In what might be a ‘real’ attack against press freedom, in an announcement made on Twitter, the senior editor and business head of Zee News, Sudhir Chaudhary revealed that the Government of West Bengal had filed an FIR against him and Zee News reporter Pooja Mehta for covering the Dhulagarh Riots, which largely went unnoticed by a large section of the media and eminent mediapersons as part of their ‘selective outrage policy‘.
Not just did the Mamata government file an FIR, it did so under non-bailable sections, Sudhir Chaudhary claimed. He further commented about the FIR, saying a democratically elected government was trying to stifle all those voices that go against its wishes.
A democratically elected Govt using police to curb the media which shows riots story against its wishes?So undemocratic!Whats the message??
This appears to be in series of events that have been orchestrated to completely black out the details of what transpired in Dhulagarh and nearby areas. Earlier the BJP party delegate was not allowed to enter the riot torn area by the Howrah police.
This is what transpired in Dhulagarh, as described here:
On 13th December Muslims brought out a procession complete with loudspeakers blaring Hindi film music on 13 December to celebrate Eid-e-Milad (the birthday of Prophet Mohammed), which actually fell on 12 December and was a public holiday. On 13 December, Hindus at Dhulagarh village, like in the rest of the country, were observing Margashirsha Purnima. Hindus at the village requested those in the procession to lower the volume of the loudspeaker since the music was interfering with some rituals. This incensed a section of those in the procession and they started attacking Hindu homes and shops. According to local people, the attackers were non-local Muslims. Hindu houses and shops were looted and then set ablaze while police who reached the village were attacked by bombs and prevented from stopping the rioters.
Now it will be interesting to see what would the reaction of the the Editors Guild of India be. Just recently the body of top journalists had drawn the conclusion that the token 1 day token ban on NDTV for giving away security locations during the Pathankot attack was reminiscent of the Emergency days. So surely an FIR using non-bailable offences, which might lead to media persons actually going to jail just like during the emergency, might warrant some form of a protest from the Guild?
Also what needs to be seen is that how does the whole intolerance brigade react to the situation and would people now return the Banga Bibhushan award which the West Bengal government gives to personalities from various fields.
This is the Zee News report, for which the FIR is reported to have been filed:
[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2R_f3_onps]
Mohammed Shami may have troubled many batsmen in his career through his swing and speed, but on 23rd December, Shami himself became a victim of religious bigotry and pseudo-liberal swing. The ace-pacer posted a photo on his Facebook page in which his wife was wearing a sleeveless gown.
This was enough for religious fanatics to abuse Shami, demean his wife, and remind him morality of Islam which he must have followed being a Muslim:
Snapshot of comments from Shami’s facebook wall
Shami is not the first victim of religious bigotry. In 2005, a cleric issued a fatwa against Sania Mirza for wearing short skirts and revealing tops on the international tennis circuit. He said that Islam does not allow women to wear skirts, shorts, and sleeveless tops in public.
The comments on Shami’s Facebook page made similar arguments, but political correctness of media made sure that the ensuing outrage, which took place only after another cricketer Mohammad Kaif joined the debate, steered clear of mentioning this aspect.
Just like it was a “Truck” that killed 9 people in Berlin, this time, it was “social media” which trolled Shami. It was not religious fanaticism, but internet trolling; it was not extremism or bigotry, but some stupid people intruding personal life of a celebrity.
Controversial NDTV journalist Barkha Dutt had this to say:
Seriously ? This is true ? If so shameful. Not because there are “bigger issues” but because it’s no one’s business. Vile, utterly https://t.co/cQd4eJ4NbR
We have seen how Barkha was all over the place when a robbery attempt in a Delhi School was converted into an “attack on Christians”. We have seen how Barkha takes no time to lump any abrasive behaviour with “Right Wing” or “Hindutva Extremists”, but this time she was quite restrained.
