Media Hypocrisy - Intellectual Bankruptcy - Growth Mantra -Paradigm Shift- Moving to Super Power Stature

Pundits in the Media in India, US and intellectuals here and there harp on one subject "Minorities are fearing survival under Modi dispensation". There is no tangible evidence shown by them nor any statistics to prove the point. In yet  another column in The Hindu by two Indian origin US professors from California University, (teaching Political Science)  again write in the same vein with a misleading headline " Electoral Wins or Religious Peace?".




Their main thrust is on "Soft and Hard Hindutva". There are no two Hinduisms in India. It is one. Hinduism is known for tolerance and acceptance of all faiths as equal. As one of the oldest religious faiths in the world, Hinduism treats all neo faithful as their own clan, following different set of guidelines and scriptures. But, as Gita said when the "adharma" spreads to such an extinct that it uproots you and your whole clan, it is time to react. Thus every Hindu fights for his rights. Naming this as hard Hindutva smacks of either ignorance or studying the Hindu mythology wrong.




Post independence, there  was only minority appeasement and majority suppression in India under the name of secularism, where State should treat all religions equal. One particular religion in India has a personal law that differs from all other religions. This makes it easier for bigots in the religion to perpetuate child marriage,bigamy, an easy divorce with uttering a word three times and issuance of diktats from religious heads.




Rights of women are suppressed by some therein. We do not call this as soft or hard Islam.



Evangelists of all hues spread through the width and length of India, using funds from outside sources through NGOs, increasingly convert people of one faith to the other. Many NGOs were found by Intelligence Agencies of using these funds for anti national activities, as revealed recently. Restricting activities of these elements too is branded as hard Hindutva!





The very premise on which these two learned professors based their arguments that Church attacks in New Delhi shattered the security perception among minorities is again ignorance of the reality or twisting the facts, that a paper of the stature of The Hindu should have edited. These attacks were proven to be by either disgruntled Christians, one by a jilted lover, many a case of robbery. There was no communal element in any of these attacks. It is clear the agenda of Media through columnists with a bias is clearly to show the non existent demon and create fear among sections of population.





India is a free democracy. Each has a freedom to express views. If these views are anti national or aimed against any other religion or intended to divide people on religious lines there are stringent laws. But it should not be construed  that as one religion enjoys separate personal law, there are different set of rules for freedom of speech to them as the Owaisis  and Azam Khans, Mansoor Alan or Gelanees think.




The utterances by any Hindu leader crossing legal limits were condemned and they were made to apologise within no time. But the persons mentioned supra never did nor the Congress leaders under whom, the professors profess minorities were safe,neither condemned nor made them apologise. This is called minorityism and not secularism. By appeasing sections of population, using them as vote banks keeping them in perennial poverty was the USP of Congress and the so called pseudo secular parties.




After Modi took over there was paradigm shift. The thrust now is overall growth of economy and equal opportunities for all. A slow change is being brought about where India is no more considered as a land of minorities and majority. If clean India is taken to the village level it includes all.  DBTL includes all. Infrastructure development includes all. Thrust on skill development includes all. Make in India is aimed at providing jobs to all. In Varsnasi Muslim artisans were encouraged to weave and export. In Gujarat there is inclusive growth.




After Modi took over incidents of communal strife and mutual intolerance is slowly waning but for a few orchestrated attacks by fringe politicians. Minorities are safer today than at any time post independence in India. It is truth and within a decade, India will see inclusive growth breaking barriers of caste and religion, making it a role model to countries like USA  where racial attacks are still order of the day despite loud talk otherwise.



he very comparison of voting patterns in India and USA is based on wrong perception and theory. The authors say Republicans won despite not single Hispanic voting them. In India minorities too voted, though in small number to Modi, as they felt he would take the nation to greater heights. The percentage will only increase as the minorities see real development in their lives by five years, as has happened in .Gujarat.



Moreover, in USA illegal immigrants, non-citizens etc., are not voters in many states. In India the picture is different. Earlier governments used to abet illegal immigration from countries like Bangla Desh, Mayanmar etc., to create vote banks.They were provided ID cards against all set rules so that they turn Indians overnight. If a restriction is placed on such obnoxious practices it cannot be dubbed as creating fear among minorities. Sovereignity of nation is of paramount importance to any nation. Why do you brand this as anti minority policy. Borders are made to secure the nation from lumpen elements  taking advantage of appeasement by political parties and create disturbances. Which nation accepts this?




It is high time the intellectuals recognize the fact that India is reuniting again under a dynamic leadership throwing challenge to the hegemony of the so called super powers.




