Reuters wanna be Huffington Post?
It all started with this tweet from Reuters India, its content intended to incite and enrage people on both sides of political divide.
I was under the false notion that the tribe of small-minded journalists have been effectively silenced with the BJP getting elected, an electoral result that should have stunned them into retrospection. But I guess it applies to those with integrity and conscience.
The public was in no mood to heed to the pontifications of the media along the leftist ideological line. I also did not think people like Srinivasan Jain would change, because in my opinion, he does not have the bare minimum intelligence that is required to change one’s own mind. His kind is a miraculous inanity.
But this article published by Reuters India took me by surprise. This is the one of the most atrocious and biased articles in recent times. It does has not even try to conceal lack of objectivity in its eagerness to pay obeisance to their masters, be it left, liberal or any other kind of mindlessness. Articles in Al Queda magazines may have been more objective.
The opening salvo is not reporting but editorial.
“Fired up and full of vitriol, Hindu activist Rajeshwar Singh is on a mission to end centuries of religious diversity in India, one conversion at a time.”
The religious diversity that has been brought into India was not through love and peace. It was by force, rape, death, coercion, bribe, ruse and fraud, depending upon the religious denomination that proselytized. It is not like Buddhism, Jainism or other variants of Hinduism that arose from the land. They all were imported and forced by the rulers of the invaders.
Having made that editorial that remains unconnected to the article, there was no substantiation of that allegation ever in the article.
Rajeshwar, to qualify for the epithet from Rupam Jain Nair and Frank Jack Daniel, had said that “we will not let the conspiracy of church or mosque succeed in Bharat (India),"
Do the authors think there is no conspiracy? If so, let them say so and enough truth can be provided to shut them up. It may not make a dent on their sold out souls, though.
In response, I posed them a question, with no response.
I have repeated the question many times with no answers from the media traders.
One of the harshest allegations runs like this: “Singh is affiliated to the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), a vast nationalist volunteer organisation that aims to unify Hindus "to carry the nation to the pinnacle of glory"
Is being a nationalist volunteer organization crime? Is an attempt to unify Hindus “to carry the nation to the pinnacle of glory” repugnant? What do the authors want to say? Is selling one’s nation, as a pimp would a prostitute, the highest moral standard one should strive to reach? Is wishing for the destruction of the motherland the pinnacle of glory?
Going on, the twosome avers that Police investigations have found no evidence of ‘Love Jihad’. They have carefully avoided reported incidents, scourging for absence of evidences. Classic case of looking for things where you know the things are’nt
I am quoting from Wikipedia's observation by court on this matter. The judge refers to ‘blessings of some outfit’ and ‘concerted effort’. Of course the Love Jihad is not something the supremacist religionists run by advertising in front page of Times of India. It is run very surreptitiously and the evidences are available on the surface or they are commonplace.
A court observation has escaped their reporting while the police reports have found place in the article. The court observation is a stronger indicator. The evidence is here to see very clearly but the authors have cleverly kept truth out of it. One would like to know if it was intentional or was it ineptitude as journalists. In both cases, the outcome should only be a pink slip.
The article does not refer to a call from the Christians, hardly from the RSS camp.
Not the 4000 or so cases in Kerala in the last five years. Not the incidences in Mangalore. Not the reference to it in Maharashtra assembly.
If at all conversions have taken place in India, as a rule, all these years, they have been carried out by Christians and Muslims. The money being pumped into India is phenomenal, to say the least. World Vision is accused of employing along religious lines, in contradiction to what they claim to be doing, lending credence to the allegation that it is a bogey for conversion. Islam, on its part has pursued aggressive conversion programs.
As a system, these are the two religions that impose a duty on its followers to bring people belonging to other religions into their fold. Hindu scriptures, while not uniformly applicable on all those who call themselves as Hindus, are least mindful of other religionists following their own, in all the last 1300 years or so. India has also provided refuge to persecuted minorities like Parsis and has never forced the home grown religions on the visitors.
In the last few centuries the Muslims have recorded history of forceful conversion, as they do now in Syria, Iraq and other countries, in India. Christians have adopted every conceivable ruse and fraudulent method to entice the innocent native Indians to convert to Christianity. In the recent years, one of the most profitable cottage industries being proselytization, it begins in a small hut converting the poor masses but miraculously ends up in massive concrete structures for praying and the facilitators.
In this background, the two journalists have found a grave fault in a small time Pracharak’s bravado calling for reconversion of Christians and Muslims.
If Christians can convert, if Muslims convert, why can’t a Hindu? How does it become vitriolic? Does it mean that Muslims and Christians have indulged in centuries of vitriol? Why was it not a problem till date?
Scandalous insinuations are being slyly cast on BJP and RSS. I am not sure if the two are aware of the fact that their words are completely false and they do not have the support of the collusive Congress government which was willing to bankroll anyone game to tarnish Hindu religion and Indians who were not slaves of the west.
The sly insinuations fall just short of saying anything concrete, a sheer waste of the paper it is printed on. They also make allegations in this article with no substance to back it. If Yogi Adityanath is accused of delivering inflammatory speeches, is there any mateiral to substantiate it? Is asking Hindus to retaliate to Muslim transgression a crime? If Muslims can convert Hindu women by marrying, what is wrong if Hindus also begin to play the same game? Clearly it shows that these two have antipathy towards Hinduism and would rather see a one sided erosion of its followers.
After all this, there is a footnote that says the journalists are required fair presentation. It is a shame that Reuters is lending cover for those who further personal agendas in the name of journalism. There is no shred of credibility in the article, nor response from the authors when their views are challenged. It is a shoot and scoot method that befits fringe political ideologists like Naxals, Maoists and the like. Reuters pays such people to belittle the collective wisdom of the people of India who have elected BJP. India should slowly edge out such biased news agencies unless they start showing fairness in their reporting. That will happen.It is people like these two who bury the rape of hundreds of Yezidis,because they do not fall in the their kind of political coloring. These are the type who buried the rape of millions in Darfur by Supremacist Arab Muslims because it is not politically correct. Or because the two are sh1t scared of the bullies who have niceties when it comes to swinging a dagger. These are from the same tribe that sang to the slaughter of Stalin, Lenin and other leftist terrorists. You never hear them whispering against the really violent, intolerant ones fearing for their own life but to put a few ill-earned dollars in the bank are not averse to hitting below the belt of those who cannot defend themselves.
In today's world, who poses threat to peace? Is it ISIS, Al Queda, Boko Haram or RSS? And where do the real threats fall? It takes not more than two gray cells to come to the correct conclusion but alas these two don't have it amongst the two of them. Or have exchanged it for whatever consideration that has been agree upon, monetary or otherwise.
The footnote is an insult to injury.
Footnote from Reuters: Thomson Reuters journalists are subject to an Editorial Handbook which requires fair presentation and disclosure of relevant interests. Fair presentation, my foot.