Narendra Modi all the way: Rejoinder to http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/14/narendra-modi-extremism-india

For the usual false strawman ‘pogrom’ here is my reusable answer.

http://notcovered.blogspot.in/2014/04/rejoinder-to-intellectual-flag.html

The words used in the diatribe by Priyamvada Gopal are indeed inflammatory and not only not based on facts but are definitely based on prejudices peddled by those currying favors from the liberal powers that be.

‘Foetuses removed’ is one such example and it is apparent that the author knows that such thing did not take place, hence camouflages it with vague and indirect allusions. Signs of vicious lies to come under 'opinion'. We call it 'presstituion'

There is no evidence linking Modi or no evidence to show his words helped foment the massacres. No evidence at all and the courts have consistently thrown out the motivated allegations against him out, yet it has not helped these liberal brats from getting a bit of informed.

For her rhetorical question, yes I would worry. But living in India, I am not worried because the last 10 years have set the lies apart from the facts and the latter is nothing like the gory picture the author here presents. I would really like her to show any evidence at all.

Then she goes on to her vile comment that in India the Hindus are extremists. I am Hindu and so are about 80% and you are insulting all of us. You cannot take a false argument and repeat it again and again. To answer these peddlers of falsehood, there is an open challenge. In India, the largest democracy, if anyone can prove that ‘Sangh Parivar or Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh’ is an extremist network, the Government can and will ban it. Why has it not happened in the last 65 years? Because, the author is regurgitating here words she has heard in leftist cocktail parties without doing a honest inquiry.

Lenin was in awe of Mussolini and called him ‘our own’. The current liberal’s fathers in the US all had admiration for Mussolini and all did business with Germany. If RSS is a Nazi ideologists, as painted by this author, there is law to go to, instead of spreading canard in print. But to go to courts, it takes facts but to trash 80% of Indian who have lived for thousands of years without major violence till the arrival of Mughals and of course, the British, who oversaw large famines and sowed seed for the only pogrom ever in Indian history.  Now it is amusing to see the leeches in UK singing paeans to peace while living off the wealth looted from India.  

The most the author is able say to demonize Modi are two anecdotes, clearly revealing her incompetency that is being cloaked by her vitriol.  Does she know the disproportionate population growth, not as a hateful statement but as a redeeming quality of India while in her neighboring countries the minority population has been ‘pogromed’ to low single digits? Will she make a distinction and say clearly which is pogrom and which is not? No, because there is no money or fame in telling truth but only in selling lies such as the ones in her article.

Though the hateful leftist and liberal ideologies have time and again harped on Hindu extremism, which at worst is, Indian conservatism, there are no facts on the ground to bear out their false propaganda. Except such articles full of biased opinion, is there any data to support that Hindus are extremists, engaged in pogroms and eliminated the ‘others’. If the argument is that in Hindu majority India the minority people got killed in riots, yes, I agree that there is something to debate. But in a country, riots are features left behind by British, but overall statistics shows the both Muslim and Christian populations on the rise. As much as the molehills are being sought, larger picture also ought to be presented. But to see that you need perspective, which has been blinded out by left and liberal ideology.

In the end this piece is what is stellar example of, what we is known as ‘prestitution’ or as #mediatraders, a term coined by Modi with a mandatory mention of homosexual thrown in. It is the British who left that law.

Another lie which needs to be shut down is the calling the fire on a train as unexplained. The court has sentenced those who burnt that train down. This is where the author’s bias leaks out, again. She is intentionally introducing a lie, downplaying truth by this statement. I wonder how these people get respectability to be able to get their toxic ideas propagated by media. Shameful. There is no role of Modi in that burning. It is perverse to say make such brazen lie in public but I guess you should be a shameless liar to peddle liberal ideology. The author more than qualifies in that aspect.

The British and US are crawling to Modi after succumbing to the communal forces in their  own country. The fact is the   denial of VISA to US was based on a bill ‘banning religious conversion’, that is, shutting down the Christian shops offering money to convert Hindus to Christians.

Modi will bring Hindu pride back on main stage, no doubt, the one you and your tribe have been systematically abusing, insulting and sullying as part of your own liberal ideological hate.

I consider, as an Indian, it insulting that you call the people of Gujarat who have repeatedly elected him along with the vast majority of Indians who will elect him this time as communal.

