Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Home Blog Page 6914

A lesson in free speech for our blabbering commentators

Mayuresh Didolkar
-
0
A lesson in free speech for our blabbering commentators

In one of my articles elsewhere on net I argued that the biggest strength of left liberals comes from their ability to think as an institution. In India, as in abroad, the left liberals are a remarkably coordinated bunch and when under attack they show the remarkable teamwork displayed by a pack of grey wolves on hunt. And of course, they are not fazed by a setback. The “Indian Barbadi” episode on JNU campus, where the stunt of students backfired badly is a case in point.

The backlash was so severe that the lefties (and their loyal tontos in the media) knew some damage control was in order, so they went Plan B ; i.e. “Free speech defence”. Sagarika Ghose called the clampdown on the JNU students “ridiculous”. Rajdeep and Barkha (perhaps fearing a backlash for an overtly pro separatist stance) asked if our state is so weak as to arrest students for raising slogans. Sagarika even posted a US SC judgement on flag burning. Their overwhelming message- if you do not stand still and take separatist scums shouting slogans against your motherland, you are weak, you are dictatorial and you do not get free speech.

Actually, idiot sirs and madams, it is you who don’t get free speech. Your arguments are so self-contradictory that they are impressive only in their brazenness. You really must be counting on us to be exceptionally stupid or exceptionally coward to hope to get away with it. You are not, not today. And just to prove how hollow your arguments are, I am not even going to use the most basic argument that anyone with a modicum of decency will find self-suggesting- namely there is no bravery in being a traitor and that our sovereignty should be above such petty discussions. I get it; your moral decay is so deep that these things will not occur to you. Never mind, like they say, more than one way to skin the cat.

So first way to look at how wrong you are to make this as a free speech issue let’s consider the fact that if free speech can be used to attack sovereignty of the nation, then free speech can be used (with the same moral right) to attack free speech itself and hence any effort to suppress those separatists should not raise your eye-brow. This is a circular argument and one the late comedian George Carlin best summarized as follows “next time someone tells you they have a right to their opinion, tell them you have a right to your opinion too and your opinion is they do not have a right to their opinion”. Got it? Even the ancient Latin doctrine cautions non faciat malum,ut inde veniat bonum i.e. not to do evil that good may come. Or as once again the late George Carlin put it so well “fighting for peace is like f**king for virginity”.

In fact if you apply your mind well to the definition of free speech, you will see that the government and police response to this incident is exemplary in its upholding of free speech. The simple fact is that free speech allows you freedom to say things should change. It provides legitimacy to the act of protesting against an unjust law or government diktat. It does not give you a license to unilaterally revoke the law. Separate the two group of people protesting against government and you will see the police action is only on one of the two. The students who raised slogans of “India ki barbadi tak jung rahegi jung rahegi ( our war will continue till Indian state is not destroyed) are all facing action because they broke an existing law.

A law that states that “whoever, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards the Government established by law in India, shall be punished with 5 imprisonment for life, to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which fine may be added, or with fine.”

It is an existing law passed by legitimate means through Indian legislature and the law enforcement machinery would have failed their duty towards the country if they had not upheld the law in this case. The other group, i.e. people like Sagarika who wishes to abolish the sedition law itself are free and will remain so because they have not broken a law but merely protested it.

Let me take an example away from this debate to clarify my point- let’s say you are one of those activists who feel the laws about domestic violence are hopelessly female centric and require change. Free speech guarantees that your demand to make the change will be heard. However, if you lose your patience with the system and start advising men “ sc**w this, laws are not fair so start beating women till you don’t win” you will be charged. It is so simple that you have to be clinically mentally challenged or deliberately obtuse not to see it. Breaking the law- crime, protesting the law- no crime. May be you should write it down on a cue card or something.

Having addressed the first part, whether the government was within its rights to take action, let’s move to part two. Is the existing law fair? And does it not abate free speech?

Actually no, once again. And to understand why, you need to understand the difference between free speech and consequence free speech. (The last term borrowed from the retired talk show host Jon Stewart, though me and Jon may have varied in our interpretation of the term)

Do I mean to use the popular argument that free speech should not include speech against the country? Not really and for my own reasons. Thankfully, there is no need to use it either. You see free speech is a mere guarantee that your spoken word will not become a reason for your persecution. Free speech is a guarantee that someone (your college/employer/community)/govt) will not punish you in one area for the crime of speaking your mind in an unrelated area. It means if you support Kejriwal and your boss supports  Modi, he cannot fire you from your job as a computer engineer (though in this case if you are a team leader he should fire you for poor judgement, hehe) because supporting Kejriwal is not a deterrent in discharge of your duties at work. But if you are working with Reliance petroleum and you write a blog suggesting all the oil refineries should be set on fire to rid the world of the polluting fossil fuels, he has a right, nay an obligation to act against you. In case of JNU, these students are using their free speech asking people to wage a war against the state. Sorry, free speech does not cover that. For that you would need to have consequence free speech.

