Friday, November 15, 2024
Home Blog Page 6816

President of Delhi Mahila Congress resigns, says Rahul Gandhi is ‘mentally unfit to lead Congress’

Currently things seem to be going eventfully for the Congress in Delhi. On Tuesday former Delhi Congress chief Arvinder Singh Lovely and Delhi Youth Congress president Amit Malik decided to join the BJP.

Almost 48 hrs later the Congress seems to have ran into another controversy with Barkha Shukla Singh the President of the Delhi Pradesh Mahila Congress resigning from her post and alleging that Rahul Gandhi is mentally unfit to lead the party.

In a press statement put out by her, Barkha elaborated on her decision but before that let’s focus at an event which appears to have led to her decision.


Recently we had reported how Rachna Sachdeva, who was the district President of Barkha’s organization had made a police complaint against Ajay Maken, Shobha Oza and one more individual accusing them of mental harassment and criminal intimidation. She had alleged that they had protested in front of Rahul Gandhi’s residence against Maken, who via his associates had allegedly demanded huge sums of money in exchange of tickets for the MCD elections. She  further claimed that after this, she  was threatened by the accused and also started getting threatening phone calls from random numbers.

Now Barkha Shukla in her statement claims that the Congress party has only used the issue of woman’s empowerment and security to get votes. She claims Maken misbehaved with her and a few office bearers and when they tried to bring this to Rahul Gandhi’s notice’s their plea fell on deaf ears. She also claimed that when many office bearers of Delhi Mahila Congress had assembled in front of Rahul Gandhi’s house to appraise him about Delhi Congress’s wrongdoing, they were simply asked to leave.

She claimed that such an attitude ensured that as many as 5 presidents and 75 block presidents of the organization have resigned. She also mentioned the harassment case which has been filed by Rachna Sachdeva.

She also claimed that when they complained about Ajay Maken’s abuse and threats, one member of Rahul’s office asked them to take up the matter with Ajay Maken himself.

She then asked as to why was Rahul Gandhi hiding and why was he scared of meeting his own party members. She also alleged that Rahul was only interested in meeting sycophants.

Taking things to the next step, she claimed that senior party leaders and herself were of the view that Rahul Gandhi is mentally unfit to lead the party.

In conclusion, she stated that she was resigning from her post but would continue to remain a party worker.

Why the ‘intellectuals’ of India have failed to understand the ‘lower classes’

0

India, that is Bharat, has always baffled her enemies. Winston Churchill used to say that India is a mere geographical region, as much a nation as the Equator. Post 1947, the British always looked forward eagerly to the collapse of India under the weight of its own diversity. The disintegration of India was supposed to serve as a historical justification for the British Raj.

Further, India’s “intellectual classes”, who had mostly collaborated with the Empire and been socialized into the colonial mode of thinking, mostly shared in this aspiration. Today this frustrated ambition is mostly communicated in desperate cries of “Bharat tere tukde honge”. If only wishes were horses…

However, baffled by reality, our enemies have always sought to invent fantastic explanations for India’s continued unity. For obvious reasons, the British saw Nehru as an extension of themselves and speculated that his personality might be the only thing keeping India together. The venerable Times famously predicted that the 1967 general elections were going to be the last elections in India. My command over the English language isn’t as good as theirs, so I will just say LOL!

India’s intellectual classes, however, weren’t thrown off so easily. They thought harder. But these classes were both handicapped by their  extreme sense of awe towards the British and plagued by a general lack of ability. Thus these classes were reduced to stretching out tired old race theories they had been spoon-fed by their colonial masters.

They zeroed in on caste. They convinced themselves that the oneness of Bharat was an “upper caste construct”. Once this veneer was peeled off, the demons of divisive caste forces would tear India apart. In 70 years, these classes have merely progressed from calling Bharat an “upper caste construct” to calling it an “upper caste male heterosexual construct”. No imagination whatsoever. No originality. Such intellectual impotence is the curse that comes with state patronage for the undeserving.

The intellectual classes have spent 70 years digging under this tree of caste. The British told them that the secret to destroying India was buried under this tree. Every voice that speaks for division of Hindu society was thus amplified by the intellectuals. From language to food habits, everything was denounced as “upper caste imposition”.

I’ll give you a simple example. Pick up any article on beef eating written by a liberal and you will find a compulsory mention of Dalits and tribals who are apparently being forced to give up their beef eating habits.

Is this really true? NSSO data says that 80 million Indians eat beef, of whom 63 million are Muslims. There are 12.5 million Hindus who eat beef, of whom around 9 million are Dalits and tribals. As per census 2011 figures, India has around 25% of Dalits and tribals, which works out to 300 million people. Out of these 300 million Dalits and tribals, a mere 9 million or around 3% actually consume beef! 3%! That’s it!

