Category Archives: Pseudo-Seculars

The Roman Agent In Gujarat

The Roman Agent In Gujarat.

The Muslim Rage and Hypocrisy- Tehelka blog

 

Though this article still paints Muslims in victimhood mode, overall, it breaks the pattern and puts blame squarely on Muslims.

Gaurang

http://blog.tehelka.com/the-muslim-rage-and-hypocrisy/

The Muslim Rage and Hypocrisy

Can you believe it? A Chinese–made shoe is holding hostage a population of over 1.4 million in Srinagar. It began in Central Kashmir’s Magam area. On 28 November, someone saw a white sports shoe with the name of the last Caliph (Hazrat Ali) printed on it. A close examination of the shoe, however, threw up a hint of mischief: on the right-side of the toe, the name ‘Ali’ was hand-written with a black marker and didn’t look like a company mark. Soon, men, children and women gathered on the streets. Protests ensued. The shoe was held high in the procession while the demonstrators called for an end to “hurting” Muslim “sensibilities.”

Even before the crowd from this protest had returned home, a new mob gathered around 30 kilometers away at Srinagar’s Zadibal-Nowhatta neighbourhood where Shia and Sunni communities live together but their union is often marred by frictions from time to time. For years, youngsters of this area have been stone-pelting the armed forces for atrocities and the clampdown on Azadi-demanding protests, but today they were stone pelting each other’s houses, breaking windowpanes and disfiguring fence walls. Some people say pro-India PDP’s Shia leader had spoken against the first three Caliphs of Islam during his Moharram speech (a few days before the shoe-incident) that angered the majority Sunni population. Others say the Shia youth wanted to enforce a strike in the Sunni area of Nowhatta which was resisted by the shopkeepers triggering stone pelting between the other communities. The result: the police and the paramilitary CRPF are enforcing a curfew for several days now; seizing some youth in nocturnal raids, and even the parents of those running away to escape the Khakis. Ghulam Qadir Sheikh, the father of a youth who was detained in one such raid, says he was dealt with like a hardcore criminal in the police station. Adding to the absurd chaos, Kashmir’s Divisional Commissioner Asghar Samoon, as quoted in the local media, explained that he had recommended in the past too that parents of minors (allegedly involved in stone pelting) must be punished. Meanwhile representatives of around 30 religious bodies (both Sunni and Shi’ites) are now trying to calm the angry communities.

A friend jokingly says if this is what a single Chinese shoe can do, imagine the magnitude of global unrest if the whole of China were unleashed on the world.

Ruptures between Shi’ites and Sunnis aren’t new. They had developed immediately after the Prophet Muhammad’s death in 632 AD. There was no agreement on his immediate successor. Sunnis recognise the first four Caliphs (Abu Bakr, Umar Farooq, Usman Ghani and lastly, Ali Murtaza) as his rightful successors; the Shi’ites believes the prophet nominated his son-in-law, Ali. Since then, sentiments over the matter continued to boil right through to the modern times, sometime pushing countries to the verge of civil war. But in the case of Kashmir, Shi’ites and Sunnis rarely have such turbulent history. There is a greater realisation among many regarding who will actually benefit from such a sectarian fight which I’ve already mentioned in my previous blog post.

Such protests, however, also throw up questions (so far avoided and unanswered too). Was this shoe-protest a justifiable rage? How will a violent protest in Srinagar force the shoe-manufacturer (in case it’s established that a mischief was played at the manufacturing level) in China to stop such production. Or how will it force some individual or a group not to play this malafide act again? They must be already giggling somewhere after having successfully triggered clashes in Srinagar over a shoe.

This incident also reminds me of the June 2010 anti-West and anti-India protest in Kashmir. Young men in hundreds in the same neighbourhood carried a blue underwear on a wooden stick, after spotting on it, a sketch of a building which looked like the Al-Aqsa Mosque of Palestine. Without any thorough examination, the underwear enraged them. Soon they blamed the West for “hurting Muslim sensibilities” and clashed with the police and the CRPF. The under wear protest soon faded after it was established that it never carried images of any Islamic worship place. The blue underwear flouted as a placard had in fact sketches of buildings that resembled London’s Big Ben and Saint Paul’s Cathedral and several other places.

This year, during the ‘Innocence of Muslims’ protests, I was in Kashmir. The entire valley was angry. I was on my way to Poonch (researching for a story about a strange disabling disease that has become a scourge in the border district) when my car was stopped by some protesting youth in Shopian district. It took me, my cameraman friend, Abhijit Dutta and the driver, Tanveer Ahmad almost half-an-hour to convince them that the media should be allowed to cover such protests and there were similar other protests in other areas too which our team was supposed to cover. Abhijit took some pictures of sloganeering youth before Tanveer accelerated the car. In such situations, lying to the police, the CRPF or protesters is often best to save one’s skin.
On the just-reopened Mughal Road, we were soon negotiating curves in the mighty Pir Panjal Mountains that separate Kashmir valley from Poonch and Rajouri districts. I asked Tanveer how one should react to the anti-Islam film, the condemnation call by pro-India mainstream parties and strike call by pro-Azadi groups.
“If I won’t earn Rs 100 or 200 today, how will it hurt the United States, the film maker or Obama. Or, how will it decrease my love towards Prophet Muhammad and Islam both,” he replied. “Not people, the response should come from the 52 Islamic states. Let the core states like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, or Turkey and others expel US’ Ambassadors as a mark of protest or let the Gulf countries stop exporting oil. The West will come down to its knees. But it needs gurda (guts) which they don’t have.”
Tanveer was right. First Muslims must abandon protesting on vague things like the shoe or underwear. On films like Nakoula Basseley’s anti-Islam film or other issues, there is a greater need to channelise this rage in a manner that registers the full magnitude of hurt felt by Muslims by such actions. Also the present forms of random, uncoordinated and thoughtless protests, like the one we saw in Kashmir, further negates the Muslim cause, divides the community and in fact weakens the merit of a genuine protest.
For some time, like diplomats, Dutta, Tanveer and I pondered in the moving car over what could be the genuine response of Islamic block if Muslim sensibilities are hurt instead of burning down public property and stone pelting moving cars. What we thought could be these:

1. Diplomatic– Expel and call back Ambassador from the country which the Islamic countries feel has hurt the sentiments of Muslims
2. Economic – Stop oil imports for a month until that country takes strong action
3. Military – Organise a military alliance like NATO and issue a joint press statement by the commander in chiefs of this alliance condemning the event
4. Criminal – Put the specific person responsible on an international Islamic watch list so that if and when he travels through or into any Islamic country he can be nabbed/deported
and finally the most important,
5. Intellectual Response – A creative, intellectual response as well that contextualises the above response in terms of a meta-narrative (without coming off as conspiracy theorists).