Consequence free speech alone can guarantee you that whatever you say will have no consequences of themselves. It also means you can hurt sentiments of the majority of people, make changes without keeping the fairness of them in mind and never get a blowback of your words. For that to happen you need to be the top guy (or one of the top guys) in an authoritarian regime so it is a limited commodity enjoyed by a select few only. A few months back, Russian Foreign minister Sergei Lavrov, in a joint press conference with US secretary of state John Kerry, told a female journalist “ it is politically incorrect for a lady to address a gentleman when she is on her knees” (no kidding Sherlock !!) and continued as if nothing happened. That my friends, is consequence free speech. Ms. Ghose, if you wish to be part of a society where a foreign minister tells you not to open your mouth while you are on your knees, have at it. Not my circus, not my monkeys.

Of course the other group that can get away with consequence free speech are small kids and idiots. (Notice how quickly we are tired of criticizing Kejriwal). That is the other extreme of consequence free speech where people say “oh bachcha hain” or “oh he is an idiot” shake their head and walk away. This is hardly the position a true revolutionary will aspire for.

There is also the fact that most of the people advocating free speech on this issue have demanded actions against hate speech in past. Sagarika herself, even in this controversy tweeted that free speech is not hate speech. What she means is, we can prosecute people for their spoken words, just ask Aunt Sagarika when. A few months back, the same set of intellectuals that are protesting this crackdown had written an open letter to Times Now demanding ban on words like Anti nationals and terror sympathizers. The most ridiculous inconsistency of this particular argument, however, is when people like Shekhar Gupta chided government for taking action against Students in collusion of ABVP. So students protesting against state are kids, students protesting against the first set however are not students, they are merely part of an organization that has students in its name. I, like most Indians, simply don’t have the right education to get the logic of this.

A word to the students then. Your cause is despicable and your cry for help shows you to be morally coward. As someone noted on twitter today, the older generation of lefties at least had the moral fibre to own up sedition if they believed in it. For two days on television every students representative is saying the same thing “the posters were disgusting, we believe in united India but oh all the students arrested for this are a result of the government’s political vendetta”. The famous court judgement that said “nobody killed Jessica” in the Jessica Laal murder case comes to mind.

Here is the truth kids, whatever worth having is worth fighting for. You want to become revolutionaries, more power to you. But then don’t run go running to the constitution of the same country you are fighting against. The bar for fighting for freedom in this country is set pretty high by people like Bhagat Singh and Rajguru and Sukhdev. If you believe this government is dictatorship, learn to fight from those brave hearts and not from some coward professor who masterminded an attack and then spent years begging to the judiciary for his life. Facing a near certain death sentence Bhagat Singh fasted for 116 days to protest treatment mated to him and his colleagues in jail. His comrade in arms Jatindra Nath Das went on hunger strike to protest treatment given the prisoners by the British authorities died after fasting for 63 days. Those were the people who believed in putting everything on line to fight for the ideal they believed in. They did not count on a democratic regime to bail them out of trouble.

Those bravehearts sang “सरफरोशी कि तमन्ना अब हमारे दिल मे हैं देखते हैं जोर कितना बाजू ए कातील मे हैं” and we sing their praises even today. We have neither admiration nor sympathy for despicable cry bullies who run for cover at the first hint of trouble.

Home Minister joins media in getting fooled by fake twitter handles and satire

OpIndia Staff
-
0
Home Minister joins media in getting fooled by fake twitter handles and satire

Update: Media reports now suggest that the Spokesperson of Home Ministry has now clarified that the Minister’s statement was based on inputs from security agencies:

Today, speaking on the issue of the anti-national slogans at JNU, Rajnath Singh said that he has instructed the police to take action on the guilty and ensure than no innocent students are harassed. He further added that the entire event had the backing of Hafiz Saeed.

This last statement of his got plenty of flak from social media. Reason? The statement of Hafiz Saeed backing the JNU protests was from a fake Twitter handle (the handle has now been suspended/deactivated). (Edit: He may well have intelligence information on this, but as of now no such facts have been placed on record by him and the Delhi Police which comes under HMO has also quoted this fake tweet) Journalists like Rajdeep Sardesai  jumped at this statement from the Home Minister:


So where did Rajnath Singh get this information from? He might have actually read that tweet, but considering that the account had only 2000 odd followers, its reach is highly suspect. He might have got this information from the media though, because CNN IBN itself had reported this “news” a few days back. The report is now deleted, but we have the screenshots: 

jnu hafiz saeed

Yes, a premier news organization like CNN IBN had reported this tweet from a fake handle as a news item. There were also a few journalists who had raised an alarm based on this tweet. Indian Media, which is supposed to verify and check facts before reporting, itself failed at this basic check. And it is entirely possible that this report, which had become viral, might have been trusted by Rajnath Singh too.

And this is not the first time Indian media has taken quotes from fake accounts/satirical pieces and shown it as news. If you have been reading OpIndia.com regularly, you would know we have been repeatedly pointing out all the occasions when Indian media has spread blatant lies, which innumerable politicians have fallen for.

