Sunday, September 22, 2024
Home Blog Page 6758

After aligning with SP, Congress leaders should delete these tweets

Congress and Samajwadi Party (SP) have finally agreed upon a pre-poll alliance for the upcoming assembly polls in Uttar Pradesh. But one should remember that they weren’t the best of the friends until very recently, and Congress being in opposition in the state, had attacked SP on numerous issues and occasions.

So in an effort to help out the Congress leaders, we present these tweets of theirs attacking the SP, so that they in their free time, would be able to delete them and spare both the parties an embarrassing situation. We guess Congress leaders should have a lot of free time, as thanks to the alliance they have to worry about just 105 out of 403 seats in UP now.

Raj Babbar, who is the president of the Uttar Pradesh Congress committee, was convinced that SP would soon be exposed for carrying out selfish family politics under the garb of socialism. Did SP expose themselves by aligning with Congress?


Congress leader Randeep Singh Surjewala yesterday tweeted in support of the SP-Congress alliance, but not too long ago, he had these things to say:


Twitter activists turned Congress spokespersons Priyanka Chaturvedi and Sanjay Jha too were critical of the Samajwadi Party:


Even the Ex-MoS Home Affairs, who hails from Kushinagar in UP, was vocally critical of the deteriorating law and order in the state:


Youth leader and Vice President of the Party, Rahul Gandhi himself was very anguished at the state of affairs in Uttar Pradesh under Samajwadi Party:


And the official handle of Congress should also delete these tweets, else it will appear hacked again (the following tweet now appears to convey that Congress has decided to compliment cycle with gundaraj):


Akhilesh Yadav lost the trust of people but won the trust of Rahul Gandhi it seems:


And now Congress has jumped on that lone seat?


//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

President Pranab Mukherjee complains to EC after Congress misuses his photo

The President of India Pranab Mukherjee’s office has complained to the Election Commission of India after it found that the Congress party had used his photographs in some campaign posters in Punjab, where assembly elections are due next month.

The letter, written by the secretary to the President Smt. Omita Paul to the Chief Election Commissioner Dr. Nasim Zaidi, communicated that:

“The President is above party politics and neither his photo nor anything related to him in his capacity as the President can or should be used for any political purposes. All political parties should desist from ever linking the President to any political party in any manner for political goals.”

The Controversy arose when the Ludhiana unit of the Congress put up posters welcoming the daughter of President Mukherjee:

One such poster (source: Indian Express)

As evident from the poster, Congress introduced Ms. Sharmistha Mukherjee not as a Congress leader who has been campaigning for the party in the state, but as daughter of the President of India, thus linking the President to the ongoing campaign.

Sharmistha Mukherjee had been campaigning actively and aggressively for the Congress, where she has made scathing attacks on AAP, calling the so-called Delhi development model a sham and accusing Arvind Kejriwal of fooling the people of Punjab. She has also accused the SAD-BJP government of making Punjab a drug haven.

With such politically charged atmosphere, it was obvious that the President of India did not want any direct or indirect link to any political party as it will breach the political neutrality that the office of the President is supposed to maintain. It is yet to be seen if the Election Commission penalises the Congress party for the act.

Why Congress blaming Modi government for attacking RBI’s autonomy is hypocritical

0

Recently Rahul Gandhi accused the Narendra Modi led Government of interfering with the autonomy of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI). This added chorus to the various statements made by the opposition parties on similar lines. The allegations range from pressure by the Government on RBI to accept “demonetisation advice” to “non-independent decision making” of the Board of Directors of the RBI.

Going further, Rahul Gandhi even went on to claim that it was the Congress which “strengthened” RBI as an institution and it was PM Modi who “murdered” the “soul” of the RBI.

However, facts are just the opposite.

In 2011, the then UPA government had appointed the Financial Sector Legislative Reforms Commission (FSLRC), which submitted its report (pdf link) in March 2013. The Commission recommended trimming the powers of the RBI. Instead of “regulatory autonomy”, recommendations included vesting the government with more powers over the financial sector.

On the issue of autonomy and independence of the RBI, two important suggestions of the Commission need to be analysed.