If any nation, any media house, any intellectual groups, evangelists, fatwa wielding bigots feel they can derail the growth engine where people of each religion, faith, caste and creed will operate the growth machine with neither discrimination nor appeasement, they are grossly mistaken. It is time that they too join the mainstream or they remain in a miniscule minority. 

Mr. Thapar! We are not aliens in our country- We will make better rules soon. Be positive

Dear Mr. Thapar! I shall be brief. I vowed to react to your every Sunday column. This time you were mostly positive. It is right British politicians stepped down one by one accepting moral responsibility for defeat. But degrading Indian politicians for not doing so is in bad spirit. Very recently, Satish Upadhyaya offered to step down. He is from BJP. Must have missed your attention. Even Congress leaders many times followed this principle.
As per Sonia, she is foundation, pillar, roof, walls, doors, windows, internal fittings of Congress. I am not saying this, You said, columnists, said so. Will the heritage monument not collapse if it is disturbed even a little? So, she held back, to protect the dilapidated building. If Maya, Mulayam etc., resign what happens to the downtrodden in lower castes, I do not consider any lower or higher by caste, but by character. Both are there in all castes. But you differentiate by caste and say others are communal.



What happens, if a leader resigns? Will there not be a vaccum? Is it not the incumbent's duty to set things right and quit? May be if any Indian leader did you would have pointed out this. As per the system of vacating the official bungalows, you are right, Our people cling. But you appreciated this or not deprecated till now, this practice. In Freedom At Midnight, it is written that Queen Elizabeth saved chicken supplied to her dog. "How can you live so lavishly?" she reportedly asked. That is the culture we imbibed by the extremely socialist, left of center Congress. You have no regrets on that count.



The other day Rahul stayed in the costliest suite in Hotel Mayura, to keep himself fit for walking 15 miles next day to meet "poor farmers". You do not see this hypocrisy. That is your USP. Turning "blind eye" to reality and making headlines out of trivialities like ghar vaapsi, love jihad etc., And today he gives zero marks to Modify. Zero, added, subtracted, multiplied, divided by a zero does not count. It remains zero like Sible theory. Zero in politics need not be taken into account.



They are Indian. We like aliens to rule our emotions. India and Indianness survived Gajanis and Ghories. Will it not survive biased columnists? It will. And you will be observing from sidelines. Poor will be walking in high streets turning blind eye to hypocrites standing in amazement. We are waiting for the day. Good Luck! Be positive! You need not entertain us. Rahul is doing enough on that front.

OLD WINE IN OLD BOTTLE - JETHMALANI'S TIRADE ON BLACK MONEY ISSUE

Old wine in a very old bottle. That is how we can describe Mr. Ram Jethmalani. Supreme Court said so, in implied language. As per Times of India online headline news this is what they asked him. “What more did he want on black money issue?”

A bench of Chief Justice H L Dattu and Justices Madan B Lokur and A K Sikri told Jethmalani that most of his demands had been acted upon either by the apex court or the SIT headed by two retired SC judges - Justices M B Shah and Arijit Pasayat. (sic.)

They further blew off his arguments by asking the Attorney General thus.

However, the court asked attorney general Mukul Rohatgi to look into the two applications, one by Jethmalani and the other by Swamy - and file response in four weeks if the Centre so desired. (sic.)

The last wording is significant. “If so desired”! This indirectly means that the highest court is no more interventions or repetition of the same allegations time and again. This does not form part of the order but even observations of Judges are significant.

It is not new for the likes of Jethmalani. Unlike many in BJP, who stood with it in the Sun and Rain, this man shifted loyalties as suited him. When Modi was tipped to head at least a strong coalition (many like him wished it so), he started singing praises of Modi. Alas! He won with great majority. There is no chance of anymore tactics that can be applied to make him succumb to the pressures of fringe persons like him.

One point these people missed was Modi would never have headed a loose coalition, where every other person starts blackmailing him. Instead, he would have waited for the opportune time for the experiment to go through the nuances and nuisances of a coalition and would have projected himself after five years again. He is a statesman. He is not loose cannon to shoot his mouth, but a silent worker. He knows his King, Ministers and pawns to play at the right time.

Now, to Jethmalani’s career in politics.

He joined Politics in 1971, opposed emergency as a Janasangh worker, joined Janata Party Government led by Morarji Desai, only to be disliked by him for his differences with PM, then joined Vajpayee Government in 1996 to be followed again 1999. Vajpayee never liked him for his outbursts as a minister, but he was recommended by Advani. He floated his own outfits for fighting all the ills, re-joined BJP only to be expelled later for calling Gadkari names, filed defamation case on BJP for calling him names. It reads like Aesop’s tales and the never ending Vaital stories in Chandamama. I have no comment to make on his personal choices here. Politics is a game where King turns pawn or can be checkmated by opposition. It is a game in which each has his own way to play. He plays it his own way.