Just 3%! For ease of comparison, saying that India’s Dalits and tribals eat beef is actually less true than saying India’s Muslims are voting for BJP!

Now, if a liberal wants to make a point about beef and personal freedom, there is solid merit in the argument and I am willing to take it seriously. But you will see that this argument about beef is always buttressed with this fake talking point about Dalits and tribals.

Why? Because the liberals think that by bringing in caste into the beef issue, they have a way to break India into pieces. Bharat ke tukde and all that…

Unfortunately for the intellectual classes, digging under the tree of caste has yielded a very different crop. Far from discovering a simmering magma of hatred towards Bharat, the liberals have dug up a much more vocal, muscular majority of nationalists. The joke really is on them.

I will tell you what happened and it’s hilarious. These so called “lower” castes were actually the farthest removed from colonial influences. They didn’t collaborate with the Empire and they were never socialized into public schools of England or their derivatives in India. They were actually much closer to their Bharatiya roots than the so called “upper castes”. They actually embrace a simple, uncomplicated form of nationalism.

Unlike the intellectual classes, they never got to go to Oxbridge to discuss the perils of American imperialism in Guatemala. They haven’t been to any cocktail parties with Pakistani friends either in Lahore or in Delhi. Now, why would a “lower” caste youth whose family has always lived in say Bahraich in Uttar Pradesh feel some deep connection with intellectuals of Karachi?

What did the liberals think was going to happen? Once the “lower” castes found their voice in politics, they spoke in the only language they knew : the language of being an Indian. It’s a language that is not fashionable in Lutyens’ Delhi.

They tried everything : Rohith Vemula to Una. The end result was one big egg on their faces. The so called “lower” classes stood rock solid with the narrative of nationalism. For the classes, the nightmare is only just beginning.

They are desperate. Any Dalit or a person of so-called lower caste who doesn’t agree with their contrived worldview is declared heretic. They prescribe only their own version of history and worldview to a Dalit, and no other view is allowed. They talk about “alternative history” while denying any alternatives to those on whose behalf they claim to speak. But there is life beyond JNU and such campuses they control, and things are changing there.

Varanasi is perhaps the capital of Hindu civilization. If you are a clueless Western intellectual with little more than an agenda, you might look at the harsh exterior of burning corpses and think it’s the city of death. But it’s the city where life, death and renewal embrace each other in the uniquely sublime Hindu way of seeking harmony with the ultimate truth of our human existence.

And when in 2014, Narendra Modi came to this city and displaced the ‘Brahmin’ Murli Manohar Joshi, something changed. The so called “lower castes” were taking their place at the heart of Hindu civilization.

The intellectuals thought they were witnessing our death. But they were really looking a civilization being reborn. It’s okay. They won’t understand. They never did.

Truth about the President calling for dignitaries to make speeches only in Hindi

Recently reports started coming out in the media which indicated that President Pranab Mukherjee had supposedly given his nod to the directive that all dignitaries including the President and the Union ministers were to give their speeches only in Hindi.

This supposed directive was reported in the media with the usual sensationalist flair in the headlines:

  • NDTV reported, “President Pranab Mukherjee Agrees That Dignitaries’ Speech in Hindi A Must”
  • Hindustan Times reported, “President, Union ministers may soon have to give speeches only in Hindi”
  • Economic Times reported, “President Pranab Mukherjee okays call for all speeches to be in Hindi”

Even op-eds started to be written about how India’s diversity was not being considered before allowing such a directive.

The official use of Hindi has always been a bit of a touchy topic, with the Southern states like Tamil Nadu having protested against mandatory Hindi education in the past. So as the reports started to come out about various governmental dignitaries having to apparently make speeches only in Hindi, it started to ruffle a few feathers.

So what’s the deal with this directive, on whose recommendation did the President act, did the Modi government have something to do with it?

Well, this particular process began in 2011 when the ‘Committee of Parliament on Official languages’ submitted its 9th report. The chief job of this committee is to recommend [PDF] to the President, the ways which would make the use of Hindi more popular for official purposes. The recommendations would also include ways to restrict the use of English for official purposes, form of numerals which need to be used among others.

No government was responsible for forming this committee and it was commissioned in 1957 to fulfill the provisions of article 344 of the constitution which deals with the language of the Union. Since 1959 the committee has been making periodic recommendations in that regard.

In 2011 this committee submitted its 9th report and one such recommendation (no. 105) which has now been reportedly accepted by the President is causing all the hullabaloo.

The recommendation was [PDF]:

All dignitaries including Hon’ble President and all the Ministers especially who can read and speak Hindi may be requested to give their speech/statement in Hindi only.

