Saturday, November 16, 2024
Home Blog Page 6937

Knowing India: Understanding the Right History

For how many years did British really rule all of India? What seminal events post 1947 shaped India as a country? How did India go to war with China so close to the Panchsheel declaration? How did Congress evolve from being a broad national platform to a party which ruled India for many years?

The modern Indian education system, famously designed after the British passed the Government of India Act in 1833 by Lord Macaulay, tends to be very Eurocentric in terms of recognizing events, milestones and personal contributions. The tendency to define reference points in terms of industrial revolutions or world wars and then evaluating the relative weight of events and individuals in India has continued post 1947. A class of academics and historians who based their learning and style on the British predecessors has continued this tradition. Barring a few historians, the documentation of contemporary history post our independence has been meager and not well circulated.

So if one were to live our history without referring to the history textbooks taught in the CBSE school curriculum or going beyond the NCERT approved versions of events and individuals, where does one turn to? There are several books which bring out generally unknown, sometimes uncomfortable aspects of India’s long and complex history. Any study of the past requires a sense of context and proportion, and interpretations of events long past are always subject to questioning. However, there are authors who have tried to piece together details and evidences and attempted to paint the past with a brush generally not used by our establishment historians.

This is a vast area and there are no boundaries, but here are 5 books which I believe should be read and delved deeper into for those interested in how India evolved over the centuries:

 

Heroic Hindu Resistance To Muslim Invaders, 636 AD to 1206 AD – Sitaram Goel

hhrmi

Sitaram Goel has written several books focusing on the interplay of history, religion, governance and state functions. In this book, he covers two central tenets which irreversibly shaped the destiny of India. First – the invaders who came to India from Central Asia and Middle Asia used religion as the main organizing theme for their forays. This narrative counters the typical history description of all wars being fought as just that – wars for expansion and territorial supremacy. Second – several small and large native rulers in India did successfully for 600 years or so, pushed back these invaders in a way that they could not colonize any significant parts of the subcontinent. Much of this resistance also emanated out of a need to preserve the native faith and belief. Neither aspect is accorded any significance in our textbooks; in fact the first issue is routinely glossed over or sugarcoated.

 

Solstice at Panipat: 14 January 1761 – Uday S. Kulkarni

11090612

Kids in India learn about the end of Mughal kingdom and the start of the British rule almost as two contiguous events. This book plugs the gaps in conventional knowledge of events which occurred from Chhatrapati Shivaji’s coronation in 1674 – a seminal historical event of 17th century – to 1761, when the Marathas lost the third battle of Panipat to Ahmad Shah Abdali and his allies.

The book explains how Mughals really had very limited role to play in the future of India through the 1700s and beyond. It talks about how Marathas dominated the governance of India with Pune being the de facto capital of India for most of 1700s until this war. The reader gets a good sense of how the political and royal alliances of the day were driven mainly by religion and convenience of maintaining personal fiefdoms. The book also shows how the British grew in India via sheer opportunism, their golden age limited from 1817 to 1947, a not so long span of 130 yrs. The book shows how Marathas ran a coalition of government through participation of all castes towards a common nationalist cause.

This book is authored by Uday S. Kulkarni, who is based in Pune. He has learnt the ancient Modi script to study material available in archives in India and in the UK to piece the events of the day. Mr. Kulkarni is a medical doctor apart from being a authority on Maratha history and tweets at @mulamutha.

 

I Was Nehru’s Shadow: From The Diaries of KF Rustamji, IP, Padma Vibhushan

632340

KF Rustamji served as the security officer of Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru from 1952 to 1958. In those days of evolving governance, he effectively ended up doing tasks which today would belong to Principal Secretary or the Media Advisor. Rustamji, who makes no attempt to hide his starry eyed respect and awe for Pandit Nehru, diligently wrote diaries and documented day to day events, which when pieced together; provide us with an interesting view of how Pt. Nehru evolved as a Prime Minister.

The author establishes how Pt Nehru was a demigod, a larger than life figure, well respected for his intellect, his worldview and the sheer force of his personality. Indians, especially after independence, accepted him as the sole executioner of the country’s destiny and vested in him the carte blanche to get to a better future. This was in good faith, out of highest regard and respect for the individual. As the daily events evolve, one gets a sense of how Pt Nehru had two very different phases as the Prime Minister.

In the first 7 years or so, he was fully in control, working on a grand vision of creating institutions, empowering every Indian in the best way possible and creating the right infrastructure to realize his dreams for the country. In the period after 1954 (a good tipping point was his interview with Profession JD Bernal that year where he expressed the desire to relinquish the post of PM or the Presidency of Congress party or both but didn’t execute either), Pt Nehru seemed to have been overtaken by his own command and authority. This was also the period where there was no opposition to him within the party or within Indian politics. His contemporaries were dead or elevated to several ceremonial posts or failed mature as national leaders of stature. Several people close to Pt Nehru were able to have their way – despite not being the best administrators or most able individuals – simply because of their loyalty. The author has named tall Congress stalwarts in this category, whose incompetence was ignored by Pt Nehru only because they were loyal.

