girish Karnad

Now coming to the recent developments, while speaking at a function organized to commemorate the 200 years Jayanthi celebration of Tipu Sultan, Girish Karnad favored Tipu Sultan to Kempe Gowda. He asserted that the Bangalore International airport should be renamed after Tipu Sultan, who is again a controversial figure. Hindus and Christians remember him for religious conversions and atrocities on their ancestors. Muslims consider him a great king who fought with valor against the British.

Kempe Gowda was a visionary and the architect of Bangalore. Even the Bus-stand in Bangalore is named after him. What purpose would it serve now to pit these two gentlemen from history against each other? If intellectuals like Karnad constantly make comments aimed at garnering media attention and belittling historical icons, then such opinions simply don’t hold any rationale. They will only fuel controversy.

Karnad was well aware of the situation leading to this Jayanthi Celebration. He knew that a number of groups were agitating against any such move by the govt. If he willed, then he could have easily spoken about the great deeds done by Tipu and tried to persuade agitating people in rethinking about the stand taken by them. If Karnad was truly secular then he could have focused on the need to stay calm and ease tensions between the two groups through his speech, instead he added fuel to fire by making unexpected and meaningless comparisons.

The other indigestible thing was that he compared Tipu Sultan to the Maratha King Shivaji. As far as my wisdom goes, Shivaji is never credited with forcefully converting people to his faith and comes across as a clean personality. He is also seen as a unifying figure and remembered as a brave warrior. Karnad goes onto say that Shivaji enjoys this stature only because he was a Hindu and same is deprived to Tipu because he is a Muslim. Does this mean that fame in this country is purely based on one’s religion? If an intellectual thinks on these lines then how can one expect sanity from the general public? The illiterates of this country get divided on communal lines, almost on a daily basis, by opportunistic politicians and now I know why it is so easy.

History doesn’t remember somebody because of his religion but due to his deeds. I have never heard somebody speak ill about Hyder Ali, father of Tipu Sultan.

I still remember many icons like Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan whose name is taken in the same breath as Mahatma Gandhi, Nehru and Vallabhbhai Patel when somebody thinks about the freedom struggle. Ruler like Jalaluddin Akbar is remembered as somebody who promoted communal harmony. Everyone has their own named etched on the sands of time purely based on their actions. History doesn’t differentiate between individuals, yet history can be distorted over a period of time.

If efforts are made to paint communal forces using a secular brush, one cannot become a secular person. Similarly, if one shouts at the top of his voice and makes efforts to prove that he is an epitome of secularity, knowingly or unknowingly, he will reflect his communal character. While delivering his speech Karnad also mentioned that the day should be celebrated as ‘Bihar Day’ which was totally out of context but revealed his instigating nature of rubbing salt on the wounds of the BJP.

Though he has apologized for his remarks on renaming Kempe Gowda Airport, he has failed to tell us what he thinks about the death of a VHP worker during agitation. Just because the guy belonged to a particular right-wing outfit, one cannot be insensitive to him. Who knows, if intellectuals like Girish Karnad had appealed to both sides to maintain calm, one precious life could have been saved. And we would have been proud of secular intellectuals like Karnad.

(originally published on my personal blog at: www.litereads.in)

Respected Intolerance Brigade, Can you please be more specific about who is Intolerant in India?

Manithan
-
0

In this article, I would be using the term ‘Intolerance brigade’ to denote the Congress leaders, opposition leaders, actors, directors, writers, poets and scientists who affirmed that there is rising Intolerance in India after Modi became PM and even returned their awards as a protest against it.

For the past two months, one word has occupied Indian mind-space – Intolerance. While every Congress leader, Intellectual, Liberal, Secular and Journalist was contributing their whole energy to keep this Intolerance debate alive, nobody had mentioned in specific that who is contributing to this rising Intolerance. Now, International newspapers, like New York Times and Guardian have joined the bandwagon claiming that, there is rise in Intolerance in India after Modi came to power.

This Intolerance debate sprung from the Dadri incident, where a Muslim man was killed by Hindu men of his own village, for allegedly slaughtering and eating cow meat. This act is despicable and requires condemnation. But, bracketing the whole of Hindus, 800 million of them, for the crime done by 50 Hindus, does it sounds sane?

Not to mention, the Moodbidri incident, where a Hindu man was killed by Muslim Men, for preventing cow slaughter, can we extend the bracket there too? If whole of Hindus should be ashamed and declared Intolerant for the crime of a very few Hindus, can we extend the same to other religions?

