Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts

Friday, January 3, 2014

Propoganda journalism

Where is the journalism?? News anchors (more specifically English ones) – are just a bunch of propaganda artists.
-          What about ground reporting?? Since 15 days, all they are talking and discussing about is Kejriwal? There were 4 other (bigger/ more important) states that went for elections?? There was Chattisgarh, where people walked for kilometres to cast their vote, do those voters and their reasonings and their choices don’t matter? What about Mizoram, where INC has been re-elected nth time, and its repercussions on North East voters?
-          Channels are comfortably spending 98% of their time footage on Studio debates. Easy recipe is to invite a dozen ‘selected’ speakers on a propaganda topic of ‘channel’s choice’ – the latest one being Kejriwal...
-          There is hardly any width and depth in the news? There are only views.... views of a bunch of same 30 faces (who keep juggling channels), who keep commenting on topics, whether or not there are knowledgeable about those...
-          India as per them (as per weightage assigned by them) is just Delhi and Mumbai, occasionally Bangalore, Kolkata, Hyderbad, Chennai might find a mention if lucky....

-          Mood of the people of Delhi is being extrapolated to mood of the nation – is it?? Really?? Or are the channels carrying an agenda to carve that mood?? Where is the journalism?? Its all propaganda?? Isn’t it????

Thursday, September 30, 2010

A distressed Hindu

The 'secular' parties tell us: please do not fight for religion. They tell us that castes are a 'reality', so must be included in population consensus, so "Aye all, please declare your castes". but but but, "Do not believe these religious fanatics, rise above religion.... Religion is an impediment to peace & progress". The English media tells us "that the youth no longer care for Ayodhya", yes may be they don't, they are now fighting for reservations for 'their caste', well, that gets some people 'undeserved' jobs, and gets the politicians 'votes' .... The Secular parties tell us that religion is divisive whilst caste is a reality (though I would have thought the reverse)... The non-rightist parties tell us that "We owe these reservations to a vast majority of people who have been oppressed since centuries by 'Upper class' hindus"....  (and only in India, we have Dalit muslims & christians too, Voila, thats great, who says we have lost the path to innovation!.... So, basically, you convert and retain your "Hindu caste"...  But thats a debate for another day...)
 I do know that each one can have their view.. so here is mine.... I know that what I say here is what an educated, city-elite Indian is probably ashamed to say today.... I regret the way it happened, I would regret if there is a single drop of blood on the street, I do not support the way the structure was demolished.... but I somehow feel that the Temple is rightfully ours, Its not a Mecca/ Medina for Muslims, its just a structure build amoungst the thousands of structures build by muslim rulers over hindu temples....I think the secular India owes this to its Hindus - Hindus who since centuries have been traumatized and trampled by the powerful muslim invaders. Hindus who have no significant place of their own but this Bharatvarsh.... Bharat whose eastern & western sides were blown away, and the whose head continues to be pulled away by Muslim fanatics.... This time India owes it to its Bharat, this time India owes it to its Hindus. 

I do not know how it can be achieved without shedding blood, and thats probably the biggest irony of it all...  given a choice, I would still cowardly choose peace to 'my right' ...... and in the same breath, I do understand that the dilemma courts face, I know faith has no  importance in the eyes of a court, and I respect that... but if I try to look from the timeline perspective of several millenia... I do somehow feel that it would be so wrong for that place to be taken away from Hindus. So, here I am, caught in the dilemma of peace and 'what I think is right'...  

- A proud Indian and a distressed Hindu

Thursday, August 20, 2009

Is the BJP justified in sacking Jaswant Singh from the party?

It was a shocker, at least for me. Probably because I had tuned into the Karan Thapar show few days back. I was actually quite impressed how Jaswant Singh was managing to put his views forward without passing judgements about the people involved (i.e. Jinnah, Gandhi, Nehru and the rest). Karan Thapar, true to his style, was trying to evoke strong statements from Jaswant but failed. Of what I heard on the show it seemed to be a very objective book.

There are ample reasons why I feel the sacking was unjustifiable...
Talking about Jinnah in a positive light is not a blasphemy to the Indian state or State leaders. Whether or not one agrees to Jaswant's view is a second stance. How many of the 'leaders' involved in the decision would have actually read the book? I do not think Jaswant made any negative comments about the Indian leaders (Patel & Gandhi; Obviously BJP wouldn't mind negative comments about Nehru). I am sure Mr Rajnath Singh would not have cared to read the book.