Tanveer, who at the end repeated his previous one-liner, however, undermined all the joint efforts. “It needs gurda (guts) which they (the Islamic nations) don’t have.”

Apart from gurda (guts), sometimes there has been an element of hypocrisy and ignorance among Muslims as well. Imagine a scenario where an American F-16 blasts a Muslim holy site in Pakistan or an Israeli bulldozer razes an age-old shrine in occupied Palestine. What would be the Muslim response? I am sure it will be similar to the previous responses. Protesters across the Muslim world will occupy streets, some will try to march towards US or Israeli embassies and police will fire at them to quell the protests. There will be killings and loss of property. Strikes and clampdowns. And that’s it. But has anyone ever thought about why Muslims are often enraged when the “West” is seen as mocking them, but equally indifferent when Muslim Countries blast shrines, raze historic sites and bring down holy places that are connected with Muslims’ identity.

By no means should this piece be seen as advocating stupid violence like the one we saw in Kashmir, but have Muslims ever launched a genuine indignation against the razing of house where prophet Muhammad was born on which a library stands now. Where was the Muslim rage when the house of Khadija (Muhammad’s first wife) where Muhammad received some of the first revelations of the Quran) was replaced with a public toilet block and Dar-al-Arqam, the first Islamic school, where Muhammad taught was levelled for construction? Did it not deserve a response when Jannat-ul-Baqi, a large cemetery where tombs of several of the prophet’s wives, daughters, sons and as many as six grandsons and Shiite saints were once located were bulldozed and levelled? In both Mecca and Medina (the birth place of Islam), Saudi Arabia has, according to many reports, already bulldozed over 90% of the Islamic monuments (during the past 20 years) dating back to around 1400 years. In their place, five star hotels, parking lots and shopping malls are coming up. Saudi authorities often use the excuse that the expansion is necessary to accommodate the increasing number of Muslim pilgrims. But why can’t the hotels and malls be constructed outside the historic interior of Mecca thus preserving both Islamic identity and the monuments? At a place where Paris Hilton can open a luxury bag shop, (in Mecca Mall) why can’t the old shrines and monuments co-exist?

Now apprehensions are also growing over the expansion of Masjid an-Nabawi that will see the demolition of three of the world’s oldest mosques that hold the tombs of Prophet Mohammad, and his closest companions, Abu Bakr and Umar. At a cost of US $6 billion, the construction will raze holy sites as old as the seventh century.

So instead of stupid protests over a vague China-made shoe or someone’s underwear, the rage should be directed at something real. Many Muslims usually label people of other faith as ‘infidel blasphemers’ when a verse of the Quran appears on a skating board or a page from the Quran is brunt, but when the sacred and holy sites are razed in the Islamic states, the word ‘blasphemy’ disappears and the silence becomes remarkable.

Tags: Kashmir

Share:

Author: Mohammad Umar BabaBaba Umar’s career started with The Indian Express in Srinagar where he reported on the South Asia earthquake of 2005. In the following years, he wrote features for Kashmir’s first online news magazine Kashmir Newz and in 2008 he joined Rising Kashmir as a senior reporter where he covered 2008-09-10 civil unrest. Baba specializes in producing stories mostly on Kashmir conflict and water disputes in India. Baba joined Tehelka in 2010 and the next year saw him winning ICRC (Geneva)-Press Institute of India (PII) award for his news report on victims of armed conflict in Kashmir.

 

Narendra Modi and the Muslim votebank

http://www.vijayvaani.com/FrmPublicDisplayArticle.aspx?id=2376

Narendra Modi and the Muslim votebank

Virendra Parekh

9 July 2012

Before, if ever, Narendra Modi becomes India’s prime minister, he will have to break the stranglehold of the Muslim votebank on Indian politics. His sadbhavna yatras (goodwill missions) to win the confidence of Muslims are good as far as they go. However, even hundreds of such yatras will not take him even an inch closer to the throne of Delhi. Hindus, and Hindus alone, can propel him to power at the Centre, if they choose to.

For BJP’s central leadership, Narendra Modi poses a dilemma: he is viewed as a great asset and also as a great liability. Modi’s popularity crossed the borders of Gujarat long ago. He emerged as a national leader on the back of resolute leadership, efficient administration and a clean image. He enjoys a good deal of support from the RSS, which in BJP is a trump card.

With ears close to the ground, easy accessibility and a sound track record of delivering on promises, Modi has acquired a measure of credibility and charisma which none of the BJP’s central leaders possess. Shivraj Singh Chauhan of Madhya Pradesh and Raman Singh of Chhattisgarh have also earned popularity on similar strengths, but neither appears to be keen, as of now, to play a leading role at the Centre. Modi is a different case. BJP bigwigs cannot ignore him or his ambitions.

However, if Modi is selected to command BJP forces in the forthcoming Lok Sabha election, many BJP leaders will have to forget their ambitions and rein in their lust for power. The pull of such lust should not be underestimated.

These leaders want Modi to campaign for the party, not only in Gujarat, but also in other states where his presence can make a difference, while expecting him to confine his own ambitions to Gujarat. Modi is unwilling to oblige them, unless he could augment his own political capital by campaigning outside Gujarat. He wants to be the commander, not a foot soldier. This subtle tug of war is slowly becoming visible and will emerge out in the open by the time of the Lok Sabha election.

It is equally certain that if BJP selects Narendra Modi as its prime ministerial candidate, it will have to forget not only about the few (if any) Muslim votes it gets, but also about allies who are mortally scared of annoying Muslim votebanks. Therein lies the rub. Barring the Akali Dal and the Shiv Sena, all other parties in the NDA are enamoured of the ‘secular’ label. The hypocrisy of leaders like Nitish Kumar is infuriating. By insisting that the NDA candidate for prime minister must have a ‘secular’ image, he is playing to the green gallery while trying to keep a powerful rival off the field. The ploy is too transparent to be missed, but, unfortunately, it threatens to work.