Instead of doing a What-aboutery, can we just take a step aside and ask the Intolerance brigade to be more specific of who is contributing to the rising Intolerance in India?

If you answer ‘Yes’ for the below questions, then you can be vocal that Hindus have become Intolerant after Modi came to power:

If you had answered ‘No’ for the above questions, then you cannot term the whole Hindus as Intolerant in India.

And, the killing of three rationalists, which thoroughly deserved condemnation, does contribute to the rising Intolerance against rationalists in India. But Dhabolkar was killed in 2013, so that doesn’t account to the rising Intolerance after Modi came to power, which leaves us with two.

Pansare was killed in 2015 and a Sanathan Sansta member was caught. Recent investigation has revealed that the member was not involved in the murder. Kalburgi’s murder has community and property angle apart from Hindu extremist angle. So, there is chance that these murders were done by Hindu extremists and there is also a chance that this has got nothing to do with Hindu extremists. Even with the former case turning out to be true, crime of four Hindus does not account to the whole of Hindus being called Intolerant. Only those four criminals are Intolerant and deserves punishment of the highest order, not the innocent Hindus who can be tagged as Intolerant.

As we have seen the religious angle to the Intolerance debate, we can now proceed to analyse the contribution of religious groups to the rising Intolerance in India.

Please bring out a list of communal incidents that had happened in India after May 2014, for which RSS leaders or members had been booked or even alleged to have played a role? VHP? Bajrang Dal? Even if these Hindu organisations have contributed to the rising Intolerance, can you please show us a graph where it shows an escalation in communal atrocities by these Hindu extremist groups after May 2014? We want only post-May 2014 data, as the ‘rise in Intolerance’ is being portrayed as happening after May 2014.

Ok! Shiv Sena had prevented Ghulam Ali concert and poured ink on Sudheendra Kulkarni. This amounts to intolerance of a few Indians towards Pakistan. If Intolerance for India towards Pakistan is despicable, why are the same voices mocking BJP government for being unable to counter the Pakistani offensive on the border? So, the Intolerance brigade wants to kill Pakistani soldiers but want to invite Pakistani artists? What sort of a joke is this? If the Intolerance brigade want to extend the India-Pakistan argument to Hindu-Muslim issue, do they indirectly mean that Muslims are synonymous to Pakistan and thereby indirectly saying that all Indian Muslims must belong to Pakistan? Then, what is the difference between this Intolerance brigade and few motormouth Hindu leaders?

Let there come a clinching proof that Hindu organisations have raised Intolerance in India, does that mean the whole of India is intolerant? Do these Hindu groups represent the whole of India or just Hindus? Didn’t the voices belonging to the Intolerance brigade previously reject the same notion of ‘Hindu groups representing Hindus’?

If not Hindu groups, then is it Christian groups? Does making ‘All India Bakchod’  bend on their knees and forcing the ‘Agnes of God’ to be cancelled in Mumbai amount to Intolerance? Does making an Urdu woman editor to flee for life for reproducing Charlie Hebdo amounts to Intolerance? And the act of few Indian Muslims trying to join ISIS, which is actively involved in genocide, amount to intolerance? Can the Intolerance Brigade be more specific on which religious group is intolerant?

‘But.. But.. It is not the religious groups or people who are contributing to the rising Intolerance, it is BJP‘, you might say. Apart from Sakshi Maharaj, Sadhvi Niranjan Jyothi, how many BJP MPs has been booked with hate speech after May 2014, that had contributed to the rising Intolerance?  Can the Intolerance brigade list the events that can be linked to BJP MPs, MLAs, leaders in the past 18 months that had contributed to the rising Intolerance in India? We want data on communal incidents presided by them or which happened under their watch. Not just hate speech, but that hate speech being translated into hateful actions.

If not BJP, then, is Congress the reason for rising Intolerance? Samajwadi Party? Trinamool Congress? Janata Dal (U)? Rashtriya Janata Dal? AIMIM? Can the Intolerance brigade be specific on who is contributing to the rising Intolerance and how?

‘Let us leave the political parties‘, you might say. ‘Look at Modi, his hands are stained with blood of Muslims killed in 2002 Godhra riots!‘, you might add. Is it not declared by Supreme Court monitored SIT that Modi is innocent and has no hands in riots? Is it not declared by Supreme Court that Sanjiv Bhatt had lied that Modi gave ‘free hand to rioters’? If you consider that Supreme Court is bought by Modi, how was Teesta Setalvad granted bail then? But since this debate is all about past 18 months, bring us a list of communal incidents which Modi presided or list of minority people Modi has slapped with his own hands? Make us believe that Modi is rising the Intolerance in India.