Firstly, FSLRC recommended that the public debt management should be handled by an independent body and it should be taken out of the purview of the RBI. It is important to remind Rahul Gandhi and the former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh that it was the Congress party that led the bank nationalisation; it was their socialistic policies that caused massive fiscal deficits. These policies, which continued for decades, gave us massive public debt. All the banks were forced to take these as a part of their liquidity ratios. The UPA era further saw jobless growth and high public debt. Meddling with RBI’s powers to manage this debt in such a scenario was a direct attack on the independence of the RBI.

Secondly, FSLRC recommended appointment of a Committee to dictate the monetary policy. The Constitution of the Committee would have made the RBI governor one among several others. Majority of the members in the committee were proposed to be appointed by the Government of the day. This recommendation disregarded a clear conflict of interest, as the government is the biggest borrower in the market. The Committee would be driven by short term political gains than short/long term economic interests of the nation.

Do these recommendations not “murder” the “soul” of the RBI? It should be noted that the UPA led government did not reject any of the recommendations by the commission.

Not just that, forming FSLRC itself was seen as an act of trimming RBI’s powers because the UPA government and the central bank were often at loggerheads over interest rates during 2008-2013. This is documented in detail in the book ‘Who Moved My Interest Rates’ authored by the former RBI governor D Subbarao, where he says in no unclear terms that the UPA government had overstepped into the RBI’s turf.

And now Congress party leaders are going on claiming as if the RBI was a free bird and a respected autonomous institution before the Modi government took over.

Let me make it clear that the hypocrisy of the Congress party and the doublespeak by its leaders doesn’t absolve the current Modi government of its responsibilities. After May 2014, the new government should have setup a fresh committee to advise on the role of RBI and other financial system regulators.

However, they continued to work on the 2013 recommendations. Going a step further, the Finance Ministry released the Indian Financial Code (IFC) in 2015 for public comments. It proposed the formation of a Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) with four out of seven members being appointed from the government’s side with no veto power to the RBI governor on any decision taken by the MPC. It attracted negative comments. What the current government needs to do is to come up with reforms in this sector too, as they had done by bringing changes to the SARFEASI Act, etc.

To conclude, with a little politics, this is another Jallikattu type controversy. The mess was created during the UPA regime with active involvement of Congress party leaders, but the BJP has to carry the burden and blame, for they neither communicated successfully nor acted quickly enough.

Barkha Dutt compares US and Indian media, Twitterati ‘help’ her with details

0

Controversial journalist Barkha Dutt, who recently quit 24-hours English news channel NDTV under unclear circumstances, today posted a message on micro-blogging site Twitter comparing the US and Indian media, and hinting that the media in India worked under political pressure:


//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
False equivalences are the hallmark of any “liberal” commentator and through this tweet, Barkha Dutt came up with another one.

First of all, there is no “Trump vs Media” like situation in India. If there were any, we would not have seen ruling BJP leaders running to the NDTV studios every now and then to give exclusive interviews to Barkha herself. Funnily, today itself another NDTV journalist claimed that a BJP minister “confided” to her some political thoughts. Will anyone from Trump’s team confide anything to a NYT or CNN journalist? What comparison Barkha was then drawing?

The only Indian politician who openly attacks media like Trump does, is Arvind Kejriwal, who called Shekhar Gupta – who has mysterious professional relationship with Barkha Dutt – a dalaal (pimp) and who has attacked other journalists like Arnab Goswami on other occasions, but Kejriwal remains a favourite of most of the Indian media. So the comparison by Barkha appeared odd.

The second part of the tweet about politicians being able to shut down information was even more odd. Then shouldn’t she disclose this attack on transparency and information by the political class? Which politician shut down what information and which event(s) she was referring to?

With such questions on their minds, many Twitter users took to direct responses and sarcastic comments to point to Barkha where she was erring.

Some wondered why she did not speak out if there was any political pressure on NDTV?


But pressure? Really? When one is free to report like this?


As correctly pointed out in this tweet, it is not “Politicians vs Media” in India, but “People vs Media” and it had started with one blogger getting legal notice from Barkha Dutt:


How can people trust a media that promotes abusive trolls who fake interviews?


Well, if we are comparing US and Indian media, how about this comparison?


Some pointed out the inherent irony in Barkha’s tweet:


Maybe Indian media is indeed not free, they are…


Or this is the freedom that media wants?


Pro tip: Barkha Dutt can reject all of the above as “trolling” and continue with her false equivalences. No one can ever take that freedom away.