India is not petty African country where UK can raise a stink if the Government makes a choice to buy Japanese SUV over the British. Remember Kenya? For all pontification by the UK, we Indians manage our country. Manage yours first. Look at the right wing that is growing within UK as a result of the dangerous appeasement policies pursued by your liberals which has landed the country where it is. Read Theodor Darlymple to remind yourself to what slippery slope you have brought your country.

India is not going to plead for acceptance under Modi. Either respect us Indians or stay with your face stuffed in your armpit. It is your choice. It is a resurgent India from now on.

Jai Hind!

Rejoinder to Pseudo - Sickuliars - Citizen is angry against them. For whom the Pimps troll

Those who solicited to fix deals of short term cohabitation between political power and highest bidder, even bidders like Kanimozhi preach. Satan preaches, with bovine teeth. Let me again attempt to shred the strawman put up by famous fixer, some describe with even harsher nouns.

The reason I call it a strawman is, the brigade that bought their bungalows and cars and connections, bought with the blood shed by ordinary Indians, whether it is Gujarat riot, or Siachen battle or Taj hotel shootout, introduce spurious logic on which a house of cards is built.

The bottom row in this house of cards is an implicit suspicion on the voter turnout. What is being found fault with is, the people coming to vote to decide who should lead the country. The Satan with bovine dentures fears that its political masters’ grave is being dug with the very same vote.

The next attempt is to make strawman of legitimate argument; by casting doubt on the stated and demonstrated objectives of BJP with no supporting reason. The Governance and economics is not something that was discovered for this election. The State elections of Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Rajasthan and Goa were all fought on the same platform. And when BJP assumed power, except in the case of Rajasthan as it is yet to be proven, the governance did not steer away from economics. The numbers speak for themselves. But that is now not the concern of the Bovine Satan as it may let truth seep into the house of falsehood cards. Instead, the objectives of BJP is assumed to be regressive to suit the petty mind of the Satan.

The chronological narration of events in UP is not convenient and hence is not considered. Further, if the events that culminated into the remarks by Amit Shah were to be honestly narrated, truth, the horrible thing the Satan lives to keep under wrap may be out in the open.

The deceptive ways of these procurers for the Evil goddess they worship, is never to distinguish the aggressor from the victim when it suits them. If it is Muthalik episode, the aggressor is outlined in one-dimensional report that leaves out the story of the other side, however regressive it may appear. But in a serious political event as this, the aggressor is intentionally kept hazy, not because the Satan does not know how to identify one, not because the aggressor is invisible but because the aggressor is the kind of bidders with whom the procurer has to do business with. There is no potential buyer in the victim market, in this case, BJP. I wrote about it here http://notcovered.blogspot.in/2014/04/normal-0-false-false-false-en-us-ja-x.html

When the Government in power distributes justice unevenly, based on the religion of the culprits, is it not time for getting alarmed as it is same as an assault on democracy? If someone has the courage to stand up to that injustice and calls for correction and calls people to revert back to democracy, is that a crime? If you add the sinister insinuation made at higher voter turnout, downplaying the seriousness of communal politics of the power that be and finally making the one who stood up in defense of democracy the painted villain, it is easy to see where the heart of the Satan lies. For whom the pimps troll.

There was no mention of Hindus or Muslims in Amit Shah’s speech. But there were in Azam’s. There was no call to violence in Amits, but Azam called for it. Amit asked to use ballot. Azam did not. Yet, the high end procurer makes a false equivalence, not because it is not intelligent, but because  it is intelligent. It is not intelligence that delivers good things, but intelligence combined with good intention. In all these omissions and commissions of the Satan, commonality is, absence of good intention that manifests itself as motivated reporting.  

As a platitude, while it is easy to make frivolous comments like religion can divide and rule, it can also unite and fight against evil. Satan choses its side.

It is the communal politics that attempts to unite people against the ‘aspirational’ dreams of India, and the champions of these communal elements are the bed-fellows of the same Satan. The communal politicians made the first strike, to divide the country, on the basis of religion and as a result, posed a threat to the aspirations of millions of democratically inclined Indians. Now, if BJP acutely identifies this communal game and warns the people to respond to it, our Satan is devastated, because the communal forces, the target market, may stand to lose the power. Where will the Satan get its commission and Padma Bhushans? Unfair, indeed.

