Tuesday, April 29, 2014

Rambling on Indian media -Part 1

Is asking question such a difficult thing to do?

Tony Blair once said (words to that effect) to journalists that those in politics is in the business of doing and in journalism in the business of commentary. He implied the former is far more difficult job than mere commentary. There is substantial truth in it. (Tamilians may relate to 'Panja Tanataram') 
I personally respect Mark Styne’s advise, that all aspiring writers should learn to do something with their hands, meaning at least learn to fix a leaking faucet or repair your motor bike or such things.
One section of society just does not contribute to the economy, the engine that defines our well-being in any society. A friend of mine used to say, a farmer in Canada, that there are so many who just do not want to do anything and should be allowed to live so, in the name of freedom.
In downtown Toronto, one crosses a shabbily clad guy with a pan and a placard seeking money for ‘dope’ with two huge dogs sitting next to him. He obviously does nothing except brazenly ogling at women, passing rude comments, taking money;  then smoke dope and with the leftover buy food for self and the dogs. As long as people freely give money to him, he gets free dope.
Then there are pickpockets, drug addicts, charlatans, tricksters and similar lot who make money doing nothing but by stealing and scavenging from people who create wealth. It perhaps can be explained by the parasitical components in every system, part of nature.
Then there are journalists who work to report, providing the mirror the society needs to have a look at itself. And there are those in this trade who go by different names, media personalities, anchors, debaters and the lot who live off the fat of the land. Most of them run their show as substitute for Roman circus, feeding the ever hungry plebeian public's base taste, with entertainment of Lion eating man. It serves no purpose but it gets crowd. Some go further and imitate those simians in Zoo, engaging is self-stimulation, which attracts sizeable crowd. I don’t know why the name Arnab comes to my mind. Along with TRP.
In India, there is hardly any choice we have amongst the English news channels. If you tune in to Times Now, the simian shows go on endlessly. CNN-IBN is run with a team entirely made of people whose IQ taken together makes an average imbeciles’. Whatever one can add to the positive side is immediately canceled out by Sagarika. I am still waiting for CNN-IBN to make one single intelligent remark or even an honorable program. NDTV comes in low decibels but equally obnoxious.
These channels are brazenly crass, crude and appeal to very basic instincts of people. There are enough material in the social networking websites giving details of their connection to the high and mighty, which might explain why we have to suffer them. And they go on ad nauseam that Indian politics does not offer any choice. Have they ever wondered if Indian media provides any? All of them run similar program, similar content, the decibels varying, the ideological intent the same and if you switch from one channel to another, you will miss nothing. I would go to the extent that if you switch off, you will miss nothing, but surely these perverse anchors will surely miss their pay check soon.
The media buries either entirely or in some inaccessible place, what it does not want to show. This is evident and is a national secret. The recent rape and murder case in Latur of a Congress party woman, by Congress party workers traveling in relation to attending a Congress Leader’s birthday is buried so deep, no one heard about it. Have you seen women screaming at you with “Stop the Shame” theme? This rape did not shame her. I wonder what is that substance, which insulates her from shame in cases like these yet shamelessly continue to make selective reporting? Ideology? Money? Fame? Stupidity? Inability to introspect? I think it is all of them mixed in a oil-base of corrupt soul. The evil that makes up media in India.
There are reportedly places in India where minority community does not allow others from entering the village and it is not even reported. We all know with how much conviction media ran the story of pogrom against Kashmiri Pandits. Even today, no one talks about it but media gives huge coverage to Omar Abdulla making irrelevant hair-splitting comments.
 There were more than 100 riots in TMC ruled West Bengal and they are hardly covered by media. When Canning riot was happening, there were people in social networking websites but the response from the media, was muted as usual.
In Kerala a pregnant cow was brought to a temple and left with its throat split and the media did not report. This was done with a clear intent to offend Hindu community and also to demonstrate that law cannot touch such criminals.
Kanwal tweets that 80% houses in the districts bordering Bangla Desh fly Pakistan or Bangla flags. Immediately there are Nilim Duttas who claim it is false. There are reports that third of Kaziranga National Park is occupied by illegal immigrants. Underplay is the response from media. You should have seen the face of the woman on NDTV as she reported Modi’s statement that post May 16th, illegal immigrants will have to leave, conveying that she caught Modi committing one of the most atrocious crimes.
That takes us to the topic of this write. These people are supposed to be not sound bite catchers and regurgitate it, right? They are supposed to ask questions. But have you seen anyone asking relevant questions? On one extreme we have Karan Tapar who believes that being obnoxious is same as asking questions and on the other we have Rajdeep who says ‘yes’ to everything the panelist says but concludes in the opposite.
Times Now repeated flashes with “Priyanka tears into Modi” and seems to suggest that Priyanka has brought up some topics of national importance and had Modi and BJP on the mat. It does not take much effort to find out that all Priyanka gave was sound bites, of ‘me tera khoon pee jaoongi’.
Barkha reported that Chidambaram says that “we don’t need Fascists and Nazists to solve India’s problem”
Media reported "O'Brien saying Modi has blood in his hands" (some even added the word 'dripping')
Media reports that “Batra’s mother says that Modi is ‘pseudo-patriot’.
There are numerous instance of such publicity media undertakes to serve their masters. They are sound-bites, they are not worth nothing more. It is similar to the simian example, indulging in self-stimulation to which these media gang runs with lights flashing on.
Is asking question a difficult task?
Could Time Now have asked question probing the points Priyanka was making instead of lapping of her words to be regurgitated on TV? For example, did they find out on what basis is she defending Vadra whose declared income has grown to 300 crores? What happened to the loan that Vadra claimed he got from a bank that the bank denied ever giving? Not about her government house or other side shows. Why not probe the topic she picks?
Did anyone ask Derek if he means that Modi personally killed people? If not, do the pronouncements of the Supreme Court have any bearing in his assertion? Is there any proof in what claims?
Did Barkha ask Chidambarm why does he compare Fascism to the leader Indian people elect? Does Chidambaram feel that our electoral system is not suitable? Does he prefer any other system? Does Chidambaram know that the closest ideology to Fascism is the liberalism that Congress swears by?
Did anyone ask Batra’s mother if the only proof available to BJP to show Modi as patriot is by allowing her to win on AAP ticket? Does martyrdom of Son be converted to political pension for the parents? Will it not mean that every martyr’s parents will be filling the Lok Sabha?
 But those questions never are asked. I personally know of the price with which silence of journalists can be bought, but at best it is anecdotal.
The questions are never asked, as this is the low-risk corruption by media by which one can avail monetary gains. No one can blame for questions not asked. For not being smart.
Then there is another explanation. While passing out from school, there are some who can do nothing in life. They turn journalists, I guess, of this yellow variety.
They write and speak gossips, salacious bits, allegations and live on the verbal wastes of the society. The lowly tribe lives by their societal parasitic genetic code. And once you choose to live the life of a parasite, there is no room for ethics and morals. You become Arnabs, Rajdeeps and Barkhas. Scary.