He has a number of high-profile defence cases, people involved in market scams (Harshad Mehta and Ketan Parekh), and of gangsters and smugglers including the British citizen Daisy Angus who was acquitted of hashish smuggling. Recently he was in the news for taking up the defence of Manu Sharma, prime accused in the Jessica Lall murder case, however, he failed to get Manu Sharma acquitted. He is now going to be defending Lalit Modi – former IPL Chairman and Commissioner. He defended Rajiv murderers, Indira murderers, Afzal Guru, recently in CBI court defending Jagan Mohan Reddy and Jayalaita in bail case. He too defended LK Advani and Amit Shah on the other side.

References:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/sports/icc-world-cup-2015/ipl/news/Lalit-Modi-to-move-court-against-IPL-governing-council-meeting/articleshow/5845088.cms?

http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/manu-sharma-convicted-for-jessica-murder/18891/

http://www.thehindu.com/2003/01/05/stories/200301050

2270800.htm etc.,

He is a high profile lawyer, known for his straightforward views on issues, acidic in many ways, a perennial dissenter in politics. It is his choice to defend whom he considers, has a fit case, to defend against the cruel arm of the state and the draconian law. No one can question it. Political bungy jumping is the choice of individual persons. No one question that too.

Significantly, soon after Modi took over reigns of a strong government with a strong will, a sustained campaign was launched by interested persons both on Media and Social Media that everything he was doing, was wrong and would spell doom to BJP and India. And, while targeting, him his references are as far are avoided but his ministers are attacked one by one with help from hostile Media and a section of the Social Media, some of whom feel, their choice should be taken while Modi is making ministry, their advice is more important than the council of ministers and the President himself, their Parliamentary strategy is all flawed, their Media team is spineless, such and such minister is still talking to a particular media house, he is running the government by proxy overruling and misguiding PM, the foreign minister is ignored, HRD minister is uneducated, Rahul is going to demolish Modi, (he is aggressive, no?), that Modi should have clarified on the party he clandestinely attended (this was  confirmed by a BJP top leader on SM?), the list is endless. Never, in my career spanning forty years as an observer of politics, so much is discussed about an individual PM. It goes to Modi’s credit that he allowed free opinion without invoking this right or that right. States now are free to talk on issues concerning them. CMs of opposition ruled states get easy access to PM.

What troubles Jethamalani and his ilk then? It is the black money issue. The Supreme Court appointed SIT is working. He could not get this appointed during previous regimes. Yesterday, he again said Government was not sincere in getting the black money. Then the SC told him that whatever he wanted was happening. He did not place these facts in his petition but only orally observed to the galleries. (Times of India Report). What does this mean? He is not an iota more sincere than the government in getting back the black money. By again referring to the Finance Minister by name he only exposed his double talk. In one column he praises Modi and the next day he speaks against his government.

Democracy is run by the elected government. It is led by the Prime Minister on the advice of the cabinet. It is prerogative of The PM to choose his team. If they fail he fails. The nation fails for reposing confidence in him. Is one year not to early to judge actions of a government when so many issues were resolved and still many in the pipeline. Is Modi so ignorant os is being led by a dynasty queen, her coterie of an NAC, of people that have little knowledge of political administration? And there is a complaint that PMO is too much interfering in Ministry’s work. This was preached to us by another economist-turned-politician-turned many things intelligentsia, in an interview with the Devil’s advocate. Two intelligent persons float two theories. One says PMO is too interfering and the other saying the FM is taking decisions on his own and not keeping the PMO in the loop. This is called free speech, a Constitutional Right!

We can tell a story here. A Brahmin carrying a lamb was misled by four thieves who project it as a dog and ultimately the Brahmin is convinced of the fact. But this is Modi, not the innocent Brahmin in the story. He knows what he is doing and what he is carrying home. And even if it were a dog he will not leave it there since no animate or inanimate object is untouchable to him and all are equal to him, the truest secularist India ever saw.

In fact, all this helps Modi to build his own image once results of his actions are seen on ground. Till then, many players in the Foot Ball Court will be kicking him like a ball till he (the ball) reaches the goal post and he wins the game. Kick the ball more, dissidents and aspirants for higher posts! Good Luck! Long Live Hypocrisy!