The book, authored by PV Rajagopal based on Rustamji diaries, points to several small events, which are not individually significant to be recorded as history, but collectively demonstrate the gradual decline of Pt Nehru’s governance in 1950s.

 

Himalayan Blunder: The Angry Truth About India’s Most Crushing Military Disaster – J. P. Dalvi

himalayan-blunder-the-angry-truth-about-india-s-most-crushing-military-disaster-original-imadnn32tygp5tcu

Indian war books are rare. This book talks about a history, which is not easily found anywhere else. School books, contemporary history texts and op-eds almost always skip the ignominy of the China war. There could be many reasons – the narrative does not fit in with what the government ordained history is. Or in some cases, influential strategic affairs commentators are directly related to the chief villains of this war!

The book explains how the China War was not lost in 1962, but steadily through the 15 years preceding it. The book makes it clear that India’s loss against China was not military but political. Foreign policy decisions aimed at grandstanding and projecting Pt Nehru as world savior, key ministerial appointments based on friendships and old equations and a complete breakdown of strategic affairs decision making over many years backed by zero knowledge of armed conflicts stand out as key failures.

The book is written by an author perhaps most qualified to write one on the subject, given his personal role in the war. Brigadier Dalvi led the first troops which took Chinese bullets in 1962 and was eventually taken as Prisoner of War for a significant period of time. After the book was written, it was banned almost immediately and the ban remained in force for a long time. We may or may not get to read the original Henderson Brooks – Bhagat report, but until then, this book serves as an adequate explanation to how horribly wrong Indian civil and military leadership was through the Chinese War.

 

Accidental India: A History of The Nation’s Passage Through Crisis and Change – Shankkar Aiyar

21shankkar-aiyar1

India’s post independence history and chain of events is very poorly documented. This book written by eminent journalist Shankkar Aiyar looks at key inflection points India faced after Independence and how these points forced reforms, policies or governmental decision making. The author provides persuasive arguments on policy formulation without politicizing the events.

The book covers Green Revolution (1960s), Bank Nationalization (1969), Operation Flood (1970s), Mid Day Meal Scheme (1982), Software Revolution (1990s), Economic Liberalization (1991) and Right to Information Act (2005). The author explains the political and economic realities before each of these seminal event / change in government policy took place and how these changes were driven out of compulsions – most as good as crises. The author also explains how several individuals – political leaders and bureaucrats – belied their own instincts and persuasions to overcome these crises via strong game-changing responses.

Our textbooks stop teaching history after the events of 1947. This book covers the post modern India and provides great context to largely forgotten or ill-understood events. Mr. Aiyyar writes regular media columns and tweets at @ShankkarAiyar.

 

This is a short but an influential list of either forgotten or relatively unknown texts. Reading these and unearthing more such gems is the only way we can assume control of facts and narrative which shaped India. The alternative is to rely on establishment authors or the present day media, which is to say there is no alternative at all.

(written by @c_aashish)

Meet Gajendra Singh – the “farmer” who committed “suicide”

0

Yesterday, we had argued that there were many serious questions surrounding the death of a person at AAP’s kisaan rally at Jantar Mantar. While many are still unanswered, some mysteries are now being unravelled, and unfortunately, the truth is quite different from what was believed to be the truth.

The “suicide” and the “suicide note” were already under a cloud. Now it appears that the note was not written by Gajendra. This report quotes family members of Gajendra claiming that the handwriting in the note was nowhere near to the handwriting of Gajendra.

From all pictures, Gajendra did not look like a depressed, suicidal farmer. He was brandishing a party symbol, allegedly threatening suicide for quite some time, which made many people believe it was a show. His “suicide note”, which now turns out to be not written by him, also did not mention any plans to commit suicide.

We already pointed out that as per a report in IBN Khabar, Gajendra was not a farmer but a small trader selling traditional headgears. Reportedly, he had a website called “jaipurisaffe.com” which showed him tying turbans to all his elite customers. His customers include Rajnath Singh, Murli Manohar Joshi, and a few foreigners too.

This report suggests he had a knack for tying turbans, and did brisk business in Jaipur hotels. The report further says, “Locals say he charged Rs 500 for tying a safa and, in peak tourist season, tied scores of safas a day. He was active on Facebook and got several contracts through networking on the site.”

The report further said, while tying turbans was his primary source of income, he also spent time on his father’s fields. Between his father and uncle, Gopal Singh, a sprawling 50 bighas of land was shared. His two younger brothers had steady jobs.

A Hindustan Times report claims that Gajendra Singh himself “owned some 10 acres of land, including a gooseberry orchard and a teak plantation”. It also said he had “a patch of wheat field”.

All the above suggests, Gajendra Singh was primarily a trader, a part-time farmer, and a pretty affluent one at that. An Indian Express report says Gajendra’s house was a spacious six-room concrete building amidst vast stretches of farmland with tall teak and amla trees, all planted by him.