The same Barkha, who discusses patriarchy during Karwa-Chauth, couldn’t smell patriarchy or misogyny in those Facebook replies to Shami’s picture. Take a look at her earlier reactions:
RW trolls & their silly little hash tags prove what I said in this talk. These lynch mobs have subverted very idea of India’s Nationalism https://t.co/oBl2i9AWdl
RW trolls & their silly little hash tags prove what I said in this talk. These lynch mobs have subverted very idea of India’s Nationalism https://t.co/oBl2i9AWdl
This double standard and hypocrisy is the reason why many people across the globe have started disliking the term “liberal”, even though this should have been an aspiration. Selective shielding and selective shaming not only abet crime, but it also creates discontent.
In the middle of all this, Twitter user Raju Das poked Barkha in NDTV style. An agitated Barkha couldn’t tolerate the spin; the same spin which NDTV tries with others:
Amidst all these interactions, the reply of Kaif to Barkha came as a googly. The question here is did Kaif write this ‘awareness and acceptance’ thing for Barkha or did he write it for those who abused Shami? It actually fits both the cases:
Ji @BDUTT .
Jhagda Jhagdi mat karo.
Sabko sweekaar karo. The first step towards change is awareness,second is acceptance. https://t.co/sxhHMvY7Eg
But Barkha Dutt wasn’t done yet. A random social media account tweeted a news story about a diktat issued by Hindu group Bajrang Dal, coming up with a dress code for women. The account tried to draw an equivalence between Shami’s case and this story. Barkha Dutt wasted no time in sharing this tweet and asked all those who stood up against the bigotry shown towards Shami, to take up this issue too:
Agree and hope all those who stood up against the muck Shami endured will stand up against this as well. https://t.co/7WwFqjVrkf
But there was a hitch. For people to take up this issue, they would have travel back in time to May 2010, because the Bajrang Dal story was from 2010!!
A random account posts an old news to juxtapose it with a current news, just to soften the impact of the current news, and Barkha Dutt plays along! Why did a random account pick up a random story which was 6 and a half years old? Why was this story picked up exactly when religious bigots (from another religion) attacked Shami? Why did Barkha Dutt share this tweet and try to draw a false equivalence? Perhaps, to shield radical Islamic bigots.
News channel NDTV and its controversial journalist Barkha Dutt are often alleged to be close to the Congress party and its leaders, so when a Congress spokesperson attacks an NDTV journalist alleging bias against the party, it sounds hilariously absurd.
The same happened earlier today on Twitter when social-media-user-turned-Congress-spokesperson Priyanka Chaturvedi accused Barkha Dutt of ‘making a valiant attempt to save Prime Minister Narendra Modi from being investigated in the Sahara and Birla diaries’.
Priyanka was most probably referring to Barkha’s tweets where she argued that Sheila Dixit – Congress leader and party’s Chief Ministerial candidate in the upcoming UP assembly elections – was being made a scapegoat by the Congress, for Dixit’s name also features in the documents Rahul Gandhi claims as a proof of Narendra Modi accepting bribe.
It should be noted that Supreme Court has found those documents unreliable and refused to accept them as credible proof warranting further investigation. However, Rahul Gandhi has been repeating his allegations in election rallies. In absence of legal support, what Congress needs is media support that repeats Rahul Gandhi’s charges without cross questioning the same.
Perhaps Congress spokesperson Priyanka Chaturvedi trusted NDTV to play that role, but was saddened to see Barkha Dutt taking a different, though not opposite, line. Priyanka, though, specifically mentioned and praised NDTV’s Ravish Kumar for doing what the party wanted.
So essentially the grouse against Barkha Dutt was not about ‘saving’ Narendra Modi from investigations – because courts, not media, will decide if further investigations need to be undertaken after fresh evidences, if any – but it was about not helping Rahul Gandhi.
Barkha didn’t look amused with such allegations where a colleague was being praised more than her for helping the Congress party. She tagged the official Twitter handle of the Congress in her response, an act that was virtually termed ‘childish’ by Priyanka Chaturvedi.
But was it a real fight? Are two friends turning foes? Not many on Twitter thought so:
This coordinated salsa between Congress and Barkha to regain legitimacy is becoming quite hilarious https://t.co/r6QQ9HPbj8
Back in December 2014 Rahul Gandhi came out with a grand attack on the Modi Government accusing it of only working for 3-4 corporate houses. Taking his accusations of the Modi government favoring corporates a step further, this December Rahul Gandhi attacked Modi personally accusing him of taking bribes from Sahara and Birla groups during his tenure as the Gujarat CM.