Rajnath Singh too has been on the receiving end of blatant lies by Indian media. In November 2015, Outlook in its article, made a passing comment that Rajnath Singh has said “Modi is first Hindu ruler after 800 years “. This was from an article dated November 16 2015. A good two weeks later this came into focus as CPM leader Mohd Salim used this alleged quote of Rajnath Singh to stir up the Intolerance debate and cause a huge furore. He placed reliance on and even quoted the above mentioned Outlook piece. Rajnath Singh denied it and rightly so, because he had never made such a statement. It was in fact said by VHP leader Ashok Singhal almost a year back. This was widely reported at that time yet Outlook chose to lie on this issue.

Other cases where Indian media reported “news” based on satire/parody sources:

In 2011, Shekhar Gupta wrote and Indian Express published a piece where Gupta (of Military Coup fame) quoted from the Twitter feed of “Fake Jhunjhunwala”, assuming it to be from the real one, the stock broker Rakesh Jhunjhunwala. They later had to apologise for this idiocy. 

In March last year, Rajdeep Sardesai’s own media house India Today had reported that Sadhvi Prachi had said  “Valdimir Putin’s original name is Vaarahmihir Putr Singh”. The truth? This news report was based on a satirical post by an India Today publication itself. How thick can you be if you can’t recognise satire from your own media house? Or was it deliberate?

In May 2015, ABP News reported that  Arvind Kejriwal had called Akshay Kumar’s Gabbar is Back “Nonsensical”. Again, this was based on a satirical piece in Times of India’s “Mocktail” section. 

In August 2015, CNN IBN again, reported that Pakistani commentator Syed Tarikh Pirzada had said Rahul Gandhi and Kejriwal must break Hindus on caste line to break India. This too was based on a tweet by a parody account. 

In September 2015, Rediff.com reported that former Finance Minister Arun Shourie had attacked Narendra Modi. Rediff believed that an unverified twitter handle called “@ArunSFan” with barely 2286 followers, was the real handle of former Finance Minister Arun Shourie. This inspite of the fact that the handle clearly mentions in its bio that it is run by “Fans of Arun Shourie” and is a “Parody account”

These are of course beyond the over 200 lies told to us by Indian media over the last year. Rajdeep Sardesai himself has been involved in many such half-truths and whole lies and we have exposed him repeatedly on twitter:


Ultimately, it is a good thing that at least by virtue of Home Minister Rajnath Singh’s gaffe, Indian media has woken up to parody handles and fake news. Let us hope we get a better level of journalism henceforth and till then we request all readers of MSM, including the Home Minister, to verify news independently. 

Dear Facebook, instead of free basics, how about giving us free speech?

vaibhav vishal
-
0
Dear Facebook, instead of free basics, how about giving us free speech?

We all love Facebook. Facebook loves us back. Or at least it used to, till they decided to do away with Free Basics in India. But, hell, these minor setbacks in our relationship apart, I think we still love Facebook. And I’m sure Facebook still loves us back.

To such an extent that Facebook decides on which posts and pictures are good for us and which ones are not. In principle, it is a good idea. There are certain rules and regulations of a civilised world that any democratic societal set up, real or virtual, needs to follow. And Facebook being a strong and smart reflection of what we are, has a set of Community Standards that one has to adhere to. If and when one is not quite adhering to those Community Standards, Facebook has the right to unilaterally debar you from posting on the network. Or, in the worst case scenario, throw you out, no questions asked, or answered.

So far, so good. Freedom of speech is linked to respecting that freedom. Live with it.

Having said that, while Facebook gives us this lovely platform to communicate and converse – and we love you back, Mark & Co. – it cannot be a totalitarian regime, where they decide on what is good, bad or ugly for us. Which is precisely how things seem to be working right now! These calls on whether or not a post or picture is violating the Community Standards seem to be subjective calls, based on the opinion of Employee A or Employee B sitting in front of a screen with Rulebook.doc  open, deciding what works and what does not, basis the time of the day, week or month.

And that’s clearly not how things should be.

In these times of the democratization of the political discourse, media, opinion makers and opinion seekers; in these times of people getting exposed within seconds to anything and everything that has ever happened, is happening or will happen around the world; in these times of reference points continuously changing and evolving, the lines between what is right and what is wrong have totally blurred. Facebook needs to, therefore, stop overbearingly imposing these Standards on us. Or at least relook at how things are happening. These guidelines need to be based on the collective wisdom of the people using FB, and the social stratosphere enveloping them. And, most importantly, these calls cannot be randomly subjective. That’s being both bossy and boorish.

Here’s Exhibit A. Orijit Sen is an established artist. He paints.  Sometimes he paints nudes. And, then, sometimes he uploads them on his FB profile. His painting “She came in through the bathroom window…” got reported for nudity, and FB removed the picture. It violated the dreaded Facebook Community Standards. Another friend of Orijit put up the same picture, somebody reported again, and this time, Facebook did NOT remove it because it did NOT violate the Community Standards. The same painting! Encouraged, a third friend also put it up. But in her case, not only was the picture removed, but her account was also suspended for 24 hours! Same painting. Same voice urging the same freedom of expression. Three similar same cases. Three different outcomes. Wow.
1.0

Facebook Block

Now, either the guys handling these complaints are plain confused or they are power lords or they are high on something good. I hope for their sakes, it is reason number three.