WATCH: So-called Liberals go into a meltdown after Trump takes oath as US President

Donald Trump has long been the enemy number one for all the so called liberals. He gets called names such as bigot, racist, xenophobic, misogynist almost everyday. And just after Trump won the elections, the so called liberals themselves turned intolerant and partook in violent protests.  We saw how devastated our Desi left-liberals were after Trump was elected president. Now, as Trump swore in as president yesterday, rather than accepting the fact and moving on, some soc-called liberals in the USA somewhat hilariously went ballistic. Here are some gems we managed to compile:

In this case, the liberals chanting something along the lines of ‘This checkpoint is closed’ blocked two Air-force personnel in order to prevent them from reaching the inauguration checkpoint. So after protesting against the proposed wall on the Mexico border, liberals themselves ended up creating one.


A large group wearing a full Ninja like black costume with their faces covered, ran riot in Washington DC by smashing glasses of MacDonald’s and other nearby buildings.


Apparently people from that same Ninja group also ended up smashing the glass of starbucks and after they were done, one yelled F*** Trump as they withdrew.


Someone taking part in a movement for Black lives literally chained himself/herself to a railing though to be fair it looked like a peaceful protest


Some protesters had managed to get a fire going, a Trump supporter was then proceeding to extinguish it while very calmly stating that this wasn’t the way to protest. He was being heckled while he was doing so and even got a couple of bottles thrown at him. Then finally a couple of protesters visibly manhandled him and took his Make America Great Again cap before fleeing


Finally in what may put even Arnab Goswami to shame, an anti-Trump protester sat on the street screaming ‘NOOOOOO’ at the top of his/her voice.


Media spins RSS leader’s statement on caste based reservations

Just as election season approaches, RSS becomes an important tool for the opposition in an effort to indirectly attack and question the BJP.  The media, which has a regular habit of twisting facts in the hope of sensationalizing an issue, was found aiding the ‘attack RSS policy’ by spinning RSS leader Manmohan Vaidya’s statement on the reservation policy.

Aaj Tak, in a Breaking News format, went big alleging that in a statement ahead of the UP election RSS leader Manmohan Vaidya had stated that reservations should be abolished.



Barkha Dutt to tried to further this idea, but was promply rebutted by people who were actually present at the venue, including Mr Sanjaya Baru, former media advisor and chief spokesperson of former PM Manmohan Singh


In order to quell the rumors, the whole video of Mammohan Vaidya’s proceedings was provided by the Editor-in-chief of news channel WION:

The video started with Vaidya stating that SC/ST’s have been neglected and that it is the nation’s responsibility to reconcile them into the mainstream. He then proceeded to quote Babasaheb Ambedkar by stating that reservations shouldn’t go on forever, and everyone should be provided equal opportunities as soon as its need ends. And in conclusion, stated that other ways like education etc. should also be properly implemented in order to help the backward sections of the society.

So nowhere did Vaidya express his personal opinion about abolishing the reservation policy. He was only quoting Ambedkar when he said that reservation should be time bound.

Back in September 2015 Mohan Bhagwat had issued a statement calling for a re-look at the existing reservation policy. This statement, even though asking for a re-look and not a ban, and made by someone who isn’t directly associated with the government, was blown out of proportions and was considered one of the key factors for which the BJP might have had to pay dearly in the Bihar assembly elections. This was also pointed out in a post analyzing the BJP’s defeat wherein it was pointed out how the RJD-JDU alliance was successful in conveying to Dalits that BJP was against reservations, and it ultimately cost BJP Dalit votes.

How defensive the BJP has had to be on the reservation issue can be gauged by this speech by Narendra Modi wherein he had to explicitly state that he and his Government wasn’t against reservations, and proceeded to chide those who spread such false rumors in this regard:


Like Bihar, even the UP elections are heavily influenced by caste and such statements by the RSS leaders may ultimately come back to haunt the BJP, chiefly based on people’s perception of BJP and RSS being two sides of the same coin.

Now even though Manmohan Vaidya has issued an explicit clarification that RSS is not against reservations, it needs to be seen how this spin impacts the elections.

