Friday, September 20, 2024
Home Blog Page 6855

Congress – the Dictatorship, says Jayanthi Natarajan

0

In November 2014 Jayanthi Natarajan had written a letter to Sonia Gandhi complaining about all the mistreatment meted out to her, and in the process revealing how the Congress worked internally. It is only now that the letter has become public. The length of this mammoth letter runs into more than 3500 words and 40 odd paragraphs. We bring you the key take-aways:

1. Congress is run by Dictators

Jayanthi Natarjan mentions at multiple places how she and her Congress colleagues treated messages from Sonia and Rahul. In one sentence she calls them as “directives”. Here are some of the places where she clearly shows that nobody can say a word against what Sonia or Rahul decide:

“that this was a decision taken at “the highest level” and that I had no choice in the matter”

“I received specific requests [which used to be directives for us] from Shri Rahul Gandhi and his office “

2. So complete is the Dictatorship, that even the Prime Minister has no say

Natarajan mentions that it was the Prime Minister, Dr Manmohan Singh, who informed her that she needed to resign from her Ministerial post. We quote the exact conversation he had with her, as mentioned in the letter:

He (PM)  said “Jayanthi, I have been told by Congress President, that your services are required for party work.” I was puzzled, and I said, “Yes Sir. So what should I do?” He replied, “She wants you to resign.” I was shocked and said, “Resign Sir? But when?” He replied “Today.” I once again asked him if this was what the Congress president wished. He answered in the affirmative.

This clearly shows that Dr Manmohan Singh was a weak puppet in the hands of Sonia Gandhi. What makes this even more clear is that, Jayanthi says, the PM “profusely lauded her contribution to the government” on receiving her resignation letter. This makes it clear that the PM was probably not in favour of her sacking, but had no spine to stand up for his minister in front of his overlord called Sonia.

3. True to typical Dictators, Congress Dictators are inaccessible

In her long letter, Natarajan makes multiple references of her trying to meet Rahul or Sonia to seek an explanation for her removal. But all her attempts were thwarted. When she asked time to meet Sonia, she was told she can only talk on phone. When she approached Rahul, he said “he was “running a little busy” at that time, but that he would meet her a little later“. Apparently that “little later” never came, despite several requests from her. She mentions this fact, that she constantly tried to meet both Rahul and Sonia, on two more occasions making it clear how the Dictators decide who they will meet, not vice versa.

4. The image of the Dictators is above the image of the Government

Natrajan mentions how many of her decisions as Environmental Minister, were directly influenced by requests from Rahul Gandhi and her office. She cites many examples, like the Niyamgiri Hills – Vedanta mines issue, where she towed Rahul’s line. And in spite of this, when Rahul realised that such anti-development decisions are hurting his image, he was quick to push the blame on Natarjan. She says that:

“..persons from the office of Shri Rahul Gandhi were calling the media and planting stories that my resignation was NOT for party work”

“The same day, namely, the day after I resigned, Shri Rahul Gandhi addressed a FICCI meeting of industrialists, where he made uncomplimentary references to delays in environmental clearances, and the adverse effects upon the economy, and assured the corporate world, that the party and government would henceforth ensure that there would be no delays, and bottlenecks for industry.”

Rahul Gandhi, through his mother and Congress Party Supremo Sonia, ensured that Natarjan was “sacrificed” just before he faces the Industry top-guns, at FICCI, so that his image remains of a someone who is pro-development. This should be a warning sign for any Congress leader that he can be dumped on the road at any moment to protect the Dictators.

I liked the AIB Knockout and yet I am uncomfortable with it

0

I watched the AIB Knockout and I liked it – no, not joking – I liked it.

The first time I heard about any member of this group, it was winters of 2012 when Delhi was shuddering in a spine-chilling cold and Khamba was cracking some hot Mallu porn jokes in my office party; there was a palpable polarization of people – one set of people were jumping, bustling and clapping madly, and the other set of people – who were so offended that they got out of the hall – were frowning at him, abusing him and shivering in the cold. Frankly speaking, I liked his jokes, but I was in a big dilemma whether I should laugh or I should shiver outside and discuss the Lakshman Rekha of jokes. I chose to laugh.

Later, I was told by some of my friends that Khamba, Tanmay, Rohan, Ashish, etc. are celebs of twitter, they have elevated the comedy scene of India far above the mundane Comedy Shows running on television channels. They actually did so – these folks were rude, offensive, acrid and most importantly fresh and creative. They were speaking what I wanted to hear, they were writing what I wanted to be served as humor, and they were fighting to establish what I always wanted my college theater to perform. I attended one show of Rohan in Gurgaon, I heard him insulting a crowd which was desperate to laugh on self-insults – a crowd of young people who wanted to break the façade of censored jokes and swim in vagina and penis with opposite sex, a crowd of corporate elites in their 40s who were bored of banal social jokes, and a crowd of old couples who wanted to laugh without reasons.