Who said that economic growth is anti-dote to bigotry? And equating Mobile, Mall and McDonald to economic growth is at best leftist regurgitation. If I tie the Satan in an air-conditioned room with all amenities, luxury and medical facilities and insults it, will the Satan accept the deal? Read what Amit said about ‘izzat’ which is right on the mark. Money alone cannot cure bigotry. Culture without money will lead to what Dr Theodore Darlymple describes as ‘Life at the bottom’. With bribe as silencer, the fruits of democracy cannot be unfairly shared. The system of democracy cannot be destroyed. What the Satan says is, let us put you in a Gulag but with three Ms and be happy.

Justice is, possibly an anti-dote to bigotry, though not all by itself. What if the economic growth is cornered by a particular group that comes to power appealing to communal feelings? That is what SP did in UP and that’s fine with Satan. Now that Kanimozhi may not be around as potential customer, SP will do well to replace her.

And while trying to provide a fig leaf to one’s own credibility by narrating anecdotes to cover the misfortunes from both communities, the interest is betrayed in the ordering of the names of the leaders, and in equating them in criminality. This is where the money is earned along with Padma Bhushan I would like to, as, I am sure, many other right thinking people, to debate with the Satan on this; or the two equally culpable? Who started and who reacted? Remember Gujarat where the distinction was made clearly against Hindus but the same is missing in assessment of Muzzafarnagar. Everything is possible with an evil ideology with enough money thrown in.

In all the vitriolic declaration of the Satan, BJP is the first accused and the rest as ‘also mentioned’.

Is a call for ‘Swabhiman’ the same as a call for ‘division’?

Is ‘silence’ equal to ‘declaration’?

Does ‘beggars becoming crorepati’ reek of communal allusion?

Is there any equal to ‘boti-boti’ at all?

Does the article attempt to make distinction between anti-national and reactive politics ? No, not because the Satan cannot, but because Satan does not want to.

It is not every party that has fished in the troubled water. All these years the ‘sin customers’ of the Satan have had a free ride. Now BJP has stood up to question them. Those in power and those who live by the crumbs the power throws, are frightened.

Satan is a crumb picker. Meaty crumbs.

Jai Hind!

Rejoinder to http://www.firstpost.com/politics/open-letter-to-the-guardian-artists-filmmakers-intellectuals-slam-modi-1476309.html

 Again the haters go under the guise of artists and filmmakers, the toxic waste spreads. I already posted rejoinder to the one that appeared in ‘The Hindu’ here. http://notcovered.blogspot.in/2014/04/rejoinder-to-intellectual-flag.html

Here I am writing one to counter  another trash.

The appeal first makes a caveat that it does not question the validity of India’s dramatic election process. Wonder why? The election process in India has sent a strong message of the will of the people. Does this rag tag group admit that the will of the people does not matter to them and they believe in minority views is the one to be heeded to?

In the second sentence the group indulges in plain unadulterated lie.

The death toll of Gujarat is about 1100 and for three Muslims one Hindu has died.  

790 Muslims and 254 Hindus to be exact. Where does the number 2000 come from except from the imagination of these artists and filmmakers whose job is to create fiction?

The stories written by Teesta on the brutal violence has been pulverized as motivated falsehood. Courts have condemned Teesta for misguiding the court. But for this group, which in its opening statement stated its lack of trust in democratic process, even courts are not worthy of trust and respect. It is only its own group members, who often hit the headline as another victim of drug overdose who are capable of making judgement . The forerunners of clear thinking indeed.  

There have been many riots prior to Gujarat and post in which only Muslims have been killed, under the governance of Congress, in numbers far exceeding the Gujarat toll. Is it not funny only Gujarat is selectively picked up? What is the difference between Gujarat and other riots in India?

Targeted group – Minorities, mostly against Muslims

Government in power – Congress except Gujarat riot

Magnitude – Often more devastating that Gujarat

Conviction of perpetrators – None except in the case of Gujarat

The difference is that all other riots were in Congress Government and there have been hardly any or no conviction in other cases.

But these actors and filmmakers have problem only with Gujarat.

Their objection must stem from these two differences - that Muslims were not killed under Congress rule and/or there were people who got convicted.

When the group makes an innuendo that some BJP members are facing trial, it hides the fact that in all other cases the criminals got away even without a case being framed. Does it not shame them? Obviously no.

Then the group jumps to a conclusion that Modi is incompatible with India’s secular constitution.

Clear as a day, these guys have to get answer some of these questions if they want people to believe in it. But, this breed of shoot and scoot guerrillas of outdated ideology know only cowardice as their core strength. It is even more shameful that media should elect not to question unadulterated putrid donkey feces peddled by these ideologically driven goons who want to force their views on others while refusing to debate their point of views.