Goa Church fires veiled salvo against BJP in voting guidelines issued to the faithful

0

Early this year, Archbishop Filipe Neri Ferrao had said that the Roman Catholic Church in Goa will guide its followers to vote for genuine candidates in Goa, for the upcoming state elections. He further stated that the guidelines of the church will not name any political party or candidate. However, even as he said this, a video came out showing a Goan Padre appealing to the people who had come for the annual Christmas mass, to vote for 2 specific candidates, both of whom were of dubious reputation.

The Church in Goa has always played a role in the politics of the state. The last time Goa went for Assembly Elections, Goans had seen a brazenly corrupt Congress Government, and the church had then attacked the Congress. Of course there was no clear naming of any party, but the sermon back then, did not lay any focus on “secularism”, rather, the focus was on “corruption” and “election freebies”.

The next elections seen in Goa were the 2014 Lok Sabha elections, and things had vastly changed by then. The BJP had now turned “communal” since Narendra Modi had been annointed as the PM candidate. Here, the tune of the Church changed, and the buzz-word now was “secularism”. The church expressed concern over “corporate communal forces” and the campaign which saw the “promotion of one individual as if this is a presidential election”. It also commented that “models of good governance” presented to society are a myth, and that those in power and those able to manipulate power like the industrialists were the cause of various types of destruction like indiscriminate mining, unregulated constructions and polluting industries. The hint was clear.

Come 2017, the Church has now gone fully brazen in its attack. Some in Goa, accuse the Goa BJP of having let-down its own cadre (the splinter group from RSS), to appease the Church, on the issue of Medium of Instruction. But it appears the Church has taken any cognisance of this alleged favour from the BJP led Government.

The Council of Social Justice and Peace, the “Social Work wing  of the Archdiocese of Goa”, on Friday released guidelines to the electorate on how to vote for the February 4 Legislative Assembly elections. It started of on the note of encouraging voters to participate in the election process, but proceedings soon took a political turn.

Various references were made to aspects relating to the BJP ruled Government in the state, and a negative light was cast on the same. A few of these are:

“Rupees ten thousand crore public debt on the heads of Goan Citizens”

“The commissioning of an Investment Promotion Board (IPB) by Union or State Governments” (The Goa Government started such a body to provide a single window clearance to large projects)

The guidelines also chose to refer to the Central Government, in a bid to raise the bogey of Modi, once again:

“In the federal structure of our democracy, the elections to the State Government cannot be seen in isolation from the Union Government. Citizens have to be aware of the reality that any oppressive, discriminatory and destructive legislations and policies proposed at the national level require the collaboration of State Governments for enactment and their cooperation for implementation.”

“The terror unleashed by the State and non-State actors to silence dissent or diverse opinions about governance by labelling them as anti-national or unpatriotic cannot be ignored by Responsible Citizens.”

“nationalisation of our State’s natural resources (referring to the nationalisation of rivers) to push projects in villages and towns by undermining the constitutional powers of the self-governments like Panchayats and Municipalities are in no way expected in good governance”

“The shift from the social policy of ‘Roti, Kapda aur Makaan’ for uplifting the poor sections of the society to an emphasis on digital and cashless policy involving smart phones, ATM cards and Paytm apps as the basic requirement for every citizen to avail of government benefits and purchase their basic needs is a worrisome phenomenon.”

The above clearly signals which way the Church is going: Do not vote for BJP. In the latter part of the guidelines, the Church touches on the issue of the “split of votes” among various parties. This probably refers to the AAP and other regional parties in Goa, who are all vying for a chunk of the anti-BJP votes. The church stops short of telling its flock whom to vote for, but the message of not voting for BJP is clear.

At a time when the Code of Conduct is on, whether such veiled sermons violate any norms is unclear. And even if they do so, no party or person would dare take the Church to task, considering the attack of being “communal” which the complainant may face.

Supreme Court lawyer Ishkaran Bhandari though felt that such negative appeals are exploiting a loop-hole in the recent Supreme Court order which had banned canvassing for votes in the name of religion, caste or language. The Court had forbidden direct appeals by religious bodies to vote for a particular person, but there doesn’t seem to be any restriction on negative appeals to not vote for a particular faction.

In such a situation, the Church may get away without any trouble. The question though will remain about the morality of such appeals, and whether similar appeals in the opposite direction, by other religious persons or bodies, will be allowed similar liberties.

Good bye Obama, you won’t be missed!