If not Modi, is it Sonia Gandhi who is causing the “Rising Intolerance”? Rahul Gandhi? Mayawati? Mulayam? Kejriwal? Nitish? Which political leader is then rising intolerance in India. Can the Intolerance brigade be more specific?

The Intolerance Brigade is supposed to be housing the Intellectuals of India. We have debated about the politicians in it. Now, let us talk about the others. Of all the contributors, Scientists who had contributed to the Intolerance debate must be criticized with all might, because the others in the Brigade are not expected to use their ‘brain’ to achieve in their respective fields. But every scientists works extensively to arrive at proofs. They cannot judge any event based on their emotions, they have to analyse under different environments and should arrive with proof.

Has the scientist PM Bhargava came out with any proof that Intolerance is rising in Modi’s India? Or did he reveal that he arrived at this conjecture, because he could not get any data? Data for communal incidents can be obtained from public data like newspapers and MHA website. If a journalist could come up with basic research based on available data, shouldn’t we expect a great scientist to come up with more credible proof that Intolerance is rising in India after Modi became PM?

Writers, actors, directors and poets approach an issue emotionally apart from using their brains. Since it is explicit that they have not used their brain in this Intolerance Debate by not citing proofs and approached the issue emotionally, we can forgive them for returning the awards.

By the way, an Intellectual is supposedly called Intellectual when the person acts intellectually instead of talking whatever comes to their brain. We are skeptic over the so-called ‘Intellectuals’ now.

If the Intolerance brigade claims that Intolerance is rising in India, does that mean they are not part of India? If they claim that they are very much Indian, do they also not contribute to the rising Intolerance, according to their claims, as they also constitute India? To clear all these doubts, can the Intolerance brigade be more specific about who is rising Intolerance in India?

An Argumentative Poor Indian

Amartya Talks
-
0

I was congratulated recently by someone who said he was enormously enjoying his poverty. I was very pleased that I had given many people a big reason to be joyous, ostentatious and clueless, but I, sitting in my comfortable AC room, also wondered how on earth I could be talking about poverty, since I have not smiled back at someone having less than a bank balance of USD 1 million for the last 20 years.

I have always emphasized the importance of poor in Nobel Prize winning topics, in Oscar-winning scripts, in JNU dissertations, in trending columns of NDTV, The Hindu, NY Times, etc. and in seat winning political speeches. Poverty is not only the backbone of humanity, but it is one of the pivotal requirements of evolution. I love the word ‘poor’ to such an extent that even a remote reference of poor gives me a Magic Mushroom high. In fact, let me take this opportunity to make a request to you all to embrace anything and everything which gives you the slightest hint of poor – be it a poor kid, a poor society, a poor handwriting, a poor sweetie pie, or a poor joke.

For example, let me talk about the Nalanda University. The ‘poor’ university was stifling under its glorious past. For a long time, the university was waiting for a visionary who can bring back the glory of Nalanda, specifically glory of its ruins. The poor university received the love it deserved for a long time. After crores and crores on investments, the university still stands intact as ruins. What a beauty! Ruins of crores (after adjustment of Inflation, PPP, Intoxication) can be the most dignified dedication to impoverishment.

It is of some intellectual interest that comparing Nalanda University with Harvard has been a subject matter of discussion for a very long time. “Is there anyone, in the five parts of India, who does not admire China?” asked Yi Jing (I-Tsing, in old spelling) in the seventh century, on returning to China after being in India for ten years, studying at the ancient university in Nalanda. No one can disagree with Yi Jing. We spent thousands of INR to buy cheap Chinese chairs, tables, doors, windows and toilets in the university. 6 out of those 39 chairs broke on the first day. One student who got some injuries was taken to a nearby hospital. Poor fellow. I love him because he could be called poor for some or the other reason. How better could have we admired China.

Right now, I am finishing my coffee in a highrise of Mumbai, peeking at poor peddlers from my balcony, thinking of another research paper – “How do poor look from 49th floor”

Why a vote for Lalu is a vote for Liberal India.

Liberals of Delhi
-
0

Bihar results are out and the voters have given a resounding victory to Mahagathbandhan of honest Lalu Yadav, humble Nitish Kumar and liberal Congress. There has never been such a decisive verdict in support of honesty and liberalism since Pandit Nehru last won an election.

Lalu Yadav’s victory is particularly pleasing for us since it brings so much hope for our liberal ideas. We explained it further in the 5 points below.