On Sahara and Birla, Rahul Gandhi was merely repeating what former AAP leader Prashant Bhushan had earlier alleged. Supreme Court had found Bhshan’s allegations weak and the court commented that anyone in the world could be accused of corruption if proofs like Sahara or Birla ‘diaries’ are deemed credible.
Now Rahul Gandhi’s charges of Modi government working for a few corporate houses is also turning out to be an embarrassment. The BJP has put out documents in the public that shows loans to the tune of ₹ 36.5 lakh crores being ‘waived off’ during UPA’s tenure.
Party also stated that the ₹ 72,000 crore loan owed by Gautam Adani and ₹ 1.13 lakh crores worth of loans to Ambani were also provided during the UPA tenure. Incidentally there also have been reports of Mukesh Ambani stating, ‘Congress to ab apni dukaan hai’, which was revealed in Radia tapes.
The truth – Modi government is in the process of ‘recovery’ of bad loans ‘doled out’ to big industrialists under UPA government. pic.twitter.com/YydH0NWd9s
The BJP also talked about Manmohan Singh’s 2011 statement about steps needing to be taken to help private sector entities if they get into difficulties, which was issued in the background of Kingfisher’s financial woes. On top of it, back in 2012 SBI, which already had an exposure of about ₹ 1400 crores towards Kingfisher, chose to provide a further ₹ 1500 cr in a fresh bailout. Rahul Gandhi had often termed that it was BJP that helped Vijay Mallya.
Apart from these, the nexus between DLF and Robert Vadra was alleged back in 2012. Interestingly what isn’t part of the common public discourse is the claim that the DLF-Gandhi family link actually began during Rajiv Gandhi’s time when Robert Vadra was nowhere in the picture. This Rajiv-DLF link has been written about in the autobiography of the DLF owner KP Singh.
Rahul Gandhi’s jibes about Ambani and Adani also have been found to be just rhetoric as these businessmen grew when Congress was in power. In September this year, we had published a fact check which debunked the theory of Ambani and Adani getting preferential treatment after Modi came to power.
Besides this, there also has been embarrassment for Rahul Gandhi and the Congress Party after it was reported that Rahul Gandhi himself had used a Sahara owned vehicle while campaigning in UP.
In a judgement last week by the Allahabad High Court, it ruled that the land belonging to a religious body can be acquired in the larger public interest. It said so while asking National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) and the Church of North India Association to work out the specifics to demolish or shift a Church for construction of a 6 lane road in Firozabad district of Uttar Pradesh.
The court observed that the constitution grants safeguards to a religious place but not in such cases. Court said that the Place of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, which the petitioners had pointed to, “bars any person from converting any place of worship of any religious denomination or different religious denomination”, but construction of a highway or bypass can’t be argued to be in conflict with the aforementioned act or any constitutional provision allowing freedom of religion.
The court, however, suggested that such a demolition or shifting should be deferred for a month in wake of festivals like Christmas and new year.
This is not for the first time when a religious boy has found infrastructure development project “hurting their religious sentiments”. There have been instances of authorities backing down under pressure.
For example in 2012, DMRC had to stop construction work after local Muslim leaders built a makeshift mosque on the ruins of Mughal-era Akbarabadi mosque near Red Fort, which was discovered while excavating for Metro construction work. Civil work in the area was stalled for over two years.
Similarly, an IAS officer Durga Shakti Nagpal was suspended by the UP government in 2013 for demolishing an unauthorised mosque wall being built on on public land. She was merely following court orders.
There were protests by Muslim organisations earlier this year in Vijaywada, Andhra Pradesh and construction of Inner Ring Road was stalled for months because a mosque and a temple had to be demolished. Hindu and Christian groups too protested on other occasions when around 30 temples and a portion of a church, all in Vijayawada, had to be demolished for road projects.