Coming to the crop damage part as mentioned by Gajendra in the mysterious “suicide note”, farmers in the village claimed that 50 per cent of their crops were destroyed. But the local administration maintained that crop-damage assessment reports submitted by the patwaris in the area had reported only 20-25 percent crop loss — below the compensation criterion. This was said to have “affected” Gajendra who would often promise villagers that he would fight their battle. Neighbours though said that his family was financially sound and rumours of him being in money-trouble could be false.

Gajendra’s uncle is the sitting Sarpanch of his village. And Gajendra too was a Sarpanch earlier and had political ambitions and had been with BJP, Congress, and Samajwadi Party earlier. News reports also said that that he wanted to contest elections and had recently warmed up to Aam Aadmi Party. This news report claims he tried fighting elections on a Samajwadi party ticket, twice, in 2008 and 2013, but failed both the times.

As to why he came to Delhi, Amit Singh Kalyanwat, Gajendra’s nephew has said, “He left the village 3-4 days back saying he was going to try to meet Kejriwal. He said he would stay in Delhi with his brother who is a constable of RAC there.” This seems to be corroborated by his cousin’s statement to ANI News:


From all of the above, a reasonable conclusion could be Gajendra was a part-time farmer at best, relying mainly on his turban trade. Given this, he could have been financially sound. This is apparent from his house in his village. His family too was well-to-do, owning 50 bigha land, with fully employed brothers, and a Sarpanch Uncle. All this again negates the assertion that he was having money problems.

His crop might have been damaged due to unseasonal rains, but due to comparatively low damage and due to Government rules, his entire village was not eligible for compensation. Although this may not have affected Gajendra, he vowed to fight his villagers’ battle.

His various political exploits are also to be noted. He was an ex-sarpanch, tried contesting on a Samajwadi Party ticket twice, had connections with BJP leaders (at least to the extent of tying turbans) and now had espoused the causes of AAP. He told people he was trying to meet Kejriwal, and he is alleged to have met Manish Sisodia before the unfortunate accident.

He was a captivating orator, and even at the AAP Kisan rally, was probably trying to present a dramatic performance to highlight the plight of farmers suffering from crop damage. The “suicide note” could be a speech, written by someone else as the handwriting is not his, which he would have delivered from the stage.

The possibility of the note being a speech that he could have delivered from stage is backed by this NDTV report, where Gajendra is reported to have called up his younger brother Vijendra Singh on his cellphone to say that he would be on TV.

This could have been also done with the intention to become a larger leader in AAP, since he was seen brandishing the Jhadu. Also, it has to be said, alleging involvement of any senior AAP leader in this too far fetched at this stage.

Considering all this, why Gajendra “committed suicide” and who wrote that “suicide note” is a huge mystery. Was it a stunt gone wrong? Did he accidentally kill himself while trying something dramatic? Or is there a bigger conspiracy where Gajendra was used as a pawn? These questions are very controversial and only a detailed probe could possibly reveal the same.

Rahul Gandhi finally wakes up to Net Neutrality, and still doesn’t make sense

0

26 Days after TRAI opens up the Net Neutrality paper for public opinion for 1 month,

15 Days after IT Minister’s tweet about a Free Internet,

10 Days after his own party’s press conference on Net Neutrality,

1 day after Net Neutrality was discussed in Lok Sabha during zero hour,

and after almost a million emails are sent to TRAI, purely by a public driven social media campaign,

Rahul Gandhi finally woke up. And spoke about Net Neutrality. To be fair to him, he was on holiday for 56 days, to an unknown place, just like every other person who has a full-time job takes a break from work. Except that Rahul Gandhi has no job so to speak.

And even when he did wake up, he spoke for all but 60 seconds on the actual issue. The Indian National Congress uploaded this video of Rahul’s speech on Net Neutrality. Although the duration of the video is 3 minutes 15 seconds, Rahul spoke on the actual subject for less than a minute.

He started by saying he has brought an adjournment motion to speak on “a matter of urgent importance”. Yes, if this was so “urgent important” to Rahul Gandhi, he wouldn’t wait for the entire country to be already fully aware and supporting Net neutrality, but I am sure he had far more pressing commitments in whichever country he was holidaying.

Anyway, although he said he wanted to speak on Net Neutrality, he started completely off topic. And stayed there for 2 minutes. He decided to take a jibe on the PM, and said “aapke PM”, to which the opposition immediately reminded him that the PM was of the entire country. Incidentally, in Rahul’s speech on the earlier day, he had made the same mistake, only to be chided by the opposition then too. It’s hard to get out of the vacation mood I suppose, especially if its 56 days long.

Anyway, Rahul corrected himself and said “desh ke PM” and then spoke about Obama’s praise for Modi in the Time magazine. Remember, he brought the adjournment motion to speak on Net Neutrality. He said Obama praised Modi, USA had many industries, Modi helped USA, and the last time any US President praised another head of state, was Gorbachev, who had also helped USA. Rahul probably wanted to refer to the time Reagan praised Gorbachev, and eventually USSR split up. And by that, Rahul was probably trying to say India too may split up, but his delivery and choice of word was so poor, nobody got the point, and then he had to explain his analogy to the press, after the Lok Sabha session. Mind you, we are still talking about “Net Neutrality”, at least in Rahul Gandhi’s mind.