I watched AIB knockout show and I deliberately read the reactions of people after the show. As expected, I found that some people loved it so much that they insulted those who disagreed (FOE – becomes Forced Freedom of expression):

and some otheres hated it really bad:

https://twitter.com/bhaiyyajispeaks/status/560851352985681920

Every form of entertainment has a limitation. If you start consuming it frequently, it will also silently start consuming you till you strike a balance or an exit. While these folks – who would very soon start AIB in future were cruising – two very complex events were shaping in parallel:

  • The freshness of ch**t, fu**i, be**nch*d, racial, regional, religious jokes were fading under the over dosage of repetitive connotations
  • A very unfortunate rape case in Delhi forced everyone to ponder what is wrong with the society; the range of reasons varied from chowmein, mobile phones to mentality and social restrictions

During this phase, the Indian moral dilemma to offend others or feel the guilt of offensive jokes suffered the most. The going to become AIB team folks were also actively expressing their concerns on the social media. They were hailed for writing offensive sexist jokes in the past, but post Delhi rape, they started smashing politicians, babas, maulansa, Chetan Bhagats, Honey Singhs, actors, twitter handles, for stating anything which had sexism in it.

On 30 June 2013, Khamba wrote a piece on Firstpost: How Digvijaya’s ‘tunch maal’ comment helps the fight against sexism in which he talked about patriarchy and sexsim

https://twitter.com/gkhamba/status/362092748360257536

On 19 Jan 2013, Rohan wrote: I’m going to teach my nephew to always respect women. I’ll argue against chauvinism in every place I meet it (Every place should also include Roast, unless we agree that Roast is an out-of-space thing.

When Time of India was blasted for OMG! Deepika Padukone’s cleavage post

An article on TOI which infuraited lots of people
An article on TOI which infuriated lots of people

This is how people reacted:

Deepika Padukone attended AIB Knockout and she was fine with the public joke that OMG! Deepika Padukone’s cleavage photograph in Times of India was taken by Ranveer Singh. 

Rajneesh Kapoor, who would have shown his frustration for any other guys if such joke was cracked, just tweeted a link with Oh boy.

https://twitter.com/MrMrRajneesh/status/560796777968721920

Over the time, my moral dilemma to react on offensive jokes has made a peaceful pact with conditions. I am not astonished until such jokes are created intentionally to annoy/target me or they play with the law of inertia, by which I mean: people try to justify and criticize such jokes based on the reference of inertia.

https://twitter.com/thetanmay/status/312981747140796417

Irrespective of the definition of ROAST or unfamiliarity of Indians with its format, I enjoyed the show. I enjoyed the good spirit in which everyone took the joke on themselves. Though the overdose of Fat Tanmay and Black Shakya references started appearing forceful and ordinary after a point of time, but the overall show had much more than that.

A painful observation was to see the dual nature of people who, in general, become preachy when sexists, regional, or color are cracked by normal people, but they enjoy such jokes when these elite standups crack that. I didn’t know the meaning of Roast, but I also doubt that most of the people who showed the dual behavior understand it. The other concern is – can we publically broadcast (AIB claimed that the show witnessed millions of youtube hits) what we stood against with just a Disclaimer? Is Ranveer Singh not tampering those complex social layers when he poses for a male casting couch on a stage publicized to millions? Should we accept that Pareneeti Chopra being fucked by 10 folks in front of 4,ooo people joke is less damaging than “tunch maal” reference of Digvijay Singh, just because there was a disclaimer or is stated by a politician?

I finished the show with satisfaction and smile on my face, but the old dilemma did sprout up again: “While it’s important to push the boundaries, are we sure that by cracking such jokes, the right message is getting delivered?”

3 key takeaways from Obama’s tour to India

0

Though US President Barack Obama’s visited India as the State guest for Republic Day, Prime Minister Narendra Modi ensured substantial work was done on the foreign policy front too. That PM Modi was already taking a different approach to foreign policy was evident right from his swearing in. However, the broad contours of India’s reach was less evident so. This was also due to the experts’ fixation on Pakistan being part of every foreign policy decision of successive governments. Here are the 3 key developments that I think are critical:

Pakistan is best ignored

PM Modi’s stated focus on economic revival of India’s fortunes must have given us a hint. Pakistan is not a big economic partner for India. At best, they were a noisy neighbour. There was not a single word uttered on Pakistan during the entire visit of President Obama. Of course, mainstream media continued their rants.

However, my guess is that Modi has understood that Pakistan PM Nawaz Sharif is not serious of improving relations. Exchanging pleasantries during the SAARC summit aside, there has hardly been any noteworthy developments reported. When a Pakistan cannot support India’s request for an International Yoga Day, it is foolhardy to expect anything sensible from them.