Surely the time has come for India to come out of the intellectual tyranny of the regurgitated politics. Come May 16^th, at least those of the signatories in position of power and influence within India will be sent to the incinerator of history. ( I need to give these idiots to cry something about me. They will call me hateful for the usage of the world ‘incinerator’)

Make your own choice. Ask if there is truth in what is written in this rejoinder or in the appeal by the ‘artist and filmmakers’ and then it is your call.

Rejoinder to Intellectual Flag @ http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/intellectuals-flag-threat-to-secular-polity/article5876770.ece - No academics here.

At best this article should have appeared as paid advertisement. Probably the newspaper being one of the entities committed to the ideology that binds the signatories together, one may assume that ‘The Hindu’ contributed publicity space. So as not to reduce revenue, instead of Ad space, news space has been provided.

At worst, this is unsolicited loaded advice. No one asked.

Let us take the description used to describe these people. “A group of noted academics, artists and concerned citizens”

I challenge this self-anointed description here in detail. 

All these people seem to have concurred on one thing that is, “These forces (BJP) are led by a person (Narendra Modi) who presided over a pogrom against Muslims in Gujarat in 2002 and has never expressed any contrition over his role in that ghastly incident”

All italics are mine.

Was it a pogrom? Were Muslims the only ones targeted? Were Muslims the only one died? What was the duration of the supposed pogrom?

Pogrom is “Organized massacre of a particular group”. While Wikipedia refuses to call this incident a pogrom, it mentions that “According to the official figures, the riots resulted in the deaths of 790 Muslims and 254 Hindus” which shows that  it was not selective killing but people have died on both sides. It is not an “organized massacre of a particular group”. This was, as many in the past history of India, as many more that happened since, a riot.

Now if the group of academicians wants to call a riot a ‘pogrom’ there could be few reasons. Either these academicians do not know the meaning of ‘pogrom’, which does not make them academicians. So it is only logical to conclude that these people knowingly use a noun that does not fit the situation.

If the debate starts with replacement of a word like ‘riot’ with a sinister word like ‘pogrom’ it is clear that there is intent to sensationalize the topic to gain advantage that is not clear as of now. The advantage that these people want to gain is linked to their ideology.

Again, if we compare Gujarat-2002 with other riots in India, there have been many in which more Muslims have died in more disproportionate numbers, yet the same academicians want to call a less intense riot a ‘pogrom’ again points to selective accusation, which again, is based on their political agenda. What is it, comes later.

Having made a ‘straw-man’ pogrom, the group goes on to build another ‘straw-man’ of a person (Narendra Modi) presiding over that. Having introduced so many fallacies in the debate, this group, we have to remind ourselves again, is made of academicians. So it is not logical flow of debate that is missing but an unstated agenda steeped in ideology that the group is not willing to openly state as such.

The stand taken by the ‘secular’ forces also take a subvert swing at the judiciary, a critical pillar of democracy, perhaps betraying their scant respect for democracy, while covering their prejudice under 'secularism'. The whole fear mongering has been narrated as if the judiciary and investigative agencies were mere mute spectators.  It is intellectual dishonesty to conceal relevant components from debate. Was there a single sentence that refers to the due processes of investigative and Judiciary arms that covered the incident? Is there any doubt in the minds of the ‘eminent academicians’ that the Judiciary failed in naming the riot as ‘pogrom’? They should come clear. On the contrary the highest courts have stated that there is no case against Modi, as it stands today. Why is it not accepted by the ‘academics’ here?

Now after building a fascinating, fear mongering case that appeals to the emotions and not the to the intellect, the ‘academics’ go on to conclude that this is a corporate capital- communal forces coming together without any connection or building a case. Wherefrom sprung capital? Perhaps some Marxists may have asked for that as a price to sign the 'fear mongering' appeal.  

Hence my conclusion is that the self-anointed description ‘academic’ is inappropriate to describe this group. This is group of people who have different ideology which cannot be spelt out openly as immediately it will be perceived as threat by all the Indians. Not necessarily all of them have same objective; some may aspire for ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ some for rule by ‘religious supremacist not yet in majority’ and some aspiring for more dole from political parties that have ruled us to this misfortune.

This is a group that is highly prejudiced, shoots and scoots and one that does not act responsibly nor is explicit about its agenda. It is indisputable that these people have somehow been considered as ‘academics’ by probably, intense propaganda and recommendation.