Muslims are naturally amused to watch the game. In their view, their security (actually, political clout) lies in keeping out of power any party or leader who enjoys any credibility – real or fake – among the Hindus. And if Hindu leaders can articulate that position for them in as many words, so much the better.

This is a decisive moment, not just for the BJP or NDA, but for Hindu society. The modern Hindu intelligentsia has failed to grasp a basic fact: clout, influence, power or authority is central to human relations. Power that is not exercised eventually wears off and vanishes. Hindu intellectuals rarely examine any issue, development or trend in terms of Hindu influence or power. For most of them, such an exercise is weird and anti-secular if not anti-national. They think it is beneath them to indulge in it. Hindu society has paid, and continues to pay, a heavy price for this failure of its intelligentsia.

In the post-independence period, Hindus have never asserted primacy of their civilisational identity at the political level. They have never claimed to be the essential national society, the fulcrum of the polity around which every institution and organization must arrange itself. In contrast, Muslims realize the centrality of power in relations with non-Muslims. They can and do use their votes as an effective political weapon. I do not criticize Muslims for doing so, just as I do not applaud Hindus for neglecting power equations in post-independence India.

Hence it is that Hindus have become political orphans in the only country they can call their own. Hence it is they are still maligned for Gujarat riots ten years after the event, while the original provocation (burning alive of 59 Hindus by a Muslim mob without any provocation) is all but forgotten. Hence it is that heartrending tales of Kashmiri pundits, who have suffered far greater atrocities for much longer, hardly ever evokes any sympathy at all from any political party – not even the BJP. Hence it is that Hindus can speak as Dalits, Adivasis, Jats, Yadavs, Kurmis, Lingayats, Reddys, Vanniars and Nairs, but not as Hindus. Hence it is that 12 per cent Muslims, without uttering a word, can frighten mighty Hindu politicians into rejecting anyone with Hindu credentials…

In the pre-independence period, a con game was played in the name of nationalism. Only that party, that leader was national (and could speak for the whole country) which was not opposed by the Muslim League. In this reckoning, the Congress was an organization of Hindu banias, but the Communist Party of India was a national organization. After independence, the same game is played in the name of secularism. Only that party, that leader, that programme or proposal is secular which is not opposed by Muslims. The name has changed, participants have changed, but the game remains unchanged. And so does its objective: to keep the Hindus on the defensive.

How history repeats itself! Congress is now saying about BJP whatever Jinnah used to say about Congress in 1940s: that it is a party of Hindu banias, that Muslims can never expect justice from it, that if it ever came to power then Muslims will have to fear for their lives and so on. Again the object is the same: to use Muslims as political pawns to delegitimize and checkmate nationalist sentiments.

Narendra Modi has the power to break this game. Without a single Muslim vote, without making any special or specific gesture to Muslims, he has swept assembly elections, not once, but twice, in Gujarat. He has demonstrated that if Hindus stand solidly behind any leader, he does not have to flatter Muslims. This is why he is regarded as a mortal enemy by most Muslims, all brokers of Muslim votes, and all parties hankering after the Muslim votebank.

If Modi can replicate at the national level what he has done in Gujarat, it will decisively break the stranglehold of Muslim votebanks on Indian politics, breathe a new self-confidence in Hindu society and force a rethink among Hindu politicians in non-BJP parties. Muslims will become just one of the many groups in Indian politics and thus join the national mainstream.

Whether Modi is interested in attempting this feat, whether BJP will give him an opportunity to make such an attempt is, of course, another matter. His sadbhavna yatras have aroused speculation that he, too, may be craving acceptability among circles that want BJP to shed every trace of Hinduness. As to BJP, it does not deserve a single Hindu vote as of now as a party of Hindu nationalism. But that does not affect the position outlined in the earlier passages.

If the BJP really regards itself as a party of Indian nationalism, it should distance itself from those hankering after the 12 per cent votebank and announce Narendra Modi as its prime ministerial candidate for 2014 Lok Sabha election.

The author is Executive Editor, Corporate India, and lives in Mumbai

Not ‘Secularism’ again by Talveen Singh in Indian Express

Not ‘Secularism’ again
Tavleen Singh
Posted online: Sun Jun 24 2012
Indian Express

Now that the Chief Minister of Bihar has dragged ‘succularism’ into the political discourse, it is time to deconstruct it so that we can end this pointless debate once and for all. I have deliberately misspelt the word because when said in Hindi that is how it is usually pronounced. It is a hard word to write in devnagri and the Hindi and Urdu equivalents do not quite mean what secularism has come to mean in the Indian political context. It is a foreign word that evolved in a European context when the powers of the church and the state were separated. In India, since none of our religions were led by pontiffs who controlled armies, or had vast temporal powers, we had no need to make this separation.

But, the word secularism is used in India more than almost any other country. Why?

Well, because when we entered our current era of coalition governments, political parties of leftist disposition found it convenient to keep the BJP out of power by saying they would only ally with ‘succular phorces’. The BJP became a pariah after the Babri Masjid came down and so whenever someone like Nitish Kumar wants to hurl abuse at the party he is in alliance with in Bihar, or one of its leaders, the ‘secularism’ debate gets revived.

Currently, he appears to be positioning himself for prime minister in 2014 and seems to believe that he will only be in the running for this job if he can eliminate Narendra Modi before the race begins. He is not alone in this endeavour. On my wanderings in Delhi’s corridors of power last week, I ran into journalists and politicians who went on and on about how Modi could never be prime minister because of the violence in Gujarat in 2002.

They said pretty much what the Chief Minister of Bihar, and his cohorts, have said which is that the prime minister must be a man who is ‘clean and secular’. So how do we explain Rajiv Gandhi? How should we understand why he was given the biggest mandate in Indian parliamentary history after justifying the pogroms that killed thousands more Sikhs in 1984 than Muslims were killed in Gujarat in 2002? Were Indian voters un-secular when they gave him more than 400 seats in the Lok Sabha?