So the recommendation clearly states that if the President and the ministers who can read and speak Hindi, should be requested to give their speeches in that language. Hence if someone doesn’t know Hindi, they can very well speak in the language of their comfort. But owing to its penchant for over the top headlines, media decided to misrepresent the headlines which to the normal reader possibly implied that all dignitaries come what may have to give speeches in Hindi.

Also the ‘may be requested’ tone of the recommendation doesn’t imply any use of force or compulsion to achieve that goal as that NDTV headline implied.

People might also be asking that this recommendation must surely have been made by a committee Chairman who belongs to the Hindi heartland and had a possible passion for the language. But actually the Chairman of the committee was P Chidambaram who hails from Tamil Nadu.

And even though the recommendation allows a leeway for non-Hindi speakers, what about those who have a passable knowledge of Hindi but are more comfortable in other languages like the dignitaries from Bengal or Maharashtra? As long as the above clause is purely recommendatory, it should not cause major discomfort to anyone, but if it is enforced strictly, then it will certainly create unnecessary issues.

The shaved head of Sonu Nigam mourns the death of ‘secularism’ in India

0

In Hindu tradition, one shaves his head when there is a death in the family. Sonu Nigam shaved his head today, because the so-called secular-liberal beliefs of India died today.

“Secularism” in India was anyway a cancer. It kept mutating different parts of the body and it was only a matter of time when it resulted in the death of the host body. It happened today.

What started as a naively idealistic “equal respect and rights to all religions” definition of secularism was bastardized into “more respect and special rights to minority religions” by our political class, but it died today when it was turned into “no disrespect to minority religions at any cost” by the so-called intellectual class.

The case of Sonu Nigam proves it beyond doubt.

Let’s see what exactly happened:

Sonu Nigam complains about loudspeakers blaring azaan from a nearby mosque that disturbs his sleep in the wee hours of Monday. He additionally tweets that loudspeakers at any religious place – and he specifically mentions temples and gurudwaras to balance his criticism – were examples of forced religiousness in India.

Then he says that it’s nothing but gundagardi (hooliganism).

So essentially, he says that every religion is equally guilty of forced religiousness, which he equates with hooliganism.

And he gets attacked and abused by trolls and mocked by “intellectuals”.

It was so strange. Because Sonu Nigam had done something that was quintessentially “secular”.

“Every religion is equally…” hitherto had been the pickup line of so-called secular-liberal person in India. It is one of the crucial tools for attempting monkey balancing and drawing false equivalences. It is one of the passwords to get entry into liberal circles. It is a voucher to buy this paint.

You talk about triple talaq, the liberal dude will say “but every religion is equally guilty of not giving equal rights to women (look at Hindu women not allowed in some temples)”. You talk about missionaries converting poor people and the liberal dude will say “but every religion is equally indulged in such practices (look at your RSS organising ghar wapsi)”.

But things have changed now. The secular-liberal jamaat in India has now discovered that “every religion is equally” sentence is flawed. It is no longer useful somehow. Sonu Nigam used it, and they were not amused. Instead, they mocked him.

But they are not just mocking Sonu, they are disowning a hitherto employed tool of secularism. They are now graduating to the next level.

And the next level they have graduated to, is where no one is supposed to point out any drawback about “minority” religions, especially Muslims. All criticism of religions now has to be exclusively and squarely about Hinduism, and if you bring Muslims or Islam, even with “every religion is equally” caveat (which is simplistic if not stupid), you will be branded a bigot.

This was waiting to happen. We saw elements of this during the debates on Uniform Civil Code, and recently around Triple Talaq. What was taboo earlier has now become a sin and a crime – thou shall not talk about problems in minority religions, no matter what.

This belief lays bare now. With journalists like Shekhar Gupta deciding to insult Sonu Nigam for his tweets and propagandists like Rana Ayyub sharing outright lies about him, the message is quite clear – thou shall keep quiet about Islam (and criticise only Hinduism).

Even now they are making light of Sonu shaving his head. They are terming it a drama. Some pathetic people are even asking if Sonu is looking to join BJP. All this because Sonu was still stuck in an old version of secularism. He needs to upgrade. The new version is available.

Secularism has now morphed into beta version of Shariyat.

Twitter users ‘go bald’ in support of Sonu Nigam

Sonu Nigam has really been in the limelight recently after he tweeted out his angst against the practice of religious places using loudspeakers and forcing religiousness on others. Even though he began by complaining about the noise of early morning Azaan, he also followed it up with a larger point about this being an issue which transcends all religions.

This stance of Sonu Nigam didn’t go down well with some people and he was first abused and attacked for his tweets. Even journalists and so called Liberals took potshots against Sonu. Maybe after feeling empowered by all the outrage, a Maulvi in Bengal today decided to take things a step further and announced a prize of 10 lakhs for whoever managed to shave Sonu’s head. Shaving off head of someone is seen as an act of humiliation in many parts of the country.

