Thursday, November 28, 2013

Fellow Indian's letter to Shoma Choudhary and Indian Media in general

Fellow Indian's letter to Shoma Choudhary and Indian Media in general....

From: mpatankar <mpatankar@3iindia.com>
Date: Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 12:34 PM
Subject: shomas interview on headlines today and vinod mehta in times now
To: shoma <shoma@tehelka.com>, editors <editors@tehelka.com>, bureau <bureau@tehelka.com>, tarun <tarun@tehelka.com>


hi shoma,



yesterday you appeared on tv in interview with nalin mehta, where you categorically stated that you are aware of many such episodes (like one in which tarun has allegedly raped a young employee) in other media houses. similarly vinod mehta on times now yesterday stated " arnab you know and i know this happens and has been happening in all media houses for decades ---".

media houses therefore appear to be rapist and predators paradise. it may be a good idea that shoma, vinod ,,rahul singh,roy et al start a rapist and predators management institute with a suitable chairman who is now available ?

since you are in knowledge of those rapist and predators instead of bringing them to book , you should call them in your institute for practical demonstrations with a fat honorarium.

mp

Wednesday, November 6, 2013

Sardar Patel communal in Nehru's view, says Advani


Advani’s comment is expected to generate more political heat ahead of elections as the BJP has been targeting theGujarat Chief Minister and BJP's Prime Ministerial candidate Narendra Modi with Senior leader L K Advani pose with the statue of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel during the foundation laying ceremony of 'Statue of Unity' in Bharuch. PTI photo Congress for only projecting the Nehru-Gandhi family as freedom fighter icons, ignoring the contribution of others like Sardar Patel.

(DeccanHerald)


Giving another twist to the controversy over Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel’s legacy, BJP patriarch L K Advani on Tuesday blogged that the country’s first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, had accused Patel of being a “total communalist” when he suggested that police action be taken against Hyderabad’s Nizam, who wanted to accede to Pakistan after independence.

Advani, attributing his comment to a book, “The Story of an Era Told without Ill Will,” authored by M K K Nair, an IAS officer of the 1947 batch, refers to “sharp exchanges” between the two during a cabinet meeting sometime in 1948. Both had different takes on “police action” against the Nizam, whose officials also unleashed atrocities on locals.

The Congress hit back at Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi’s attempt to what they called “usurping Patel legacy.” The BJP’s prime ministerial candidate had started the process of building the tallest ever statue of the Iron Man. The Congress also attacked Modi on the grounds that Patel did not conform to the Hindutva ideology or communal agenda.  

Taslima slams Kejriwal for feelers to maulana behind beheading fatwa

(TOI)


Taslima slams Kejriwal for feelers to maulana behind beheading fatwa








NEW DELHI: Aam Aadmi Party chief Arvind Kejriwal was on Tuesday embroiled in a controversy over his meeting with a controversial Muslim cleric who faced allegations of incitement of communal violence and who set off a huge furore by announcing bounties on the heads of exiled Bengali author Taslima Nasrin and former US president George Bush.

Nasrin lashed out at Kejriwal and the Indian political class following reports the AAP chief sought the support of Barelvi cleric Tauqeer Raza Khan who issued a fatwa to behead her for criticizing orthodox practices of Islam. "A politician goes to a fundamentalist who declared a price on my head knowing it is illegal and against the Indian Constitution," the author said in an exclusive conversation with TOI.

"I am surprised politicians go to such fanatics and fundamentalists for support. If they need the support of Muslims, why don't they go to ordinary Muslims? Instead, politicians go to Muslim fanatics responsible for the community's backwardness," Nasrin said.

"Since the days after independence, Indian politicians have been seeking help of clerics who don't respect human rights, are against freedom of expression and the Indian Constitution. This has encouraged the irrational, misogynist fanatics who are against modernity and plurality of thoughts," she said.

BJP also hit out at the AAP boss for reaching out to Khan who floated Ittehad-e-Millat Council to contest the 2010 assembly elections in UP. "AAP is getting desperate and is rushing to all sorts of people," party spokesperson Shahnawaz Hussain said. Khan's outfit won the Bhojpura seat in Bareilly.