Exhibit B. Rahul Raj, the man behind the very popular Facebook page Bhak Sala (and also a key custodian of OpIndia, in the spirit of complete disclosure), reposts something by Indian Express on the page Bhak Sala. The post was a link to an article published in Indian Express about Arvind Kejriwal’s picture adorning posters with Bhindranwale’s images in it, urging people to celebrate Bhindranwale’s birthday. I would not get into WHYs and HOWs of the story or how smart or stupid Kejriwal is. But this was a legitimate story published by a mainstream national daily. All what Rahul did was post it with a clean, uncomplicated and straightforward line preceding it. That, according to him, AAP celebrating Bhindranwale’s birthday was shameful politics by Kejriwal and his team. By no stretch of imagination was the line or the news article violating the community standards of any community, even if Arvind Kejriwal was heading that community! And yet, Facebook chose to block Rahul’s account. No removal of posts, that would be too mild for the non-believer, let’s just suspend him from posting. Because we can, yay! This, when Indian Express had also published the story, and it had totally survived inviting the wrath of the digital Big Brothers!

Bhak Sala

Facebook Ban

This wasn’t Rahul’s first brush with Facebook’s random policies. According to them, he is a repeat offender. He may be the man behind one of India’s best youth communities honing original thoughts through active debates and discussions. BUT then again, he also has the dubious distinction of having his account suspended for 30 days for posting a picture pertaining to ISIS which showed a young man being burnt alive, with his PoV on the picture/ ISIS. The picture was widely shared across social media. It was already in public domain. But Facebook decided to ban him for 30 days. Again, while I understand the rationale behind censoring and censuring what Facebook thinks are extreme thoughts, I still cannot fathom how the decision was taken and how the ‘punishment’ was derived! What was the logic behind suppressing a debate in both these cases pertaining to Rahul? Why not let the voices be heard!

Bhak Sala

In Facebook’s defence, it is not as if these actions are taken suo moto by them. They react after somebody files a complaint against a post or a picture. So while we can take FB to the cleaners, the dissent is primarily stemming not from FB, but from us, our varied belief systems, and our understanding of rights and wrongs. We need to look as much within as we expect FB to look into its algorithms and systems and policies.

And now Exhibit C. A cartoon by Kashmiri artist Mir Suhail Qadiri, blocked within an hour of it getting posted. Why does the post not follow Facebook Community Standards? Because it talks about how the roots growing from Afzal Guru’s grave in Tihar Jail are connecting to the roots of Kashmir. And because the artist refers to Afzal Guru as Shaheed. Facebook considered it hate speech, and boom! Fair enough. Afzal Guru was a convicted terrorist, an enemy of the state, given death penalty by the Supreme Court of India for the attack on Indian Parliament, and calling him a martyr isn’t really siding with the law of the land. But then again, there could be a set of people who may find the idea of blocking a cartoon depicting a different perspective of a conflict-torn Kashmir not really in sync with the idea of democracy!

Afzal

Because voices, even if they are the voices of dissent, should be heard. Or NOT.

I would leave this to the opinions of the learned, discerning readers of OpIndia. Three cases of apples, apples and apples to compare. Meanwhile, I shall be Zen about it all, and get back to posting cat pictures on Facebook. 🙂

PS: In other news: http://tech.firstpost.com/news-analysis/if-your-last-name-is-chutia-your-fb-ac-might-be-blocked-209806.html

 

(Vaibhav Vishal is the Chief Creative Officer with a Mumbai based entertainment firm. The views expressed in this article are his own, though he hopes they find some resonance at the FB offices, too. He is @ofnosurnamefame on Twitter and can be seen on http://ofnosurnamefame.com every now and then.)

Liberal outcry over JNU – a genuine topic for research in hypocrisy

Editorial Desk
-
0
Liberal outcry over JNU – a genuine topic for research in hypocrisy

“Government is taking away the right to disagree”, “This is attack on free speech”, “Innocents students are being targeted” – similar rhetoric on these lines are being offered to the police action against JNU students, who had shouted anti-India slogans during an event to commemorate “martyrdom” of Afzal Guru, who had attacked Indian parliament in 2001.

Since obfuscation of issues is an art well mastered and perfected by the media and the so-called intelligentsia of India who imagine themselves to be liberal, we have to ignore the rhetoric being offered and look at the facts.

A bunch of JNU students had organized a pro-Afzal Guru event on the campus where they shouted anti-India slogans. There is video proof of the incident, which has not been disputed by those on campus, although those outside are trying their best. Earlier today, a propaganda video, claiming that the original JNU video could be misleading, was spread by controversial journalist Mihir Sharma, but his lies were called out even by journalists of his own disposition.

Coming back to what actually happened; among the slogans shouted on campus were calls for Kashmir’s independence from “Indian occupation” and that struggle for Kashmir’s independence (aazaadi) will continue till “India is destroyed” (bhaarat ki barbaadi tak).

Apparently, these are words and thoughts of “innocent students” and these are not “anti-national” sentiments. Yearning for a fight that will destroy the nation is not anti-national. Okay.

Maybe those innocent students have not read the Indian constitution, which is the foundation of the nation. The Indian constitution asks its citizens to uphold and protect the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India as a fundamental duty. And therefore, acts that threaten the sovereignty, unity or integrity of the nation are deemed serious criminal offenses.