PM Modi also seems to employ the “Reagan doctrine” to tackle Pakistan. Former US President Ronald Reagan substantially increased US military budget and thus showing the will and initiated the process of domination of America. This effectively changed the balance of power between Russia and US. Reagan also looked any altercations in other countries through the prism of US-Russia relations. Thus, Reagan convinced the West European partners to limit trade with Russia which resulted in squeezing Russian economy.

PM Modi is similarly systematically wooing and winning over erstwhile allies of Pakistan. With Obama not even mentioning the customary – “India and Pakistan need to resolve Kashmir issue bilaterally” – is a coup of sorts for PM Modi.

Carrot and Stick approach towards China

PM Modi did concede more to Obama in the joint statement when chiding China’s adventures in the South China Sea. NY Times reported that Modi was really irked that Chinese military ventured into Ladakh when their President was visiting India. This may only be partly true. PM Modi knows too well that China is only one of the few countries which can really invest in India in a big way, thus helping him in his economic agenda. Precisely for this reason, External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj will be dispatched to Beijing in the first week of February and PM Modi himself will be visiting Beijing later this year.

With the Chinese economy on the downward trajectory, as predicted by various agencies, India presents a huge opportunity for China to make a significant splash. Getting the Chinese leadership active on the economic agenda would be a mutually beneficial venture for both. Now that the government has decided to invest heavily into expanding the rail network in Arunachal Pradesh, there are bound to be hiccups. This is where Modi is hedging his bets with the US and Japan to keep the Chinese politburo on its toes. The joint statement from PM Modi and President Obama also called for continuing the “India-US-Japan Trilateral Dialogue”. This will be an interesting event to watch out for.

Afghanistan

Prior to the visit, one concern in the foreign policy media was about if Modi would request Obama to cancel his plans of troop withdrawal from Afghanistan. However, there has been no talk about it during or after the meetings. On the contrary, I think, India will be more actively engaged in the next phase of Afghanistan story. I would not be surprised to see Indian boots on ground, to compensate for the US withdrawals. There are two reasons for that:

  1. US has been asking India to be more responsible and active in foreign affairs, if it harbours hopes of being the permanent member of the UN Security Council. Modi may consider Afghanistan to be his ticket to that seat.2. Being a member of SAARC, it helps India to have all its member states.
  2. Being a member of SAARC, it helps India to have all its member states by its side for any eventuality. Being active in Afghanistan, strategically, may alter Pakistan’s terrorist havens on its Western border.

There have been other noteworthy news viz., economic partnership, 3 smart cities collaboration, et al. There has also been one sour point for me. Even if there was appreciation of India opening up FDI investment in defence sector, I do not think much will happen here. There is huge gap in understanding of IP related issues and I do not see technology transfer very soon. Assembling of parts or joint ventures may be the way forward till all issues are ironed out.

Nevertheless, PM Modi did charm India with the invite to President Obama and various reports in NY Times does suggest that US has indeed been, positively, taken aback by the active engagement from India’s side. Another step towards Achchhe Din.

#RavishAsksBedi and then lies about what he asked her

0

I had always felt that Ravish Kumar from NDTV was a competent and truthful journalist. That although he may have some anti-BJP bias, he wouldn’t resort to fabrication. He may show the worst side of BJP, but wouldn’t create something from nowhere.

I was finally proved wrong.

I am referring to Ravish’s blog on NDTV “I am not a Super-Journalist”.

The blog is broadly a transcript of his #RavishAsksBedi interview, which went pretty viral for supposedly “exposing” Kiran Bedi.

I want to draw your attention to only one incident he mentions in this blog, about the towing of Indira Gandhi’s card. I have already explored whether Bedi did tow the car or not, but this post is about something different. It is about how Ravish has created fake statements to support a narrative he has chosen. I reproduce the relevant paragraphs: *Edit: The said page has now been modified by Ravish. Attaching a screenshot of the original text, which was hosted on another site

“You had towed Indira Gandhi’s car,” I said this while trying to keep pace with her. She stopped when she heard this. “No, I didn’t tow her car away,” she replied. I thought to myself, so who told us these tales about Kiran Bedi towing Indira Gandhi’s car? It has become a sort of urban legend. It has become a part of her image. Kiran Bedi reaffirmed that she never had the Prime Minister’s car towed, but that it was Nirmal Singh, who was then the Assistant Commissioner of Police who ordered that. So why didn’t Nirmal Singh become a hero? Why doesn’t the world praise Nirmal Singh? Why doesn’t any political party give a ticket to Nirmal Singh?

