Category Archives: Arvind Lavakare
FREEDOM FROM ANTI NATIONAL MEDIA is the theme for this year’s Independence Day on Social media. Can GIBV count on your support for this?
BOYCOTT PRESSTITUTE MEDIA
Global Indians for Bharat Vikas (GIBV) invites you to join in boycotting Times of India, Indian Express, The Hindu, India Today, Tehelka, Outlook and other similarly biased newspapers/magazines and offending TV channels like ABP News, Aaj Tak, TimesNow, NDTV, etc., on this 15th August by cancelling your subscription, removing their application from your smartphone and let them know that you have cancelled your subscription (and why.)
The idea is to take a selfie with a) crushed / crumpled paper b) paper flushed down toilet c) paper burning d) torn paper e) a black tape/stripe across TV screen with the channel we are protesting against f) a garland of shoes around the channel/TV screen. Whenever and wherever we post a selfie, it should say “Selfie in support of the NATION and against #presstitutes”.
It would help immensely if all of us can make this viral in next couple of days so that on 15th August, these anti national media houses get a big message from us.
On this 15th August, let us work to achieve real freedom from anti-national, anti-majority, biased media. These are the purveyors of lies, half-truths and innuendos. These are the entities that shed tears for convicted terrorist Yakub Memon but relegate details of ex-president Dr. A. P. J. Abdul Kalam’s funeral to inside pages since front pages are occupied to glorify a terrorist. These are the entities with headline, “Then They Hanged Him”, signifying that the President of India, the Government of India and the highest judicial authority, the Supreme Court were “They” ; and the newspaper (and other paid media) were “we”, Meaning supporters of terrorist Yakub Memon.
Together, we have the power to make a change. Let us use this 15th August to reclaim our true freedom from these anti-national media that has distorted any positive news of people’s and government’s achievements and supported those who are hell-bent on weakening India. This is the ‘paid media’ that is engaged in incessant war on the ethos of our motherland to demoralize the society and weaken the fabric of the society. We cannot progress and have all-round development of the country, until we force such business houses to mend their ways. Let us do it together.
Please give this wide publicity on social media and in other avenues.
Happy Independence Day! Thanks for your support.
June 29, 2012
Defining ‘Secular’: The war rages on
It was Nitish Kumar who lit the fuse on the amorphous word this time. He did that last week by warning that his party, the Janata Dal (United) would accept only a ‘secular’ prime minister. His target was clearly Narendra Modi, said to be the likely choice of the BJP for that post. Why the Bihar CM’s bouncer to his ally BJP should have been bowled at the time it was is a separate subject for debate.
The issue is that Kumar was wrong in not realising that:
Even after 10 years of investigations, Narendra Modi is still innocent of the charge of being personally responsible for the post Godhra riots of 2002. Even Supreme Court judge Ajit Pasayat, (now retired), who orally alluded to ‘Nero fiddling while Rome burnt’ during a hearing on Godhra did not have evidence to put down that remark in his written judgment.
Amidst the decade-old demonisation of Modi unleashing a ‘Genocide’ against Muslims, nobody has explained why, of the total 1044 killed in those riots, 254 were Hindus.
Modi fielded 247 Muslim candidates on the BJP card in Gujarat’s civic elections of October 2010, and, more unbelievably, 118 of them were victorious. Would a ‘communal’ chief minister do that ‘secular’ act?
Even after Indira Gandhi got the word ‘Secular’ into the Preamble of the Constitution of India with the 42nd Constitution Amendment Act, 1976, our nation is not secular. Take a look below
‘Dr Ambedkar made it clear in Parliament that he did not believe our Constitution was secular because it allowed different treatment to various communities and the legislatures could frame separate laws for different communities.’ (‘Reforming The Constitution’ UBS Publishers Distributors Ltd, 1992, edited by Subhash C Kashyap, an eminent Constitutional authority.)
In the above book, Kashyap writes, ‘Where there is discrimination between man and man on the grounds of religions… where the administration of places of worship can be entrusted to Government Officers… where even fundamental rights are demanded and conceded on grounds of communities, it is a cruel joke to talk of secularism.’
The Indian nation as a whole is itself not ‘secular.’ Unknown to almost our entire political class, the Preamble of the separate Jammu and Kashmir State Constitution, November 1956, does not proclaim J&K State as a ‘Secular’ State, courtesy Article 370.
Come now to Mohan Bhagwat, the RSS chief who was provoked by Kumar’s remark to talk of dharmanirpeksh. He too was wrong in not realising that the word dharmanirpeksh does not denote the adjective ‘secular.’ The exact Hindi word for ‘secular’ is panthnirpeksha, coined, at the behest of Indira Gandhi, by Lakshmi Mall Singhvi, (1931-2007), a literary figure and an altogether very versatile personality who was awarded the Padma Bhushan in 1998… He said the word ‘secular’ should more appropriately be translated as panthnirpeksh. He argued that dharma, the fundamental duty, is the foundation ethic of the Indian nation and of every walk of life, and the very foundation for the section called Fundamental Duties of Citizens being part of Mrs Gandhi’s Constitutional amendment. Panth, on the other hand, meant religion. That is how the word panthnirpeksh to denote ‘secular’ got into the Hindi version of the Preamble of our Constitution. It is, therefore, a shame that dharm continues to appear in Articles 15, 16 and 25 of our Constitution’s Hindi version with regard to ‘Prohibition of discrimination…,’ ‘Equality of opportunity…’ and ‘Right to freedom of Religion’ respectively in the English version.
Below is another true story.
In 1977, the Janata Party government introduced a Constitution Amendment Bill wherein one clause sought to define the word ‘Secular’ as ‘equal respect for all religions.’ The proposal was passed in the Lok Sabha where the newly elected Janata Party was dominant, but was rejected by the Congress majority in the Rajya Sabha.
The Congress should no longer object to that definition suggested 34 years ago. Why? Because in a lecture delivered on June 9, 2007, at the Nexus Institute, The Hague, Sonia Gandhi herself proclaimed that ‘India is a secular country. The term secularism means equal respect for all religions.’
Let me end with a poser. A political party represented in our Parliament from 1952 till now says in its website that among its aims is ‘To secure and protect the rights and interests of the Muslims and other minorities in the state.’ Which is that party? And can it be labelled as ‘secular?’
Published Date: Jun 29, 2012