If there were still a chance of major communal riots in the future, there may have been some point to reviving this talk of secularism. But, there has not been a single major Hindu-Muslim riot since 2002 despite Muslims from next door having been responsible for the worst terrorist attack on Indian soil in 2008. Before 26/11, there were other attacks by Islamists on Hindu temples, commuter trains in Mumbai, stadiums in Hyderabad and bazaars in Delhi. None of these ugly acts of violence caused riots. Our 24-hour news channels have made communal riots impossible and the average Muslim has begun to understand this. I noticed this while travelling in Uttar Pradesh during the recent elections.

So let us stop this silly talk of secularism and communalism and start demanding from those who want to become India’s next prime minister that they tell us what they can do for this country.

Here is my own list of questions.

What will the next Prime Minister do to end the licence raj that prevents the education system from achieving its full potential? What will he do to fix our broken public healthcare system? What will he do to make sure that every Indian has enough electricity to at least light a few bulbs and run a ceiling fan in his home? What will he do to create new jobs for the estimated 13 million young Indians who enter the job market every year? What will he do to revive the Indian economy? What steps will he take to ensure that India becomes a fully developed country by the middle of this century?

When I heard Aung San Suu Kyi’s address to both houses of Britian’s Parliament in Westminster hall last week, what impressed me was the clarity with which she spelt out her vision for her country. But, throughout her speech, something kept bothering me and by the time she finished, I discovered what it was. What bothered me was that I could not think of a single Indian leader who could make such a speech.

The Indian political landscape today has become a desert in which only the stunted progeny of stunted political leaders bloom. We need our political parties to throw up real leaders and we need a political discourse in which real political problems are discussed.

So can we stop fishing ‘secularism’ out of the dustbin of history and holding it up as a shining ideal? Its relevance faded a long time ago.

Follow Tavleen on : Twitter @ tavleen_singh
http://www.indianexpress.com/story-print/965967/

SIT report uncovers the murky world of anti-Modi cottage industry, where cops, journalists, NGOs, politicians are in nexus

(our Thanks to DeshGujarat.com and Japan Pathak)

http://deshgujarat.com/2012/05/09/sit-report-uncovers-the-murky-world-of-anti-modi-cottage-industry-where-cops-journalists-ngos-politicians-are-in-attempt-to-misuse-the-court-read-it-to-believe-it/

                                                                                                                             Sanjiv Bhatt

Ahmedabad, 9 May 2012

In its closure report, the Special Investigation Team (SIT) has clearly expressed an opinion that “certain vested interests including Shri Sanjiv Bhatt, different NGOs, and some political leaders were trying to use honorable Supreme Court/SIT as a forum for settling their scores”. The SIT has in its report noted that “Shri Sanjiv Bhatt had been colluding with the persons with vested interests to see that some kind of charge-sheet is filed against Shri Narendra Modi and others.” The report has quoted some email communications of Sanjiv Bhatt that clearly make a point that Bhatt had attempted to influence Amicas Curiae through NGOs, media campaign and pressure groups.

The SIT in it report says: Government of Gujarat vide its letter dated 22-6-2011 forwarded a set of emails exchanged between Shri Sanjiv Bhatt, DIG, Gujarat Police and certain individuals during April and May 2011. It was mentioned in the above letter that during the course of an inquiry instituted against Shri Sanjiv Bhatt, IPS by DG (Civil Defense), Gujarat regarding misuse of official resources, some revelations have been made having direct bearing on the cases being monitored by SIT. The material forwarded by Govt. of Gujarat has been scrutinized and the salient features of the same are summarized as below:

(1) That top Congress leaders of Gujarat namely Shri Shaktisinh Gohil, Leader of Opposition in Gujarat Legislative Assembly and Shri Arjun Modhwadia, President of Gujarat Pradesh Congress Committee are in constant touch with Shri Sanjiv Bhatt, DIG. They are providing him ‘packages’, certain materials and also legal assistance. Further, on 28-04-2011 Shri Sanjiv Bhatt exchanged mails with Shri Shaktisinh Gohil and the former gave point for arguments in honorable Supreme Court matter, allegations to be made against the members of SIT and to establish that the burning of a coach of a Sabarmati Express at Godhra railway station was not a conspiracy. From the emails, it appears that Shri Sanjiv Bhatt was holding personal meetings with senior mentions that he was ‘under exploited’ by the lawyer representing Congress before Nanavati Commission of inquiry.

2. That Shri Sanjiv Bhatt had been persuading various NGOs and other interested groups to influence the Ld. Amicus Curiae and the honorable Supreme Court of India by using ‘media card’ and ‘pressure groups’.

3. Shri Sanjiv Bhatt had been exchanging emails with one Nasir Chippa and in the email dated 11-5-2011 Shri Bhatt has stated that he (Nasir Chipa) should try to mobilize support/pressure-groups in Delhi to influence Ld. Amicus Curiae Shri Raju Ramchandran in a very subtle manner. In another email dated 18-5-2011, Shri Sanjiv Bhatt had requested Shri Nasir Chippa to influence Home Minister Shri P.Chidambaram through pressure groups in U.S. It is believed that Shri Nasir Chippa has strong U.S. connections and his family stays there.

4. That Shri Sanjiv Bhatt arranged an appeal from Shri M.Hassan Jowher, who runs a so called NGO titled SPRAT(Society for Promoting Rationality) to Amicus Curiae on 13-5-2011, to call Shri Sanjiv Bhatt, IPS, Shri Rajnish Rai, IPS, Shri Satish Verma, IPS, Shri Kuldeep Sharma, IPS and Shri Rahul Sharma, IPS (all police officers of Gujarat) to tender their version of the Gujarat story. It may be mentioned here that the draft for the said appeal was sent by Shri Sanjiv Bhatt himself to Shri Jowher, Further, a copy of this mail was circulated by Shri Sanjiv Bhatt to Ms. Shabnam Hashmi, Ms. Teesta Setalwad, Shri Himanshu Thakker, journalist, Shri Leo Saldana, journalist and Shri Nasir Chippa to encourage the prominent persons/organizations to write to Amicus Curiae on the similar lines so as to pressurize him.

