Thursday, November 14, 2024
Home Blog Page 6956

Minimum Government – Are we getting there?

Ever since Prime Minister Modi has taken office, his political opponents as well as the mainstream media have tried to analyze, debate and punch holes in this claim of “minimum government, maximum governance”. Various interpretations have been made based on prejudices and the topic has also been debated based on Modi’s tenure in Gujarat as well as his statements during speeches. My expectations were also much different than how it is turning out in the first seven months of Modi regime. Governance is a long drawn process and I will hold my views on that. In the meantime, let us evaluate the ‘minimum government’ part of this claim.

My theoretical understanding of ‘minimum government’ included eliminating some departments, canceling some social programs, downsizing workforce in governmental agencies, privatization of PSUs, government ceding control in some bodies and so on. Mainstream media has been fixated with the number of ministers in the Central Cabinet as the critical parameter for minimum government. Opposition parties have been throwing darts at everything, thus making it difficult to know their interpretation. Also, they do not seem to suggest a concrete alternative to this idea by PM Modi.

Let us analyze how the ‘minimum government’ plan has been playing on the ground, based on decisions made by the government. Below are very few examples that have been highlighted in the media:

-One of the first decisions by Nirmala Sitaraman, Minister of State for Corporate Affairs, was to give a free hand to the companies regarding boiler inspection. This was an experiment done in Gujarat, which has been expanded to the national level.

Government decided to annul the requirement of gazetted officers’ attestation on non-original documents. Thus putting faith in the common man who ownsthe documents, than the one who signs on them without verification (more often than not).

-Recently, Ministry of Railways decentralized tender process and the zonal managers can now manage the process at their level, without the minister’s interference.

-In the weekend’s ‘GyanSangam’ meeting with the bankers, PM Modi assured government’s hands-off approach in the internal workings of the Public Sector Banks (PSBs). Unlike in the past, any merger decision will be made by the Board than the Finance Minister.

Apart from these, there have been other initiatives which haven’t been included in the ‘minimum government’ debates. However, I think these also fall into this group:

-Swachh Bharat Abhiyan(SBA): This has been an energetic initiative from the Modi government to improve cleanliness, thus reducing the reliance on Safaai Karmachaaris or our Municipal authorities in our daily lives. Apart from being a social cause, SBA has demonstrated the power of communities in implementing government programs. I will go as far as to say, SBA is a case study for “minimum government”. Apart from initiating the program with photo-ops, government has spent minimum from the exchequer. People have owned the program and are taking it forward. Needless to say, we are still long way from being a ‘Swachh Bharat’ to evaluate the success of the program. Though I am sure PM would have something up his sleeve to take it to the logical end. Till then, well begun is half done.

-Modernization of Railway stations: By inviting private players to spruce up the stations by offering services like hotels, shops, etc the government can focus on improving the train services. This would result in more optimal utilization of the space and giving more options to the passengers. When an airport can have these kinds of facilities, then why can’t a train passenger enjoy similar amenities? It’s unfortunate that this debate gets dragged into the usual privatization noise.

For us conservatives, there have been some negative surprises too. I fail to understand some decisions/non-decisions by the government:

-Absolutely nothing has been done with regards to privatization. We read reports of some roadshow intermittently. However, I don’t envisage any progress in this fiscal. I certainly hope that the Finance Minister is taking comfort in the fall in crude and commodity prices and has a long list of companies to offload to generate revenues in the next fiscal year.

-No decision has been forthcoming on the privatization of Air India. For how long will the governments keep feeding this baby? Neither service improves nor the finances – this is one baby that should be thrown out of the bathtub. There have been arguments that Air India has a social role too; like the ferrying of stranded Indians from Iraq, Libya, etc. I appreciate this concern. But wouldn’t it be cheaper to rent flights for these special missions? Or having only a small fleet of aircrafts on standby for these kinds of situations?

– Also, I have been disappointed that free-loading programs like MNREGA, subsidized Hajj trip, etc have not been eliminated. Yes, there are cutting around the edges. But, when will the government show its might? If a Congress led ‘coalition’ can introduce so many social programs, why can’t a government with ‘absolute majority’ revoke a few? (read postscript)

– Recently, the government decided to pump in 60Cr into IFCI Ltd to make it a government company. I fail to understand the reasoning behind this decision. What can an IFCI do that an IDFC or an ICICI cannot?

At this early stage of Modi era, there have been more hits than misses. I hope the only excuse for the misses is the lack of time. That would reassure conservatives that there is more to come. With the government’s focus on helping entrepreneurs, I hope there are some path breaking initiatives like no taxes till first 5 or 10 employees. Just imagine the impetus that would give to the new graduates to explore new avenues. However, let us start with just one page form to start a new company – thereby preventing running around offices before generating the first Rupee as revenue. Wouldn’t that be a great advertisement for ‘minimum government’?

Postscript: I get the point that passing legislations needs a big tent approach. I also appreciate PM Modi’s effort to build consensus for passing these legislations. I would just quote what former UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher had said: “To me, consensus seems to be the process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values and policies. So it is something in which no one believes and to which no one objects.” (Speech at Monash University, 10/6/81)”. My fear is, in the hope of satisfying those who inherently hate you, you may end up losing your core voters. Hope PM Modi understands that one cannot wake up a group that’s pretending to be asleep.