In a letter written to Kejriwal on 23rd December 2016, his mentor, guru Anna Hazare talked about Kejriwal’s lack of transparency in the donations received by the AAP, Kejriwal not fulfilling his promise and about the now shattered dream he once had with Kejriwal.
Here’s translation of the important bits that you shouldn’t miss:
Dear,
Shri. Arvind Kejriwal,
Chief Minister, New Delhi
After you became CM, this is the first time I am helplessly writing a letter to you. Reason being, the holy Rajghat Delhi where we together agitated against corruption, brought awareness in the country, in that same pious Rajghat, some people are agitating for a ban on all donations to the AAP. Its a very unfortunate incident. This is my impression.
In the letter which agitators have written to me, they write, you promised for an AAM AADMI PARTY AAP which will change the wrong politics played in this country, you also talked about bringing change in the system instead of bringing change in the ruling party, and also promised your countrymen that they will be shown honest politics in action. You had made promises that AAP would fully disclose every cent it received as donations on its website; there were many other promised too. But you didn’t fulfill those promises. In the letter, it is mentioned, for some time you disclosed all the donations received by the party from India and abroad, but since June 2016 you have removed the list of donors from the website. This shows differences in your sayings and your doings. This isn’t right for a social leader like you.
If change in system has to be brought in this country then one needs a leadership which can connect words and actions. You had promised to me and the society that you would usher in a change. Today I feel saddened that you didn’t fulfill that promise. I don’t wish to describe all the promises you made to me and the society. I just wish to say that both of us were together for many years. During that time we used to talk for hours about the welfare of society and the nation. Pure ethics, pure actions, spotless life, sacrifice, and strength to take humiliations, these five values are necessary to be managed for leadership. Additionally, truth should never be abandoned. We always used to talk about how and why an activist should exist.
All the talks we had about societal change are now going away. Now power, money has become important, so the feeling of gratefulness is fleeting. Otherwise the names of those who donated during our tough times would not have been removed from the website. Some people are going to Rajghat to agitate against ‘donation ban’. This shows that I don’t need anybody’s donation now. God has given me everything. Due to such attitude we have forgotten being grateful.
If your party continues to work this way then what is the difference between your party and other parties? People donate to many parties for selfish reasons. People donated to your party. But it was not for selfish reasons, but for change. You have written a book on Village self-governance(Swaraj). The road which you are taking now, would this road lead to village self-governance(Swaraj)? These are the questions I wish to raise.
I left all my social initiatives in Maharashtra and gave you a lot of time in the hope of going good to the society and the nation. I had a dream about how the society and nation should be. But its shattered now. It won’t cause me any harm as I am but a poor man, but it has caused irreplaceable damage to the people of our country. This is what I think.
Aamir Khan’s garbage film Dangal released this week and left us totally disappointed. We had so much expectation from Aamir that he will bash Hindutva and Modi in the film but on the contrary, it was a jingoistic film promoting nationalism.
We also hear that Right Wingers are flocking to the multiplexes to watch the film and that should be enough for us to boycott this propaganda to avoid sharing space with subhuman Sanghis, but that is not all.
Here are five reasons why we think every liberal must boycott the film:
1. Right from the start of the film, Aamir Khan talks about winning an international medal for the country. In this age of jingoism and rising hyper-nationalism, is it right to push this agenda of doing something for the country? Why couldn’t Aamir talk about doing something for humanity instead of doing something for India? We successfully stopped India from winning the Cricket world cup last year, but this year we were let down by Aamir.
2. Aamir Khan feeds his daughters chicken for Protein. This is anti-secularism. If Aamir was really secular, he would have been cooking beef for his daughters. As people might recall, we have reiterated multiple times that only beef has the necessary protein, plus beef is secularism on a plate.
3. While we are protesting National Anthem before the start of a film, Aamir inserted another national anthem towards the end of the film! Everyone stood up in the cinema twice while we sat there looking like idiots. If that wasn’t enough, the film even had chant of ‘BHARAT MATA KI JAI’, and the chant wasn’t even sarcastic. The movie leaves you with such a bad taste that you want to eat beef.