SATYAMEVA JATATHE

                                   **********************

 

      THE DEVIL'S ADVOCATE AND THE INIMITABLE REBEL 

     TWO SIDES OF THE SMAE COIN THAPAR AND SHOURIE

Both revel in controversies. Both never stuck to a known position in their lives. They critique for the sake of criticism or when they find the weather is not suitable. Sambit Patra was dot on point when he called Arun Shourie “ The Fair Weather Politician”, one who enters or exits a political argument as the weather is suitable or not. Karan Thapar, as the nname Devil’s Advocate means argues for the sake of argument.

In the Shakespeare drama, “ Julius Caesar” a character Cassius, who entertains a grudge on the King engages others to participate in the conspiracy to kill him. The conversations between these conspirators look similar to the interview of Shourie with Thapar. Cassius turns each dialogue and each event in such a way that the others are but forced to agree with him, “Yes! Caesar is ambitious”. “ Yond Cassius has a hungry look” These are hungry politicos who used their intellectual dishonesty to occupy positions that well-deserved full time workers of the party deserved. Once, that power is gone they rebel. In 2005, 2009 and again now, Shourie tried to hog the headlines, to repeat his own words. I need not elaborate on the economist turned politician, turned fanatic Hindu who roused passions, turned journalist, turned rebel against his mentor Goenka, turned politician, turned Minister with controversies that never left him, turned rebel and ambitious like Cassius to settle scores with one politician that he thinks does not match his calibre. Calibre in politics does not come by just learning vocabulary. If that was so, many including me, would have been Prime Ministers.

Many in India prayed for a weak coalition at the Centre post May 2014, so that they can pursue their agenda and continue to rule by proxy. When that did not happen, I knew one lady journalist, that hopped and jumped between Pro-Modi and Anti-Modi stances until results are out and the day when Modi became strong started coming down heavily for taking this as minister, not taking that one or this policy was wrong or that one disastrous. They influence a few disgruntled elements. But not many. Reason is disappointment that they can no longer blackmail the establishment with their columns.

Now, let us come to the interview part. The questions were premeditated, mostly known to the interviewee and the interviewer too got his expected replies. The timing is important. When Modi’s stock is rising internationally with his hands down approach to spur the whole bureaucracy into concrete action in reaching out help to Nepal even before authorities in Nepal knew what happened. This news should not hog limelight. So, create controversy. So, who better than the Devil’s Advocate or the perennial rebel with no cause and a few Brutusses here and there who are swayed by emotion.

Now, the crux of the interview. The questions were leading and the answers naïve and 200 percent below the level of the high IQ politician. Many answers were off the track and I still do not understand why intellectuals like Amartya Sen and Arun SHourie stoop so low to pursue a set agenda. They do not differ from another A, Arvind Kejriwal.

The very first question and answer. “ What is your take… “. Okay, Modi is good. I do not know what others are doing.” Did he as minister come out in public and say what he was doing? On economy, I was disappointed. Did he want the rubble in Nepal cleared in one day? Or Rome built in one day?”

And the second. On foreign visits. Shourie projects as if the whole exercise was to downplay China leaving aside the great success Modi achieved on economic issues and investments. Is this intelligence or cunningness like Cassius who infers each word spoken by Caesar to suit his needs?

Third and fourth questions dwell on China and Shourie conveniently turns it on Modi quoting the experience of not following up and hence he did not have confidence. It looks like a friendly advice, but in journalistic lingo is like breaking news to rouse passions instead of subduing them. With his reach in BJP, if he has any, he could have sent a mail PMO, instead of blabbering with the Devil’s Advocate.

In the fourth and fifth questions, both try to downplay the Modi visit and Tahpar goes to the exent of declaring “ So, there is no big break” and “Yes” says Shourie like Brutus.

In the sixth and seventh questions, Thapar continues to taunt (pre -meditated), on America and China and Shourie says some-one told him so and so and hence things were moving slow and USA was impatient. India is sovereign country that can make its own policy vis a vis China or USA or this some-one unnamed. In politics some ones and sources are enigma and Media uses this to the hilt.

Eighth and ninth are continuation and are aimed at people who did not still catch what these two highly intellectual guys were plotting to kill Modi spirit.

Ninth and tenth questions are hazy and answers too. Shourie advises on an issue that he is not sure whether it is being followed or not, outside advisors, on India’s Pak and China policy but feels to pass on advice unasked for by the government, just because Thapar asked him. Too naïve.

Eleventh and twelfth questions are musings of Thapar than that of Shourie confusing us who the interviewerwas and who the other was. Ultimately, Shourie says a meek “Yes”, like again Brutus, who says “yes” to conspiracy not knowing why he was doing that. Neither of them knows exactly the role of Foreign Minister in policy framing as she never talked on the subject and is religiously doing her duty.