The only success of this interview was that an old fact came to light in the public domain in her own words. Kiran Bedi said that the car was towed away by Nirmal Singh, but she never succumbed to pressure to bend the rules for VVIPS. But the question still arises, why should someone put pressure on either Kiran Bedi or Nirmal Singh if a car from the Prime Minister’s Office is given a ticket. Kiran Bedi herself admitted that the car was not Indira Gandhi’s nor was it of the Prime Minister’s. When the car was given a ticket by Nirmal Singh, Indira Gandhi wasn’t in it. When I asked Kiran Bedi whether the car was a part of the PM’s convoy, she said that the car belonged to the PMO. It’s anyone’s guess how many cars the office of the PM might have. 

The video of the interview is here. To get to the relevant portion, you have to start from 16.10 and watch it only till 17.05

What Ravish's Blog saysWhat the Interview Video says
It was Nirmal Singh, who was then the Assistant Commissioner of Police who ordered that (towing of car)Sub Inspector Nirmal Singh towed it
(Obviously since Nirmal Singh is an SI, he can't order it). Who retired as ACP now.
She said that the car belonged to the PMOThe car belonged to PM House

On the face of it these are minor distortions, but I believe these have been deliberately done, to provide the necessary “spin”.

Firstly Bedi repeated twice that Nirmal Singh was SI then, and has retired as ACP now. Even Ravish repeats after her “Nirmal Singh retired as ACP”. Yet, in his blog, Ravish says Nirmal Singh was “the then ACP” and “ordered” the towing.

This is a deliberate lie to discredit Bedi, by saying Bedi had no role in this. That’s why he goes on to ask, why no party gave a ticket to Nirmal Singh. Even to this crooked question, my answer is simple: “Ravish ji, nobody is giving Kiran Bedi a ticket ONLY because she had a role to play in towing a PM’s car”.

Secondly Ravish claims that ‘Bedi said the car was from the PMO’. The video clearly shows that Bedi said the car was from the “PM House”.

Again, Ravish purposely changes a few words to arrive at a false argument: “It’s anyone’s guess how many cars the office of the PM might have”. I for one do not know how many cars the PMO has or the PM’s house has, but I know that the PMO has numerous employees (as of today the number is around 400), so it can have numerous cars, but the PM house may have only a few handful of cars. So you see why it was convenient for Ravish to change “house” to “office”

It is on these two subtle, but important lies, that Ravish first says credit shouldn’t go to Kiran Bedi, and then plays down the entire car towing event also. 

I have to agree with Ravish on one thing though; he is nowhere near a super journalist.

Did Ravish Kumar “expose” Kiran Bedi on the car-towing incident?

Let me start by making this clear: Till today I had no idea anybody had towed away Indira Gandhi’s car, when she was the Prime Minister, for a parking violation. It was only when I saw some people on my Twitter timeline rejoicing that Ravish Kumar had managed to extract a confession from Kiran Bedi on this issue, did I realise that something like this ever happened. And because of this, I believe I have a chance to objectively analyse the facts, rather be driven by propaganda fed for years.

First, let us see what this “confession” was. I present a transcript of the relevant portion from the interview:

Ravish: Did you tow Indira Gandhi’s car?

Bedi: SI Nirmal singh picked it

Ravish: Oh excellent! Accha!

Bedi: Let’s be respectful to each other

Ravish: *Avoids eye contact*Hmmm..

Bedi: When I was asked will you take action against him, I said no, I will reward him because of his courage

This apparently was the confession. And the reason why this is so significant to a few is that apparently Kiran Bedi, until recently, claimed in her Twitter Bio that she “Towed PM’s car for Traffic Violation”. I have never followed Kiran Bedi so I can’t verify this claim, But a twitter user @scotchism did post the following screenshot which shows the above words. Again I have no way to verify this, and such images can easily be generated. As another user @ankurs7 pointed out, this is indeed a screenshot of her profile as on 11th January 2014.

Untitled

But before I saw this, I was shown this page from Kiran Bedi’s own website www.KiranBedi.com, by another Twitter user @St_Hill. The page contains two newspaper clippings from August 1982 (when the actual towing took place), which very clearly show that Bedi never towed the vehicle herself, but only staunchly defended the work done by SI Nirmal Singh.

I checked the earliest possible version of this page, to see if this was modified recently, but even this version was the same as what you see today. So if Bedi, via her own website never claimed that she towed the PM’s car, why is it such big news when she admits to the same in an Interview with Ravish?

For this, I take you to where it all began, the tweet on my TL which informed me that such an incident even happened. Twitter user @Joydas tweeted this article of the Economic Times, which says Kiran Bedi said, and I quote, “I knew that I will be transferred when I decided to lift Indira Gandhi’s car (for wrong parking). I gave a thought to it and decided to do what was right then“. She said this, at a school function in Bhopal. Now if the reporters have quoted her correctly, this sounds like Kiran Bedi claiming she personally towed the vehicle. Which is why her “confession” on Ravish’s show makes news.