But Sonu wasn’t taking it all lying down and decided to check mate the Maulvi by voluntarily shaving his head:


Inspired by the Bollywood singer’s act, many on social media also decided to go bald in his support and changed their DP.

Here are a few instances:


//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Sonu Nigam shaves head after Fatwa, but he may not get the bounty of Rs 10 lakhs

0

Fatwas and decrees by religious people taking offence to the action of others have become commonplace. But what Singer Sonu Nigam did was certainly something straight out of the movies.

Sonu had earned the wrath of Syed Sha Atef Ali Al Quaderi, vice president, West Bengal Minority United Council, who issued a fatwa and announced a prize of 10 lakh rupees for any person who shaves the head of Sonu Nigam. Shaving off head of someone is seen as an act of humiliation in many parts of the country.

This was of course in reaction to Sonu Nigam’s tweets against early morning sounds of Azaan which are delivered on loudspeakers on Mosques. In a series of tweets he had decried the use of loudspeakers in religious places such as temples, mosques and gurudwaras, which caused much inconvenience to the people around. For this, he had been abused and trolled on Twitter.

But Sonu Nigam checkmated Quaderi by announcing that he will get his head shaved himself:


The singer has also held a press conference where he explained the rationale behind his tweets. Later he emerged with a bald head:


This bold move by Sonu Nigam earned him plaudits on social media. Many also felt this was an easy method of earning a quick buck, in this case Rs 10 lakhs.


However, Quaderi might not pay anything because he wanted more than just shaving off the head:

“If anyone can shave his hair, put a garland of old torn shoes around his neck and tour him around the country I personally announce an award of Rs 10 lakh for that person,”

Bad luck Sonu, you did not read the fine print, but at least you made a point. And that haircut will surely beat the heat!

Why does a particular class of people dislike Modi and Yogi?

0

Ever since I started taking active interest in politics, one thing that has continuously intrigued me is what sort of intelligence people use to arrive at a particular political and ideological thinking?

What makes them decide which politician to support and whom to oppose?

What moral and ideological compromises are they ready to make to support and promote their preferred politicians?

Of course, as the title of the article suggests, when I’m writing this, my focus is going to be on Narendra Modi and Yogi Adityanath, because otherwise a whole research paper can be written.

I chose Modi and Yogi as they face the most strident opposition from a particular class of people, and here I’m not talking about political parties because they are supposed to take a contradictory stand. I’m talking about supposedly “non-political” or “neutral” people. I remember I started taking note of Narendra Modi when he was being heavily trolled by those who identified themselves as left-liberal, and most of them pretended to be non-political.

I’m writing about Modi and Yogi because they are targeted the most by not just our own, often self-righteous, news media and the coterie of intellectuals and activists, but also by the foreign press (although the foreign press has its own reasons).

Their every move is observed, given a different version, and seeded and propagated through television, print media or the Internet, to portray them as bigoted, communal villains.

Positive news is totally ignored or it is turned into something negative.

Even if you don’t support both of them, just for the sake of objectivity, just observe the way the news media reports about Modi and Yogi and then compare this to the way the same news media reports about, say, Arvind Kejriwal, Mulayam Singh Yadav, Lalu Yadav, Mamata Bannerjee, or even Sasikala in the South. If you cannot spot the difference then you shouldn’t be reading further, would be my advice.

The stunt that Sasikala pulled after Jayalalitha’s death wasn’t just a mockery of our political system, it was also a criminal activity, but no, our news media decided to be totally “objective” and report the happenings as they were. They simply say that her family is called the “Mannargudi mafia” as if they are not talking about a mafia but an RWA.

There was no outrage. The democracy didn’t come under threat. Minorites didn’t feel vulnerable. The Constitution wasn’t insulted. The foreign media didn’t put Indian on their op-ed map.

The same sense of objectivity suddenly vanishes when it comes to something that the BJP does. Take for example the anti-Romeo squads started by the new BJP government in Uttar Pradesh. The hatred for whatever the BJP does is so steep that a scheme launched to protect the women of the state is projected as an attack on personal freedom. Just imagine, in which country would you term the targeting of eve teasers, roadside goons, and even prospective rapists, as an attack on personal freedom?

The other day captain Amrinder Singh was saying that he will never have anti-Romeo squads in Punjab because he believes in personal freedom. Fair enough; he is a politician and one of his jobs is to show himself different from his political opponents. But then a journalist, who should be objective and unbiased, giddily tweeted the statement as if the anti-Romeo squads were exclusively launched to mount attacks on personal freedom, not even making an effort to present an alternative view that the squads are for reining in the unsavoury elements in the society. Very few in the media explain the fact that these squads are not non-state groups of voluntary people; they are police persons.