5. In emails exchanged on June 1, 2011 between Shri Sanjiv Bhatt and Shri M.H.Jowher, it was proposed that a PIL may be field through a lawyer named Shri K.Vakharia( a senior advocate and chairman of legal cell of Congress party in Gujarat) in the Gujarat High Court for providing security to Shri Sanjiv Bhatt. It was also proposed that another complaint may be filed with the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad city against Shri Narendra Modi and others for his alleged involvement in 2002 riots which would be taken to appropriate judicial forums in due course.

6.That Ms. Teesta Setalwad, her lawyer Shri Mihir Desai and Journalist Shri Manoj Mitta of Times of India were in constant touch with Shri Sanjiv Bhatt, IPS and were instrumental in arranging / drafting of the affidavit for filing the same in honorable Supreme court. Vide email dated 10-4-2011, Shri Bhatt solicited “Co-ordinates” from Ms. Teesta Setalwad, who had also arranged for a meeting with her lawyer Shri Mihir Desai at Ellis bridge Gymkhana, Ahmedabad. Shri Sanjiv Bhatt sent the first draft of his proposed affidavit to Shri Manoj Mitta on 13-4-2011, after meeting Shri Mihir Desai, Advocate and invited his suggestions. Shri Manoj Mitta advised Shri Sanjiv Bhatt to incorporate a few more paragraphs drafted by him which were incorporated by Shri Sanjiv Bhatt in his final affidavit sent to honorable Supreme Court of India as suggested by Shri Mitta.

7. That Shri Sanjiv Bhatt was instrumental in arranging an affidavit of one Shri Shubhranshu Chaudhary, a journalist, to corroborate his claim that he had gone to attend a meeting called by the Chief Minister at his residence in the night of 27-2-2002. Significantly, Shri Bhatt had sent his mobile phone details of 27-2-2002 to Shri Shubhranshu Chaudhary and had also suggested that probable timings of his meeting to Shri Shubhranshu Chaudhary on 15-5-2011. Simultaneously, these details were sent to Ms. Teesta Setalwad on 16-5-2011, for drafting the document, presumably the affidavit to be filed by Shri Shubhranshu Chaudhary. Shri Sanjiv Bhatt sent an email to Shri Shubhranshu Chaudhary that the said affidavit could be leaked out to the print media which would force the Amicus Curiae and honorable Supreme Court to take notice of the same. Shri Sanjiv Bhatt also sent another email to Shri Shubhranshu Chaudhary, in which he has stated that they should play the ‘media trick’ so that affidavit is taken seriously by Amicus Curiae and the honorable Supreme Court.

8. That Shri Sanjiv Bhatt had been exchanging emails with one Leo Saldana, a Narmada Bachao Andolan activist, with a view to mobilize public opinion in their favor. On 1-5-2011, Shri Sanjiv Bhatt had sent an email to the latter to the effect that what they needed to do at this stage was to create a situation, where it would be difficult for three judges Supreme Court bench to disregard the ‘shortcomings of SIT under stewardship of Mr. Raghavan’ and that the pressure groups and opinion makers in Delhi could be of great help in forwarding the cause. He has further stated in the mail that he was hopeful that things would start turning around from the next hearing, if proper pressure was maintained at national level.

9.That Shri Sanjiv Bhatt was trying to contact Shri K.S.Subramanyam, a retired IPS officer, through Shri Nasir Chippato make an affidavit supporting his stand with a view to convince the Amicus Curiae and through him the honorable Supreme Court of India that Shri K.Chakravarthi, former DGP of Gujarat, was a liar.

10. That Shri Sanjiv Bhatt had been taking advice of Ms. Teesta Setalwad in connection with his evidence before Nanavati Commission of inquiry. He had also been in touch with various journalists, NGOs and had been forwarding his representations, applications and other documents through email, whereas on the other side he had been claiming privilege that being an intelligence officer he was duty bound not to disclose anything unless, he was legally compelled to do so.

11. That Shri Sanjiv Bhatt had been maintaining a close contact with Shri Rahul Sharma, DIG of Gujarat Police and had been getting his mobile phone calls analyzed with a view to ascertain his own movements of 27-2-2002. This shows that Bhatt does not recollect his movements on that day. He has also been trying to ascertain the movements of Late Haren Pandya, the then minister of state for Revenue on 27-2-2002, with a view to introduce him as a participant of the meeting of 27-2-2002 held at CM’s residence, but could not do so, as Shri Rahul Sharma had informed him after the analysis that there was absolutely no question of Late Haren Pandya being at Gandhinagar on 27-2-2002 night.

From the study of emails, it appears that certain vested interests including Shri Sanjiv Bhatt, different NGOs, and some political leaders were trying to use honorable Supreme Court/SIT as a forum for settling their scores.This would also go to show that Shri Sanjiv Bhatt had been colluding with the persons with vested interests to see that some kind of charge-sheet is filed against Shri Narendra Modi and others.

CAUSE TO CELEBRATE- Swapan Dasgupta on Gujarat after 2002 in Telegraph

– Peace and prosperity after bloodshed in Gujarat

Swapan Dasgupta

(The Telegraph, Friday, March 2, 2012)

 

It may sound callous, but there was something patently disgusting about the way the media and activists colluded to turn a grim 10th anniversary of the 2002 Gujarat riots into a celebration of victimhood. From star anchors rushing to Ahmedabad to hug victims to the overuse of the photograph of the unfortunate Qutubuddin Ansari pleading for his life, every tear-jerking potential was cynically exploited. What should have been a solemn occasion of remembrance, perhaps leading to a pledge to make sectarian violence a thing of the past, was, instead, turned into an all-too-familiar Indian tamasha, culminating in riotous television discussions.

The reason for this ugly turn of events should be obvious. Ten years after the arson attack on the Sabarmati Express in Godhra became the trigger for murderous violence throughout Gujarat, the issue of ‘justice’ has been transformed into a political blame game. The activists who have doggedly kept the issue alive, despite the apparent lack of responsiveness in Gujarat, have shifted their priorities markedly. The issue is no longer one of securing the punishment of the rioters and those responsible for inhuman conduct, but the political targeting of one man: the chief minister, Narendra Modi.