Most journalists do not eat bread earned with honest work.

Sunday, April 27, 2014

Accidental Prime Minister – by Sanjay Baru -A review

The media has attempted to pretend that the morons on TV are capable of reading books. A hilarious moment came up when Bhupendra Chaubey was authoritatively asking Sanjay Baru questions, Sanjay asked Chaube if  he has read the book. BC responded  that he has “read the operative parts” to which Sanjay mumbled to himself “why am I here answering people who have not even read the book”. The words may not be the same but the message was very close to what I have recounted here.
I was one of the first to buy Kindle version from Amazon, fearing that it may soon get banned. I thought I will share a review, not as an expert, but as one who has read the book cover to cover, unlike fake media personalities.
This is not the first time the TV personalities put on a pretentious intellectual demeanor they do not deserve. I wrote about it in 2009 http://notcovered.blogspot.in/2009/08/sen-and-ghosh-vaudeville-show.html
But that was about Sangarika Ghosh, so I think it does not count. Everyone knows she is shown on TV probably because she threatens to poison Rajdeep if he does not allow her show. Threat of domestic violence, perhaps, but seriously….
The book “Accidental Prime Minister (APM)” reveals many things, some overtly and some unintentionally. I write here what I thought were in overt tones but mainly those unintentional slips.
As you finish the book, the one thing that remains with you is, Sanjay Baru adores Dr Manmohan Singh without holding back, unabashedly. And most importantly, however much one may dislike Dr Manmohan Singh for his apathy towards the scams, you do not feel offended by Baru’s love for Dr Manmohan Singh. It is genuine and based on true admiration for Dr Manmohan Singh. Sanjay is not spinning for Dr Singh.

A theme that turns up often in the book is inability of Dr Singh to stand up or speak the truth. Dr Singh also elected to seat himself in that gray area where he could deny responsibility for any type of consequences. It is immoral for a man to let a seat of power be usurped by his political boss, but Dr Singh allowed it without showing any compunction. There are multiple instances that come up and I will indicate a few of them also here.