The cleric, great grandson of Syed Ahmad Raza Khan, founder of the Barelvi sect, was arrested in 2010 following communal clashes in Bareilly.

He had come under fire in 2007 when he announced a bounty of Rs 5 lakh on Nasrin's head for her views on Islam. He had also announced Rs 1 crore bounty for killing former US president George W Bush.

'Ran into Maulana'

Faced with the criticism, Kejriwal said he happened to meet Khan when he went to offer a chadar at the Bareilly dargah, adding that he has been visiting leaders and places of worship of all faiths as part of his struggle to eradicate corruption.

Denying that he was playing the "communal card", Kejriwal said in a statement that he wanted to establish harmony among all communities, and added that the controversy was engineered to distract attention from failures of Congress and BJP.

He denied that he was seeking a partnership with Khan's outfit, a contention which was supported by a statement issued simultaneously by the Barelvi cleric.

Kejriwal claimed that he was not aware of the allegations against Khan. Significantly, however, he also cited in detail the cleric's claim that he never issued any fatwa. "Only a mufti can issue a fatwa and I am not one," Kejriwal quoted Khan as saying.

Political circles are viewing the controversy over his meeting with the controversial cleric as Kejriwal's second misstep. In the earlier instance, he had dubbed the Batla House encounter as fake, justifying the demand for a fresh probe into the shootout in which Indian Mujahideen commander Atif Ameen was killed along with inspector Mohan Chand Sharma.

A court had earlier declared the encounter to be genuine.
Nasrin stressed such clerics did not represent the ordinary Muslim. "These clerics are not bothered about education, enlightenment or jobs for the Muslim community. They champion madrasa education and prevent society from moving forward. They encourage building a mosque instead of a school for secular education. Such clerics are guided by blind faith," she said, adding, "These fanatics are responsible for keeping the Muslim community in the dark ages and reaping benefits at their expense."

She urged the Indian people to resist the unholy nexus between politicians and religious fundamentalists. "It's high time the people of India spoke up against fundamentalists who vitiate the society and push communities backward and politicians who encourage them. Else, it is bad news for democracy," said Nasrin.

Tuesday, November 5, 2013

Who is afraid of Narendra Modi?

(Sunday Guardian)