It is imperative that if a new national narrative begins, by defeating the vitiated propaganda of ideologically outdated and so called academics, that these relics be discarded to the dustbin of Indian history and fresh and contemporary political aspirations be begun.  

Thanks but no thanks. I am an individual, responsible and have pondered over the situation well enough. I think you are peddling falsehood irresponsibly. Will vote for BJP and neither your Congress nor your SP  nor your antiquated Marxists.

Jai Hind!

Response http://svaradarajan.com/2014/04/08/votes-and-vengeance/

 Response to
http://svaradarajan.com/2014/04/08/votes-and-vengeance/comment-page-1/#comment-2589


When sickuliars like you peddle fear by calling BJP as demon, your opening quotes on fear fit in equally appropriately.
While you launched yourself on Amit Shah's speech as 'Hate speech' there was one hate speech that eclipsed all, it was ‘boti boti, speech that is completely missing in your message of peace, probably being closer to your ideology. Beni Prasad misses the special mention.Why?

On the topic of Assam infiltration and Modi's comment: Are you saying that there is no infiltration from Bangladesh? Let us move on to the other questions once you answer that. Leave the rhetoric now and focus on substance.  
Amit Shah: I answer your rhetoric question here directly. The action of revenge is by the affected victims against the perpetrators. Revenge against the crimes of SP committed to garner minority vote. Let us hear clearly what your objection is.
While your narration slips to suppositions of who were affected,  focus is the the revenge,  topic that was raised to reverse the injustice of inequality based on religion. The narration should focus on who started it, who committed crimes and who were punished for their crimes. Also, where the lapse in justice crept in due to which the people had to respond to the injustice. When people have to take justice in their hand, it shows the failure of government.
From that perspective, Amit Shah had to address the victims of Muzzafarnagar riots, who were denied justice, the building block of democracy, being equal in the eye of law. The refusal to identify the criminals in the name of religion, the root cause, is not only communal but the first blow against the democratic system, that does not seem to bother you much. It is introduction of nepotism and governance by religious bias, which seems to have escaped your analysis. The question is, is the omission an intentional cover up or sheer incompetence as social commentary. Which one do you chose?
From that perspective of injustice, is it wrong to rouse people who indeed were treated as second class citizen?
Is it wrong to say that the ill-treatment of women and sisters are being judged on the basis of the community that ill-treats? It is not time to avenge those who are bent on destroying democracy? Will it not destroy democracy and lay the foundation of theocracy?
The comment on man living without food and sleep is factually correct. Do you have any opposing view? Having to beg may not lead a person to suicide but the loss of honor does.
Then go on to peddle your lies. Calling spade a spade here. What you termed earlier in the same article as an allegation has been elevated to a fact.
Putting up with such injustices will not bring peace. Destroying these enemies of democracy alone will bring about justice. Peace does not come by calling. It has to be worked at. Amit only asked to work for it in democratic way by pressing a button whereas you  are thrusting your jaundiced, preconceived views in his words to see it in the comfortable perspective you have colored yourself with.
The rest of the diatribe can also be shown to be hollow, but let me wait to see if you have an answer for my questions. I can answer all your liberal innuendos too without much effort. But to keep the topic focused to Amit Shah in Muzzafarnagar, let me not expand the debate.
.

Sen and Ghosh Vaudeville show

I could not believe my eyes when I read the article. I did not see the show on CNN IBN, but after reading the transcript I felt sad that I missed one great comedy show.

If you expect me to respect Amartya sen because he got Nobel, please go away. This piece is not intended to be nice to him.

He begins his argument with "Studies of torture across the world over the centuries have shown that people under torture would give any answer that they thought would be pleasing to the interrogator. So you do not get very much information. I know that there have been things like of water-boarding and other issues that have come up in public discussions.
There I take a position similar to that of US President Obama rather than that of the previous administration. The previous administration, especially Cheney said that certain things have to be done because they are necessary.
I think it is counter productive, unjust and ultimately stupid. But, the other issue is the big issue. Obviously, in some ways we would like to see to what extent public reasoning can actually prevent cases of terrorism. That's a long run engagement."

I am not a supporter of torture as a means of interrogation nor I would say that torture serves no purpose at all.

To claim that the intelligence gathered through torture is ineffective requires perhaps a Nobel prize. Intelligence is a dirty business; as long as we live in a material world we will need intelligence more or less the way it exists now. Imagine a potential bomb situation and you have a suspect in your hand, do you torture and extract the information, including water boarding and using truth serum and the like, or do you go on Amartya mode? "You do something because it is necessary", though it was said by someone as abominable as Cheney.