A good two minutes have passed by now, when Rahul finally starts speaking something relevant. Only to be reminded by the speaker, that this topic was already discussed in the Zero Hour yesterday. Guess Rahul Gandhi did not attend that either, but anyway the Speaker let Rahul have his say.

Rahul, then said that the Government wanted “to carve out the Internet and hand it over to the corporates”. This is line with his “corporates ki sarkaar” jibe, but it isn’t in line with the truth. Truth is the IT minister has made his pro-Net Neutrality stand clear, and TRAI is still seeking public suggestions on the issue. So this idea that the Government is handing the Internet over to the corporates, might have germinated in one of the lazy siestas Rahul enjoyed in his 56-day holiday.

Abraham Lincoln had said it is “Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.” Probably Rahul Gandhi hadn’t heard of this, because his next statement on Net Neutrality, which was also his last statement, was hilarious. He asked the Government to “stop the TRAI consultation” and write or change the law.

Are you serious Rahul? I mean Are you serious? The whole purpose of the TRAI consultation is to get the views of the public so that TRAI can make recommendations on how the law should be, and you want this process of asking the people their views to be stopped?

Not only did Rahul Gandhi jump into this debate very very late, he was woefully wrong on the one suggestion he had, just like he was wrong on the “suit-boot” sarkar speech. And inspite of this foolish, delayed statement, which lasted only for a minute, while the other two minutes were used up in a stupid, ill-communicated analogy, Indian media went cuckoo for Rahul Gandhi. Are You Serious Media?

The ‘coming of age’ of Rahul Gandhi: 2009 to 2014

0

With two speeches in two days, Indian mainstream media has really woken up and has declared the arrival of the next best thing to India, since sliced bread. Many neutral journalists were coming out of their rat-holes to declare the arrival of a messiah.

Having said that, credit must be given where its due. Media has doggedly tried to make any of his sighting, as a comeback of sorts for the last 7 years. Here is the snapshot of their propaganda. Don’t let the headline fool you – also check the dates.

In May 2009, Indian Media had as many as 5 pieces titled “Coming of Age of Rahul Gandhi”, from 5 different authors. Coincidence? Or well planned plug, with title suggested by some unnamed source (read Rahul Gandhi PR Team?).

Two such articles, were dated 5th May (on NDTV)  and 8 May 2009 on BBC. What is so special about these dates? The 2009 Lok Sabha elections were conducted between 16 April  2009 and 13 May 2009. Both these “coming of age” pieces are right in the middle of the elections. Coincidence?

The other three pieces appeared on 17th May 2009. Yes, all on the same date:

The Hindu: May 17, 2009 – The coming of age of Rahul

The Economic Times: May 17, 2009 – Rahul Gandhi: A coming-of-age

Topnews.in: May 17 2009 – Rahul Gandhi comes of age

What is so special about 17 May 2009? The results to the Lok Sabha elections were declared on 16th May 2009. UPA got re-elected, and Indian media was quick to appropriate credit of this victory to the Prince.

But the media was not done. As Rahul’s charisma faded away, they kept peppering us with similar headlines, TV debates, right upto 2014.

Jan 05, 2010 – Rahul Gandhi: A coming of age

2

June 19, 2011 –  Has Rahul Gandhi come of age? (A TV Debate)

3

Feb 6, 2012 – Has Rahul Gandhi come of age as a politician? – By Rajdeep Sardesai

4

Jan 17, 2014 – Has Rahul Gandhi come of age as a politician? – Another TV debate, again by Rajdeep Sardesai

5

Jan 27, 2014 – Has Rahul Gandhi come of age?

6

Why two stories of “Rahul Coming of Age” in 2014 you ask? 2014 General Elections Stupid! And we aren’t even looking for other articles, titled differently, just this cliched phrase of “coming of age”, used in Rahul Gandhi’s context year in year out. One can find numerous other articles with keywords like “comeback”, “mojo”, “return” and so on, associated with the Shehzaada.

So now do you understand why suddenly all of our neutral journalists tweeted high praise for a Lok Sabha MP, with no administrative track record, who has never done a job in his entire life, and who disappeared for 56 days, even as Parliament was in session? Last two days are just an extension of media’s lifelong endeavor of seeing him at 7RCR, so that they can enjoy free run with their propaganda.

Suicide at AAP’s rally raises many questions about the incident

0

At the outset I want to make it clear that farmer suicides are a serious issue in this country and the agriculture sector needs reforms (not the usual rhetoric) to make farming a viable profession for the farmers.

However, the unfortunate death of a reported farmer in AAP’s rally to protest against the Land Acquisition Ordinance needs to be thoroughly investigated by the police as there are some aspects about this death that appear odd and don’t add up.

