Friday, January 3, 2014
Propoganda journalism
Thursday, September 30, 2010
A distressed Hindu
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Is the BJP justified in sacking Jaswant Singh from the party?
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
The reason I would not vote for Congress
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
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
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...