The unspoken assumption is that justice will be served if Modi can be prosecuted for personally facilitating the carnage. As an additional bonus, the framing of charges against Modi is calculated to ensure his exclusion from the political arena and consequently bring to an abrupt end any possibility of him being in the reckoning for the prime minister’s post. In short, if you can’t beat him, disqualify him.

Had Modi shown himself to be electorally vulnerable, the need to fight him judicially would have evaporated. A Modi defeat in either 2002 or 2007 would have prompted the self-satisfied conclusion that “Gujarat has redeemed itself”— in the same way as, it is proclaimed, Uttar Pradesh redeemed itself by rejecting the Bharatiya Janata Party after the demolition of the Babri shrine in 1992. However, the prospects of the clutch of activists moving on to the next available cause have dimmed following the realization that not only has Modi strengthened himself politically but that the Congress in Gujarat lacks the necessary qualities to mount an effective challenge. Consequently, the only way they see to fight Modi is to remove him from politics altogether.

There is another factor at work. Over the past 10 years, Modi has transformed Gujarat spectacularly. After winning the 2002 assembly elections in a communally surcharged environment, he has deftly shifted the political focus of Gujarat from sectarian identity issues to rapid economic development. Gujarat was always an economically vibrant state and entrepreneurship is deeply ingrained in the DNA of the average Gujarati. Modi has played the role of a great facilitator by creating an environment that is conducive to the double digit growth of the state’s gross domestic product. He has toned up the administration, improved the finances of the state exchequer, brought down corruption markedly and made every rupee expended on government-run schemes a factor in economic value addition. Modi has been the model rightwing administrator pursuing the mantra of minimal but effective governance. His election victory in 2007 wasn’t a consequence of Hindu-Muslim polarization; it was based on his ability to deliver good governance.

Secondly, Modi successfully shifted tack from Hindu pride to Gujarati pride. This meant that hoary grievances centred on sectarian hurt were subsumed by a common desire to take advantage of the dividends flowing from a prolonged period of high economic growth. The popular mentality of Gujarat has undergone a discernible shift in the past decade. In the 30 years since the Ahmedabad riots of 1969, which left nearly 650 people dead in just five days of mayhem, Gujarat had become a riot-prone state.

With its sharp communal polarization, Ahmedabad epitomized that trend. After the 1969 flare-up, there were riots in 1971, 1972 and 1973. Then, after a period of lull, rioting resumed in January 1982, March 1984, March to July 1985, January 1986, March 1986, July 1986, January 1987, February 1987, November 1987, April 1990, October 1990, November 1990, December 1990, January 1991, March 1991, April 1991, January 1992, July 1992, December 1992 and January 1993. This chronology, assembled by the political scientist based in the United States of America, Ashutosh Varshney, in his Ethnic Conflict and Civil Life (2002) tells a story of unending curfews, social insecurity and escalating hatred affecting the two communities. It was a story replicated throughout Gujarat, including the otherwise integrated city of Surat that witnessed fierce riots in 1993.

Since March 2002, Gujarat has been riot-free. Curfews have become a thing of a distant past. What has occasioned this exemplary transformation? The facile explanation, often proffered unthinkingly by secularists anxious to find fault with Modi, is that Muslims have been too cowed down by the sheer intensity of the post-Godhra majoritarian backlash. Such an explanation presumes that riots are invariably begun by a section of the Muslim community — a problematic proposition and not always empirically sustainable.

More compelling is the explanation that factors in the larger administrative and economic changes in Gujarat over the past decade. First, both the civil administration and the political leadership have internalized the lessons from their inability to control mob violence in 2002. The police have been given a free hand to operate without the interference of small-time politicians attached to the ruling party. There has been a crackdown against the illicit liquor trade and the underworld that gained its muscle power from its proceeds. At the helm, there is an unspoken understanding that another riot, with its attendant TV coverage, would extract an unacceptably high political cost. That is why there is special attention paid to curbing Hindu extremism — a phenomenon that will affect Modi most adversely.

The biggest change has, however, been at the societal level. Gujarat today is a society that is obsessively preoccupied with making money and taking advantage of the economic opportunities that have presented themselves. With the end of boredom, a happy present and an appealing future, the belief that riots are bad for dhanda has seeped into society. This is not to suggest that the bitterness of the past has been replaced by idyllic bonhomie between communities. Far from it. Sectarian conflict persists in cities such as Ahmedabad, and less so in Surat. But there is a distinction that Varshney makes between sectarian conflict and sectarian violence. One need not necessarily lead to the other if contained within the parameters of economics and politics. The Muslims of Gujarat don’t possess the political clout they enjoyed earlier under Congress rule. But this has been compensated for by growing levels of prosperity. Those who argue that the economic development of Gujarat has bypassed Muslims should look at the economic empowerment of communities such as the Bohras, Khojas and Memons.

To many, Gujarat’s obsession with economic betterment may seem an expression of denial for the larger societal involvement in the 2002 riots. This may be partially true, since Gujarati Hindus view the post-Godhra troubles as something they don’t want to be reminded of incessantly — a point which the state Congress has grudgingly acknowledged. But it doesn’t distract from Modi’s undeniable success in changing the agenda dramatically in 10 years to the point where hardened Hindutvawadis now regard him as an enemy of the cause.

The riots of 2002 were horrible. But the important thing to note is that 10 years after the butchery, Gujarat is basking in peace and unprecedented prosperity. Now, that is something to celebrate.