Super Sniffer Subramanian Swamy

In PK, Aamir Khan keeps asking people where he can find his Remote Control to go back home. He keeps getting the reply “God knows”. Maybe he should’ve asked Subramiam Swamy the question, because Mr Swamy seems to know more things than the average human! Love him or hate him there’s no fooling him! Here are some things, which Swamy could spot way before most of saw them:

1. Jayalalitha Disproportionate Assets case

In 1996 Swamy first filed a case against Jayalalitha claiming she had amassed disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs 66.65 crore during her stint as Tamil Nadu CM from 1991-96. This sum may seem paltry now, but it was big money then. And worse, this relatively small amount brought big trouble for Jayalalitha in 2014, when after 18 long years she was convicted in this case in September 2014

2. 2G Scam

In November 2008, Swamy was one of the first to write to the PM, seeking sanction to prosecute Telecom Minister A Raja under the Prevention of Corruption Act.  Much later in March 2010, CAG reported large scale irregularities in the 2G allocation. Meanwhile, Manmohan Singh took no action on Swami’s letter, Delhi High Court refused to direct PM on the same, hence Swamy was forced to move Supreme Court. And after that we all know what happened. He saw it a good 16 months  before the CAG!

3. Sunanda Pushkar’s death

On January 17 2014, two days after she took to Twitter to expose her husband, Shashi Tharoor’s alleged love affair with a Pakistani journalist, Sunanda was found dead in a Hotel room in New Delhi. Initial reports suggested it could have been a case of suicide, but later evidence was found which could point to a murder. There was a lot of confusion, but Swamy stuck to the stand he took on January 18 2014:  “it seems to be a well-planned murder”. Now almost a year after this incident, Delhi Police has decided to probe this case as a Murder. Whether Swami was fully right, only time will tell.

4. Striking down “Single Directive Provision”

In 1997, Swamy filed a petition in the Supreme Court to strike down a law, which protected high ranking public servants from criminal investigation without a prior approval from their higher ups, which were often Politicians. After yet another prolonged Court battle, the Supreme Court finally struck down this law in Mary 2014, thereby giving CBI more freedom to act against corruption.

5. EVM rigging

In 2010, Swamy had filed a PIL in the Delhi High Court demanding better security for EVMs to prevent them from getting rigged. He had asked for a paper acknowledgement to be issued to the voter so that he can verify his vote. In January 2012 the Delhi High Court refused to issue any directions to the Election Commission, but it asked the EC to “immediately begin a process of wider consultations”. Finally in January 2013 the EC informed the Supreme Court that “Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail”, which after testing, was rolled out in phases in the 2014 General Elections.

6. Nataraja Temple Case

In 2009, the Madras High Court had transferred administration of a 1000 year old temple  to the Government, then headed by CM Karunanidhi.  Swamy along with the priests of the temple had then filed a case in the Supreme Court appealing this decision. Finally in January 2014, this decision was overturned and the management of the temple was given back to the priests.

When Twitter ‘murdered’ Sunanda Pushkar

The death of Sunanda Pushkar, just a few days after her Twitter outburst, was indeed a shock  to everyone. Before her death, there were a considerable amount of jokes on her relationship with Shashi Tharoor due to the Mehr Tarar angle, as is the case with celebrities whose personal lives are always topics of page-3 reports.

However, some people decided to blame Twitter for her death, arguing that such jokes, which Twitter users crack on anyone and everyone, pushed Sunanda into depression and then suicide:

Mahesh Bhatt


//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Kunal Kohli


//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Sudhir Chaudhary, editor at Zee News


//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Kashish (a part time journalist at NDTV)


//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Shailesh Yadav, a journalist at Aaj Tak


//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Suketu Mehta, a professor at NYU


//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Some may have deleted their tweets or used some other medium, but user reactions indicate what they did say:

Suhel Seth


//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js


//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Vir Sanghvi


//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

While some said it explicitly, some chose to drop hints:

Barkha Dutt


//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Harinder Baweja, journalist at Hindustan Times


//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

And of course MSM picked it from there:

Running stories in Print


//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

And conducting polls online


//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

We hope Twitter is exonerated soon.

And hope these people realize that knowingly or unknowingly, they were shielding the real culprit by blaming Twitter for what now is a clear case of murder.

Coast Guard: Damned if he does, Damned if he doesn’t

We all know about the Pakistani “terror” boat which was intercepted by the Coast Guard. In ordinary circumstances, this would be termed a successful operation due to the following reasons:

1. Last major terror strike in India was via a Pakistani boat.
2. Indian Intelligence was alert enough to pick up inputs about another Pakistani boat which may indulge in some “illicit transaction”.
3. This input was passed on to Coast Guard in a timely manner.
4. The Coast Guard successfully prevented this Pakistani boat from doing any “illicit transaction” whatever that might have been.

Still, some people are raising questions over the entire operation. While some may be valid, like which @SaikatDatta raised  via this piece , some are plain slander, like ones raised by @PraveenSwami, which I dealt with in a previous piece.

Praveen Swami later went to the extent of treating information from Pakistani sources as Gospel truth. This was very much like asking a mother her version of how her kid is innocent. It shouldn’t be surprising that in such a situation, the Coast Guard team may feel demoralized:


//platform.twitter.com/widgets.jsEven in @SaikatDatta’s piece, where he raises four points, the first point is purely procedural, where he argues that all the concerned authorities weren’t informed in time. This appears a bit like sticking too much to procedures in what could be an emergency situation, which is reflected well in the following tweet by NDTV defense beat correspondent Nitin Gokhale:


Mr. Datta’s second point is that NTRO claims they intercepted a “Thuraya satellite phone” which seems odd since there has been no “Thuraya intercept since 2008 because Pakistan knows it can be easily intercepted”.