Secondly, this seemed like a 'mob-decision' from the BJP - wherein few unworthy-to-be-leaders people who just managed to have some voice, out-shouted the others.
Who is representing the BJP in this issue? - The familiar faces for whom BJP supporters vouched (Jaitley, Shourie, Sinha, Swaraj) have all been sidelined. The dignified educated leaders of BJP have been sidelined by the likes of Rajnath Singh (?? Did we even consider him a national level leader two year back!?). So, who has taken the decision on behalf of BJP???

Jaswant Singh was one of the founding members of BJP. And the party who has prided itself for its democratic procedures (Vis-a-vis the family monarchy of the Congress) choose to expel one of the its founding fathers (a greatly dignified man, an able statesmen, a respected leader, ex-external affairs minister, ex-finance minister) in such a rude manner - sans proper discussions, sans 'democratic' procedures, without even a show cause notice...

Thirdly, and most painfully, the question that comes to my mind is "Who is ousting whom??"
People who represented the BJP itself are being ousted(/sidelined/politically-assassinated/ expelled) right-left-and-centre... be it Swaraj, Jaitley, Shourie, Yashwant Sinha, Naidu... or even the Grand old man himself, Mr Advani!... so what is BJP without these people? A party of low-rung, sham leaders like Rajnath, Mishra! I mean they are as good as the BSP/ SP 'leaders'...

Though I agree that Jaswant should have resisted his urge to talk about Jinnah till he takes a political sanyas (because at such a senior level, its difficult for a party to disown his views)... but in any case the 'expulsion' is unjustifiable. At the most, he could have been warned.... He is no tom-dick-and harry, he might not be a mass-leader but he was a key BJP man. He was the most important non-RSS BJP leader. He was a senior diplomat who effectively handled strained Indo-US relations in the aftermath of the 1998 Nuclear tests. Even Strobe Talbott could not resist praising Jaswant in his book 'Engaging India' . Jaswant was even honoured with an Outstanding parliamentarian award in 2001.... All this to be expelled by some little regional champ with big voice...

Its with a deep sigh that BJP supporters like me would look at this incident - It seems one more nail in BJP's coffin.... well it just seems a matter of time till....

Or may be they will re-rise like a Phoenix...


Tuesday, April 14, 2009

The reason I would not vote for Congress

First, let me discuss things that I would do if I were to become PM
1. Uniform civil code.
2. Abolishing reservation of all kinds/ forms.
3. Urgent focus on Terrorism and Naxalism.

------

Now, lets come to the title of the blog... Why I would not vote for Congress

1. They are the biggest perpetrators of the divide-and-rule policy in this country... probably they inherited this from the British era. Be it V.P.Singh or Arjun Singh, there will always be somebody in the Congress to carry on the brigade of reservations. No doubt smaller regional parties do it too, but their impact is the same, 'small, regional'.

All the while that they chant about secularism, they would never dare to talk about uniform civil code in this 'secular' country. If they really care to bring the vast muslim majority into the mainstream, they need to bring them to a common modern day civil code. But No! Congress's self-interest favours the muslim voter to remain poor/ illiterate/ backward - So, they could not care less about social progression/ modernisation of the muslim society.

Just as the British, Congress's divide-and-rule is apparently for the benefit of the weaker classes.
I am sure if Congress comes to power they would enact the reservation bill and would never talk about bringing a uniform civil code in this country. Thats why I would not vote for Congress


2. I have not an iota of doubt in saying that Congress is ultra-soft on terrorism.
- Taliban is knocking at the door and 'honourable' Mrs. Gandhi says communalism is a greater enemy of the country than 'terrorism'. Does she even realise the magnitude of the danger India is facing from terrorism.

- Be it Mr. Antulay's remarks on the death of Hemant Karkare or the 'enquiry' into the Jamia Nagar shootout.... The Congress govt. has time and again insulted India's real heroes! (How could you doubt the integrity of your own special anti-terrorist squad's operations?? that too w.o. any legitimate indicators/ proofs??!! makes me gasp in horror!)

Here, I am sure that Congress would continue to be soft on terror.


I know we are short of good alternatives, but just wanted to put forward my views on why am I striking off Congress from the list......