The closure of illegal slaughterhouses was similarly reported as an attack on the eating habits of the minorities and all those who eat meat. In any other country, people would be happy that illegal establishments are shut down because they don’t follow the hygienic guidelines prescribed by the rule books, but no, not in our country. All hell broke lose. Even the so-called legal restaurants couldn’t procure meat for the legendary kebabs and people started collapsing due to malnutrition and hunger!

As this article points out, compare the liberal outrage and media coverage shutting down of illegal slaughterhouses in Uttar Pradesh generated with the same about shutting down of legal liquor business in Bihar.

Why is it so? Why is the BJP in general and these two individuals in particular, are so disliked?

BJP is not the party of the ‘ecosystem’

The intellectual class is mostly left dominated. In the late sixties and the early seventies, Indira Gandhi made a deal with the Left and sold her soul to secure her political position. All major educational institutions and news organizations came to be under Left-dominated intellectuals. It became a mutually-supporting system: the Left would provide political support and look the other way when her government crossed the line, and the Congress would let it have a free run at educational, literary and media institutions.

The BJP is anti-Left, or at least that’s the general perception. So the Left-leaning individuals and organizations naturally want to keep the BJP away from power centers, and for that they are even ready to partner with anti-national forces.

The Leftist ecosystem further draws material support from all political dispensations whose sole purpose is to keep the country in a constant state of turmoil by pitting one caste against other, one linguist group against other, one class against other, and so on. The BJP strives to bring all these communities together under the umbrella of nationalism, which disturbs the conventional vote-banks.

Primarily this is the reason why the Leftist intelligentsia (that consists of sundry artists, self-declared intellectuals, variety of NGO workers, activists, sundry writers, socialist economists and of course, journalists) abhors Modi and Yogi – their rise means the decline of the Left-favouring ecosystem.

Narendra Modi is someone who strengthens BJP

I can’t say anything for the BJP, because barring a few people, the party isn’t much different from other parties, with the only difference being that it pretends to represent the interests of the majority Hindu community more vocally.

Narendra Modi completely turned around the BJP, a party that was in complete doldrums after losses in 2004 and 2009 general elections. They were almost happy playing the second fiddle to the Congress after string of defeats.

Take Narendra Modi out of the picture and the party would have either receded further or would have still been in the opposition benches, and quite smug at that. The BJP was an old and rusted Ambassador car that Narendra Modi turned into a Porsche with hard work, statesmanship and political acumen.

So, whatever the position of the BJP right now is, it is all because of Narendra Modi. And this is one of the crucial reason Modi is disliked. Now Yogi Adityanath appears to be doing the same to the party in the so-called cow belt.

Modi and Yogi are workaholics

This can be upsetting for people who are not used to working very hard and for whom things have come easily through connections, serendipity and “jod-tod”.

They both seem to have an infinite supply of energy. Just imagine, ever since Narendra Modi has become the PM he has not taken a single leave. Many cannot relate to this obsession with work.

In fact, people (his supporters and admirers) have started worrying that if he doesn’t take rest it may take a big toll on his health and consequently, he won’t be able to accomplish all that he wants to accomplish.

Yogi Adityanath, after becoming the CM, took 50 major decisions in the first 150 hours. From the first day onwards he has sent an unequivocal message to the bureaucracy, the education system and the police, that he means business when he talks about improving the situation in the state. Many of the major pre-poll promises that the BJP made have already been put into motion.

Both Modi and Yogi work like sadhaks (who think their work is a holy mission)

So much decisiveness and hard work unnerves people who are not used to our systems working efficiently. Somehow, they have internalized the concept that we’re not supposed to have efficient systems; such systems are only for developed countries, the first world nations. The Indian masses are supposed to live in wretchedness.

There is this inferiority complex that makes them believe that the people of India do not deserve good governments and efficient political leaders.

Additionally, when you don’t like working hard, even indirectly, you don’t want to be compared with people who work hard.

Even if somehow they can come to terms with the fact that India could have such leaders, they wish that such leaders would have emerged from their own ideological and political pool rather than from a political party they despise. It would be a stuff of dreams for them if a Rahul Gandhi or an Akhilesh Yadav or even a Kejriwal could have even 10% of the motivation that Modi and Yogi have.

How come a saffron-clad monk is way too smarter than their IIT-educated Magsaysay Award-winning crusader who is featured in the list of the top 100 influencers in the world, they must think? How come the “social engineering” pioneers fail to improve the lot of people for decades and Modi and Yogi start making a positive impact from the word go?