Her statement can definitely be misleading for school children, but people who are more knowledgeable and mature than school children should interpret it in the correct manner.

Her own website says she never towed any car. She was the Deputy Police Commissioner (Traffic) at that time. Given that a Deputy Commissioner would never go on the road and personally tow a vehicle for wrong parking, Kiran Bedi’s statement can be understood in a different perspective.

Let us say if after ten years, Modi says in a speech “Maine Ganga ko saaf kar diya”, does it mean he personally went into the river to clean it? Or did he do all that was needed to get it done? And what about the common slogan from Congress that “Rajiv Gandhi brought computers to India”. Surely Rajiv Gandhi didn’t stand in the Customs Red Channel waiting to declare thousands of computers!

Similarly, as the news report on Bedi’s site says, she “started a drive against wrong parking. As per the report on the Hindustan Times, Nirmal Singh towed the vehicle once he was challenged to take action against the PM’s car. To respond to such a challenge, a mere SI would probably need the backing of his seniors, which could have come from the “drive” Bedi had started almost a year before the incident. And this backing was clearly shown, when Bedi categorically said that there was no question of taking any action against the traffic sub-inspector“.

When the entire matter is seen in this context it is clear that:

A. Bedi did not personally tow any vehicle

B. She started a campaign which culminated into this incident

C. She backed her officer for his actions

D. Her official website never tried to claim that she was the person who towed it

Where Bedi can be faulted is for her speech at the school function where she said (as per Economic Times) that she towed the vehicle. It’s wrong here only because she said it to school children, without giving them the entire picture. But Bedi must also be congratulated for taking on the Prime Minister, that too one of the toughest PMs India has seen, and backing her juniors to the hilt, without succumbing to any political pressure. It is because of this attitude that she’s alleged to have not gotten some Medals for her service.

P.S. Before you brand me a Bedi Bhakt, read this earlier piece by me.

Update: Did Tharoor really blame Congress leaders for Sunanda murder?

0

This report – “Shashi Tharoor drops a bomb, says some in Congress know who killed Sunanda” – was curated from a news report published by the Hindi newspaper Punjab Kesari.

A few days after publishing this report, we received a legal notice from a lawyer claiming to represent Mr Shashi Tharoor. The notice asked us to remove the report from our site since the lawyer claimed Tharoor had not made the remarks, as reported by Punjab Kesari.

While we were consulting our legal advisers on the best course forward, we realised that Punjab Kesari had abruptly removed the story from its site, without giving any explanations. Screenshot of the original story can be seen here and the tweet from Punjab Kesari which carried the story can be seen here:


We then began to search independently for news reports which would corroborate the report of Punjab Kesari. However, being a small team with very limited resources, we couldn’t get confirmation from public sources.

In such a scenario, we are removing the report as we can’t verify the content that was originally published by Punjab Kesari. Either no other Media outlet has reported this or other media outlets too have been asked to remove this story by the office of Mr Tharoor.

In the absence of any explanation from Punjab Kesari, we cannot confirm whether the original report by them was erroneous or if it was removed for other reasons best known to them.

We regret this inconvenience to our readers.

Kim Kardashians of the Indian Media

0

Among celebrities of every country there is always this peculiar group of people whose reason for being famous remains frustratingly elusive. They are not brilliant artists or exceptionally good looking or weirdly creative. Unable to pin any particular admirable quality down, we call them famous just for being famous. This is the group the Kim Kardashians and Paris Hiltons belong to.

Unfortunately in India this trait has extended to envelope most of the media landscape where we have ended up with too many Kim Kardashians and Paris Hiltons in our journalism. Television screens, glossy newspapers, hurriedly written books and over-priced magazines keep assuring us that these stalwarts deserve all our respect but just a hint of skepticism is enough to bring this strenuously built facade collapsing under its own weight.

If not for anything else, the ten year UPA rule provided innumerable opportunities to journalists to permanently establish their credentials. There were so many flabbergasting stories of misuse of power and corruption coming out from Delhi, that our journalists should have been fretting over the agony of choice. But none of the so called top journalists broke the 2G scam, Coalgate, Adarsh, CWG scam or any of the countless gifts from UPA. The corruption was instead uncovered by NGOs, individual MPs, private citizens and the CAG. Even more criminal was the lack of proper investigative follow-ups to these breaking stories. Of course the TRPs demanded that the media make a lot of hoopla around these events but instead of uncovering new facts and following the money trail, our elite scribes just moderated shouting matches between party spokespersons.