Since past year or so, I have started hating Congress....

Friday, March 13, 2009

Mr.M.K.Gandhi

Well, to begin with let me admit that I have not been a big fan of Mr. Gandhi (Not that I did'nt respect him, just that it was a 'borrowed' sense of respect i.e. not coming from within). Then what brings me to this subject? Well, I was in Ahmedabad for work purpose; I visited the Sabarmati Ashram there, despite taunts from my boss explaining the heaps of pending work I had in hand. I thought he was just panicking as the work wasn't that much. So, coming back to the topic of Sabarmati Ashram. Once in the Ashram, I (once again) was deeply moved by the history of our independence movement and finally ended up purchasing "My experiments with truth" (for just 100 bucks, I guess this was a subsidised price though).
I am still just about half way through this book... but Mr. M.K.Gandhi has already transformed into a Mahatama for me. Well, he is still not my ideal, as I do not believe in a lot of things that he preached... but yet he has risen to the level of a Mahatama for me.
I was expecting his autobiography to be a drab; but quite surprisingly I am finding it very interesting. Primarily because he has been brutually honest with the book - It reveals a lot of unknown facets of the man India hails as 'Father of the nation'. And reveals the world (not just India) during that century through the eyes of an Indian.
Also, I think he is a good story teller (though I am reading the English version)... He doesn't dwell on a particular topic for too long. It moves quickly from his personal life to social issues and back.
... More about the book (and why I disagree with Gandhiji) later once I finish reading this! For now, I will leave you with the images of Gandhiji's hut and room at the Ashram...




Sunday, March 8, 2009

'Divisive' politics

I have been hearing a lot of political parties using the word 'secular' to gang up against a particular one - apparently they always are looking to present an 'anti-communal' front. (nothing new, we have been hearing that for a long time...) . They say B** is a 'divisive' party.

My question is: Is being 'anti-communal' enough? Communalism divides our population into broadly 80:13:2:5 sections. Which is bad, but in my view not as bad as the other kind of division i.e. the caste.

Casteism divides our society hundreds of n1: n2: n3: n4...... sections... but guess what!!: nobody terms these parties based on 'caste ideologies' divisive!! In my view these parties are much much more divisive then the 'commual' one! We should be anti-divisive and not just anti-communal.
One good thing that this 'communal' party has done (in my view) is that it has not divided people into thousands of caste-based sections: Gujjars, Jats, OBCs, Scs, STs, Brahmins, poor brahmins,
rajputs etc... which in my view is great because I think casteism is the worse enemy of country.
If we can't unite the 80% first, how can we dream of uniting 100%?
What we need to understand is that a division is a division. So, if asking votes on grounds of
religion is bad, why do we not consider voting on grounds of caste as bad, if not worse?? So,
media doesn't make a hue and cry when the likes of Mayawati act as a 'messiah' of the so-called
backward castes; on the other hand Advani is criticized hoarsely for talking about 'Hindu
Rashtra'.
Going back 60 years, the country's politics was still dominated by religion, but not so much by castes. Haven't we actually regressed??
The best way to unite people is to erase the divisions, not harp on them day in and day out! But thats what the political forces and the media (alike) have been doing - So, its ok to say that xxx is a Gujjar leader, yyy is an OBC leader, zzz is a Rajput leader... but saying Mr.A is a Hindu leader in - Oh! he is a communal politician!! Agreed, but what about the other leaders being divisive. Religion-based parties should have no place in a secular country; but, you know what, the same should go for caste-based parties.

The British used 'divide and rule' and partitioned our country; these numerous political parties are partitioning our parliament on the basis of caste!!! x% seats for such a such caste. y% jobs for such a such caste... and so on!

A division is a division is a division.

PS: There is a strange way that the word 'communal' is used in the Indian context but shall discuss that later sometime...

Wednesday, October 8, 2008

Politics, terrorism and religious profiling

I often get into this mode... The politics of this country troubles me. It just leaves me gasping for breath…

There are serial bomb blasts in the National Capital. The police desperately searches for the inflictors, and for a change, manages to track them pretty soon (instead of the case going on for years together). One brave office dies fighting. Instead of praising the police department for its swift action, our politicians and media start another debate altogether ‘fake encounter’, 'religious profiling'.... Excuse me?