  1. Lalu Yadav’s call for a Forward vs Backward battle during campaigning was a defining moment for us. It clearly showed that Lalu ji wants Bihar to move forward. That is what liberalism is all about. Moving from old regressive ideas to illuminating liberalism.
  2. By giving election tickets to only 2 of his children, Lalu Yadav has decisively moved away from dynasty politics plaguing India. Such positive gestures must be appreciated and welcomed in a liberal India.
  3. Lalu Yadav has always backed entrepreneurship and created jobs whenever he has been in power. Whether its kidnapping for ransom industry, musclemen industry or even film industry, they have all thrived during his tenure and we don’t see this changing this time either. A liberal India is impossible till we have jobs for all and Lalu raj should provide those in abundance.
  4. The journey from prison to the most influential person in Bihar is the stuff of fairytales. He suffered the hardships inside the prison, like Mahatma Gandhi did and then worked hard to reach where has today. It won’t be wrong to call Lalu Yadav a modern day Mahatma.
  5. Lalu Yadav also forced us to look within and correct ourselves. Best friend is the one who tells you the truth on your face. When Lalu Yadav called us haramzada media, we had to introspect and correct ourselves. A tolerant India means you accept genuine criticism and correct ourselves instead of lashing out. Modi ji can learn from us on how to take genuine criticism.

Three cheers to progressive, liberal, honest politics of Lalu Yadav. Hip Hip Hurray! Hip Hip Hurray! Hip Hip Hurray!

–@LiberalsOfDelhi

NJAC and The Sardesai of Law

Guest Author
-
0

When Mr. Rajeev Dhavan is not writing BuzzFeed like articles, he is arguing high-profile matters in the Supreme Court. In representing the Babri Masjid Action Committee in the age-old land dispute and Open Magazine in the Radia Tapes hearing, he has carved a name for himself, and his style of argumentation is nothing short of impressive. Apart from two moments of outbursts, with one being against a judge and the other being against a current Additional Solicitor General, his demeanour in the court is subtle, sly and sarcastic.

While, as a junior advocate, I am no one to question Mr. Dhavan’scredentials, I have never been great at adhering to the predefined principle of judicial chaaploosi. His attitude in the Times Now debate on the Supreme Court judgment in the NJAC case reminded me of the time I saw him speak against the introduction of a Uniform Civil Code at a convention in Delhi where he failed to make any argument and spewed his unadulterated self-righteousness and bombastic allegation with unmitigated bias.

Mr. Dhavan’s assertions on the debate consisted of random ‘constitutional’ rhetoric regarding ‘justice texts’and their trusteeship. I have never come across this interpretation of our Constitution as it functions on a carefully crafted mechanism of checks and balances, and not a strict separation of power. His appalling personal remarks over Finance Minister’s election and his ‘maneuvering’ of the electoral process, summed up the real reasons for his opposition to the NJAC. Mr. Jaitley could have shot back with the allegations of sexual harassment against Mr. Dhavan, but he is more graceful than that.

One of the favorite tactics of Mr. Dhavan and his likes, is to relegate the parliament and its democratically elected members to mere ‘politicians’ and play on the media narrative surrounding politicians as evil and corrupt. This elitist arrogance is hardly worthy of a ‘constitutional expert’. An act, like the NJAC, passed not by the brute numbers of one party as it used to happen in Indira Gandhi’s time , but by consensus and debate and support from all political parties, must be given its due weightage. aa

It is the people of this country, that gave this country the Constitution, with the preamble saying –“We,the people of India, having solemnly resolved………enact and give to ourselves this constitution”. If Mr. Dhavan could try to see beyond his myopic anti-establishment intolerance, he would see that basic political science theory of the social contract suggests that it is people/individuals who have consented to surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority of the State, in exchange for protection of their remaining rights. In a democratic republic, it is the representatives elected by the people through popular mandate, which represent the authority in charge of the legislative process. He ridiculed the assertion that ‘the Legislature decides what is best for the country ’ casually ignoring the fact that the only prerogative of the legislature is to enact laws for the people keeping in mind their best interests.