Thirteenth and fourteenth questions. The answer is “Yes! Steadier thinking. I wonder what was meant by that or what Thapar understood. In the third month after marriage, if child birth does not happen and if some nincompoop says “Yes! Steadier Relationship needed”, do we accept the answer? It is surprising how low people stoop to pursue personal agenda.

The next three questions on economic policy. The very first diktat of Modi to his ministers was not talk to Media unless concrete results were achieved. And since they are not talking these guys imagine nothing is happening, everything was at standstill etc. Who was responsible for bad loans? How does credit off take happen? If a politician walked into a bank since 1969, his loan was cleared with no verification and that was the credit off take and the bad loan portfolio. Work is done in tranches. Since I am suffering from head ache I cannot chop my head and say “Gayab”, if I too have to stoop low as these guys.

The next two questions. Credit is not to the government but international factors. In Congress time too there were ups and downs in international factors. When wind was unfavourable they blamed it and when it was favourable, they used to swallow the benefits instead of passing on to consumers. Delisting millions of dubious gas connections in three months is enough proof of what changed. If UPA continued the whole subsidy part would have gone to the coffers of the neo-rich politicos. Shourie should have known better or he is wearing a mask.

Subsequent questions on coal auctions is not only naïve but laughable. When CAG pointed out that there was loss of Rs.1.86 lakh crores UPA clarified that it was spread over a period of 30 years, but loss was loss. Then, how can the government mislead people that Rs.2.00 lakh crores was earned now? Government and Ministers gave the break up figures and improvement in coal stocks, reduction in imports of coal reduced by 38% are indicators. In, fact, if I remember well the figure was Rs.5,942 crores this year. There too, he bungled.

The next answer is funny. If people opposed to change do not agree to government policy, is it confrontation? Just because hostile media projects them as mountains instead of mole hills is it confrontation? Why did you all oppose the NAC under Sonia if you feel experts outside must be consulted? What is the basis for your allegation that they are not consulted? Just because they did not consult you both, is it a fault? Please know facts, before you go public.

The questions and answers to the next questions are out of my realm now and I do not want to make surmises like Shourie. So, I will study and blog again. No comment now.

The answer to the next question is naïve again. Reason is, Modi is the first PM to involve all states in his policy making. He made more funds available. He reacted to disasters fast, which his bete noir Nitish too agreed. In case of Delhi, Kejriwal is a “second by second” rebel and he does not know what he is rebelling against. He does not attend meetings by the Centre but sitting outside critiques that his state is being ignored. He can be brushed aside as one that is adept in guerrilla war than direct confrontation.

Answers to the next three questions reflect his penchant for attacking Jailtely. It happened in 2005, 2009 and 2015. Will happen again if Jaitely is treated with good position and Shourie is ignored. Again, it is the Cassius in him, and the positions are like Cleopatra. Who woos her better?

A mechanism is being worked to fill vacancies in institutes as this government wants experts not “nod-heads” as heads of prime institutes. They are not decided in TV studios by Thapar and Shourie.

It is better to neglect the next answers as they are on premise. At least one report said so and so, one industrialist said so and so, Deepak Parekh said so and so (and how can he be ignored? Is he magna carta of Indian economic policy?).

Answer to the next question is purely political and Mamata and Nitish will be on board soon. Jaya cannot go anywhere nor KCR, Jagan and NCBN. This is again on my premise because I have to ape Shourie after reading so much trash in his interview.

The answers to next questions can be given by a Congress Spokesperson better than Shourie. Do we still call him as part of intelligentsia? Unfortunate.

Next question is safety on minorities. The three issues he quoted were wrong interpretations by Media and culprits were booked. As a minority basher in his earlier avatar who opposed conversions per se, he should have advised the Missionaries instead of Modi. He is totally bankrupt today intellectually and the only explanation we can give may be it is out of envy on others. His answer on Modi suit shows his hatred to the whole system, even after the suit issue was laid at rest.

Last question. If Shourie is familiar with the goings on in the country he would not have said that Government should maintain low profile. There is mounting criticism in Media and other sections that he is interacting less. And this is contradictory to his earlier view that he should interact more with experts. Does he underestimate a common man as not an expert but stupid? That is more like a journalist than a politician or an assumed intelligentsia.

I suggest Shourie go back to his writing books and Thapar to his columns like where he was during earthquakes and what he was doing. And when he was in loo, how the earth under him shook and what happened then etc.,