This again is a bit technical, but valid, but can be rebutted if we assume the Pakistani people involved in this boat mission, were novices. Also, I don’t know if petty smugglers use Satellite phones.

His third point is questioning the behavior of the Pakistani boat, which chose to flee, instead of fighting the Coast Guard. This is indeed a mystery, since a “Terror” boat, would probably consider it a minor victory, if it at least took down a Coast Guard ship.

Maybe it didn’t have the ammunition needed, and was transporting some other dangerous weapons, but I am not a weapons expert so this point seems fair. However, it is very well possible that those on boats were just “intermediaries” who were to hand over weapons and explosives to others, who could have taken this terror mission forward.

His last point is that the fire on the boat appears to be an Oil fire, not an explosives fire, from the pictures we have. This maybe a case of trying to read too much from just a few pictures, but this theory could rule out that the Coast Guard “destroyed” the boat (as per Swami’s earlier claims), because the boat would’ve been blown to pieces.

Speaking of Swami, today morning, he said, referring to the Coast Guard’s version that this story gives away the secrets. His main basis for saying this is:


I don’t know why a faster Coast Guard can’t slow down its pace to trail a slower boat. Can’t imagine why it’s “arithmetically impossible”. If they Coast Guard suspected it to be a terror boat on suicide mission, will it not make sense to keep a distance from the boat, and thus slow down for one’s own safety?

Put yourself in the place of the Coast Guard. You have no idea what the boat is up to, besides knowing that it is supposed to carry out “illicit transaction” which could range from Kasab to Smuggling. Given this situation, isn’t it the best course of action is to observe the boat from a distance, to ascertain what’s going on before taking any action?

The Coast Guard has also said that “We did not know if they had weapons. Even one person had been hit, that would have damaged the morale of our men”. Seems fair to me, but Swami thinks this gave it away!

Swami also says it’s unclear how “one might know people set their own boat on fire” from a distance of 2 nautical miles. This is indeed funny coming from the author who quoted a Mr. Jadeja as saying “a fire at night would be visible many nautical miles away” (read my earlier piece to find out why it’s funny).

Jokes apart, a Coast Guard ship has Searchlights, possibly nightvision binoculars, and other such long distance viewing equipment. This should be enough to see what’s happening 2 nautical miles away. Also, the Coast Guard can easily infer that this boat had set itself on fire, since the Guard ship itself didn’t fire anything at the boat, and there was no other ship nearby capable of doing this.

I also want to look at this entire episode in a different way.

Suppose this entire thing happened on hard ground, involving normal cops and a normal suspected person. Cops in their car spot a suspect car which as per their inputs will do something illegal. Cops have no idea what weapons this car has.

Ideal way would be trail it, and warn it to stop? Or just shoot at it? I think the Coast Guard did the former. And for this I think the Coast Guard did its job pretty well, under the circumstance. Unwarranted criticism is uncalled for. And giving advice in hindsight is easy for those who have never faced a gun in the field!

The History of Indian knowledge that some people deliberately try to hide and neglect

Even if we deny that Binary Notations were independently invented and introduced in India, even if we refuse that there are recurring discussions by Pingala around laghu and guru in the śatapatha brāhmaṇa, we would surely agree to the fact that we are living within a binary social system of a group that says Indians did everything and a group that says Indians did nothing.

While some funny culture boasting people share unresearched, half-baked and wrong stories of inventions done by ancient Indians, many other people try to hide and neglect the real inventions. Basking in the glory of the past may not drive our future, but discrediting the history to accomplish a hidden hateful agenda is far more harmful.

In one of his tweets, Shashi Tharoor rightly points out deliberate discrediting of past by a few groups of organized hateful individuals:


The outrage started because Dr Harsh Vardhan stated that “Our scientists discovered Pythagoras theorem, but we very sophisticatedly gave its credit to Greeks.”

However, the outrage against credit-discredit was shrewdly channelized into an organized attack against ancient culture. OpIndia.com did some research on the contribution of science by ancient Indians.

Here are some of our findings:

Pythagoras Theorem: Pythagoras (c. 570 – c. 495 BC) theorem states that the square of the hypotenuse (the side opposite the right angle) is equal to the sum of the squares of the other two sides. Interestingly, 400 years before Pythagoras was born, the Sulba Sūtra talked about relationship between diagonals and sides of right-angled geometrical objects. It said, “A rope stretched along the length of the diagonal produces an area which the vertical and horizontal sides make together.” There are references of similar theorems in Chinese history too. The Chinese were using it as “Gougu Theorem” around (202 BC to 220 AD).

The Baudhayana Sulba Sutra (dated between the 8th century BC and the 2nd century BC) contains a list of Pythagorean triples discovered algebraically, a statement of the Pythagorean theorem, and a geometrical proof of the Pythagorean theorem for an isosceles right triangle. The Apastamba Sulba Sutra (ca. 600 BC) contains a numerical proof of the general Pythagorean theorem, using an area computation. Details can be easily found in several international research works.