Modi and Yogi have a vision

Most of the politicians in our country don’t have a vision, neither for their parties nor for the country. Their only vision is to get elected and form the government so that they can carry out various scams and enjoy immense power; their vision does not extend beyond that.

This is a big reason that they are constantly running like headless chickens. They have been making the same old promises for the past 50 years. The Congress has been trying to “hatao gareebi” and uplift the “gareeb kisaan” for the past 60 years and if you leave it to the party, it will go on “hataoing gareebi” for the next 200 years, making the country poorer.

Mayawati has been trying to uplift the Dalits for years. Mulayam Singh Yadav has been trying to improve the lot of Muslims and Yadavs, election after election. Mamata Banerjee cannot see beyond blatant Muslim appeasement. Lalu thinks that its his rustic crassness and unapologetic corruption that gets him the votes. Nitish is too opportunistic for his own good. AAP rides on the wave of sheer stupidity. Except for Chandrababu Naidu, politicians in South score no better.

Within 30 days, Yogi Adityanath has set deadlines for making the roads pothole free. Schools have been instructed to furnish fee-structure by a deadline to ascertain if complaints about over-charging is true or not. To tackle the menace of mass cheating in exams, action has been promised within 3 hours after registration of complaint. Yogi government has declared that in the next 5 years there will be 6 new AIIMS and 25 new medical college in the state.

Modi and Yogi don’t just say this should be done or that should be done. They set definitive goals with well-defined deadlines.

The haters are frustrated by the fact that the leaders of their choice don’t manifest such traits. They can’t accept the fact that a “chaiwala” and a safron-clad monk are far smarter and hard working than their chosen ones who converse in accented English while sipping the costliest champagne and whiskey.

Modi and Yogi are proud Hindus and flaunt their Hindu beliefs unapologetically

This can be one of the biggest reasons why people dislike Modi and Yogi. The entire leftist cabal has thrived on demeaning Hindu rituals, Hindu culture and Hindu history.

The Leftist intellectuals and people who are influenced by them or who want to carry forward the agenda, have ensured that the concept of Hinduism becomes a strange mishmash of misconceptions in our country. People are not proud of their religion. Even if they are proud, they want to view Hinduism from a Western perception rather than from an indigenous, Dharmic perception. Let alone being assertive or being protective towards their religion, they don’t mind if other religions overtake Hinduism.

Modi and Yogi on the other hand practice their religious beliefs unapologetically. Modi’s insistence during his first American visit that he won’t interrupt his upvaas (fast) attracted vicious scorn from the so-called liberal and leftist intelligentsia simply because these people are not used to mainstream politicians practicing Hindu ways of life publicly, especially when visiting Western countries.

They don’t want the Western world to look at Hinduism from a strict adherent’s point of view. They want the Western world to look at Hinduism from their own myopic and biased view. They want the Western world to look at India from their point of view and if someone else, unapologetically promotes Hindu beliefs, they scoff and raise a hue-and-cry.

There is a photo comparison that often goes viral every few months: in one photo they show Jawaharlal Nehru showing to a group of foreign dignitaries a poor, emaciated snake charmer sitting on the floor; in the adjacent photo they show a collage of photographs showing how Narendra Modi shows majestic Indian temples to foreign dignitaries and makes them participate in the grand Hindu rituals.

For example when the Japanese prime minister Shinzo Abe visited India Modi took him to participate in the Aarti in Varanasi. Recently Modi took the Australian PM to Akshardham Temple.

Such activities are a strict no-no among the class that dislikes Modi and Yogi. They squirm in great discomfort when Modi promotes Hindu rituals among the visiting dignitaries.

Yes, if you take some foreign dignitary to Jama Masjid or to a church, you are being secular and inclusive, but the moment you take someone to a Hindu temple, you have crossed the line and you are pandering to the Hindutvavadi forces.

The narrative goes somewhat like this: highlight non-Hindu religious beliefs while totally neglecting Hindu religious beliefs then you are fine. But if you highlight Hindu religious beliefs  it becomes incumbent upon you  that you also highlight non-Hindu religious beliefs. If you don’t do that, that is, you highlight only Hindu religious beliefs, then you must be branded as communal.

Even common folks with no specific political affiliations have internalized such biases.

Modi and Yogi inspire the people of the country to do their best

Which other Prime Minister prompted you to keep your county clean the last time? Which Prime Minister advised you to cease defecating in the open and start building indoor toilets? A senior BBC India journalist from Uttar Pradesh commented on television that the Prime Minister of the country shouldn’t indulge in such petty things as advising people to build toilets, such is the state of our intellectuals.

Which Prime Minister said that India shouldn’t​ just manufacture products but should manufacture the best products in the world? Take your cues from Germany, not from China. Which Prime Minister said before that our population is not a problem but an opportunity?