Dr Singh’s views on Sikh riots, according to Sanjay, satisfied neither the Sikhs nor the Congress since he did not speak what he thought as truth but spoke what he thought would satisfy both. By blaming Congress and RSS for the Sikh massacre, Dr Singh did not please the Congressmen for obvious reasons and the Sikhs for inaccurate blame on RSS. In that I saw a trait in Dr Singh, to let in a falsehood in a deluge of truthful pronouncements, only to aid his success. I do not think Dr Singh acted honorably, but in the eyes of Sanjay, the pimple never showed up. It is nothing less than an evil trait.  

In another incident, while Dr Singh could turn down Naveen Patnaik’s request for a financial package with a question “if money grew in trees”, though Dr Singh never summoned enough gall to repeat it to NAC or Sonia. He elected to be subservient and perhaps believed that he is simply not strong enough to take on someone as Sonia.

He also seemed to have taken the authority of Pulok rather meekly. Dr Singh failed the country as he did not know how to say ‘No’ and seems to have had no qualms in agreeing to the truncated respect offered by the ‘Party’, meaning Sonia.  

Dr Singh never fully accepted or even sought authority, hiding behind the same ‘shy and retiring card’ fa├žade very effectively. Had he been confident of himself, he would have asked for his cabinet, set his goals and objectives and taken responsibility for the success or failure of reaching them. But the whole ten years have been spent lackadaisically, without any vigor, direction; however whatever came Dr Singh’s way, he did committedly and without asking questions. He drifted with the flow. 

On another occasion, to avoid getting into a confrontation, Dr Singh tells Sanjay “let them take all the credit. I don’t need it. I am doing only my work”. This is exactly the defense mechanism Dr Singh employed to pretend to himself that he is a valiant victim, Dilip Kumar, who looks well in works of Tragedy but not in politics. 

That is perhaps the reason why Dr Singh exempted himself from introspective moral judgements. He feigned to himself that by merely maintaining financial integrity, he can keep his conscience intact. He failed to see that overall integrity is not the same as financial integrity but goes beyond it. The absence of such strong morals in Dr Singh is not seen by Sanjay as a disqualification to the exalted PM post. 

Dr Singh also seemed to have been happy with the reduced honor as long as he could cling to the PM post. In 2007, Sanjay says that Dr Singh was reduced to tears at the possibility of being discarded. But this PM also was not burning with purpose as was the case with P V Narasimha Rao, but was only keeping the seat warm till Sonia asks him to vacate in favor of someone from the clan, so why shed tears for a glorified and powerless errand man post? Is it the name and fame that Dr Singh sought and got for which he paid in silence to all misdeeds of his ministers? Should money be the only ignoble greed that is condemnable? Was he crying for the loss of fame, compensation for all his traumas of younger days as a miserably shy and unwanted person? He perhaps wished the world accepted him as a leader but lacked the courage to stand up as one, while accepting the limits to his authority imposed by Sonia. Finally, Dr Singh lacked the courage to stand up to Sonia but we will never know if he ever cringed in front of her.

NAC was the shadow cabinet through which the policies were drawn, government agenda was set and the Government led by Dr Singh was there to execute those orders. Dr Singh committed an unpardonable crime against democracy by being the agent for such subversion. While Sanjay calls NAC the ‘shadow cabinet’ he does not seem to have any moral issue with it. He admits that the ‘power was delegated but the authority was not’.  Yet, his love for Dr Singh does not diminish in spite of such moral deficiencies in Dr Singh. By choosing to live with the situation, Dr Singh achieved nothing but only brought ignominy to himself.

With respect to Pakistan, Dr Singh has shown himself as a dreamer, telling us what an ideal relationship should be, completely turning blind, naively, to the ground realities, of our past with Pakistan, with his ‘should be’s and ‘ought to be’s lecturing on good behavior.

The book also sort of speaks of a piece of information I had gathered from a friend of mine who could have become a Director in a PSU but for the 70 lakhs that, as an honest man, he did not have. I was told that the racket is run by the Damaad and this is one of the largest sources of wealth for the family. Sanjay probably knows it and confirms the hand of Ahmed Patel, a man close the family, lobbying for such posts.

Sanjay seems to know those shortcomings of Dr Singh, that make him unfit for the post, but wishes they weren’t there, which would have made the man he loves so much really worthy of adulation. Sanjay seems to rue his master’s fall from grace and blames everyone else; while Congress Party and Sonia played an active role, finally Dr Singh is responsible for making himself an object of ridicule.  A fact Dr Singh unfortunately has not learnt till now.            