“The suicide note”

Alleged suicide note of the farmer
Alleged suicide note of the farmer

AAP volunteers are reported to have found this note that was thrown by Gajendra, the resident of Dausa who allegedly committed suicide. The note was even read out from the dais by AAP leader Kumar Vishwas while the farmer was being taken to the hospital.

But this note doesn’t read at all like a suicide note. The note, purportedly written by Gajendra, says that his crop was damaged, due to which he was driven out of his home by his father and separated from his three kids. He wanted help from people in going back to his home.

The note, if genuine, shows that Gajendra was looking forward to reunite with his family rather than kill himself. It is definitely not a suicide note.

What changed the mind of Gajendra during the rally that instead of looking forward to reunite with his family, he decided to end his life?

“Police Inaction”

If the tweets of an Indian Express reporter apparently present at the scene are to be believed, the police at the venue did not attempt to save the man:


Why did the cops not act? Were they under orders by someone to not act? These are serious allegations on the police and need to be verified and looked into. Or did the cops feel it was just a stunt by some enthusiastic supporter?

A reporter present at the venue said that most of the people felt that it was an attempt by someone to show the plight of farmers. Former AAP Minister too felt the same:


“AAP Inaction”

If this tweet is to be believed, Gajendra was threatening to commit suicide since morning.


First of all this theory doesn’t tally with the fact that the alleged “suicide” note has no mention of suicide. So is the suicide note real? or was it an impromptu decision to commit suicide? In which case how does Rahul Kanwal’s tweet fit in?

If indeed this man was on the verge of suicide from the morning, why didn’t fellow AAP supporters restrain him or take him away from the venue? Did they also feel it was all drama?

And even once Gajendra fell from the tree, most probably already dead, was it right for AAP to continue the rally?


“Who is Gajendra?”

Gajendra brandishing AAP’s symbol, the “Jhadu”

Police must find out details of deceased and his family. Was he a farmer under distress due to crop failure and family problems, or was he an AAP supporter who came to Delhi to take part in party’s rally against Land Acquisition Ordinance?

While AAP is claiming him to be an ordinary farmer who took his life to protest against the government, some pictures released by media suggest that he could be an AAP supporter. For example, look at the following set of pictures released by ABP News:


//platform.twitter.com/widgets.jsOne can clearly see a broom, symbol of the Aam Aadmi Party, in his hand. In these pictures, he doesn’t appear distressed or threatening suicide. Instead he appears like an AAP supporter who climbed upon a tree and is shouting slogans.

Do suicidal farmers pick up party symbols when attempting suicide? Or was it a suicide threat that went wrong?

It might appear insensitive, but the police must investigate this angle. We are not new to political activists threatening suicide in hope that people around will save them. Did he put too much trust in people around him? Or was it a genuine accident emanating from a suicide threat?

Some reports suggest that Gajendra was not a farmer but a small trader selling traditional headgears. He even had political ambitions and had been with BJP, Congress, and Samajwadi Party earlier. This report by IBNLive says that he wanted to contest elections and had recently warmed up to Aam Aadmi Party.

If this report by IBNLive is true, does it mean that Gajendra’s activities were politically motivated and he miscalculated his steps?

We can only say that at this point of time, there are more questions than answers. Hope there is a thorough investigation and the truth comes out.

How Scroll and Firstpost falsely blamed Modi for acts of an NGO

Last night, an “opinion” piece, by the blog called Scroll.in was making waves mild ripples on Twitter. It talked about plans to rename to areas of Delhi, and how this plan by “Modi’s Government” revealed an “Imperial Mindset”. Midway during the Social Media outrage, the blog chose to change the title of the story within a few hours of posting it:

xBut they forgot to edit the content, which said the Modi government is planning “to rename Lutyens’ New Delhi as the “Imperial City of Delhi” and the walled city that many call the Old Delhi as the “Imperial City of Shahjahanabad”

It quoted this Firstpost report dated 6th April 2015 & at the same time said “no confirmation of the news reports has come as yet“. Scroll then went on to give some half-assed pseudo-intellectual logic to defame the “Modi Government”, while mentioning in passing that this move may be aimed at attracting tourists & obtaining the UNESCO heritage city tag .

It even went on to say “Perhaps the idea here is to present the Modi government as the “new imperial” power, which will dislodge or “bleach out” the work of the previous governments and once and for all appropriate the imperial city of Delhi.

Coming to the Firstpost report, it said Modi Government (is) in a rush to “change everything“. Luckily Firstpost devoted some time to the reason behind this, i.e. securing the UNESCO heritage tag, but eventually couldn’t stop itself from taking pot-shots at Modi again. The author says this “mania for renaming” reminds him of “Stalinist-era revisionism“. The piece goes on to say “And now a proud Hindu nationalist comes along and wants to put “Imperial” back into Delhi.”

Firstpost on its part, quoted this The Hindu report. Amusingly, this report mentions clearly that this renaming was “a proposal from the Delhi government“. Then why have Scroll.in and Firstpost blamed Modi for all this? Why does Scroll.in say “no confirmation of this news”? Apparently, a simple Google search revealed much more than what Scroll.in “journalists” couldn’t confirm.