India’s dubious Secularists- S. Gurumurthy

India’s dubious Secularists 

S. Gurumurthy

30 Jan 2012

www.gurumurthy.net


Maqbool Fida Husain and Salman Rushdie are a telling comparison and contrast to capture the true character of secular India. Both are Muslims by birth. Both were born in colonial India’s Bombay Presidency. Husain, some 32 years when Rushdie was a child, died last year. Husain was an artist. Rushdie is a writer. Both had become famous, globally — Husain through his paintings and Rushdie through his writings. Husain lived all his life in India before he exiled and became a Qatari in 2006. But Rushdie lives in the UK as a British citizen. While Rushdie excited the highly sensitive Muslims to turn against him, Husain managed to irritate the not-so-sensitive Hindus. Take Husain first.
This is how Husain annoyed the soft Hindus. He used his fertile imagination and painting skills to undress all well-dressed Hindu gods, goddesses, depict them naked and used his popularity to market them. He drew a naked Goddess Lakshmi sitting on Lord Ganesha’s head. He painted Durga in sexual union with a tiger. He portrayed a naked Goddess Saraswati holding a veena. He painted a naked Parvati with her son Ganesha. He depicted a naked Hanuman, seeing a naked Sita sitting on the thigh of naked Ravana. He painted a naked Bharatmata twice — once in the shape of India with names of the states of India on her naked body, alongside a naked sadhu in the Bay of Bengal. But his art on Muslims was a telling contrast. He drew a fully clad Muslim king alongside a naked Brahmin. He completely covered, even with purdah, the Muslim women he drew, which of course included his mother and daughter. He fully attired the Muslim poets he painted.
Some Hindus, who saw his perverted art demeaning the Hindu divinities, began protesting at his exhibitions and filing criminal cases. Seeing mounting protests and cases, Husain moved out of India. The government of India, judiciary, political parties and, of course, the media, all rushed to defend Husain’s right to freedom — his right to offend Hindus and demean their gods. There were protests against Husain. But no one issued an order to kill him. No one was injured, no one was hurt and none was killed. Yet, the protests were labelled by ‘seculars’ as ‘saffron terror’.
Now come to Rushdie, a contrast. His life is living hell since he wrote his controversial book The Satanic Verses. Though living, he has, by now, died a million times since February 4, 1989 when Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fiat (fatwa) to Muslims to kill him. But, why should Khomeini order the killing of a fellow Muslim? With almost a generation gone since 1988 when Rushdie wrote the infamous book, it is time to recall some history. Rushdie’s book was about a disputed tradition in Islam. According to it, Mohammed (depicted in Rushdie’s book as Mahound) had first added three verses (Sura) in the Quran, accepting three goddesses that used to be worshipped in Mecca as divine beings, but later revoked the verses saying that Devil (Satan) had tempted him to utter the verses to appease the Meccans — so the title ‘Satanic Verses’ for the disputed verses. The Rushdie book set off violent reaction from Muslims.
Mustafa Mahmoud Mazeh blew himself up in a central London hotel while making a bomb intended to kill Rushdie in 1989. Hitoshi Igarashi, the Japanese translator of Rushdie’s book was stabbed to death in July 1991. Ettore Capriolo, the Italian translator, was stabbed and seriously injured in the same month. And Aziz Nesin, the Turkish language translator, was the target in the events that led to massacre of 37 people in July 1993. William Nygaard, a Norway publisher, was almost killed in Oslo in October 1993. In Belgium, two Muslim leaders who had opposed Khomeini’s ‘Kill Rushdie’ fiat, were killed. Two bookstores in California, and five in England, were fire-bombed. Twelve people died during rioting in Mumbai. This list does not exhaust the violence.
Starting from then and till now, Rushdie has been hitting headlines for the wrong reasons. Now again Rushdie is in the news. Rushdie had been invited to the Jaipur Literature Festival 2012, Asia’s largest, a week back. Muslims threatened agitations and Rushdie’s presence would have meant violence. So the Indian Intelligence Bureau invented an input saying that four hired assassins were roaming around to kill Rushdie. This was proved fake, calculated to prevent Rushdie from coming to India. The four participants who had read out from The Satanic Verses at the meet ran away from India to escape arrest. William Dalrymple, the festival director, got death threats. Finally, Rushdie’s video address to the Jaipur festival was dropped as, according to organisers, it risked the lives of the participants from the Muslim protesters outside.
The contrast is self-evident. Rushdie, who just wrote about a disputed tradition in Islam, was hounded for decades and is on a death threat even now, and people who had nothing to do with either the book or Rushdie have been butchered. Even today the fear of slaughter in his name haunts the world, as the Jaipur meet shows. But, all that Husain, who, in the name of freedom hurt the Hindus — “considered as the gentlest and most civilised on the earth” according to Mahatma Gandhi — faced were normal protests. The protests by Hindus against Husain were ant-bite compared to the scale of violence against Rushdie’s book, even though the hurt to the Hindu sentiments by the perverted paintings of Husain were explicit and undeniably monumental.

But what is distressingly shameful is the politics of contrast. See how the secular media, parties, leaders and state glorified Husain’s right to abuse Hindu gods and goddesses to wound Hindus and how the same secular actors repeatedly decried Rushdie’s similar right to hurt Muslims. Now something even more shameful. The ‘seculars’, including the media, had ceaselessly condemned the normal protests against shows displaying Husain’s painting and pontificated to Hindus about the need for tolerance. But they wouldn’t utter a word against the violence by Muslims nor ask them to be tolerant. The reason is obvious. They are dishonest.

Muslims rightly felt offended by Rushdie’s reckless literary work. And Hindus were justly hurt by Husain’s perverted art. Muslims, highly excitable, however reacted violently. Instead of holding both Rushdie and Husain wrong, the seculars faulted Rushdie and praised Husain. Why? Because, being insensitive to Hindus and pretending to be sensitive to Muslims is enough to make one secular. QED: Such secularism is perversion — and a dangerous one.

(Views expressed in the column are the author’s own)
S Gurumurthy is a well-known commentator on political and economic issues.
E-mail: 
comment@gurumurthy.net

http://expressbuzz.com/opinion/columnists/india%E2%80%99s-dubious-secularists/358494.html

Harvard and Dr. Swamy: an OP-Ed in The Hindu

Harvard wrestles with free speech

At a time when Kapil Sibal’s statements on monitoring online content have raised a furore in India, his alma mater Harvard is engaged in free speech issues of its own. Two recent decisions taken by the Harvard University raise pertinent questions relating to the University’s ethos of dissemination, debate, and freedom of expression.

The first concerns the decision to exclude Janata Party leader Subramanian Swamy’s courses from the Harvard Summer School course catalogue. The second is the University’s decision to close Harvard Yard to outsiders involved in the Occupy movement.