Cash for Vote scam again confirms that Dr Singh was a willing pawn in the hands of Sonia and the party. No one forced Dr Singh to toe Sonia’s line, or to make her the extra-constitutional authority that eroded the Indian democratic system. Had Dr Singh not provide the fig leaf, Sonia may not have found credible face to carry on the farce called governance. Dr Singh dealt a great blow to our country by submitting to be the credible face to an immoral and anti-democratic form of governance, not as a scary demon but as a small, polite, friendly and seemingly disarming face.  That is what Sanjay seems to have been overwhelmed with, the friendly, ‘hail fellow well met’ Dr Singh. 

There were many other anecdotes like the one that bring out the two faces of N Ram (for want of more anecdotes we have to restrict to only two), the friendly Bush regime in contrast to anti-Indian Obama regime, which still remains the preferred one for the Indian left and liberals, scoring over national interest, for unknown reasons, bedfellows in Media, unholy alliance between NDTV and CPI (M) based on blood relationship etc. Read the book but make your own conclusions.


Friday, April 25, 2014

Ma Ganga - The liberals are sweating -

I do not consider Lakshmi Choudhry is allowed to write for reasons related to her thinking and writing skills hence normally ignore her. But a Saturday morning can be spiced by tearing into her half-baked shallow ramblings, however promoted by pseudo secular Congressmen, caught seeking votes for money from the Pentacostal denominations, yet keeps silence on child abuse in Kerala Churches, for merely the votes that sustains the otherwise undeserving lifestyle.

Whenever a chance presents itself, these pseudo sickuliars do not fail to speak as if they are the real Hindu interest in India and we the disagreeing lot are mere ignorant ‘locals’. 


One needs no introduction to Lakshmi’s hatred, perhaps stemming out of fear that one day she is going to be found completely irrelevant, that spurs her to churn out frantic pieces such as this. Her logic, premise and conclusions have been repeatedly torn to tatters, in First Post, famously by people like Akash Sharma, yet she is here with a tag as 'Senior Editor'. Many use to read the comments section more than the article, as, the article was always of poor quality while the comments reminded one of Roman Circus. Not once I have ever seen in Lakshmi’s writing (initial days, when I used to be offended by her trash) any sense of shame for forcing unadulterated human waste onto reader. It is still a mystery how Lakshmi kind of nincompoops were offered space in First Post. Connections, I would suspect.

The source of her crumbs are revealed as she describes the pilgrimages Indira Gandhi and Sonia undertook, though quite selectively, highlighting only their visits to temples which have rules that do not allow people of other faith. The insinuation is that, Hindu temples are discriminatory, hence the Hindus themselves are. And such Hindus support Modi and hence there is something to fear about.

First question which I pose is, is it wrong to restrict admission to places of worship?

I tried to enter the Parsi temple in Hyderabad only to be told that entry is restricted to Parsis.

I took my Japanese teacher to the Mecca Masjid and only I was allowed while Maeda san had to wait outside. I continued only not to offend the person who showed me around. Refusal could have become an issue. That was timidity that I suffer from due to my upbringing, which I have learnt to overcome. If it should repeat, I would refuse to enter too.

On the way to Sabarimala, there is a Dargha where Hindus and Muslims visit, symbolizing the Hindu Muslim unity, or so they say. I did go with a Muslim friend to Sabarimala and my friend was allowed to one section inside that was not allowed for people like me. Hmmm… you know what I mean. We completed that pilgrimage with my Muslim friend visiting multiple temples in Kerala, some famous and some not so famous with him willingly accompanying us.
The famous book “Heaven on Earth” by Pepita Seth written on Guruvayur could be completed by her due to the lenient views that the temple administration took to allow her to photograph the insides of the temple in spite of a ban. Ask her and she will tell that it is not the monochromatic toxic picture the biased  Lakshmi presents here and as much as Guruvayur is painted as inflexible in famous cases there are many who were allowed also.

But the point is, as a religious place, it will have restrictions commonly agreed to and accepted by the devotees and not by the leftist propagandists. This changes with time (example, Salwar is now allowed in Guruvayur)

The fight is, the libs Lakshmi (many of the leftists are intelligent, unlike this woman) want to make it a museum while the believers want to retain it as a place of worship. That is the ‘elephant in the room’ no one wants to discuss. Coming back to the topic,

Sonia also led a Government that unabashedly polarized political forces on religious basis and did everything to garner the staple 20%

Without repeating the minority pandering by Congress, topic that was conveniently kept out of discussion by Lakshmi, which, we shall take it as ‘read’, I will state that the selective presentation of Mrs Gandhi and Sonia as Hindus is dishonesty.