Such lack of curiosity would have been mysterious if not for the timely release of the Radia tapes which did a splendid job of encapsulating how compromised and beholden the Indian media is to those very powers it is supposed to keep a watch on. No wonder we never see them breaking genuine stories anymore. And when famous journalists are no longer breaking stories or following up on important events, they become like Kim Kardashian. They are famous just for being famous.

When was the last time the Kim Kardashians of the media took a break from typing their gag-reflex inducing tweets and exposed a new scam or conducted a truly memorable interview? When did they last take a time-out from assaulting us with images of politicians launching their books and instead spared time for an investigative feature on those very people? What we see instead are chequered careers built on questionable methods. Their supposed Hall of Fame moments like the coverage of the 2002 riots and the 26/11 attacks have instead come accompanied with umpteen accusations of irresponsible reporting which seem to qualify those exploits more for the Hall of Shame. And when the buck finally tried to stop with some of them with the release of the Radia tapes, we saw how rickety the foundations of their principled reputation truly were.

When the top echelons of Indian media is overcrowded with sell-outs, does this mean that objective and genuine journalism is impossible in India? That’s not true at all. Our country has seen some astounding work in the past. Chitra Subramaniam almost single handedly brought down the Rajiv Gandhi government with her work on the Bofors scam. Sucheta Dalal blew the lid off the biggest financial scam in India in the nineties which forced the government to introduce safeguards on how the markets function. Arun Shourie and S Gurumurthy bravely laid bare the perils of crony capitalism in the eighties. P Sainath filed multiple reports from the darkest corners of rural India which forced governments to rethink their ideas on poverty alleviation and development. These journalists tackled different issues but a common theme of hard work, painstaking research and an investigative attitude bonded them together. And they did their work without any outlandish bombast or arrogantly pretending to know what the nation wants to hear. Instead they chose their stories based on what the nation needed to hear.

In today’s scheme of things, fact, figures, research and nuance scare the Kim Kardashians of media more than anything else. To hide their ignorance of details, they use phrases like ‘in the big picture’. They rephrase sundry motherhood statements and try to sell them as original opinions. Incorrect reporting is casually explained away by claiming that situations were evolving rapidly.  Instead of impartially elucidating different perspectives of a story for their audience, they try to force fit all stories into their favourite running narrative. Nothing is more precious to them than their pet narratives. They stick by it no matter how many facts, realities or truths are hurled at them. Their valiant attempts to present reality in the manner which suits their world view would make Don Quixote proud.

One could have been more forgiving had it been an original world view but it seldom is. It is usually different versions of the same rants one might hear in a Lutyens drawing room after the third glass of Scotch. The Kim Kardashians of Indian media have built their own cosy club where newcomers can join only if they share their polished mediocrity and agree to periodically yell out that the emperors are indeed wearing fine outfits. In this club, the ability to ingratiate oneself with the politically powerful is seen as a badge of honour instead of a question mark on their independence. The higher up one is, in the club hierarchy, the more liberties he or she enjoys. Ethically compromising situations are swept aside by calling them errors of judgement. Manufacturing stories about coup attempts which are a shade less fictional than a Harry Potter novel are brushed off as minor inconveniences.

This club would have continued to live long and prosper if not for the unexpected advent of social media. Suddenly the Kim Kardashians were being called out for what they really were. Vacuous, bungling semi-professionals with egos the size of an Airbus 380. The erudite and principled profiles that they had built for themselves over years began to rapidly peel away to reveal petty individuals desperate to maintain their sense of superiority.  It is one thing to browbeat one Chaitanya Kunte into apologizing but suppressing millions of Chaitanya Kuntes from every corner of the country demanding accountability is a whole different ball game. And if current evidence is anything to go by, the Kim Kardashians of the Indian media are fighting a losing battle.

Next time you turn on the television and see one of these elite journalists on the screen screaming questions, ask yourself some questions of your own. When was the last time this gentleman or lady really shook the foundations of power? When was the last time they went after someone really powerful without a second thought about their careers? When was the last time they truly helped us learn something we needed to know? When was the last time they behaved as journalists? The answer to those questions will help you understand how similar they are to the Kim Kardashians of the world.

P.S.: Paris Hilton and Kim Kardashian have been used as metaphors. Please don’t accuse me of sexism. Most Kardashians of Indian media are men.

Did the government really “remove” Secularism and Socialism from Indian Constitution?

0

If we are to believe some “intellectuals”, “journalists” and members of the MSM, the BJP led Government of India has found a unique method of “amending” the constitution: Simply “remove” or “photoshop” pictures of the preamble of the constitution:

From a CPI(ML) leader:


From a Times of India Journalist:

From a Stand-Up Comedian:


Reddit Tweet, Retweeted by Journalist Kunal Majumder

Even a news article by The Indian Express carried a report on this. According to this piece, even Congress Leader Manish Tewari believed the Indian Government had “removed” the words “Secular and Socialist republic” from the constitution, in the Advertisement that it had released.