The Indian judiciary and the intellectual class suffers from this constitutional ‘fear psychosis’ which has its genesis in the Emergency era wherein the Parliament sought to abrogate basic principles of the Constitution. Our democracy has very ably learnt that this supposed ‘will of the people ’ must not be supreme with its bitter experiences in the Indira Gandhi era. The judiciary very ably developed the doctrine of basic structure of the constitution which curbed the power of the parliament to amend the Constitution. But vote by all but one parliamentarian, a vote by 20 State assemblies, must most certainly not be final, but should be given its due credence within our democratic and constitutional setup.Mr. Dhavan stoked this anxiety to full effect which is not surprising considering most champions of democracy and free speech in India have mastered this art. (Refer to recent media propaganda starting from Church attacks to Yakub to Sahitya Akademi, etc)

To play on the goodwill of the judiciary, Mr. Dhavan tries to portray as if the judiciary is the protector of the poor of this country and the judiciary has protected the rights of the people versus a corrupt legislature filled with ‘politicians’. While this may seem reasonable to the average reader, this isn’t really true.The irony is that the legal profession and its functioning is one of the most elitist, oppressive and closed in the country. They are ruled by a handful of ‘senior’ advocates and the other lawyers survive on meagre pay checks, exorbitant working hours and little rewards.

Mind you, the collegium system does not merely affect the appointment of judges, it also has profound impact on the bar and its dynamics. The bar functions on the designation system where different Courts/Tribunals in the country, have the power to designate lawyers with a requisite amount of practice as ‘Seniors’ or ‘Senior Advocates’. Being designated a Senior Counsel results in numerous social, professional and monetary benefits, and typically it is done on the basis of undefined and highly subjective criteria without proper enquiry or transparency. Senior advocates like have enjoyed such influence and ‘friendships’ with the bench and the top echelons of the bar for ages. As research has clearly shown, these seniors wield highly disproportionate influence over the bench in terms of getting the desired results for their clients. Their practice, their respect at the bar, the matters they get, the clients that come to them and their fees are a direct product of their relationships.

What Mr. Dhavan forgets is that the designation process and profession by nature, does not value talent, hard-work or skill rather values your connections and surname. One of the most respected judges of this country, J. Krishna Iyer, used the word incestuous in reference to the collegium system because in India, most judges (about 70-80%) to the higher judiciary are appointed from the bar which leaves immense scope for nepotism as the minimum criterion and the merit criterion is absent. There are barely any promotions from the Lower district courts to the High Court, and even if such promotions take place, they happen close to the District judge’s retirement date.This results in a mutually reinforcing power group comprising judges and senior advocates exchanging positions through consequent generations at the very top perpetuated through the history of the Indian Bar.

This judicial aristocracy could have been curbed to an extent by the NJAC, but the elite clan stood strong to protect its turf. It is this clan that had long-delayed the entry of the foreign firms in country, it is this clan that will most likely never let the IAS-like Indian Judicial Service be a reality. The IJS would have been a perfect solution as it takes the nepotism away from the selection process which even the NJAC wouldn’t have done. But, for the IJS to become a reality, it was necessary to establish the NJAC for the institution to organically evolve in to something more pervasive like the UPSC.

Mr. Dhavan probably  in the concept of a judicial commission as he wrote this in 2009:

The Supreme Court and the rest of the higher judiciary have still a long way to go in the matter of judicial appointments and oversight over judicial indiscipline (including corruption). Our present methods to deal with these issues are weak. We need a National Judicial Commission.

Was it because there was the secular, liberal, progressive government of the Indian National Congress at the time and he flips his academic stance since a ‘fascist’, ‘conservative’, ‘illiberal’ Modi Government is in power 2015?

Apparently, Mr Dhavan’s father was a judge in the Allahabad High Court. Later he was appointed as High Commissioner to Britain under Indira Gandhi’s tenure and was even appointed as Governor of West Bengal.He, also has a brother who presided as a High Court judge in the Allahabad High Court.

Interestingly, he while mentioning his problem with the role of the executive in judicial appointments also talked about how people have to go through ‘dalals’ to reach the politicians. The use of the word ‘Dalal’ was special here as soon after, he mentioned how Mr. Bharadwaj, as law minister, influenced judicial appointments in the 1980’s. He says he was privy to such meetings where he would be sitting in the judge’s house and the judge would tell him to go to a different room as Bharadwaj was coming to see him. While the presence of the Law Minister at the house of a judge is slightly conspicuous, it is not per se immoral. If anything is immoral, it is the presence of an advocate at the judge’s house, due to appear before the same judge the next day potentially defending criminals. The word ‘dalal’ boomeranged a bit there.

His attitude in the Times Now debate on the Supreme Court judgment in the NJAC case reminded me of the time I saw him speak against the introduction of a Uniform Civil Code at a convention in Delhi with typical arrogance, self-righteousness and bombastic allegations with unmitigated bias. After all, human rights are to be applied ‘secular’-ly.