One of the earliest news reports on renaming parts of Delhi, came way back in July 2013. It said that the dossier, containing the proposed division of the city into ‘Imperial Cities of Delhi’, among other things, was submitted to the Delhi Government by INTACH (Indian National Trust for Art and Cultural Heritage). It said the dossier has been given to Delhi Tourism, the Nodal Agency. It would then be scrutinized by the government, Archaeological Survey of India and then by world heritage apex committee and this verified dossier will then be submitted by the end of January, 2015. INTACH is a Non-Profit NGO.

The above is corroborated by this news report from September 2013 which says “the dossier has been prepared on these by INTACH”. It further says “Pitched as “Imperial Cities of Delhi”, the dossier highlights the contrasting lifestyles, cultures and architecture of two differing time periods in Delhi.

Another report from The Hindu from April 2014, quotes an INTACH official as saying “In the dossier, we have highlighted the fact that New Delhi and Shahjahanabad are two imperial cities.”

All three of the above stories are from pre-Modi era. And all three of them conclusively say one thing: An NGO floated the idea of dividing Delhi into two “Imperial cities”, and it was done only to get a UNESCO Heritage tag, to increase tourism in Delhi. The change in names, was to be carried by Delhi Development Authority, only to ensure no that the plan to get the UNESCO heritage tag, goes without a hitch. If at all any politics is to be played on this, one could “blame” the AAP Government or the UPA Government, but any unbiased reader would observe, there is no Politics here.

There are more recent news reports, like this in Indian Express and this on a Travel News site,  from February 2015 which clearly say the Central Government has approved the Delhi State Government’s proposal, with the idea of having the “Imperial Cities”. The clincher though is this Government of India Press release from February 2015 itself, which says:

The State Government of Delhi has proposed UNESCO to include ‘Delhi’s Imperial Capital Cities’ among the World Heritage Cities. The nomination dossier of ‘Delhi’s Imperial Capital Cities’ had been forwarded to UNESCO in 2014 for the purpose of its inscription in the World Heritage List

Looking at all the above facts, some questions emerge:

1. Why did Firstpost decide to blame Modi for this proposal? In fact the report from The Hindu, which they themselves relied on, says it was a Delhi Government proposal.

2. Why did Scroll.in, which relied on this Firstpost report, say that “no confirmation of the news reports has come as yet”? As you can see, a simple Google search threw up at least 6 different links from 6 different sites and sources clearly stating the facts. Are the so called “journalists” at Scroll.in so ill-equipped that they cannot even search the net for information?

In fact, this point was raised by an astute twitter user, to which a journalist from Business Standard called Mihir Sharma replied, saying it was a “good practice“:

If Mihir Sharma considers hiding behind the burqa of “unconfirmed reports” and “unnamed sources” as a “good practice” then we can judge what quality of “journalism” he approves of. And in a hilarious twist, Business Standard, the very publication Mihir Sharma works for, published a story on this issue which said:

The Delhi government has done its groundwork well. The Indian National Trust for Art and Cultural Heritage (Intach), which has prepared the Unesco nomination dossiers on behalf of the state government, has proposed the “Imperial Cities of Delhi” comprising two components – the walled city of Shahjahanabad, or Old Delhi, and the area of New Delhi designed by Sir Edwin Lutyens – for inclusion in the list of World Inhabited Historic Towns

Thus Business Standard directly contradicts the very Scroll.in article (based on unnamed sources) which Mihir Sharma was vehemently defending. It also shows Mihir Sharma’s deep ignorance of what his own site publishes.

Lets come to the actual Idea of renaming some parts of Delhi to help in boosting tourism. It may sound like a stupid, farcical idea, but if it does help in getting a UNESCO tag, and help tourism in Delhi, then we are all for it. Irrespective of whether it sounds “Imperial” or “Colonial” or Modi-fied.

(Thanks to Rahul Roushan for tipping us off on this)

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Karan Thapar’s erudite critique: Get your suit-boot in Order Modi

0

Just when I thought that the Louis Vuitton shawl controversy was an unintentional goof-up by a reputed journalist, the Sunday edition of The Hindustan Times, April 19, 2015, featured an article by veteran anchor, Karan Thapar, ‘The Rules of Dress Diplomacy Should Apply to Mr Modi too’ where Karan questions Modi’s sartorial style of dressing. When the writer questions, “What has Mr. Modi got against ties? Is it okay for the Prime Minister to dress ‘inappropriately’?” the writer appears to be living up to image of a ‘Devil’s Advocate’.

For a television anchor, as experienced as Karan Thapar, trivial questions about the absence of a neck tie could mean that Mr. Modi is leaving no scope for meaningful criticism. From an objective unbiased prism, clearly that is not the case. So why the needless nit-picking?