The truth however, is something different.

The image used by the Government, in the advertisement is in fact of the Original, Un-Amended, Un-Edited preamble to the constitution. A copy of the same is easily available online.

The words “secular” and “socialist” were inserted into the preamble of the constitution through the 42nd amendment during the Emergency. In fact, this act of amendment was one of the black periods of our democracy and an attack on the spirit of the constitution.

However, our armchair activists are calling this advertisement an attack on the spirit of the constitution when the real crime was committed by Indira Gandhi during the Emergency.

This advertisement doesn’t amend the constitution. The only intention of the Government in using this original picture in the advertisement was most probably to highlight the original untampered document, and not its content. It is like showcasing a piece of history.

But our over-enthusiastic journalists were quick to use this half-cooked knowledge to claim that the Modi Government willfully and mischievously altered the image. In fact, it’s them, who want the image to be altered, thanks to their paranoia.

The image, which is barely used in the background of the advertisement, basically celebrates an old copy of the constitution’s preamble. It is like showcasing a historical souvenir.

Tomorrow if a government advertisement carries an old newspaper clipping that shows Goa not a part of India (as was the case till 1961), will these people start outraging and demanding that the map in old paper clipping be “amended”?

Let us be clear – if the government issues a written text that deliberately removes the words “socialist” (we at OpIndia.com believe it was a tragedy to add this term) and “secular”, it indeed should be a cause for concern, but it is silly to outrage at a picture that shows an old copy, which celebrates our constitutional heritage.

Obama’s anti-religious-discrimination statement becomes anti-Hindutva sermon

US President Barrack Obama made a speech today from Siri Fort in Delhi, where he touched upon many issues. He spoke about his last visit to India, about India’s Jan Dhan Yojana, Nuclear Deal, Ganga cleaning, and also about Religious tolerance.

Obama spoke about times in his life, when he was “treated differently” because of his colour or his alleged Islamic faith. He added that “No society is immune from the darkest impulses of men and too often religion has been used to tap into those instead of the light of God“. About India specifically, he had this remark, “India will succeed as long as it’s not splintered along religious lines”

All his points were perfectly valid, and indeed were a message to all the people who still ostracise people based on their religion. It was a message for unity among all religions, without bashing any particular group. Also, it was a small part of Obama’s 30 minute long address, which touched upon many other subjects.

Still, Journalist Kunal Majumder, who earlier worked for Tarun Tejpal, labelled the speech as a “speech against Hindutva”, when Obama didn’t mention any religion in particular!


//platform.twitter.com/widgets.jsFor some reason, noted “Neutral Journalist” Nikhil Wagle, felt that this was only meant for Modi, not for anyone from any religion who practises Religious extremism:


//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Sara Jacob, anchor from NDTV, asked whether reactions should be taken from Hindu leaders. Obviously secularism dictates that Christian Evangelists and Muslim hard-liners shouldn’t be questioned on religious extremism.


//platform.twitter.com/widgets.jsSiddharth Vardarajan, another journalist, said that Obama is saying what Modi should have said, but didn’t say:


//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Perhaps nobody showed this speech of Modi to him, where Modi asks for at least a 10-year moratorium on caste and communal violence.

Ashok Malik and Sadanand Dhume, Journalists and Political Commentators, were some of the few people to call the bullshit being spread by other journalists:


//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

One can’t fault Obama here, because he is unaware of the definition of Secularism in India, according to which, Hindus are communal by default, while all minorities are secular by default, and anyone questioning secularism of Minorities gets branded Communal.

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Attacks on Modi show “How can a lower caste person wear his own branded suit”?

0

Casteism is deep rooted in the Indian society – an unfortunate fact that no one can deny. This vice is not exclusive to any region or even religion. We have seen people changing religions, but they fail to change their thinking. There are separate graveyards and places of worships for different castes even among Muslims and Christians who have converted from Hinduism.

It happens because casteism is a form of feudalism and racism. It doesn’t need any religious scripture’s sanction to flourish in a mind that is affected by it. Thus a change in religion often doesn’t result in the change in the mindset.

But it’s not just religions – which are world’s oldest ideologies – but even modern ideologies that have failed to break this mindset.

The biggest example is that of communism. Communist parties should ideally believe only in “class” and not caste. They should have been opposing caste based reservations because it clubs people belonging to the proletariat and bourgeoisie classes in a single bucket – that of a caste – and paints them as having common interests and shared identity.

This is in direct conflict with the core ideas of communism – where class is the primary identity of a person and the interests of the proletariat often clash with that of the bourgeoisie.