Our intellectual class, and people who like to think that they are smarter compared to the others, find inspiration very off-putting. If someone inspires you then you are forced to work or at least show the others that you should be working. Inspiration is for losers. They are too smart and evolved to be exposed to such inspiration.

Modi and Yogi are the antithesis of the atrophying “chalta-hai” attitude

Our chalta-hai attitude has been our undoing. Chalta-hai means dismissively accepting whatever is happening around us. If the government doesn’t work, chalta-hai. If we have a dilapidated infrastructure, chalta-hai. If there is rampant corruption, chalta-hai. If there are no schools and colleges, chalta-hai. If there is no health care for the poor, chalta-hai. If people don’t want to follow rules, chalta-hai. Kya karein? Saale Indians hain hi aise.

Both Modi and Yogi challenge this chalta-hai attitude. Why should things be mediocre in our country?

Modi and Yogi have dismantled the caste-minority political formula

The rajneetik samikaran (political arithmetic involving castes and minorities, especially Muslims) mentality still refuses to go among our leftist journalists, intellectuals and  social commentators.

A big defence against the so-called communal politics, according to the leftist intelligentsia and its political masters, used to be the caste and religious votebanks that were​ initially controlled by the highly corrupt Congress party and then its various regional offshoots.

In the recently concluded UP elections the BJP has broken this vicious nexus. It has proven that Muslims no longer control who gets to form the government. The backward castes have realized that their champions were actually charlatans.

The ground level caste politics was backed with pseudo-intellectual explanation of these fault-lines in the society. Alternative reading and JNU brand sociology was presented as gospel facts, but Modi and Yogi are showing how these theories are flawed and failing.

The failing class can’t digest their own failure, so now they have to hate and pray that the duo fail in their mission.

These Bollywood stars had ‘no comments’ on the issue of Kulbhushan Jadhav

0

Bollywood stars have their opinions when it comes to the false “intolerance debate”. They have their opinions when they have to sign petitions to keep out one man from the Government. They have opinions during issues like demonetisation. But sadly, unlike some of their colleagues, some in Bollywood do not have any opinions when it comes the life of a man who has been sentenced to death by Pakistan on the pretext of being a spy.

For some time now, the Indian media space has covered the case of Kulbhushan Jadhav quite promptly. Jadhav was abducted by Pakistan, branded a spy and then sentenced to death by a Military court in Pakistan. This, even though Pakistan Prime Minister’s Advisor on Foreign Affairs Sartaj Aziz had admitted long time ago, that the Pakistani government was presented with only “insufficient evidence” on Kulbhushan Jadhav who is under detention. Addressing a full Senate chamber, Aziz had said the dossier on Jadhav contained mere statements.

While most literate Indians would be well aware of this issue, at least some in Bollywood would like us to believe that they are ignorant of the facts, hence are not qualified to have an opinion. Yes, suddenly Bollywood stars need to know facts to speak out. And that too in a case where an Indian has been dealt with in an extremely unfair manner.

At a recent event a reporter asked Bollywood heart-throb Ranbir Kapoor, to spare a few words for Jadhav. The reporter specified that Jadhav had been sentenced to capital punishment in Pakistan, and he expressed hope that a statement from an icon of the stature of Ranbir, would help in securing Jadhav’s release. This is what Ranbir had to say:

I do not have much information on this issue and I do not want to make any irresponsible comments but when I do obtain more information I will speak on this issue.

A similar question was posed at another event where Sushant Singh Rajput had turned up to promote his film. A reporter mentioned how Jadhav had been awarded a death penalty in Pakistan and asked the star for their views on the same. A team member came to Sushant’s rescue saying that this was not the event for such a question. To this, a reporter interjected that they shouldn’t have ducked such a question since it was one on national interest.

On hearing this Rajput snapped and became aggressive. He claimed that since it was a “sensitive” issue one shouldn’t speak if one is not informed about it. The journalist then said that all Rajput had to do was to either condemn the act of Pakistan or not. Rajput responded very aggressively saying that one should be aware of the facts and be responsible to respond to such issues. A look at the video can show how worked up Rajput got:

It was indeed odd for someone like a Sushant Singh Rajput, who has been in the past been vocal about complex and polarising issues like demonetisation, to side-step a straightforward question on condemning a death penalty to an Indian by Pakistan.

Here we saw Rajput ducking a direct question, but recently, the same Sushant Singh took to twitter to proclaim that he had dropped the surname “Rajput” in solidarity with the movie Padmavati. This was his spontaneous reaction, unprovoked by any media person, when news broke out about the attack on the sets of Padmavati.

Actress Vidya Balan too was asked to comment on Jadhav’s death sentence by Pakistan, and she too had the standard reply about not having enough information. She claimed that she did not have complete information about this issue and hence she should not say anything.