4. Aamir Khan’s daughter is named ‘Geeta’ in the film. Is Aamir spreading soft-Hindutva through the film? Why didn’t he name his daughter Salma or Susan? He has 4 daughters in the film, if he wanted, he could have covered all religions but he gave all of them Hindu names. But then, we live under Hindutva fascist government. The space for diversity is shrinking and Dangal is a proof of that.
5. The film ends with Commonwealth Games as the backdrop but not even once do they mention the great work of Suresh Kalmadi and Sheila Dixit in hosting the event. Were the producers threatened by the Hindutva fascists in charge now to avoid praising secular leaders of yesteryears or the producers ignored them on their own? Either way, we are disappointed.
While there is a debate on whether to boycott or not boycottDangal due to Aamir Khan’s comments, there is another debate going on about the movie that is more about the story rather than the story teller.
This debate is whether Aamir Khan has sent out a message through Dangal that is directly in conflict with what he sent out in 3 Idiots i.e. whether children should be allowed to chase their own dreams or forced to follow the dreams of their fathers.
Some are arguing, and it may appear right, that in Dangal, Aamir Khan is playing character of a father who thrusts his unfulfilled dream of winning an Olympic medal upon his daughters, and that this is not the same father of 3 Idiots who lets his son drop out of engineering course to pursue photography.
Not just that, since this time it’s daughters and not sons, there is a bonus criticism about sexism and patriarchy too. For example, this particular criticism:
Fair criticism?
The above article is quite critical of Aamir and at one place it says “this film is not about the women, but about one man driven by his male ego.”
Is this a fair criticism?
Outwardly it may seem so, but this criticism suffers from the weakness many people, incidentally on the ‘left’ side of the ideological divide, have shown on other occasions when they have failed to look at a character beyond their own binaries.
Such critics are so obsessed with their own idea of political correctness that they fail to notice the nuances. They will be particularly upset at reading this, because they usually consider themselves the masters of understanding nuances.
This failure to notice the nuances was limited to misinterpreting and misdiagnosing Hindu epics earlier as they raced to apply their modern “progressive” standards on events that took place thousands of years ago, but it now appears to be percolating to even Bollywood movies.
In case you are wondering what is being argued, recall the criticism of Lord Rama, who is often abused as “misogynist” by some because he made Sita-mata go through agnipariksha and later separated from her because a dhobi (washer-man) raised some objections.
Sounds pretty fair on modern feminist standards, right? But the nuance missed here is when people confuse, or maybe deliberately ignore, that Ramayana is not a husband-wife story. The character of Lord Rama is playing roles of that of a son, a husband, a king, a warrior, a brother, and so on – and more often than not, these roles are in conflict with each other.
When Rama decides to listen to an ordinary washer-man and “abandons” his wife, he takes that decision as a ruler, not as a husband. As a ruler, he had to bow down to what his subjects felt. His decision to separate from Sita was to show that a king in Ram Rajya has to follow the same moral and civil codes that an ordinary washer-man has to. Rama upheld standards of a society – which surely were not “progressive” when viewed from modern feminist standards – because upholding those standards was supposed to be his dharma as a ruler.
Ramayana and other epics are full of such nuanced characters and events, but they are often critiqued through modern binaries and judgments are passed over characters. We had earlier shown how Goswami Tulsidas is similarly attacked with critics paying no attention to the nuances of a character he developed.
Bringing down Hindu epics is a form of virtue signalling that helps people show that they are “progressive”, and it appears that we have seen the same virtue signalling when it comes to criticism of Aamir’s character in Dangal.
The character that is being claimed as that of a person full with male ego and a father thrusting upon his dreams upon his daughters, is actually the character of a Coach.
When Mahavir Singh Phogat – the character in the movie, not the real person – forces his daughters through rigorous exercises and even punishments, it is not a father thrusting his unfulfilled desires on his daughter but a coach determined to make his students shine on international levels.
This is clear from the storyline of the movie where one can see that once Phogat becomes the father of a fourth girl child, he buries his dream of seeing his son win a medal. Does it means misogyny because he wanted a son? Again, the context has to be seen. We are talking about Haryana – a state with one of the worst sex-ratio and not really known for gender equality especially in the time the movie is set. And add to that wrestling – a sport not that well identified with women.