Sulva_Sutra

Trigonometry: Early references of trigonometric functions can be found in astronomy related texts in which maths was used. Usage of geometry is mentioned in the works of early Greek Mathematicians. However, the first documentation of the sine of an can be seen in the works of Aryabhata in (around 500-600 AD) and Bhaskara (around 1150 AD).

Aryabhata, Brahmagupta and Bhaskara also established and documented many formulas on Arithmetic Progression, Estimation of pi, Astrology, Continued Fractions, Quadratic Equations, Sums-of-Power Series, etc.

trigonometry

We would suggest the blinkers-covered junta to go beyond Manoj Kumar song (Jab zero diya mere bharat ne, mere bharat ne, mere bharat ne). The contribution of Aryabhata is no less than contributions by Euclid or Diophantus.

The Iron Pillar of Delhi: The Iron Pillar of Delhi is still considered as one of the most fantastic metallurgical compositions. The 7.3 m tall column has withstood corrosion for the last 1600 years. Several theories around material factors and environmental factors are proposed to explain this phenomenon, however, even after lots of national and international research works, there is no satisfactory explanation as to why the pillar has never rusted.

Scientists across the globe tried to replicate this phenomenon, but failed to create it. Not only this, the finest Damascus steel was made by a process known only to Indians. The original Damascus steel-the world’s first high-carbon steel was a product of India known as wootz. Wootz is the English for ukku in Kannada and Telugu, meaning steel. Indian steel was used in Persia and Arabia for making swords in ancient times. Ktesias at the court of Persia (5th c BC) mentions two swords made of Indian steel which the Persian king presented him. Even in 1800s, when Europeans tried to create Wootz with their knowledge of metallurgy, they failed to produce it.

Iron_pillar_delhi

The Fibonacci sequence: The Fibonacci sequence is named after Leonardo of Pisa, who was known as Fibonacci. In 1202, Fibonacci introduced this sequence in his book Liber Abaci. Though, Fibonacci is credited for this series, the sequence had been previously described in Indian mathematics. Long before the Europeans started working on the sequence, it was applied to the metrical sciences in ancient India.

Researchers, scientists and anthropologists have provided details of Fibonacci sequence used in ancient India – Pingala (200 BC), Virahanka (c. 700 AD), Gopāla (c. 1135 AD), and Hemachandra (c. 1150 AD). A clear reference of the series with formula is mentioned in a quotation by Gopala (c. 1135 AD) who refers the work of Virahanka (c. 700 AD). Both these people existed before Fibonacci.

Fibonacci_India

Calculus: There are hints of Differential and Integral Calculus in the works of Eudoxus (c. 408−355 BC), Archimedes (c. 287−212 BC), Liu Hui (3rd century AD), Aryabhata (5th century AD). However, concepts of limits, infinitesimals, differentials and integrals were faintly discussed in details.

A detailed discussion around Taylor series and infinite series approximations is documented in texts of The Kerala school of astronomy and mathematics. Mathematicians from the Kerala school of astronomy had also written about infinite series for sin x, cos x, and arctan x. It is important to note that these forms the base of modern calculus. Even the first similar discussions by European mathematicians started 200 years after this period.

Cataract Surgery: Several ancient documentation around Cataract Surgery are reported in Egyptian and Babylonian histories. Some research works claim that the oldest documented case of cataract history was reported in a famous and small Egyptian statue from the 5th dynasty (about 2457-2467 B.C.). Some papers also claim that the earliest records are documented in The Bible and The Red Sea Scrolls.

However, most of the researchers agree that the earliest form of cataract surgery, now known as ‘couching‘, was first found in ancient India by the Indian physician Sushruta (ca. 800BC) in his work the Compendium of Sushruta or Sushruta Samhita. His verses describe an operation in which a curved needle was used to push the opaque phlegmatic matter (kapha in Sanskrit) in the eye out of the way of vision. The phlegm was then blown out of the nose. The eye would later be soaked with warm clarified butter and then bandaged. It is further documented that this method was propagated from India to China, the West and the Middle East

sushrut

Plastic Surgery: Modi might have been wrong in saying that Ganesha’s head was a result of Plastic Surgery, or maybe he meant it figuratively, but he wasn’t off the mark. Sushruta was the first to practice Rhinoplasty in India, in around 800 BC. In his book, which could be the oldest Surgical Textbook, the Sushruta Samhita, a procedure for repairing damage caused by the severance of the nose, is discussed. This can be said to be the equivalent of the “free flap” used in reconstructive surgical techniques nowadays. This technique was also adopted by Allied surgeons in World War I.

plas
(Picture sourced from a twitter post by @WrongDoc)

I’d like to make it clear that I’m not putting out these facts to hint that we Indians have been pioneers in science and technology, but to dispel the “left-liberal” assumption that India was a continent of darkness, and light came in only after European invaders landed on our shores.

We don’t need to gloat in past and imagine ourselves as world leaders. The reality is – we are not. We have to work hard, and we have to acknowledge that other communities have achieved a lot. There is no room or reason for chest thumping.

But we also need to ask why does this chest thumping happen? Who created this vacuum where the chest-thumpers moved in?

The answer lies in the left-liberal monopoly over narrative and academics. They denied and erased ancient knowledge and created a system where an average Indian student had no idea about such facts. Even a left-leaning newspaper like The Hindu published an article about this “neglect of knowledge traditions”.

It’s intriguing why they did that. It’s another topic to analyze what benefits or goals the left-liberal intelligentsia was seeking in portraying India as a region of darkness.