However, Indian communist parties realized and conceded that caste was a much stronger factor in the Indian society. In fact, there have been accusations of casteist discrimination even among the cadre of communist parties – proving that even change in ideologies has not resulted in change in the mindset, so far casteism is concerned.

This is the reason why the communist parties decided to support the policy of caste based reservations despite it being in conflict with their core beliefs.

Many “intellectuals”, who lean towards left in ideology, never fail to bring in any element of casteist mindset while discussing points that range from women’s emancipation to even IT industry. They always argue that casteism is deep rooted in the Indian society, and the subaltern impact it has on Indians and it can’t be ignored.

However, they balk at even remote suggestions that their hatred for Narendra Modi could be born out of this mindset.

It is part of their hypocrisy that defines them, but I believe that these intellectuals would do themselves a favor by introspecting how much casteist and elitists they are when it comes to Narendra Modi.

Modi suit on R-Day
Lower caste people are not supposed to be well dressed?

Their latest disgust for Modi is over the suit that he wore on the Republic Day. It had his name printed on it in form of stripes. One had to zoom in with really strong camera lens to find out that they were not stripes but the Narendra Modi’s name.

The fact that one needed to zoom in shows the obsession our left-leaning “intellectual” class has with Modi, but that has been the case for ages now. What they have been betraying thanks to their obsession, is the subaltern casteist and feudal mindset.

One of these “intellectuals” who has been most acerbic and unhinged in showcasing his hatred for Modi has been Nikhil Wagle – a Mumbai based journalist who was allegedly fired from the media group Network18 for non-performance.

Wagle declared that Modi was a diseased:


Wagle never declared the members of Nehru-Gandhi family diseased who gave Bharat Ratnas to themselves. Nor did he find it a diseased when hundreds of public properties were named after members of the family.

But it is not only about comparison with Nehru-Gandhi family. If that family printed their names everywhere in the country, that doesn’t give license to Narendra Modi to do the same.

But did Modi print his name on Ministry of Textiles building? He did it on his private suit. And who knows, he might auction that to earn money and donate it to charity for the girl child, as he has been doing when he was the Chief Minister of Gujarat.

There are many crazy Modi bhakts who will pay in millions for this suit, and being a smart trader that he is, Modi could as well use this free international publicity for his suit to auction it. You can’t rule it out. And remember this article (if it gets published) when it happens.

Coming back to the hatred for Modi for whatever he does, one can’t rule out the element of casteism and a feudal mindset when they see Modi wearing a suit that has personal branding.

How is it different from having an iPhone with own name inscribed on it? Many do that! But that is something only high class and high caste people should do.

The lower castes, the chaiwala, is not expected to flaunt any any such personalization. He is not supposed to make any fashion statement, because look, he is an uncouth unshaven heathen who can’t speak English the way we do.

No matter who much they deny it, the feudalistic and casteist mentality is one of the various factors what is making them hate Modi. I don’t want to point it out, but just look at the castes of those who are most acerbic – from Congress supporting journalist Mihir Sharma* and likes of Nikhil Wagle, from AAP supporting comedians Rohan Joshi to Tanmay Bhatt, to writers like Pankaj Mishra and Girish Karnad, to celebrities like Mahesh Bhatt and Vishal Bhardwaj – almost everyone is a Brahmin, and thus suffering from a risk of nursing a Brahaminical mindset.

I want to make it clear that I don’t believe in linking someone’s caste to their ideology, but I am forced to do the same as the “left liberal” commentators invariably do the same when it suits them. I am using the same arguments that they use, and thus they should be fine with it. I am not fine with it, even though it suits me on this occasion.

The current generation may not remember, but even BR Ambedkar was ridiculed when he wrote that “English suit”. People claimed it was not “Indian” thing to do when other revolutionaries like Mahatma Gandhi were shedding clothes and those like Jawaharlal Nehru were wearing khaadi. But today we know how big a symbolism was that suit.

The same mentality is responsible for ridiculing Modi for wearing a designer suit.

What is needed is that this bunch introspects if they would have done the same if Narendra Modi was an upper caste accented English speaking Indian? Wouldn’t they have been celebrating a “Modi suit” like they celebrate a “Nehru jacket” and “Rajiv Gandhi shawl”?

I know they won’t introspect, and will continue to betray their feudal and casteist hatred against Modi continuously and prove us right. They are welcome. They will only prove my theory.

(contributed through email by someone who doesn’t want to identify himself, as it will also expose his caste. OpIndia.com doesn’t fully subscribe to the views expressed by the author, but we believe it’s an interesting take on the whole controversy)

*update (12th June 2015): the writer of this article had assumed that journalist Mihir Sharma was a Brahmin Hindu, but a latest video reveals that Mihir Sharma was raised a Christian. The editorial team at OpIndia.com has thus struck off the name from the article.