He picks up all his trophies and puts them in a box, symbolising how he he has given up on this one wish. It is only later, when he is told that his daughters handed a solid beating to two boys, the coach in him spots talent in the little girls. And then the man in him realises that it is not only boys who can win medals. That is not exactly misogyny, but realisation about gender equality.
It is not like those girls wanted to be singers or dancers while their father decided to make them wrestlers. Do we not marvel when we hear about how athletes in other countries are spotted young and trained for big events? And did we not hear stories about how Pullela Gopichand, coach of PV Sindhu who won a Silver medal at the Olympics earlier this year, confiscated her mobile phone, made her go through rigorous exercises, didn’t allow her to meet friends, banned her having ice-cream, and all such stuff? Was Gopichand driven by some male ego or was it the determination of a coach to see his student excel?
That is exactly what Aamir’s character in the movie does. He is playing the role of a disciplined coach, not of an egoist father. In one of the scenes from the movies this dichotomy is brought to the fore. After a hard day’s training, while his daughters are asleep, the tough cookie Phogat crumbles, and is seen pressing his daughters’ tired legs. That’s when he remarks: “I can be either their father or their coach at any one point of time, not both.”
This is the nuanced character that Aamir Khan is playing, A coach who wants to see his students push the envelope, thus thrusting them into a world of trial and hard work, yet a caring and loving father, who worries for his daughters too.
Criticism and analysis of a character always enriches and extends the experience of watching a movie or reading a novel, but when some obvious nuances are missed in such criticism, one wonders if it was genuine criticism, or just a virtue signalling.
One of the universal truths is that our world is not black and white. It has myriad shades of grey and it is often considered a sign of elevated intelligence to understand nuanced differences that life offers us. It is with this knowledge that most people assess others and evaluate their relationships with them.
However, there are certain instances in life when a message is sought to be sent out in no unequivocal terms. A social or financial boycott is one of those.
Social boycotts are more of a rural phenomenon where anti-social and troublesome entities are socially boycotted to teach them a lesson. This however is not the first line of punishment. Typically this is done only after observing a pattern of behaviour over a period of time. Very often these decisions are handed out by the Panchayat and the villagers unquestioningly follow suit. No one then brings up the other desirable qualities that the person may or may not possess.
Now coming to financial boycott. The most recent example that comes to mind is the Snapdeal boycott because of Aamir Khan’s intolerance utterances. Even then, anti-boycott advocates rightfully questioned the morality of the boycott. They spoke about innocent people who were caught in the cross fire between Aamir Khan and Right Wing (RW) supporters.
Technicians, delivery boys and suppliers who were in no way a part of the intolerance brigade but probably paid a price as thousands boycotted Snapdeal. But RW believed that a message had to be given and in their wisdom this was infinitely better than adopting violent means. This was the Swadeshi moment for Twitter and a message was sent out by peaceful means.
Having tasted blood, it was then decided that Dangal was also to be boycotted. At that point of time, it was well known that Dangal was a biopic about the Phogat sisters but the idea of ‘Boycott Dangal’ was well accepted.
As events unfurled, Dangal was released and it received very good reviews from some prominent RW supporters. This led to outrage among many others. It was seen as a huge let down to the RW cause and transgression by these supporters.
Justifications followed, including a write up by OpIndia. This article justified the support by stating that it was for its nationalist character of the movie and also for providing impetus to the ‘Beti Padhao Beti Bachao’ campaign of Narendra Modi government. However, the explanations seem wanting on many counts.
I will not get into questioning whether Dangal should be boycotted or not. Aamir Khan’s anti-Modi statements and constant flip flops are now well documented and well known. My comments are limited to the call for boycott and the subsequent backtracking by some.
Does this also have implications for future boycott calls? With Raees set to release soon, does it make sense to continue with this strategy or is it time to look for a new one?
Now coming specifically to the OpIndia article, the writer says that “if you take out Aamir Khan and his statement from the equation, this movie is tailor made for RW to embrace”. The thing about boycotts is that they can never be qualified. And certainly not in retrospect. The call for boycott was for Aamir Khan’s intolerance utterances. To measure that in terms of what his movie portrays takes away from the purpose of a boycott call. By that yardstick, the next time a boycott is called, RW must conduct a SWOT analysis of the subject and only then decide on whether to proceed or not.