One can argue that there was no act, but just a speech.

Ideally, no speech should be seen as a criminal offense – that is our broad right-liberal stand on the issue. However, the police and the courts won’t function based on what is “ideal”, but based on what is prescribed in the constitution.

And our constitution criminalizes certain types of speech, which include punishment for speech that is against the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India and the security of the State.

Ironically, this “criminalization of speech” is the fallout of the first amendment of the constitution moved by the first Prime Minister of India Jawaharlal Nehru, after whom JNU is named.

So while we may stand for ‘no criminalization of speech’, the fact is that our constitution and laws allow it. Police had a prima facie evidence (the video and the news reports) and a formal complaint (by a Member of the Parliament) in this regard, and thus they had the right and a duty to act. Rest is upon the courts to decide.

At this point, it is important to note that the same bleeding heart liberals, who today are calling upon the state to be magnanimous and ignore the constitutional and legal provisions (thanks to Nehru) that criminalize speech, prefer to keep stony silence when certain other types of speech is punished for being criminal.

Only a few weeks back the Uttar Pradesh government imposed the National Security Act – a law that has been called draconian by the same set of bleeding heart liberals – was imposed upon one Kamlesh Tiwari, who had abused Prophet Muhammad.

No liberal was outraged. No op-ed was written. No tweets were composed.

Essentially, arrest and jail for abusing a community’s prophet goes down well, but an arrest for abusing the nation is seen as “reminder of Emergency” to our liberals. Only in India those who give more importance to religion than to the nation are deemed as “liberals”!

Just like they are saying “Don’t support anti-national sentiments, but sedition charges are over-reaction” now, they could have said “Don’t support abusive language, but slapping NSA is over-reaction” then.

They didn’t say that, because to say that, the primary commitment has to be towards the idea of free speech. Looks like their primary commitment is to hypocrisy.

The other rhetoric being offered is that of sanctity of educational institutes, and that all kinds of views should be allowed on campuses; that an educational institute should become a battleground of ideas where all views, however unpleasant, are allowed and debated.

And this is being told weeks after some JNU students belonging to the left ideology vehemently opposed a talk by Baba Ramdev on their campus. And the same set of bleeding heart liberals had then supported the students blocking Ramdev.

Amazing hypocrisy!

The truth is that our liberals are not concerned about dissent or free speech or plurality of views. That was never their concern; else this glaring hypocrisy would never come to the fore.

Indian liberals want free speech only for themselves. It’s a monopoly that they hanker for. JNU epitomizes this monopoly, where freedom to shout anti-India slogans are demanded but freedom of Baba Ramdev to express his views is curtailed.

This is why they are shouting so much for JNU.

Degree Wapasi storm threatens to hit JNU?

OpIndia Staff
-
0
Degree Wapasi storm threatens to hit JNU?

JNU campus has been in the news for all the wrong reasons recently. Last week some Leftist students of JNU called a meet to commemorate the “judicial killing” of Afzal Guru and Maqbool Bhat. Slogans like ‘Shaheed Afzal Guru’ were heard on the campus. The protestors also expressed solidarity with “struggle” of Kashmiri migrants and advocated for ‘Azad Kashmir’. A video emerged which showed these students saying: “India go back, Kashmir ki azadi tak jung chalegi. Bharat ki barbaadi tak jung chalegi”

“Bharat ki barbaadi tak, jun rahegi” say JNU Communist studentsWatch: JNU Communist students shouting slogans againts India and praying for “Bharat ki barbaadi”

Posted by OpIndia.com on Wednesday, February 10, 2016

In the aftermath, there was huge outcry on social media and among the general masses, denouncing these clearly anti-national forces. JNU on the other hand has put up extremely flimsy defences. A JNU professor tried to plant the theory that the people shouting the above slogans were not even JNU students. And she also urged the police to stay out and let the JNU administration take care of the issue. She perhaps doesn’t realise that while she herself is floating the theory that the miscreants are not JNU students, how does she expect the administration to take any action against people who are not even their students. Is it then a classic case of trying to shield the guilty from the cops?

Now, news reports are suggesting that JNU might be hit by a ‘Degree Wapasi” onslaught. Ex-servicemen of June, 1978 batch of the National Defence Academy (NDA) have said that they are finding it difficult to be associated to the university and therefore they would return their degrees. In a letter to the vice-chancellor of the university, ex-servicemen of the 54th NDA course said:

“We the proud fraternity of ex-servicemen of the June 1978 Batch of National Defence Academy, who are proud recipient of the Bachelor of Science and Bachelor of Arts Degree from your esteemed University, are today constrained at the ongoing anti national activities on your university campus like celebration of Afzal Guru day, and consider it an affront to be equated with the present student fraternity of the university which is indulging in such anti national activities.