S Ghosh who has never ever looked qualified to be in prime time was hilarious. Go through the next question:

Sagarika Ghose: But in India, like in the Mumbai terror attack case which is very much in the public domain at the moment, there is the argument that fast track courts, summary sentencing is what you need to deal with terrorism and this is how justice must be delivered in terrorism.

Amartya Sen: I was trying to distinguish. I first began with general public, now we are dealing with sympathiser. Then I will have to deal with summary justice potential candidates.

Amartya Sen had clarified in the opening that he was not addressing the justice delivery mechanism but SG was watching the TRP perhaps. Not that she would have understood anything at all had she listened to Amartya. Talk about a bimbo in prime time.

Ok.. she asked a trade mark stupid question that had no relevance to the theme, but hey, the bimbo is Rajdeep's wife the reason she is there in Prime time. What did the trick was Amartya's answer. I never did understand what he meant by "summary justice potential candidate". May be he meant something, why could not he be comprehensible?

Another gem was "You have to deal with the sympathiser or those who become sympathisers"

He says that behind terrorism there are condoners who have to be challenged in a "public reasoning" and you start wondering if he has switched to VHP. What Amartya says is, in Gujarat though few people indulged in killing many more, perhaps 100 times more who have blood in their hands, because they condoned it, passively supported it and stood behind them. Why cannot Amartya talk about those passive ones behind the largest source of terrorism today? Perhaps he needs a "public reasoning"?

It gets hilarious. Sangarika somehow thinks that the book is actually meant to expose the Sena guys who wanted Kasab to be executed without trial and those who refused to sell a house to Hashmi. Nothing can distract her once she has her heart set on something. Had she interviewed a Bada-pav wala from Colaba, her questions would not have been any different or any more irrelevant. She is consistently poor quality.

Next questions and answers run like this.

Sagarika Ghose: So the idea is to bring them (Those who stood silent behind the Gujarat killers)into the public debate?

Amartya Sen: Challenge them, not bring them into the debate. The word I use is public reasoning. I am not assuming that the public is reasonable.

Sagarika Ghose: But who will reason on behalf of the public?

Amartya Sen: We have to reason. You may have a strong belief that there is an active God who is all the time present and that you can leave it in higher hands. But the truth is that there is no higher authority than us. So if you have to make a change, we have to make it ourselves.

Got it? Once you get a Nobel you think you are God. How does Amartya sen be so sure that he is right? That what he suggests will not harm the society more?

Has he read 'Shantaram'? Ever contemplated that most that we start with great good intention often deliver the opposite? Does he think that all things are completely knowable and the future controllable. A guy from science will not be able to show this kind of confidence about a possible outcome that has not been tested.


Is he really serious that the justice delivery system based on "public reasoning" will be through people like him and SG? Is this a sugar coated anarchy? God save me from these intellectuals who do not know their elbows from their ass.

Amartya sen talks bird poop, really. He goes on to say, "But I have not met any naxalite in my life and therefore to say that they will not listen to any amount of reasoning is not right either. "

This is the crux of his argument. Since he does not know any naxalite he is not sure if the naxalites will not listen to his kind of "reasoning". Does his ignorance prove that naxalites would listen to "public reasoning"? Amartya has deliberately chosen a Naxal example but not a Islamic terrorist. He would have had to tread a mine field which would have woken him up from his day dream.

What if his assumption is wrong? Sheesh, are you really sure this guy got a Nobel?

Then Sangarka crowns the show with a statement she could still have used in an interview with Bada-pav wala. It goes like this. "Secularism is a continuous dialog". What prompted her to say this cliche was Amartya's usage of the words 'secularism' and ' dialog' in one sentence.

Then the stars of vaudeville obviously were not in tune with each other.

Sagarika Ghose: So you are not saying talk to the enemy, do not lock him up.

Amartya Sen: No, I am not saying that.

Sagarika Ghose: But that's the kind of message I am getting from your book.

Amartya Sen: Are you sure you are not reading a different book?

This is Sangarika Ghosh for you. An incorrigible idiot who cannot be redeemed. I do not understand why she gets into, what she considers an "intellectual dialog" when she is only a bimbo. Can someone tell her that?

Who will weed out inefficiency in Press? Can these people be sued for intellectual fraud? She may escape by pleading that she has nothing intellectual about her, which is true.