But in the modern era of easy information flow, this suppression of facts was caught. And once your credibility goes for a toss, others, even if far less credible, move in to replace you. And that’s how the chest-thumpers moved in.

You suppressed the information that there was an Indian who attempted to fly an aircraft before the Wright brothers. Since you didn’t tell people even about the “attempt”, the chest-thumpers changed that into “success”.

It’s human nature. If you keep something secret, people will start imagining things. And the left-liberals have to explain why they kept these things secret? Why were they deliberately trying to hide it? What goals were they seeking?

What kind of ‘Liberalism’ Indian Journalists follow before blocking people on Twitter?

0

When Cyrus Broacha started gaining immense popularity through his prankster role in MTV Bakra, Indian entertainment industry mirthfully opened its door for public “trolling”. With better TRP results, the thin line between invading someone’s personal space and playing a light prank with someone started fading.

TV channels started selling shows in which show-hosts troubling families by ringing their call bells at 2 in the night was called entertainment and radio jockeys started dialing random people and horrifying them with random jokes. While entertainment was reshaping its definitions, public was also preparing themselves to accept “trolling” as a form of communication.

In late 2000s, social media exploded like a nuclear bomb and generated multiple options for communication. The old possibilities of “many to one” and “one to many” communication suddenly changed into “many to many” and “any to any” communication.

With this new platform available to everyone at an equal footing, trolling, intrusion, blocking, abusing, attacking, etc. also grew manifold. However, social media trolling is much more than just invading personal space. Unlike trolling done in old MTV Bakra days, when people were disturbed just for entertainment, social media trolling has multilayer dimensions. Also, unlike general social establishments, where people have the rights to maintain their privacy, social media blossoms around unveiling social privacies.

For this column, my sample sets of observation are champions of freedom of speech, democracy and liberalism, who are offended when their mechanisms are applied on them, my sample sets of observation are journalists/columnists/thinkers, who boast about their responsibility to question ideologies, but block people when they are challenged.

In my previous post, I put non-abusive and non-vulgar arguments against a post published in Scroll.in. As far as my intelligence allows me to interpret my writings, I was not even remotely trying to threaten the author – an author who propagates the fear of Hindu Nation, but I was blocked.

To analyze my fault,  I tried to search his opinion about freedom of speech. This is what he says:

On 3rd Jan 2015, I read that Praveen Swami was blocking people for writing anything against his terror boast post. I tried to act funny by tagging him in a tweet with an OpIndia.com link and this text “Sir, don’t block me, khi khi”. I was blocked within 5 minutes.

I don’t have issues for being blocked. In fact, I do block people for using abusive languages, but I was surprised because a senior journalist, who questions authorities, was offended when an article tried to question him. Maybe, as acknowledged by him in the tweet embedded below, questioning his articles would be low for free speech:

I was blocked by another gentleman (Naresh Fernandes) from Scroll.in for calling Scroll a Troll website. Some of the other twitter handles confirmed me that the progressive liberal Naresh doesn’t take anonymous accounts seriously. It’s another issue that the same Naresh allowed a well known abusive Twitter handle to publish an article on his website, just because the Twitter handle is venomously anti-Modi.

Blocking people from social media is just another manifestation of the freedom of expression, however, it talks about tolerance and ideological stand of people too. These columnists, who question organizations and individuals for not entertaining their queries “liberally” block people for questioning them.

Let me repeat. Blocking on Twitter per se is not against the idea of free speech. One is not obliged to hear every opinion. But when you, as a journalist, declare yourself non-partisan voice representing the masses, and then chose to block some voices just because they didn’t agree with you, you betray your hypocrisy.

What does Praveen Swami know that the Coast Guard doesn’t?

In my earlier piece, we had looked at some journos including Praveen Swami, who had floated mind boggling borderline conspiracy theories about the Pakistani boat incident. As I interacted with people on Twitter, and after I re-read Swami’s piece, I felt this gem needed an exclusive post.

1.  In the earlier piece, I mentioned Swami says “India claims to destroy Pakistani Boat”. The Coast Guard’s press release never claims that it “destroyed” the boat, it just intercepted it. And Swami does not provide any conclusive evidence to come even near to proving his claim that India “destroyed” the boat

2. Swami also mentioned that “India claims to destroy Terror Boat”. Again the press release has no mention of Terror. Since the boat sank, there was no evidence (at least at the time of the Press Release) to claim it was a “Terror Boat”. Amit Shah said it “could have been” a terror plot. Defence Minister said it was a “suspected” terror plot. But nobody came close to claiming that it was a Terror Boat beyond doubt. Yet, Swami feels India did so. I wonder where he got that from.

3. Swami goes on to say “new evidence has begun to emerge that those on board might have been small-time liquor and diesel smugglers”. He says “SOURCES” revealed to him that “National Technical Research Organisation (NTRO) had intercepted mobile phone traffic involving small-time smugglers operating out of the fishing port of Keti Bandar, near Karachi.

I am not sure what Swami’s “New Evidence” is, because he does not present any, except for what his “SOURCES” told him. Also, I was informed by @HungrynFool, that India Today has come out with a totally contradictory report.

According to this report, Aaj Tak has accessed transcripts (not sources) of radio communication between NTRO and the Indian Coast Guard. NTRO apparently recorded the radio communication between TWO (not one) Pakistani boats. This conversation reveals that the boats had “plans to repeat 26/11 carnage in Porbandar and that “both the vessels were in regular contact with Pakistan’s maritime agency and the army”.