Perhaps Mr. Dhavan has borrowed Rajdeep’s ‘moral compass’. If he finds time off the fashionable rights based litigation, maybe he could read this piece. A minor research in his career, his stances on debates and the comments made by him on important issues, I have no doubt in concluding the Rajeev Dhavan is the Rajeep Sardesai of the law. A person whose time has passed, but he desperately trying to cling on to the straws thoroughly revealing his hypocrisy and arrogance.

Lastly, I remember Mr. Dhavan referring to himself as a ‘struggling lawyer’. A humble request to you ‘sir’, please leave that honour to humble folks like us. Humble folks like us became lawyers to match the achievements by people like you.Unfortunately, the elitist attitudes of those at the top have demolished the hope of a fair and competitive environment for lawyers to compete and perpetuated the judicial bhai-bhatijawaad.

Kala Khatta Baniya

5 reasons why Modi doesn’t give regular interviews or press conferences

Guest Author
-
0

Both supporters and detractors of Prime Minister Narendra Modi complain of how little he interacts with India’s mainstream media and how that leads to communication problems vis a vis his government. While what goes on in Modi’s mind and why he does so, only he knows, one can conjecture why he has taken this ostrich-like burying in the sand approach when it comes to TV news channels and newspapers.

1. Most TV anchors are rude and arrogant.

The most famous image of this is Karan Thapar asking Modi at the beginning of an interview, “…people still call you to your face a mass murderer…”.

Morarji Desai (Gujarat 1969), VP Singh (Moradabad 1980), Indira Gandhi (Punjab problem of the 1980s and Nellie massacre of 1983), Rajiv Gandhi (1984 anti-Sikh and Kashmir Pandit exodus)…all of them were riot-tainted…the list is endless.None of them were called mass murders on their face by any journalist.

Most TV anchors are generally sympathetic of Congress politicians and get confrontational, bordering on the abusive with BJP ones (with the sole exception of Finance Minister Arun Jaitley). Panels are packed with Congress sympathizers and a sole BJP lone ranger. You will find BJP spokespersons regularly making asses of themselves in TV studios thanks to that. They generally never seem to learn.

Modi seems to have learnt his lesson though. He gives selected interviews to selective people and they get record viewership like his Aap Ki Adalat appearance before the elections.

2. Modi always gets bad press no matter what: The default mode of India’s MSM is pro-Commie Pariwar and anti-Sangh Pariwar. Nothing can change that. A BJP guy trying to fight it will find himself banging against a thick brick wall. If MSM is anti-BJP, then the bad press for the RSS is ten-fold that and specifically for Modi a hundred-fold. Modi by increasing the quantity of interaction with the MSM can in no way increase the quality of coverage.

A great man (usually credited to Albert Einstein) said, “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results”. Modi learnt that the hard way and would rather stay clear of regular interviews and press conferences.

3. SM has made MSM irrelevant: This is the most important of all. Social Media has made Mainstream Media quite irrelevant. For tens of millions in the India Twitterverse, the name of MSM has been dragged in mud. These people set the agenda and MSM is forced to follow and everything is exposed for the benefit of all the citizens of India.

On Twitter both NDTV and Times of India have 5 million plus followers. But Modi alone has 15 million plus, second only to US President Barack Obama in world leaders. On Facebook the number is double and Modi’s official page has 30 million likes. The truth is that Modi doesn’t need the traditional media anymore.

Also it’s one thing to have more followers and another thing to be influential. Many senior journalists do have lakhs of followers but get largely abuse. In terms of setting trends, bloggers and Twitter handles unrelated to conventional media houses are proving to be far more effective.

4. DD and AIR now part of Modi’s outreach.

With social media, Modi regularly reaches out to urban dwellers and NRIs. After he became PM, he has added two of the largest media when it comes to the rural masses of India: Doordarshan and All India Radio.

While satellite TV, Facebook and Twitter may rule Indian cities, in villages DD and AIR are the kings. Modi’s Mann ki Baat is a superhit and even news channels end up with its telecast it sometimes with a static image.

Then there’s DD which is the main news source for rural masses. Even I’ve switched to watching DD News after decades and I am surprised at how many people I meet who do the same. It shows in the consistently falling ratings of English TV news channels.

5. There is too much distortion no matter what you do.

First MSM was biased. Then it became severely biased. Now it has taken to manufacturing outright lies. If you don’t believe me, then just check out the Media Lies section of OpIndia!. There is no way you can counter hundreds of lies coming your way being spread by a well-entrenched network of #AdarshLiberals and you will merely end up wasting your time. Modi is focusing on governance.

The citizens of India seem to be happy for every poll shows high approval ratings and he is still winning one State election after another. As long as the people of India are happy, the usual suspects can fume and fret intheir TV studios all they want.