We, the proud, patriotic ex-servicemen of the 54th NDA course find it difficult to be associated to a university which has become a hub of anti national activity, and would therefore be constrained to return our prized and well earned degrees to your esteemed institution if such activities are allowed to be conducted inside the University Campus”

The ex-servicemen say they would be “constrained to return their degrees” if such activities are allowed to be conducted in JNU. This is a very strong step taken by the people who have laid down their lives to serve and defend the nation and should come as a big blow to JNU. Unlike the Award-Wapsi brigade, who had been recipients of political patronage at various stages, these are army-men, hence, attacking them and ascribing motives to them would be harder than usual.

This feeling seems to be present even in serving army-men. If this reporter is to be believed, an Indian Army Jawan in Leh is distraught at the happenings at JNU. He cannot understand why people are glorifying terrorists while brave men like him defend these very people from the terrorists they are glorifying:


It would indeed be a sweet irony that the “Award Wapasi” routine would be re-cycled and used as “Degree Wapasi” against JNU, because the start of the Award Wapasi campaign, began from a JNU product. The first “eminent” person to return his award was author Uday Prakash, who has been a “passionate young member” of the CPI and later the CPM, and has graduated from the JNU. Time will tell if the Degree Wapasi campaign will sustain and grow into something much bigger.

Has Twitter given away entire Jammu & Kashmir to China and Pakistan?

OpIndia Staff
-
0
Has Twitter given away entire Jammu & Kashmir to China and Pakistan?

Microblogging site Twitter came under sharp criticism by many Indian users for showing Jammu & Kashmir in China and Pakistan when users used the website’s location services while composing their messages.


Twitter allows users to tag a place in tweets and users can either select their current location automatically selected by GPS services or manually select a location by typing the name of the city or region they want to tag, after which Twitter gives the users options from their database.

On Friday, when users typed “Jammu” or “Kashmir” in the Twitter’s location field, they were shocked to realize that the website didn’t give any option of India at all. Users were asked to either select China or Pakistan.

Kashmir as per Twitter
Kashmir can either be in China or Pakistan according to Twitter
Jammu as per Twitter
Both pictures tweeted by Twitter user @padhalikha

It should be noted that the option of India was not available even though users were searching for cities that are in the Indian territory, unlike PoK (Pakistan Occupied Kashmir) or Aksai Chin, which have been illegally occupied by Pakistan and China respectively.

Earlier in 2013, Google Maps had come under criticism for showing PoK and Aksai Chin (and parts of Arunachal Pradesh) outside the Indian map, and the then government had asked it to correct it. Thereafter Google has been using maps that are acceptable to all the parties (by showing dotted lines on disputed or unclear boundaries).

However, what Twitter has done can’t be acceptable to India at all as India is not being shown as an option at all. This is for the first time, even Jammu is being virtually shown as a “disputed” territory.

Although many users had been complaining and tagging Twitter India’s chief Rishi Jaitley and news head Raheel Khursheed, neither of them had issued any clarification or apology when this report was published.

From selling his kidney to Gold at the South Asian games: The journey of Ravi Dixit

Rahul Raj
-
0
From selling his kidney to Gold at the South Asian games: The journey of Ravi Dixit

Sometime during mid of January 2016, there was a story about a young Indian squash player Ravi Dixit who was willing to sell his kidney to pursue his career. Ravi, a 20-year-old squash player, had won gold in the 2010 Asian junior championship, had been playing squash for 10 years and earning many medals and laurels for India. But he did not have any money to fund his campaign for the South Asian Games to be held in Indian in February 2016.

Ravi’s post on Facebook was shocking:

“I have been playing squash for the last 10 years. Even after winning so many medals and representing India so many times, I do not get any support to take my squash to the national and international levels,” Dixit said. “Dhampur Sugar Mill has supported me but how long will they continue to support me? Next month, the games are starting in Guwahati and I am representing India. To prepare for the tournament, I am training in Chennai but I have not been able to arrange enough money to fund my campaign for the games. I have lost my determination. I am ready to sell my kidney. If anyone needs a kidney, they can contact me. The price of my kidney is Rs 8 lakh,”

Here was a champion, ready to sell his kidney to support his passion, of playing squash. He came from a poor family and found no other choice but to announce this drastic step.

Ravi soon clarified though, that it was an “emotional outburst” which was blown out of proportion. Interestingly this “out of proportion” remark turned into a blessing in disguise for him. Many people on the social media trended #supportRaviDixit and approached people to help Ravi.


Out of the hashtag, emerged a crowd-funding initiative. A campaign was started on a site to help Ravi raise the Rs  2 lakhs he needed to train for and participate in the South Asian Games. But alas, the campaign did not succeed. It had only 3 contributors and he could raise only Rs 5500.

Just as all hopes were fading, Ravi Dixit found his angel. Manish Mundra, the producer of classic Bollywood movies like Ankhon Dekhi and Masaan, stepped up to help Ravi:


And Manish Mundra was true to his words. Last week, Mundra gave Ravi Dixit his initial funding of Rs 2 lakhs.  Manish also requested Ravi to tell others that he is not selling his kidneys so that people keep their hopes in humanity. This enabled Ravi to fund his campaign for the South Asian Games.

Yesterday, the Indian men’s team of squash played against the Pakistani team in the finals of the team squash event at the South Asian Games in Guwahati. Ravi played against Danish Atlas Khan, and even though he didn’t win his match, the team won and the Indian team won the Gold medal.