Bollywood celebrities do have the right to remain silent on issues which they do not want to discuss. But it certainly raises eyebrows when some otherwise vocal celebrities suddenly choose to be evasive, especially when asked a point blank question. In the current instance, the topic was also extremely simple: It was a well debated issue and condemning such an act was in no way controversial. Rather their silence has now created a controversy.

Even if one may assume that our usually up-to-date stars were ill-educated on this issue, the reporters asking the question made it clear that a death penalty to an Indian was the issue, and it would not take much from anyone to condemn a death penalty at the very least!

Sonu Nigam to get his head shaved after Maulvi announces prize for shaving his head

0

Sonu Nigam had yesterday tweeted against noise pollution caused by religious places such as mosques, temples and gurudwaras. However, since he mentioned azaan in mosques first, he was attacked and abused by trolls and so-called liberals.

The attack against the Bollywood singer has continued unabated since yesterday with senior journalist Shekhar Gupta (of ‘coup’ fame) insulting him as “out of work” singer and anti-Modi journalist Rana Ayyub spreading lies about him:


Emboldened by such attacks by people who control the narrative, a Maulvi in West Bengal issued a fatwa and announced a prize of 10 lakh rupees for any person who shaves the head of Sonu Nigam. Shaving off head of someone is seen as an act of humiliation in many parts of the country.

But Sonu Nigam has now tried to checkmate this Maulvi by announcing that he will get his head shaved himself:


The singer has also called for a press conference at 2 PM today where he could perhaps showcase his shaved head and demand money from the Maulvi for abiding by his fatwa.

However, the Maulvi might not pay anything because he wanted more than just shaving.

“If anyone can shave his hair, put a garland of old torn shoes around his neck and tour him around the country I personally announce an award of Rs 10 lakh for that person,” Syed Sha Atef Ali Al Quaderi, vice president of West Bengal Minority United Council had said.

No worries Sonu, at least you made your point, and thank your stars that the Maulvi didn’t order money for your beheading.

And yes, be ready to be mocked by so-called liberals who will still attack you for “drama” and “publicity stunt” instead of attacking the Maulvi.

Will Barkha Dutt call this guy who raked up personal life of Vasundhara Raje a troll?

0

The internet “troll” has wreaked havoc with mainstream media narrative over the last few years. These “trolls” seem to be everywhere and they have an irritating habit of pulling out inconvenient past tweets, digging up facts that should rather be forgotten. Worse, they are able to build communities in organic fashion, building an invisible yet extremely effective network that exposes lies almost as quickly as the mainstream media is able to manufacture them.

And the professional  propagandists don’t like it one bit that they are being fought to a draw by little more than hobbyists taking to the keyboard in their spare time. You can’t purchase passion.

No wonder then that the community of news-traders sees the “internet troll” as enemy no. 1.

One of the standard ways that the mainstream media has used to malign the social media is claiming that the internet troll is “sexist” and participates in online abuse against women. The outrage against “online abuse” is of course narrowly tailored against the supporters of one political party.

Today the Hindustan Times has taken another step in this direction with its campaign of “Let’s Talk About Trolls”. It seems that the first person to be featured in this campaign (not as a troll, but as a “victim”, in case you were wondering) is controversial journalist Ms. Barkha Dutt.

Here is a banner that HT has used to inaugurate their campaign :

Untitled.png

Ms. Dutt has good reason to be angry with social media, what with some “trolls” giving her trouble this week about her new media venture and the views of some people linked to it.

But let’s take Ms. Dutt’s question (in the image above) at face value.

Good question Barkha! You know, I happened to be reading a certain troll outlet called the New York Times earlier this morning. This article is written by a certain erudite, possibly aristocratic individual by the name of Aatish Taseer, who certainly appears to fetishize “liberal values”.

You’ll absolutely love how this “troll” discusses the politics of Chief Minister Vasundhara Raje.

Untitled

Oh look how wonderful. What a sweet liberal discussion on Ms. Raje apparently having a Muslim boyfriend and being a single mother and smoking and drinking!

Did someone just complain about trolls bringing up  the marriages, divorces and affairs of women in the public sphere? Let Ms. Barkha Dutt continue :

Untitled

Ah…the lynchmobs of the virtual world come hunting against women by raking up their sexual morality, the men in their lives – or the lack thereof. Will the New York Times qualify as one of the lynchmobs of the virtual world? Of course not.

Because what you see in the pages of the New York Times is not sexism. It’s not trolling. It is just respectable liberals doing what respectable liberals always do : evaluating professional women in the public sphere through the boyfriends they may or may not have had. Linking sex life and personal life of a woman to her politics and morality. But hey, this is done with impeccable grammar.

Liberals, thy name is hypocrisy.