This is in direct contradiction to Swami’s source based report which said the boat was of “chhota mota” smugglers. I personally don’t know which to believe, but I probably go with Aaj Tak’s transcripts, rather than some unnamed sources of Swami.

4. Swami also says that these “smugglers” were to carry bootleg “from the port of Gwadar to other fishing boats which were to have carried it into Karachi’s Keti Bandar harbour.” So this “smuggling” boat was supposed to pass on its ware to another boat mid-sea, which would head to Keti Bandar harbour. Now I am no geography expert, especially not Pakistani geography. But my friend Google Maps is. So I pulled this out:

swami

Now we have Gwadar Port at the extreme left, At the centre is Keti Bandar Port. Porbandar in India, is way down, and the big green circle is probably where this “smuggling” boat from Swamy’s imagination report, caught fire. The green circle has been purposely inflated, because I am no geography expert. Also in light blue, I have marked the route I would take if I was in the “smuggling” boat.

Basically, Swami wants us to believe that this boat came all the way down into this green area, to pass on some stuff to another boat which also came down all the way, to carry it back up. COOL STORY BRO!

5. The Press release by the Coast Guard says, they could not save the boat that “due to darkness, bad weather and strong winds.” Swami counters this by saying that open-source meteorological data for the Porbandar coast shows conditions were almost ideal with cloudless skies on December 31-January 1. Of course he provides no links to this data.

I don’t believe these “Open-Source” stuff. So I went to the Indian Meteorological Department site and checked the report for 31/12/2014. The report says “An upper air cyclonic circulation laid over east central and adjoining northeast Arabian Sea off north Konkan and south Gujarat coasts and extended upto 1.5 km above mean sea level on 31st December, 2014.”

Now I don’t understand this, but my friend @sailorsmoon is a sailor. He tells me that in layman’s terms it means “a low pressure area is building and might result in heavy rains, strong air and choppy seas making it hard to maintain course for smaller vessels, And definitely NOT ideal weather.”

Who do you want me to trust? Open Source unlinked data from Praveen Swami, or Indian Government’s official data, interpreted by a sailor? You decide.

6. Swami then goes on to quote a Narsibhai Jungi Jadeja, head of the Porbandar fishing boat owners’ association. Jadeja says that it is surprising that nobody saw anything “because a fire at night would be visible many nautical miles away”.

Again I asked @sailorsmoon for his views on visibility and nautical miles. He said, “Irrespective of how huge a fire is, you won’t be able to see it beyond a certain distance, simply because the Earth is round (My sources have confirmed that Earth is indeed round).”

He adds that its almost impossible to see anything beyond 35 Nautical Miles, in even perfect visibility.  @sailorsmoon further quoted from personal experience and said, “We see burning flares of oil fields at sea, and we only notice them at not before 20 Nautical Miles at best.”

So how many Nautical Miles away was the Pakistani boat? 197 Nautical Miles! Let’s say thats a completely exaggerated figure and lets take its half i.e. around 98 Nautical Miles. Thats still way too far to see anything, according to @Sailorsmoon’s view, let alone the flames from a small fishing boat.

7. Praveen Swami also says that “There is a suggestion of use of disproportionate force on the poor boat since its engine wasn’t capable of outrunning Indian interceptors. He also says there isn’t much clarity “on the circumstances under which lethal force was used”.

I want to ask Swami, is chasing down a boat “Lethal Disproportionate Force”? Is asking it to stop “Lethal Disproportionate Force”? Or is he slyly hinting at something else? Like he did earlier, that India in fact “destroyed” this boat.

And I want to ask you, the reader, knowing that Pakistan has once successfully used this modus operandi, that Pakistan is continuously violating ceasefire norms as we speak, that this boat is not obeying your orders, that this boat could have another Kasab, did what the Coast Guard did, qualify as “Lethal Disproportionate Force”?

In my opinion, NO! Maybe Praveen Swami has more sympathy for the passengers of this boat who were surely in some or the other “Illicit activity” rather than for innocent Indian civilians.

So to conclude, Praveen Swami’s post doesn’t hold grounds on at least 6 points. Maybe his sources lied to him. Maybe his sources were wrong. Or maybe he didn’t have any sources and he just had a narrative in his mind which he had to show to be true by weaving a fictional story around it.

I would have loved to ask Praveen Swami to clarify this, but he blocked me on Twitter, as soon as I tagged him in a tweet with my earlier post. So much for good old tolerance preached by “Liberals”!

3 reasons why journalists like Praveen Swami attacked Indian narrative on Pak boat incident

0

OpIndia.com has already explained why the report by The Indian Express reporter Praveen Swami sounded like a hit-job against the Coast Guard in particular and the Indian security agencies in general.

The obvious question is why Swami, and other journalists who are sharing his highly speculative article like gospel truth, would do that?

Our team believes that it has to be one of these three reasons, or maybe combinations of these reasons:

1. There is a “Deep Throat” in the Indian government: Although Praveen Swami’s article is full of loopholes and it aims to counter some claims that were never made by the government in first place, it still quotes “sources”. So who are these “sources”?

If asked, Praveen Swami will either block you on Twitter or give a standard reply that a ‘journalist is not obliged to reveal his sources’. Indeed, a journalist may choose not to reveal his sources for various reasons, but he can’t just make up things when the national security is involved.