With none other than President Obama heaping accolades on Modi’s capabilities as a leader, it would appear that there aren’t enough opportunities for his detractor’s to review Modi’s foreign jaunts as India’s Prime Minister. In Mail Today, April 18, 2015, Advaita Kala writes how Obama as Modi’s biographer has silenced the PM’s critics. According to her, Obama’s willingness to write about Modi is as important as his words.

This is not to say that Modi should not be critiqued for his shortcomings. In the absence of a credible opposition, Modi should, in fact be made aware of his inadequacies in larger national interest. Modi’s performance may be akin to several recent Presidents of the USA, who perform well on Foreign Policy, but are not as successful on domestic issues. But to lament the absence of neck-ties or to hallucinate about the Louis Vuitton shawl does not reflect well on the quality of the critique.

According to Karan Thapar, ‘It’s international convention and practice to dress formally on such occasions. All over the world that means a suit and a tie. The Indian equilant is a bandhgala. To defy that dress code suggests either ignorance or indifference to a convention that is universally considered suitable. It could also imply a certain disdain for your hosts, who have meticulously observed the code.’ Notwithstanding the flaws in frivolous critique, even if we assume that Karan Thapar is justified in finding fault with the absence of neck ties, I don’t remember media asking similar questions to either Mrs. Sonia Gandhi or Dr. Manmohan Singh.

Karan goes on to write, “If the prime minister is the first representative of India then how he’s dressed and what impact that makes affects the county.”  Assuming that all heads of states should follow this code of convention, Dr. Manmohan Singh was seldom scrutinized for his sartorial choices as a Prime Minister. We don’t remember Dr. Singh wearing neck ties, do we? Likewise, we should expect Mrs. Gandhi to dress in a business suit like Angela Merkel when she visits Germany. Anything less than a business suit could signify ‘eccentricity’ and deemed ‘inappropriate’, right?

Above all, it’s ironical that a comment on Prime Minister Modi’s sartorial choices comes from someone who is perhaps the only television anchor to dress in a bow tie in what is seen as a colonial hangover by most Indians. Clearly, there is an obsession with the ‘tie’ whether it is a neck tie or a bow tie.

Finally, when Karan concludes his article by saying, “Mr Modi can be as eccentric as he wants,” the banality of his article becomes obvious. With India’s global image getting a boost under Modi’s leadership, Modi’s critiques need to work harder to raise the bar above neck-ties, shawls and suits. Attaching unfairness to disapproval is the not-so-desirable art of analyzing a foreign visit.

– @alkagurha

How Rana Ayyub explains Twitter trends

0

We know Rana Ayyub is a shrewd smart lady worthy of joining CBI, and yesterday she showed us her skills yet again. “#RANDI” was a hashtag trending in India for almost the whole day. Normal people find out what a hashtag is about, by clicking on it and checking the tweets under it. Some or the other tweet gives the meaning. But those are normal people, not super-intelligent detectives like Ayyub, who just need their brains to guess the origin of a hashtag:


Unfortunately for Ayyub, her deductions were once again proved wrong. RANDI was the acronym of “Research and Development International”, a new Joint Pakistan-China Think Tank and had nothing to do with any “patriotic brigade” or rapists or anyone in India.

At 10.00pm last night, these were the trending topics in India.

Untitled

We try to imagine how Rana Ayyub would have deciphered the reasons behind these trending topics:

#RahulRoars: When a term like #RahulRoars trends on twitter, it is clear sanghi bigots think Rahulji is an uncivilized man-eating animal from the jungle. Sick!

#DDvsKKR: Delhi fighting with Delhi! What to expect from such a divisive Government, even cities are now fighting for each others blood. Will there ever be peace in Modi’s rule?

#BecauseItsIndia: Bhakts trending #BecauseItsIndia because according to them the whole universe exists because of India and its Hindu culture. Dangerous levels of Nationalism these.

#ZaynWeveMissedYou: Poor Muslim Zain murdered in another Hindu state sponsored pogrom. Yes Mr Bhagwat, your goons have begun killing members of music bands too!

Umesh Yadav: Trending of a caste name like “Yadav” shows that Amit Shah is busy dividing Bihar on the lines of caste to reap political benefits. How low will you stoop kali daadi?

Ankit Keshri: Wondering why an unknown name is trending on Twitter? See the surname: Keshri. Modi’s India is saffronizing even twitter trends. I am sure Raheel is being forced to sing Jai Mata Di songs!

GABBAR is coming: But Gabbar has already come, from his multination visit, wearing his Louis Vuitton shawl, come back to pass LAB and steal the land of ramgarh ke gaanwale. Will my Jai (Rahul) and Veeru (Arvind) stand up to him?

Sarkar: The Sarkar that never sleeps, always snoops. Lurks at every corner, even in twitter trends. Leave us alone you voyeuristic Saheb!

Morne Morkel: A quality pace bowler, but trending only at last space. Shows the worth of quality and merit in a crony-capitalist Government of Hindu Nationalists.