As a country we have been facing terrorism for such a long time that we are close to developing an immunity to it - no, I don't think it shows our 'indomitable' will or anything like that... it just shows are 'spineless tolerance'. Let us stop blaming our neighbors for a while and first look at solutions which are within our control… things we can tackle within our own boundaries.

India is probably the only nation in this world where the politician of a ruling party would talk of providing support to an 'alleged' terrorist. Before some of the 'human rights/ minority commission' people get aggravated with my statements, let me clear few things: I am not saying that there isn’t a possibility of some of these people being innocent.
But with every conviction, say for a murder or a robbery, there is always this possibility; do the likes of Amar Singh speak for each and every one of them? Does Mr. Amar Singh stand up for each and every possibly innocent convict?
I do not doubt that there are fake encounters in our country (or probably every country); would Mr. Amar Singh ask for an enquiry into each and every one of them?? More importantly, an enquiry is held when you have doubts on certain aspects of a situation? What reasonable doubts/ indications do you have on the justifiability of this encounter? None. Yes, absolutely none. The general public gasps in wonder of how an issue of fake encounter is created out of nowhere…
There is a democratically elected government and a fairly functional judiciary which can take care of these things.

Now, let’s come to another aspect of this discussion, ‘religious profiling’.
First things first, generalizations are wrong. There are fanatics in each and every community and the entire community should not be punished for the crime of few. Agreed.

Have you ever gone through security-checks at the international airports? Middle-east and South Asians are more rigorously frisked than say a Korean or Japanese. They don’t harm us, all they do is frisk us more carefully; very frankly, I don’t mind it. I just find it understandable. Reason: there have been more instances of terrorists from these parts of the world. And very frankly, had I been in their place I would probably do the same thing – it’s the basic human instinct I would say. Similarly, if the police department finds more terrorist links to Azamgarh or Jamia Nagar, they would do more rigorous exercises there – Isn’t that what any rational person would do? We should not misjudge this as ‘religious’ profiling. In fact I would dare to say that people of such places are probably taking the defensive approach; they can’t deny the presence of such links. (Again, I am not saying that x% of the population in a particular area has links with terrorist organizations. What I am saying is that probably y% of the mastermind network of each blast traces its origin back to few specific areas.) People of such areas should actually welcome the investigators and help them clean-up the areas.

All this is very fragile, I agree. But we need to get rigid in at least some sense. All of us need to be careful about whom we are renting our house to, whom we are selling that mobile chip to – These are the ways security agencies in other parts of the world crack down on the militant organizations. These groups can not be ‘eliminated’; they need to be ‘strangled’ for their financial/ emotional/ logistical supplies.

Would you deny that a big part of the militant operation depends on the financial ammunition – Are we doing enough to track the finances of the extremist bodies to ensure that financial aid is dried out to people who are bombing our cities in the name of religion. Oh please! Now don’t give me the minority rights theme again!! It just makes me sick. It’s no new fact that many of the madarsas are actually providing financial/ emotional/ logistical support to the extremist group. Let’s bring them under the financial jurisdiction; if they are not committing any crime they shouldn’t be afraid. Yes, I hear you saying that I am putting onus on them to prove themselves ‘not guilty’. I beg to differ, bringing under supervision doesn’t imply ‘guilty’; from my perspective escaping supervision would be an indication to ‘guilt’. (I would add that this stretches to all religious groups, we all know how religious grants and educational trusts are a mode of making black money white).

One more thing that shocks me is the ‘marginalization’ argument. Many of the thieves would be from economically ‘marginalized’ background, would that justify their actions? Many of the rapists would have gone through some form of sexual or emotional trauma; would you say we should be considerate towards them? Reformation of a society needs to go side by side, but it should in no way divert our attention from eliminating the culprits first. And that’s what has been happening. Indian media had been doing just that, instead of focusing on how terrorist network is getting engrained in our towns and cities, the ‘intellectuals’ are focusing on social reforms. I would say sure Mr./ Ms. Intellectuals, when somebody is putting a gun to your daughter’s head then try reforming him instead of nabbing him then and there… “Oh poor guy! He is agitated because of blah blah blah, let’s redress it”

We are sitting on heaps of RDX and ammonium nitrate; we can not be and should not act soft on terror. WE JUST CAN NOT.


The politics of this country disgusts me.... I do not want to write any more...