 

Mumbai or Bombay – The Independent’s stunt

Mayuresh Didolkar
-
0
Mumbai or Bombay – The Independent’s stunt

In the 1942 science fiction “Donovon’s brain” by the late Curt Sidomak, one of the character towards the end of the book recites the rhyme “he thrusts his fists against the post and still insists he sees a ghost” to keep himself from falling into a spell. The Independent’s editor Amol Rajan’s boneheaded assertion of referring to Mumbai as Bombay as a stand against “closed minded view of Hindu Nationalists” falls in this category of thrusting your fists and shouting ghost in face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Before I begin dissecting his motives, however, I must first take exception to this symbolic crusading that the left liberals seem to specialise in. For someone as powerful as the editor of a newspaper, reverting to the old name of a city to fight Hindu Nationalist is weak and vain. It reminds me of the Americans who started calling their French fries as Freedom fries back in 2001 to protest France’s lack of support in war on terror. Amol’s stance is a classic case of lazy liberalism where scolding someone and making symbolic gestures has replaced actually doing something. If there is indeed extremist nationalism in the country, saying Bombay instead of Mumbai does absolutely nothing to reduce/fight it.

Now let’s think about this whole close minded nationalism thingie.  Mumbai/Bomaby is not a Hindu- non Hindu thing.  If anything it is a native versus immigrant thing. Noted Marathi humourist the late Pu La Deshpande even made a joke about it saying according to true Mumbaikar, Mumbai belonged to those who called it Mumbai. He said this somewhere in the 70s, when the city was officially named Bombay. And I really hope, left lunatic and all, Amol Rajan will not call the beloved Pu La a close minded Hindu. Even Shiv Sena who agitated for the change in name did so to assert its Marathi roots, not its Hindu roots. The 90s, after all, were a decade when a whole lot of cities discarded their British era colonial names for more Indian ones. Madras to Chennai happened almost simultaneously. So why single out Mumbai?

One reason is of course taking a stand against Hindu Nationalism is a good move career wise if you are in media.  Today I saw Rana Ayyub congratulate Amol for this. Because, you know it takes real courage to call a city by a wrong name when you are sitting in your plush newspaper office in London (Or Londonium, as it was called before it’s name was changed to London). Also it is a classic baiting tactic that liberals have run to ground in the past. The tactic goes something like this- say something stupid/offensive/false. Put it up in media or social media. Wait for the backlash. Then point at the backlash as a proof of your original stupid statement. (Remember Amir Khan claiming the backlash to his intolerance remarks prove intolerance?). So Amol will be really disappointed if there is no backlash from the “close minded Hindu Nationalists” like us.

The other and more sinister reason for this stand is sneaky imperialism. You see, for many liberals who studied in foreign universities, whose parents/grandparents did the civil services jobs in the 50s and 60s, or who themselves taught in the Nehruvian socialist golden era of our universities in the 70s, the British rule in many ways was better than independence. After all British society understood and valued hierarchy.  You could be a Lord or a Duke or a Baron and the unwashed masses would not dare question you. You could pontificate about the future of those masses in the company of elites like you, and laugh in derision, should one of the masses show the impunity to question you.

Of course times changed and with the advent of social media broke down the last of the elitist bastion; media. No longer could journalists insulate themselves from the unwashed masses, if they said something stupid they got their rear kicked in the most public and humiliating manner. Naturally their frustration at free speech and the Indian independence increased. In Victorian England, you could kick those who disagreed with you and your peers would nod “there’s a chap” with you.  It is understandable why someone like Amol would wish to use the name used by foreigners who ruled Mumbai rather than its own unwashed masses.

So if all of this is the frustration of a weak, petulant Knight, why take it seriously?

Because first of all, it is perpetrating injustice on us and hence must be taken seriously.  When Amol says the change of name was done by a far right government in Maharashtra, what he is really saying is the stupid people in Maharashtra elected a far right government.  It also smacks of liberal arrogance and imperialism where the gora sahib (or his brown tonto) gets to decide what name represents open mindedness and pluralism and the rest of us have to fall in line. And remember, today it is the name, next it will be our language. The liberals are notorious for taking a mile when given an inch.

You see, it is no surprise that leftist always thumb their noses at the notion of patriotism. For their highly networked and cartelistic way of operation, boundaries of nationhood are really an irritant. Which is also why you see the lefties in our country scream murder over any attempt by government to audit NGOs like Greenpeace. They do not like their sources of money questioned for something as inconsequential as law and order.  This has also made the left liberals and media people, the favourite new tools of those ambitious individuals who wish to exert influence over other countries using their infinite wealth.

So when Amol is insisting Mumbai to be called Bombay, he could be sending a very visible signal of loyalty to some obscure power centre that understands the dangers of allowing Indians to rebuild their self-esteem by means of identifying and embracing their culture.  He is saying” oh those filthy unwashed Indians. How dare they decide what to call their cities?”

Lastly, is it really rejection of pluralism if a city’s name reflects the cultural history of its majority? Of course not. A multi-cultural world is one where each community has a place of their own, not a cultural equivalent of Mc’Donalds with identical design and menus the world over.