Like millions of people around the world, I too watched with gleaming eyes, a young President addressing his people by saying “Yes we can”, on the election day evening of November 2008, a year that already sunk the whole world into a deep depression a couple of months before that, and a world mired by the tensions in the Middle East due to the greed and goof ups of the previous administration that led to a disaster in Iraq and disorientation in Afghanistan. In a country not long ago that practised inequality among its people based on the colour of their skin, there couldn’t be anything more inspiring that “Yes we can”, speech invoking the dream of Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.

Yet, eight years and a few months later, when Barack Obama leaves his office, I am reminded of the Norwegian saying, “When all is said and done, more is said than done.” Starting from the irony of earning a Nobel Peace Prize and ending up dropping bombs around the world every 20 minutes or so throughout his two terms, and in fact more than his supposedly “war mongering” predecessor (or more than any President so far if I am not wrong), to the tensions in Syria and arming the rebels there coupled with the vacuum that he left in Iraq that led to the growth of ISIL which is the number one threat in the world today, to making claims of record jobs being created that still didn’t put more money in the hands of low income people, creating more income inequality so that factory workers and Unions in Democratic party’s bastions would vote for an obscenely rich billionaire who ran a reality show than their own “progressive” candidate, a Universal healthcare that he wanted to last more for his legacy than its practicality and usefulness, that today his own party admits it is a monumental disaster given the way the costs have gone up, the worst of racial divide and violences in a nation where the Blacks hoped to heal the wounds with one of their own being the President, pushing the whole world to the brink of World War III and reminding us the dark days of the Cold war of the second half of the nineties simply because he couldn’t stand Putin, or for that matter Netanyahu, that he would go to the extent of reversing decades old policy of the US with respect to Israel, and more importantly a divided America today, where the ones who are threatening to secede are not the traditional Confederacy, but the modern and liberal Californians, and a highly diminished Democratic Party, that lost the Presidency, Congress and is at a historical low in terms of the number of States they control, even as its outgoing President has the highest approval ratings, I wonder if Obama himself has to rate him in future against the promises he made in the beginning, how would he do that against what was achieved by the end of his two terms. Given his smugness, I don’t expect him to be honest there, as increasingly I have felt his middle name is H for Hypocrisy.

Perhaps given that he himself came up as an anti-establishment breath of fresh air who fought Hillary in the Primaries and mobilised funds from large sections of common people than typical Wall Street funding, there were much more expectations about him bringing the Change he promised in his campaign, yet belied it to become the very establishment himself, so much so that space today is occupied by, of all the people, his successor who will take oath today, as Obama himself passively allowed a better candidate in Democratic party to lose that space even as Wikileaks were exposing how his party fixed and rigged the Primaries against Sanders, yet would blame Russians for losing the elections eventually. Such selective silence that he practised, like not addressing the Islamic radicalism, but going high in rhetoric about a non-existent intolerance in Modi’s India, blaming the gun (and the lobby) instead of the ones who pull the trigger, and above all, in the Benghazi issue or the Saudi, Qatari and Kuwaiti links to Clinton Foundation that according to him is not meddling with the elections as much as Russians who allegedly hacked into Podesta’s mails. Even his biggest foreign policy achievement which was the Iran nuclear deal, turned out to be a complete sham on the ground as sanctions continue to exist, and Cuba would have normalised the relations anyways as Castro is history now.

No not all things were as bad as it sounds. In fact at the end of the first term, he had a pretty decent four years when Osama was killed, Syria was not a problem as it is now, Putin was still a good friend and he had launched his ambitious Universal healthcare program despite its obvious glitches and horrendous execution. In fact his progressive stand with respect to Gay marriage or Climate change and the Paris accord that he and Kerry put together into a deal were definitely appreciable. It is just that his unwillingness to work with anyone who differs with him and the high pedestal that he stands on, like a Messiah who wouldn’t deal with the lesser mortals among the opposition, that created the divide even further, and made him bypass Congress many times to pass an executive order where key legislations are required. The classic example and the inflection point in his Presidency was the Newtown school shooting in 2012 December that crushed almost every American soul, an event that made him champion the responsible gun control personally, I sincerely thought he would go to any extent to make that work like how Lincoln did for 13th amendment or even a Lyndon B Johnson did for Civil rights as shown in the movie All the way. The fact that he failed in it perhaps made him even more uninterested and derisive of Opposition. As Obama himself admitted, he lacked the ability of a Lincoln or Roosevelt to walk across the aisle and work along with the Opposition to make key legislative reforms. In my opinion, more than any oratory, this is what I would expect in a great President that Obama was woefully short of, that he looks good only because his predecessor was that bad. Or the successor looks (and sounds) terrible!