For example, while Lakshmi vividly remembers the puja performed by Sonia, she has amnestic tendencies when it comes to Sonia's visit to Imam Bukhari to ask for Muslims to vote en bloc. In case you do not remember who this Bukhari is, the same one who has challenged the Indian State and in 10 Years the Police under Sonia’s Congress Government could not serve the warrant to him, while Sonia could walk to have tea at time of her choosing. So much for Sonia’s secularism or her commitment to the State of India.  

What is demanded from Modi, by these leftist liberal brigade, is that Modi should also become ashamed of his Hindu roots as these leftists have. That is the reason something ‘cringed’ inside Lakshmi. How can anyone be proud of their Hindu past while I, the liberated, intelligent person, think that there is nothing to be proud of? How can anything be true that I do not think is true?

That is the swelling change of wave that will drown these dyed in wool, Marxism oriented, western looking pseudo secularists, coming.

As much as Modi says that he is Hindu, he also has mentioned, ad nauseam, that religion is not the driving force but development is. However, these motivated ideologists in the guise of political commentators, bring back religion as the only topic.  What about the comment on the Kite makers of Gujarat? What about the beautification of Narmada? What about the power situation in Gujarat? What about zillion such other things?

The ask from the liberals, an oxymoron in itself, is everyone should think like them, talk like them and believe in ideology similar to theirs. That is, Narendra Modi should become symbolically secular, like herself. He should not have any Hindu identity at all. This is the root of intolerance in Liberals, yet, they have successfully sold their fascist ideas in ‘liberal’ label.

There is a constituency that is growing that is not ashamed of our Hindu past, our Hindu roots and see no shame, but feel rather proud in admitting that we are Hindus, in any public forum. The real cringing the Liberals and Leftists feel is when they have to identify themselves as persons of Hindu origin in the presence of their Western masters, with years of slavery to Macauly, Lenin and Stalin and the rest of the tyrannical lot, that stems from their inferiority complex infused by the Jesuits and Nuns of Christian convents. The result on May 16th will show whether the growing constituency has reached a tipping point or not.

This constituency will stake the political ideology on our genuine past, whether glorious or not can be debated, but the roots will be in India. That rankles the sold out souls. Cameron calling Britain as Christian nation or Germans calling Germany as Christian nation is similar changes in political thoughts across the Globe. 

The new self respecting constituency, does not agree with your pontification that a leader should not flaunt (which actually is 'refer to') his/her religious faith. There is no shame because that is what you are borne as and have elected to live as.

The question is, should leadership be measured by the various kinds of places of worship he/she visits? At the end of the day, is it all symbolism? No, but with the pea brain with which Lakshmi peddles ideological lies, it is difficult to plumb into the depths of ideas. Symbolism is the most she can measure.

If Modi not visiting the places of worship  of  Abrahamic religionists who claim that ONLY their god is God and believers in other God are eternally consigned to Hell, is not secularism, so be it. It is insulting to visit someone who considers you a lesser human being. Lakshmi does not mind it. May be she is. And she cannot become self-respecting if she cedes to being a lesser human being. It is a vicious circle. Since she cannot climb out of the sewage she is in to loftier places, she wants the rest to get into the same sewage as her. Thanks, but no thanks. Tharoor will keep her company.Marxian equality achieved.

As a true fascist liberal, she tries to bring in personal views of a public figure that has no bearing on public life or political proof. The self-effacing liberals with no spiritual guiding are shattered to see what they chose not to follow yielding healthy fruits. It is pure envy. To claim that Modi’s words have legitimacy only if it is a repeat of Gandhi’s, again reveals the mindset of people -that what they lapped up from the regurgitation of others is education worthy of pride. What Modi took was an example, not a scientific truth. But in the Christian educated mind, the nuances of Indian thought processes are completely stymied.

What comes out of this rile, rant and truant is this: Lakshmi can utmost understand symbolism and will accept symbolism as this is what is practiced by Congress. And the hilarious part is that she calls this symbolism more important than intent. In other words, she has no problem if the intent is not there, truth be damned, but act up to please those poor minorities.

What she practices is what Bush described as “Soft bigotry of low expectation” and this bigot is calling the truly truthful human being as one. Pathetic. But not unexpected. This woman cannot think. But Tharoor will be impressed.

Leave your comments or mail to dwimidha@gmail.com