If we indeed believe that Swami has got some “sources” in the government or in the defense machinery, it means there is a whistleblower in the system who thinks that India is the aggressor vis a vis Pakistan.

It is a very serious charge. But we will still say that Praveen Swami doesn’t need to reveal who this whistleblower is. But at least say that there is one. Name him something like “Deep Throat”.

Mr. Swami, this is not the first time you have questioned Indian security agencies. Earlier also you had published reports that painted the Indian Army as aggressors. It is a serious charge. It means that our nation is not as pious as we believe.

However, Mr. Swami, we are not going to believe you just because you claim some “source” told you. And no, we are also not going to believe those who think this “source” is living across the border. But Mr. Swami, at least invent a name for this “source”, if you are not inventing reports.

2. Revenge attack for denying access: It is a well known fact that “access journalism” has received a major setback ever since Narendra Modi government took charge. Access journalism is where a reporter receives special treatment and “exclusive” information from government authorities, and later the same is published in newspapers as information coming through “sources”.

(a journalist also invents sources, but that’s another issue and we will let that go right now)

The Modi government is increasingly denying journalists such access. There have been many occasions when journalists have got information through Twitter feeds i.e. at the same time when any common man of the country got. This drying up of access has hurt the ego of many journalists who feel that their “power”, which is due to information asymmetry, is being threatened by the new government.

To get even with the government, the journalist has to flex muscle and show his or her “power”. And he or she can do it by planting speculative stories that hurts the image of the government.

This particular case could be one example of such revenge attack with a message to the government – “start giving us importance or we will malign your image and weaken people’s faith in you.”

3. Political dislike transforming into dislike for the establishment: Let’s accept it. Narendra Modi is indeed a divisive figure. He induces extreme emotions. People either love him or hate him.

With the mainstream media mostly dominated by people identifying themselves as left-liberal, most of them hate Modi. Now with Modi being the Prime Minister, this hate has overwhelmed them so much that now they have started hating the Indian establishment itself.

In such a scenario, a journalist starts disliking, distrusting, and hating everything about the Indian establishment – defense and external relations included. The enemy of enemy becomes a friend. And thus in this case, Pakistan becomes a “friendly state” while India becomes an “aggressor” for them – assumptions that pushed them to question the official narrative without waiting for details to emerge. In fact, our journalists raised questions before Pakistan did!

Please note that India is seeing such thing for the first time. Even the Modi supporters hated Sonia Gandhi a lot, but their dislike for Congress had not transformed into dislike for the establishment. When Praveen Swami had published reports questioning Indian Army’s narrative, many Modi supporters had chosen to believe the army and the UPA government over Swami’s “sources”.

So which of these do you think is the reason? Let us know by commenting below.

Dear Ravish Kumar, right is not winning narrative, it has just started speaking up

0

It is no surprise these days that many journalists or reporters whine about the nature of responses they get on social media. However, when one of the leading voices goes a step further by imploring one section of people to respond, it does raise many questions. Ravish’s article (or narration) is another instance of misinformation propagated by our media. Let me take him head on.

Ravish starts by saying that he was made to believe that the Left was far more superior in communication than the Right. Who could have told him that? Of course my guess would be his comrades – as he started his career in a Left Wing media organization. Early 90s hardly was a communication masterclass by the Right, as they did not control the narrative during the Ramjanmbhoomi movement. This would have cemented Ravish’s views on Right’s ineffectiveness in communication. He effectively boxed himself in that cocoon and started looking everything else as the other side. Remember, he is supposed to be a journalist.

Ravish mentions the alacrity with which RSS embraced technology. Staying in Germany for sometime now, I see many initiatives by the Hindu Swayamsevak Sangh (HSS). HSS is one organization or community which facilitates overseas Indians to be in touch with fellow overseas Indians and Indian culture. Technology has played its part, but awakened citizens would also want people to hear their views loud and clear. Ravish also slips in an interesting point – “They (Right) would not let a single idea slip without contention”. This reveals more the true nature of the Indian Left intelligentsia. They would have hoped and prayed for the Right to remain dormant like they did for an entire decade and the Left could continue bullying their ideas on India. They were, after all, creating their own ‘idea of India’.

Ravish also comes across more as an egotist than a reporter or journalist. He accepts that his or Left’s arguments are effectively demolished by the Right on social media. However, it does hurt him that it isn’t someone from the leadership stable of RSS who does that, but ‘aam aadmi’s. This takes away any pleasure he may have had continuing his agenda of tarnishing RSS. Also, it does take him by surprise that people are no longer taking his preachings lying down. I would guess that the mainstream media will learn that more Indians understand the differences between the Left and Right, only after 2019.

Ravish then moves on to another hilarious part: that RSS supporters apparently view things in binary. For starters, I am sure he does not see his own shows where he has 6-8 small boxes with people from each party giving a for or against views. I wonder how many times, he has asked for a nuanced view from a guest. Moreover, this is the same journalist , who went around UP prior to the general elections, asking everyone his caste. A journalist who sees any policy or any initiative through the caste lens asks for nuance.