Secondly, the write up asks us whether we want to send a message to Aamir Khan or to the lakhs of men trapped in their patriarchal mindset. Here I disagree with the writer because watching a movie is not about sending messages. It is remotely possible that making a movie may be about sending a message, but watching one is certainly not about that.
That aside how many of those who watched Dangal would have done so if it was not Aamir Khan but Nawazuddin Siddiqui as the main protagonist? How many of those would go and see a wrestling match with these girls if it were to happen in their city? For that matter how many of those have ever watched a cricket match of our world cup winning Indian woman cricket team?
At the end, movie making, with very few exceptions, is all about money making. Likewise, movie watching is generally about entertainment where altruistic intentions take a back seat. To ascribe any other motives to either of the two actions is to live in a fool’s paradise. And to conflate a movie’s content and message with the call for a boycott is self-defeating.
It probably is a good time for RW to ponder over the usefulness of boycott calls. The ability of RW to embrace the shades of grey in Aamir Khan is a hint in this direction.
Election season is near and so is the season of making irresponsible statements to woo voters. Since the elections in Punjab and Uttar Pradesh are being given more importance by the Indian media due to them being big states, brain-farts from leaders of those states get discussed and debated; and that has allowed leaders in Goa to make silly statements and hope to get away from it.
Recently, AAP Supremo Arvind Kejriwal descended in Goa to address a public meeting to drum up support for AAP in Goa. Instead of choosing a centrally located venue in Goa, AAP went deep into South Goa, to the constituency of its CM candidate, Elvis Gomes. Another feature of this constituency Cuncolim, is that 50% odd of its population is made up of “minorities”, and the surrounding constituencies have the “minority” population going up to even 71%.
AAP is trying to win these “secular” constituencies, and thus its candidates are supposed to prove their commitment to secularism. One of AAP Goa’s founding leaders, and candidate from Panaji, Valmiki Naik has been trying to do the same after Congress recently released a picture of Naik purportedly seen cheering to a crowd of BJP supporters after AAP lost the North Goa Lok Sabha poll in 2014.
To prove his secularism, Valmiki Naik chose the aforementioned election rally, which was graced even by Arvind Kejriwal. He gave various details of his life, to prove to the “secular” audience, that he is not a communal RSS-wadi. Listen to his claim to secularism:
He gave various details, such as staying in a home owned by a Christian and his sister being convent-educated. But then he pulled out the smoking gun: “I eat beef”. It is important to note that its perfectly legal in Goa to eat beef, but the statement when seen as a whole is important:
“I am not communal….I eat beef”
Leaders of the Right Wing are often ostracised for bringing food habits and religion into the political sphere to influence voters. How is this different from a Sadhvi or some random Baba pandering to religious feelings?
Whether he wants to eat beef or not, is his choice, but the fact that he chose to declare this from a public political rally to score a political point indicates that he links food habits to politics, that too communal politics as eating beef is considered a transgression, almost a sin, by large section of the Hindu community.
Also, is it to be inferred then, that Naik is implying that all non-beef eaters are communal? Essentially majority of the Hindus are communal? Such religiously charged statements used for political gains could have been expected from some uneducated candidate in rural India, but Naik claims to be an alumni of the University of Texas. And of course, a he is a candidate of the Aam Aadmi Party, which claims not to stoop down to caste and communal politics.
Furthermore, what is even more worrisome is the reaction of the crowd – presumably made up of AAP supporters – present at the rally. When Naik mentions the instance of religious coexistence of photos of both Jesus Christ and Hindu gods, the crowd is virtually silent. They don’t cheer him at that instance. Coexistence and mutual respect is not worthy of an applause for the crowd, but when Naik says that he eats beef, he gets the loudest cheer.
Perhaps that’s the perfect embodiment of what secularism has come to mean in India – not mutual respect when Hinduism is involved, but an aggressive one-upmanship over Hindu beliefs.