By-Ram Jethmalani-
The government has good reasons to be wary of the BJP PM candidate as he emerges as the leader India needs.
Before I proceed with my weekly piece, let me wish my readers a very Happy Diwali. May this Diwali truly usher in the victory of good over evil and bring peace and prosperity to our people and our country.
Now, to my piece. Narendra Modi has created the political upheaval that I expected he would. The Congress party appears to be in a huddle, with no clue as to how to deal with this new political phenomenon. Even our Prime Minister, best known for moderate and terse statements, whenever he is not silent, used a rather extreme word, "onslaught" to describe Modi's entry into the national political stage, a word normally associated with combat.
How comfortable and cosy previous national elections were. Election behaviour of political parties was predictable; everyone knew everyone else's secrets; everyone understood each other's mediocrities, and empathised with one another's personal ambitions. They sportingly accepted mutual election unpleasantness and acrimony, with a remarkable understanding and bonhomie. After all, verbal acrimony during elections happens all over the world and is a sign of a mature democracy. And by no means did it disturb the political comfort levels of leading political figures. The dynasty was given due respect, even when criticised, and conversely, it had its own favourites in the Opposition for its own reasons, whom it never criticised. Election manifestoes contained a host of promises, several of them unfulfilled promises of yesteryears. But all political parties would rest assured thereafter, knowing full well that once the election was over, they would never be held accountable about them either by the people of India or their own party brass. The lucky winners could then start the serious and exciting business of plundering India, alongside forming appropriately understanding alliances with the Opposition.
What is it about Narendra Modi that seems to frighten the comfortable ruling establishments, present or prospective, out of their wits? As I have stated earlier, he frightens them because he is everything that the present day politician of India is not — a man of strength and steel, with no skeletons in the cupboard that can break his strength or buy him up, and no greed for personal financial aggrandizement. This is what the present political system of India cannot stomach. How dare he not be like one of us, is what is written beneath their anti-Modi script.
Next, he frightens them, because his record of governance suggests that he is a patriot who places our country before anything else. The Congress governance model is based on electoral vote bank politics, even at the cost of breaking the country asunder. Neutralisation of vote banks spells doom for the Congress, and rumblings from the minority communities are already being heard. He frightens them because he is a quick decision maker, something anathema to a regime that believes in plundering the country through multiple pathways, with the chief political executive looking the other way, dithering or passing the buck. The UPA dispensation has made decision making by the Prime Minister unnecessary, undesirable and extinct. It has become a regime of GOMs and PMO (as differentiated from the Prime Minister) and NAC. And unless the Prime Minister has a personal interest in an issue, such as coal block allocation, the PMO has innovated a theory of "distancing itself" from the murky goings on in government, a new coinage, whatever it means, in the Arthashastra of South Block. The Modi critics believe that this implies true team spirit in running a government that Modi lacks, and that unlike Modi, the Prime Minister exemplifies a true team leader, because he is always outsourcing decision making (his first and legitimate function), to his GOMs or to the Core Committee or NAC. According to them, there is no way that Modi being a quick decision maker can qualify to be a good team leader, because neither does he believe in disseminating his accountability or responsibility to extra constitutional authorities like GOMs, and nor does he require their safety of numbers. Quick decision making and taking responsibility for it scares South Block and frightens it like Banquo's ghost. It must be exterminated before it strikes, for the sake of saving team leadership and secular unity, which in reality means the best financial interest of the ruling establishment. So start labelling decisiveness as divisiveness or communalism or lack of team leadership without explaining any of them, and keep repeating them until they stick.
What has started terrifying the ruling establishment even more is the magnetic power Narendra Modi holds over the crowds, and the ease with which he establishes a rapport with them. Psychologists call this quality "charisma", a gift which one either has or doesn't have; a
As Modi's oratory and charisma become more and more visible to the nation and his rallies keep increasing in size all over the country, opinion across the country (including within the Congress establishment) is that as a political leader, he stands unmatched and unstoppable.
The Congress party, during the last decade, had a single point objective on which it concentrated, using all the might of the state machinery it controlled. And that was to somehow get Modi personally indicted in a court of law for the 2002 riots that would finish his political career. For it was in Modi, more than anyone else in the political arena, that they saw the real threat to its power. Modi is neither intimidated nor pays obeisance to them, regardless of the historical halo they claim. However, they were neither able to politically assassinate him nor banish him into disgrace.
The Congress is in crisis — frustrated and frightened. They must helplessly countenance day after day Narendra Modi's steady and hard earned success finally reaching the national political stage, and being declared the BJP Prime Ministerial candidate of India. How will the party vice president compete with the charisma, the oratory, the experience and insights that can only be acquired by being a three-time Chief Minister?
The country is aghast at the party vice president's attitude and oratory, starting with the gate-crashing at Ajay Maken's press conference. He then indulged in a speech evoking death images of his father and grandmother. This infuriated the Sikhs and Tamils. In his next speech, he dwelt upon the Muzzafarnagar riots, as usual wrongly blaming the BJP, the real reason being the Jat-Muslim dynamics as manipulated by the ruling Samajwadi Party; and made the startling disclosure regarding the IB informing him of ISI agents recruiting Muzzafarnagar Muslim victims. This time the Muslim community was infuriated and the Home Ministry rubbished the statement.
The serial bomb blasts at Gandhi Maidan Patna were shocking. But what came through to the people of India, and what I regret has not been noticed or lauded by the media or political commentators, was Modi's composure and demeanour while he was speaking, even as low intensity bombs were going off, and danger and death confronted him in the face. The country requires no further demonstration of his courage in the face of mortal danger, his presence of mind, his leadership qualities, and forbearance.

Add to Google