Modi doesn’t give regular interviews and Press Conferences and still there have been dozens of distortions. If he started interacting with MSM regularly then we would have hundreds of distortions floating around and firefighting would be impossible.

 

Post script…

Being hostile to the media, Modi won his third Gujarat election, the 2013 Assembly elections, the 2014 general and Assembly elections.

However in 2015 he lost both New Delhi and Bihar? So will he totally change his approach due to that? We will know in the next few months.

–@sunilrajguru

The author is a Bengaluru-based journalist and blogger @ www.sunilrajguru.com

He has previously worked for the Hindustan Times newspaper and website, CyberMedia, the Centre for Science & Environment and IT market research firm IDC India. He also writes for Sify.com.

Frequently Asked Questions about article submissions to OpIndia

OpIndia Staff
-
0
Frequently Asked Questions about article submissions to OpIndia

Q1. How long will it take for my submission to be approved or rejected?

Please give us time of two working days, although we will try to take a final call on moderation earlier than that. If your contribution is pending even after two working days, please get in touch with us through email giving relevant details.

Q2. Why was my submission rejected/deleted?

Although we try to publish as many submissions as we get, we may reject some if they don’t meet the editorial guidelines mentioned here. Please make sure that your article meets the guidelines before submitting it for review.

Q3. Why was my article not published on the main OpIndia English or Hindi websites?

Please understand that it is our editorial discretion to choose and transfer selected articles. We can’t publish all contributions on the main website; otherwise we wouldn’t have needed to launch “MyVoice”! Please read here why we decided to launch this community driven chapter.

If an article is not published on the main website, it simply means that it didn’t meet our requirements on that particular day. However, those requirements won’t necessarily be about the “editorial quality” of the article; it could be as technical as publishing schedule. Say, we had already published x number of articles on a day so your article couldn’t be accommodated.

Please understand that we are not trying to pass any editorial comment or leave any value judgment on your article by not transferring them to the main website. It could well be the case that an article published on “MyVoice” has better “editorial quality” than the one published on the main website.

Q4. Why was my article not shared in the social media through main OpIndia social profiles?

Answer is same as the one offered for Q3 – please allow us that much of editorial discretion.

Q5: Why was my article not picked for being Featured on top of homepage?

Answer is same as the one offered for Q3 – please allow us that much of editorial discretion.

Q6. Can you delete or make changes to an article of mine that was already published?

We don’t allow changes to already published articles under normal circumstances. Please review and double check your articles before submitting them for review. If there is a genuine case for any modification, you can get in touch with us through email explaining the need for modification and we will consider it. Same goes for deletion of articles; you must explain and justify it with details. The final decision on deletion will be taken by our editorial team.

Q7. Can you delete or make changes to an article of someone else that was published on your website? I find it offensive.

Sorry, we can’t entertain any requests of modifications if the article is not by you. We apologize if your sentiments were hurt, but we can’t do anything beyond that.

But you can do something more than that. You are encouraged to write a counter to the article (but it should meet our editorial guidelines). You should especially counter if you find an article making wrong claims or conclusions by writing a better argued article. If there is a compelling case, we can update the original article by appending a link to your counter article.

Q8. Can you delete a comment left by some reader on an article of mine?

The comments on articles are not hosted by us on our servers. At the same time, we don’t pre-moderate comments but we allow community moderation. If you find a comment that is inappropriate due to some reason, you can flag it. Right now we can’t attend to complaint about individual comments.

Q9. I think an article published on your website has been plagiarized from somewhere else.

We put some basic trust in our contributors and at the same time we also do some basic check before publishing the article. However, on occasions we might fail. If you find any plagiarism or any other problem with some article, please get in touch with us with all the relevant details and we will act on it.

Q10. You keep telling us to get in touch with you, but how do we do that?

Please write an email to [email protected]

Q11. My Twitter/Facebook/other social profile link is not working in the Author Box. When the social icon is clicked, it opens a new ‘My Voice’ page.

Please enter full URLs in your user profile so that your social profile links work e.g. instead of writing @xyz in the Twitter field, please write https://twitter.com/xyz (you MUST add the https:// part too).

Q12. How can I change my profile picture shown in the Author Box?

By default, we use the display picture associated with your Gravatar.com account as your profile picture in the author box. If you don’t have any associated picture, you can either register with Gravatar.com using the same email address that you used to register with OpIndia.com or make changes to your user profile and upload your picture there. We recommend the option of creating a Gravatar account.