Eight years ago this day, I warmed upto his inaugural speech fighting the cold in Heathrow as I was waiting for my return flight, much like the many thousands who were braving the cold in Washington to listen to him as he said – “On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord. On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas that for far too long have strangled our politics. We remain a young nation. But in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things. The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.”

Sadly, it sounds more an empty rhetoric to me now when I read it again. As the next one is going to take oath, I don’t look forward to a great speech anymore when a 140 character tweet from the new President would do much better to convey what he wants to convey, than a 140 minutes long speech. That he has made even long and inspiring speeches passé, and meaningless, somewhat sums up his Presidency as well.

Good bye Obama, you won’t be missed!

After Rahul Gandhi shows off his torn Kurta, activist buys him a new one

Rahul Gandhi seems to be having somewhat of a hard time since demonetization after he had to first queue up at a SBI branch in Delhi  to exchange Rs 4000 and on 18th January showed off his torn Kurta at a rally in Uttarakhand:



First Rahul Gandhi stated that his Kurta was torn and then proceeded to provide proof for the same, by driving his hand through the hole and out.  Also during his Kurta torn speech Rahul had attacked Modi by claiming that one would never see him(Modi) wearing a torn Kurta even though he indulges in the politics of “poor people” and of those who wear torn clothes. This statement of putting out an analogy between torn clothes and poor people might itself reek of snobbery.

Moved by the plight of Rahul Gandhi, Editor of NAMO Patrika and well known Twitter Celebrity, Tajendar Bagga today ordered a new Kurta for him.


The Kurta would be delivered at Rahul Gandhi’s residence by 30th January so Rahul Baba might have to make do with his torn one for a few days. And to make it clear the whole amount for the ‘Royal’ Kurta has been paid for by Mr Bagga including the Rs 169 shipping fee.


Like Mr Bagga, there have been other good Samaritans who have helped out Mr Rahul Gandhi during his time of need. In one case a man from Gaziabad sent Rahul Rs 100 so that he could fix his Kurta and in another case BJP Yuv Morcha workers ended up sending him a new piece.

We recently published an op-ed about why Rahul Gandhi would continue to copy Kejriwal’s antics. And this Kurta drama could be inspired by incidents of Kejriwal wearing torn cloths at rallies in order to project his “ordinary (aam) status”.

Numerous celebrities coming out in support of Jallikattu

The impasse on Jallikattu doesn’t seem like ending. Now the Supreme Court has declined to step into the matter and directed the petitioner to approach Madras High Court. Incidentally the Madras High Court had said just yesterday that it won’t interfere in the matter as the ruling for banning Jallikattu was passed by the Supreme Court. After getting banned by the Supreme Court in 2014, there were protests and public outpouring against the decision, but not quite close to what is being seen now. Not just are a ‘sea’ of protesters cropping up in various parts of Tamil Nadu including Chennai’s Marina Beach, the Jallikattu movement has also got a shot in the arm via various celebrities also showing their support.

So here’s a list of some of the most well known faces, fighting for Jallikattu:

Legendary music composer AR Rahman was the latest to support the movement after he announced his intention to fast tomorrow.


Just four days ago Rajanikanth had expressed his support for Jallikattu and reports suggest that he might even join a silent assembly organized by Tamil Nadu’s top actors in support of Jallikattu.

Dhanush, most well known for the song Kolaveri Di was one of the first celebrities who showed their support.


Actor Kamal Hassan has been one of the most vocal supporters of Jallikattu by speaking about its millenial old heritage. He also questioned the connection between animal rights and vegetarianism and even talked about his personal respect for bulls.

Even cricketer Ravichandran Ashwin tweeted out to laud the peaceful protests in favor of Jallikattu


Though he did not directly support it, Sehwag was all praise about the protests being conducted in a peaceful manner


Also chess wizard Viswanathan Anand called Jallikattu a cultural symbol which pointing out that the main point here wasn’t animal rights but was tradition and livelihood.