Ravish also comes across as someone who hasn’t understood social media yet. He mentions about the apparent “synchronized attacks” of his tweets. He should well know that he doesn’t own the space. People would express their opinions on his tweet and move on to the next one. To think people are waiting for these Left journalists’ tweets to pounce on them, is giving too much importance to themselves. For every tweet from you that needs a befitting response, there are other more critical patients who need counseling. (Hint: think about any of your Left colleagues)

Ravish also feels so sorry for not being able to debate “Aadarsh Gram Yojana” and smart cities concept initiated by the Modi government. He laments that the conversion row has taken prominence. Well, this is a textbook case of the Left hypocrisy. Both the aforementioned programs were announced on 15 August by the Prime Minister from the ramparts of Red Fort. PM candidate Modi had also mentioned about smart cities in many of his campaign rallies. The conversion issues started from late November/early December. If Ravish wished, he had atleast 3 full months to debate on these programs. It’s anybody’s guess how many debates he would have moderated in his show debating nuances of these programs.

Ravish insinuates that most of the recent debates are making people nervous. Well for starters, Ravish hasn’t been paying close attention to Assembly election results. Also to say that people didn’t have an alternative to the Corrupt Congress than BJP/Modi, he hasn’t looked at the ballot papers too. He would have found many candidates vying for seats. In his shows, he continues to deny credit to Modi government for reigning in inflation or improving India’s brand abroad. Am sure he hasn’t heard of Napolean’s quote: “I know he is a great General, but is he lucky?”. Whatever external favorable factors, I would rather have a leader who is a lucky charm for India than the one who quietly takes India to the abyss. Ravish would surely disagree. I guess it is too much to ask for someone who has blinkers on.

Notice how only mentions the BJP, RSS or Right supporters to make his points. Not once does he mention the eulogies given by the Congress or AAP supporters on social media. Oh well! I almost forgot…!

What do Indian journalists know that the Coast Guard doesn’t?

0

Edit: For a detailed response to Praveen Swami’s piece of the Coast Guard and the Pakistani Boat, read this

First a few facts. Facts which are undeniable, no matter which narrative you choose, the one published by the Coast Guard via its press release, or the one which is being spread by some Journalists:

1. A Pakistani boat was intercepted by the Indian Coast Guard based on Intelligence inputs on 31st December 2014.

2. The boat caught fire and sunk in the Arabian Sea, approximately 365 kilometer South-West of Probandar, Gujarat.

3. The incident took place around the new year’s eve, and it came to light after a government press release issued yesterday i.e. on 2nd January 2015.

Now we first turn to the Coast Guards version, as per their official Press Release. The release says, based on the input that a boat was planning some “Illicit activity”, they first located the Pakistani boat by air, and then sent a Coast Guard Ship to intercept it. The Coast Guard asked the boat to stop, but the boat chose to speed away. This led to a hot pursuit chase. The boat had 4 men on board, who eventually hid themselves in the lower deck and set the boat on fire, which resulted in a major explosion. The boat eventually sank in the wee hours of 1st January.

Now, let’s be clear on a few things. Neither the Coast Guard nor anyone in the government claimed that this boat was an attempt at terror attack yesterday (today, BJP President Amit Shah claimed that it could be a “possible” attempt, but he doesn’t represent the government. But most importantly, Shah said it “today”. We are talking what happened yesterday).

Despite the government or the Coast Guard not putting any “terror” motive to the boat, hours after the press release was put out, Indian media went berserk. While some in the media chose to glorify the Coast Guard for averting a 26/11 scenario, some journalists started imputing motives to Coast Guards.

The press release had made it clear that the Coast Guard and intelligence agencies were indulged in finding more details, and thus they were not making any certain claims. But when did our journalists love “details”? They were quick to throw insinuations based only on the press release.

This journalist from India Today declared that Coast Guard had indulged in “fake encounter”:


This journalist from NDTV put a question mark on the press release just because of the phrase:


//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

And the most disappointing and shocking spin came from Praveen Swami of The Indian Express, who wrote an article on the same evening as if time was running out and heavens will fall if he didn’t come up with his half baked conclusions and theories.

Swami, almost behaving like Subramanian Swamy, declared that there were “mounting doubts” over “terror claim”. Read his article here that he wrote last night. The inaccuracies start from the headline of the report itself.

Swami’s headline reads: “Doubts mount over India’s claims of destroying ‘terror boat’ from Pakistan”. Did India ever claim to “destroy” a boat? Did they ever claim that the boat was a “Terror Boat”? The press release nowhere says the Coast Guard “destroyed” a boat, neither is the word “terror” ever mentioned. It just clearly says “Illicit activities” and that the boat had explosives. We wonder who gave this information to Mr Swami that “India claims to destroy a terror boat”.

In the first line of this article, Swami again reiterates that “the Coast Guard destroyed a boat”, and there is a link to an earlier article on The Indian Express, to sort of back this claim. The title of this earlier article says ” Pakistani boat blows up”. In the first para it says “its four occupants blew it up”.

STILL, Mr Swami, in his post, goes on to say that the Indian Coast Guard “Destroyed a boat”. Dear Mr Swami, where did you infer this from? Did you have any live feed to this incident? How can you say that a boat was “destroyed” by the Indian Coast Guard, thus disputing the official version that it blew itself up, WITHOUT providing a shred of evidence?

There is no harm in having a different view as compared to the official version. But if you have another theory, and you are going to publish it via Mainstream Media, you better have facts or proofs to back your claims, not just “sources” or conjecture. We think Mr Swami and his friends have a lot of answering to do, but who will ask the questions?