 

 

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Rahul and Sonia Return, much to the joy of Indian “Neutral” Journalists

0

Rahul Gandhi’s return to India was marked by a Kisan Rally in Haryana, where he was joined by his mother Sonia Gandhi and other heavyweights of Congress. Everybody was propping up Rahul after his 2 month long disappearance, but Rajdeep Sardesai chose to bat for Sonia Gandhi:


Unfortunately for him, facts landed yet another sucker punch as his former TV channel reported that people were deserting the venue as Sonia was speaking:

11156925_10206904655758818_1504326409_n

 

Cut to today, when Rahul Gandhi spoke in Lok Sabha. And the usual suspects were roaring in action expressing their emotions:

Zaka Jacob, who had said General V K Singh should be more sensitive to Yemen victims, had this to say about Rahul Gandhi:


Sagarika seems to agree with him. We wonder what new found powers they saw in Rahul Gandhi to help them change their mind so soon:


Bhupendra Chaubey had fallen head over heels for the new and improved Rahul Gandhi:


Is it a coincidence that all the above Journalists belong to the CNN-IBN stable? And all of them somehow did not notice that Rahul Gandhi version 2.0 is prone to the same faux pas as Rahul Gandhi version 1.0

Journalist Saba Naqvi, (of hitjob sources fame) had this to say:


Shekhar Gupta even went on to say “the picture has changed” after Rahul Gandhi’s return:


These are some of the reactions from our very neutral mediapersons. If these are true, it seems Congress will sweep the upcoming Bihar elections. Let us see the results and then come back to this post.

Views on the Indian Economy MSM will not show on Primetime

0

That Indian mainstream media has an inherent bias against the Modi government is known. It has given more space to the views that are critical of the Indian economy and the steps taken by the Modi government. Over the past few months, we have been fed news of how Deepak Parekh said “nothing had changed on ground”, how Harsh Mariwala lamented on “the government’s sheen fading”, Adi Godrej’s concerns about “Hindutva elements”, and so on. Business Standard also ran a piece to tell us how things have not started looking up after nearly one year of Modi government. However, to assume this is the overwhelming view, is stretching things too far.

Apart from the reports from IMF and World Bank, here are examples of important people saying how things have been looking up in and for India:

Ajay Banga, CEO Mastercard: I think the Indian economy is actually and relatively in a good shape. If you look around the world, there are very few economies that are growing…and the way the Indian economy is growing. I think the impetus behind this economy is the strong one. What the Prime minister told us is create jobs to increase the quality of life of the people here and he is doing that by focusing on manufacturing, that is Make in India, tourism and infrastructure plan. We got lots of momentum, foreign investors are coming in, domestic mood has also improved.

Rajeev Malik, Senior Economist CLSA: The Modi government has several meaningful successes under its belt—a visible presence of India on the global platform, a dramatic turnaround in investor sentiment, improving financial inclusion, initiating the transformation of the railways, attracting more FDI (foreign direct investment), some early steps in labour market reforms by some states, jump-starting roads projects, increased reliance on direct benefits transfer to better target subsidies, and pushing ahead with the transformational goods and services tax (GST). The latest sitting of Parliament successfully passed several key legislations.

Jim O’Neill, ex Chairman at Goldman Sachs: This has been a fantastic year for the Modi government. However, it will be difficult for the government to continuously surprise the markets.

Emir of Qatar: What this government has been doing in the last few months has been very encouraging. We trust the Indian economy. So we will invest in India.

Jim Walker, ex Chief Economist at CLSA: India should be your No. 1 priority. We are confident that Indian businesses are on the cusp of another round of growth based on improved profitability and profitable opportunities.

Indra Nooyi, Chairman and CEO, Pepsico: PM is absolutely right in saying ‘Make in India’ because ultimately we are trying to build a base in manufacturing and boost employment and that is very good.

Chetan Ahya, Morgan Stanley: India is in for a long period of higher sustainable growth and lower prices. We are more constructive on inflation outlook and we expect the retail price index to decelerate to 4.75 per cent by this December against the consensus estimate of 5.8 per cent. We also expect growth momentum to pick up, but do not expect a rise in inflationary pressure.

Survey by E&Y and Delphi (in Germany): 94 per cent of the surveyed CEOs and CFOs from leading German high-tech companies stated that India currently offers a better investment climate than other BRIC countries. Out of 13 high-tech Manufacturing sectors analysed, seven (Automotive, civil aviation and airports, transportation infrastructure, water, renewable energy and heavy engineering are among the seven sectors) offer greatest convergence for Indo-German collaboration.

Robert W Holleyman, Deputy US Trade Representative: What we see is there is positive trend across all proposed rules and across concerned ministries and that trend is to increase transparency and predictability.
This illustrates that there are various opinions on the state of Indian economy today. If one is an avid reader of pink newspapers, it is also a majority view that surge in investments will come after further interest rate easing by the RBI. This explains the reason why Arun Jaitley is egging Raghuram Rajan to reduce rates at every opportunity. From its end, the government has tried to leave more money in people’s hands through lower taxes and accepting seventh pay commission recommendations for government employees. However, with unseasonal rains playing spoilsport – India must hope and pray that proper monsoons can give the push for that next step.