How to Register, Login, and Submit an article to MyVoice and OpIndia

OpIndia Staff
-
0
How to Register, Login, and Submit an article to MyVoice and OpIndia

You need a valid email address to register and become a member at OpIndia community. You can register yourself and get an OpIndia account by clicking here.

You need to provide your email address and choose a username. You will then receive an email from [email protected] asking you to confirm your membership.

If you don’t receive any such email in your inbox, please check the spam box to see if it might have landed there. If it’s not even there, please write to us at [email protected] and our technical team will look into it.

Once you become a member at OpIndia, you can login at “MyVoice” and start contributing your articles.

To contribute an article, login at MyVoice, and select “Post” from the menu named “New” and it will take you to the post editing and submission area.

You must familiarize yourself with WordPress publishing to know how to add a headline, the content, the images, etc. WordPress breaks down the content into what they call “Blocks”. The Blocks can be added by clicking a + sign in the main editing area. These blocks can be your normal paragraph, or an image, or some social media embed, and many other elements that you can select from the given options in the editing area.

Keep the following in mind before you submit your article for review (and possible publishing):

  • Don’t write too long a post title i.e. headline of your article. Keep it around 10-15 words.
  • Use the “Image” block to add one or more images to your article. You can either upload a new image (avoid images that are copyright protected) or search for an existing image in the media gallery.
  • You can add caption to the image, choose the size of the image, and align it with the text after clicking the button. Please read this on how to add images to your articles.
  • Write a short description or summary of the article under the “Excerpt” field that you can see on your right. If this field is not visible, please click on the three vertical dots that you can see at the right hand top of your page, go to “Options”, and select fields to make them visible to you.
  • You should save and preview your articles before clicking “Submit for Review” button. You can change alignment of images or make any text changes after previewing before submitting it for review.
  • You can save your articles as draft and finish it later (up to two weeks, after which we might delete your draft) if are not yet ready to submit.
  • Please use only one category for your article. Your article might be relevant to many categories, but use only one that is primary. Say, your article could be an opinion piece dealing with political developments. You can either select “Politics” or “Opinion” based on the nature of your article, but don’t select both. However, if you’re contributing an article in Hindi, you can select “Hindi” as an additional category.
  • Don’t select “Rules and Announcements” or “Featured” as the category. Those are for administration purposes.
  • You can enter some tags (topics, or keywords) that are relevant to your article. Separate the tags with commas. Don’t use too many tags – upper limit is 7 tags for an article. Some tags could be auto-suggested when you type, prefer selecting those than typing new ones.
  • You can choose a featured image for the article. This image will be shown as thumbnail on the website homepage, as well as when you share your article on social media.

Editorial guidelines for contributing articles to MyVoice and OpIndia

OpIndia Staff
-
0
Editorial guidelines for contributing articles to MyVoice and OpIndia

By default, these are also the guidelines for contributing articles to the main English and Hindi websites of OpIndia. Broadly, your contributions should meet the following criteria:

1. The article should be original and not published anywhere at the time of submission, except on your personal blog. If we find that the idea was lifted from any other place, we will credit the original author and put your contacts out in public.

2. The article shouldn’t be too short, say less than 300 words, or too long, say over 1500 words (we might relax the upper limit in rare cases, but don’t take that chance!).

3. If the article is a curated news report, it should cite original sources. Don’t copy-paste sentences even if you are curating. Your curation should add value to the original reports. Ideally it should give a new insight or analysis by combining information from different sources.

4. We will prefer articles that deal with current events that are making headlines at that point of time.

5. You will be entirely liable for opinion pieces. So please research well for data and information before making claims and conclusions.

6. The opinion pieces could be about individuals or entities, but it should not contain ad-hominem attacks. You can talk about someone’s personal life only if it’s directly related to the topic you are touching in your opinion piece.

7. No defamatory or abusive content will be allowed, no matter how strong or justified your emotions or arguments are.

8. We won’t entertain the usual left-liberal narrative. We are for free speech, but we are not obliged to carry such articles. Internet is a free space and you will get lot many platforms to voice your opinion. The mainstream media in India loves the left-liberal narrative, and we don’t want to mirror the mainstream media. We will stick to a right-liberal narrative.

9. We are not averse to touching politically incorrect themes, but the final decision regarding the tone and tenor of the article rests with our editorial team. You may push boundaries, but we will stick to some limits as set by the laws of the land and our own editorial policies.

The submitted articles will be reviewed and moderated, and published by our editorial team if they meet the aforementioned criteria. A few selected ones that further meet our editorial preferences and requirements will be transferred from “MyVoice” to the main website.

1...888889890Page 889 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