There is a famous anecdote of retired Indian cricketer G R Vishwanath. One day, in Australia, Vishy pronounced Richie Benaud’s surname as Be-nod. Richie corrected him gently, to which Vishy promptly responded “great. Now please stop calling me Vijav Nath”.

Vishy is considered by many as the finest style batsman that ever donned an Indian cap. In these perilous times, his may not be such a bad example to emulate when it comes to getting in face of those who are angry with us for asserting our nationalism.

Headley names Ishrat Jahan, but will India’s “secular” brigade accept?

OpIndia Staff
-
0
Headley names Ishrat Jahan, but will India’s “secular” brigade accept?

Continuing his deposition today, Pakistani-American terrorist David Headley, dropped a bombshell. Headley told the court that Ishrat Jahan was a member of LeT. Headley said Lakhvi told him about the botched up operation in India by Muzzamil Butt. He was told that a woman named Ishrat Jahan was killed in the shootout. Headley had revealed this even to the FBI during his disclosures in the US.

But some in India may still choose to look the other way. They say you cannot wake up those who are pretending to be asleep, will our allegedly “secular” Adarsh Liberal brigade wake up and smell the coffee?

Will Sagarika Ghose wake-up, who had written this ode to Ishrat:saggy

Will Nitish Kumar’s Janata Dal United wake up? Whose leader  Ali Anwar had called Ishrat Jahan as ‘Bihar’s daughter’, which led to infamous epithet of “Ishrat ke Papa” for Nitish Kumar.

JDU

Will Sharad Pawar from the NCP wake up, who had proclaimed Ishrat as “innocent”?

PAWAR


Will Rana Ayyub wake up? She had declared  Ishrat Jahan innocent multiple times:

RANA


Will Nikhil Wagle wake up, who “admired the fight” of Ishrat’s family?

Will Communist leader Brinda Karat wake up? Who inaugurated an ambulance dedicated to Ishraat? “In memory of Shahid Ishrat Jahan”

And later even attended an event in solidarity with Ishrat Jahan, saying:

KARAT

But can we honestly expect even this from our “secular” media? Already, some “stellar” “journalists” have begun the plan to discredit David Headley, and are being joined by the usual political suspects:




JNU student talks about the hypocrisy of the Left in JNU

OpIndia Staff
-
0
JNU student talks about the hypocrisy of the Left in JNU

After publishing In Intolerant India, open support to Terrorists from educated Indians, we talked to some JNU students to understand the politics within JNU. This is what Pavan Chaurasia says:

JNU is, and has always been a pro-naxal and pro-extremist institution, which has disguised people in the name of subaltern and post-modernism. The reality is, they have rarely challenged the inherent contradictions. Recent reports expose how caste system is flawlessly followed in certain centres of JNU. While lessons of equality, freedom of speech and tolerance are preached to certain sections, some other sections are considered as holier than thou. To be frank, one has to follow the leftist ideology to grow inside the system. There are very strong chances that if one opposes the leftist ideology, he/she may not get into MPhil.

While they claim to stand against “stereotypes”, they never miss a chance to portray all the right wingers as fascist, lumpens, goons, perverts etc. Not only that, it is fashionable in JNU to call Indian army as “rapists”. Irony is, JNU has the most number of sexual abuse cases, and one ex- president of JNU who was a member of a progressive leftist party which claims ” bekhauf azaadi” had charges of sexual harassment against him. Not only that, a  leftist teacher was recently suspended by JNU for a similar heinous crime. Interestingly, he too was the member of a leftist brigade that tried hard to protect him. Ultimately, he was rescued by just suspending him, rather that asking for FIR and criminal prosecution against him.

JNU campus organizes plays like Gadha Puran, celebrates Mahisasur Diwas, the students don’t dare to replace puran with books worshipped by other religions or insult religious sentiments by ridiculing their prophets. Mainstream left has sidelined the OBC, SC, ST to such an extent that these marginalized groups had to form their own party BAPSA and contest elections.

The issue of Freedom of Speech is always contested, but the selective amnesia of the left is amazing. I hardly hear them discussing uniform civil code or patriarchial exploitation of Muslim women. When Kamlesh Tiwari was facing the wrath of scores of Muslims,  not a word in support of Kamlesh Tiwari was uttered by anyone in the campus.  While the Right Wing people are stereotyped as “lumpens”, the campus maintained silence when TP Sreenivasan was assaulted by SFI goons in Kerala.

For all those who think the freedom of speech is under threat, let’s be clear, it is rather the monopoly of freedom of speech that is threatened. The speech act is dangerous, if not, why is Kamlseh Tiwari booked, and why are some people demanding death penalty for him? The left is so much for FoE that it didn’t allow Tasleema Nasreen to stay at Kolkata, and so she had to leave her favorite city. The history of violence of communism is very old. To understand there working, Animal farm by George Orwell is must!! Perhaps it is a reflection of JNU.

1...6,9136,9146,915...6,968Page 6,914 of 6,968

Contact: [email protected]

About us

News and opinion website that brings you reports and narrative from a perspective often ignored or suppressed by the mainstream media of India.

Follow us

© OpIndia.com