A NEWSPAPER OP-ED

To begin with, on December 7, Harvard University’s Faculty of Arts and Sciences took the unprecedented step to remove the summer economic courses taught by Mr. Swamy, himself a PhD from Harvard. The decision was based on a controversial op-ed written by him in the newspaper Daily News and Analysis(DNA) on July 16 in response to terrorist attacks in Mumbai. In the op-ed, he had offered strongly worded ideas on how to “negate the political goals of Islamic terrorism in India.” Among his ideas were that India should “enact a national law prohibiting conversion from Hinduism to any other religion,” “remove the masjid in Kashi Vishwanath temple and the 300 masjids at other temple sites,” and “declare India a Hindu Rashtra in which non-Hindus can vote only if they proudly acknowledge that their ancestors were Hindus.”

Undoubtedly, the op-ed is execrable in so many ways, starting with cloaking itself with an understanding of social and religious history of India, and making suggestions that would leave a lot of people speechless with outrage just to think of them. Notwithstanding that, however, Harvard ought to stand for Mr. Swamy’s freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech is probably the most sacred constitutional guarantee of all, and the true test of this sacred right is when someone uttering morally repugnant thoughts exercises it. The U.S. courts have long held that in times like these, there is a need to swallow hard and understand that, in a free society, any restriction on speech or expression must be taken under very serious consideration and pass some very stringent tests regarding public safety, and clear and present danger.

FRED PHELPS

To take just one example: recently, a case was brought against Fred Phelps, a pastor, who demonstrated at the funeral of a soldier killed in Iraq, with signs that said things like “Thank God for Dead Soldiers” and “You’re going to Hell” because, in his twisted mind, America’s war deaths were God’s punishment for the U.S. tolerating homosexuality. In the case brought by the dead soldier’s father alleging an injury for the intentional infliction of emotional distress, the U.S. Supreme Court held for Fred Phelps (protecting his right of speech), and against the dead soldier’s father by a vote of 8-1.

In doing so, the U.S. Supreme Court solidified the notion that underlying the constitutional protection of freedom of speech and expression are values that transcend what people like Mr. Phelps and Mr. Swamy say — values important to everyone. And when free speech rights are attacked, if one allows the least popular and morally abhorrent people to be deprived of their free speech rights, then it is not long before others are deprived too. Thus the battle for free speech is always fought on the fringes, with people whose thoughts find scant endorsement. Protecting their rights does an essential public service, because it protects everyone’s rights.

Examined through the above constitutional lens, Harvard’s decision to exclude Mr. Swamy’s courses, and thereby effectively oust him from the teaching roster, appears harsh. Also, Harvard has in place strong commitments to free speech in its policies, and this decision violates these policies. The University’s “Free Speech Guidelines,” adopted in 1990, state, for example, that “curtailment of free speech undercuts the intellectual freedom that defines our purpose. It also deprives some individuals of the right to express unpopular views and others of the right to listen to unpopular views.”

HARVARD YARD

Although the subject matter could not be more different, the second decision displays the same oppositional stand of Harvard against a libertarian conception for freedom. It relates to the University’s decision to close Harvard Yard to outsiders engaged in the Occupy movement that has erupted all around America.

Harvard Yard is a calm and vibrant community space where students, tourists, and community members sit and stroll. Many buildings, including dormitories, libraries, a church and lecture halls, surround it. In the month of November, tents had sprouted on Harvard Yard in solidarity with the Occupy movement. The Occupy movement at Harvard was made up of Harvard students, staff and faculty, and posed no threat to the security of Harvard affiliates.

However, on the pretext of security, the University ordered a complete lock-down of the campus, thereby depriving outside protestors the basic freedom to have an open conversation on the campus. In doing so, Harvard reinforced institutional exclusivity and elitism — features that the Occupy movements seek to change.

Many professors of Harvard shared this sentiment. Notably, Duncan Kennedy, a Law School professor, wrote an open letter to Harvard President Drew Faust expressing his dissatisfaction with the way the University administration handled the protest. Without a doubt, the decision to close the gates amounts to a violation of the freedom of assembly in the most general sense by saying that Harvard is off limits to those that seek to engage in a public-spirited discussion.

It is bewildering how a peaceful movement in protest against economic inequality would provoke the lock-down of a University that admits students because of their commitment to the democratic values of an open and just society. This, and the decision to rebuke Mr. Swamy, is precisely the sort of action that a university dedicated to intellectual freedom must seek to avoid.

It is central to Harvard’s thriving as a centre of excellence that it immediately reassures that freedom of expression will be protected at Harvard. The University must honour its commitment to policies that allow diverse opinions to flourish and to be heard. And who knows in doing so, Harvard might just provide its famous Indian alumnus, who has recently been at the receiving end of a lot of flak, a much-needed free speech message.

(Karan Singh Tyagi, a graduate of Harvard University, is an associate attorney with an international law firm in Paris.)

CNN-IBN Apolgizes for duping viewing public

CNN-IBN says: “At CNNIBN we remain committed to fair and impartial journalism and do not intend any disrespect towards any religion or community. ”  This is a news to me. Either they do not think of Hindu Dharma as a religion and Hindus as a community, or I have been snorting high grade cocaine all these years when watching Sagarika Ghosh and her cohorts! – Gaurang G. Vaishnav

—————————————————————————————————————————

Here is mail,which I received from CNN-IBN’s legal head.

Vinay Joshi

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Kshipra Jatana <kshipra.jatana@network18online.com>
Date: 25 November 2011 12:37
Subject: RE: Complaint regarding content
To: Vinay Joshi <murdikar@gmail.com>, complaint <complaint@network18online.com>
Dear Mr. Joshi,

Thank you for your email to us.

Face The Nation, is a late night–10pm–show. Often our esteemed panelists cannot come to our studio or OB location at that time as they are in remote locations or unavailable at 10pm at night. We thus record small interviews with them, after taking their consent that this will be played in the Face The Nation debate. This was done with Sri Sriji as he was in Mirzapur, UP, and not able to come to our studio at 10pm.

We should have made it clear to our viewers that it was a recorded interview and not a Live interview. We accept our mistake and have given an unqualified and unconditional apology for the error on our channel. We have even called on Sri Sriji in Bangalore and tendered our apologies to him. He has forgiven us and said for him the matter is closed.

There was absolutely no intention on our part to disrespect a universally beloved and esteemed spiritual leader like Sri Sri Ravishankar.

At CNNIBN we remain committed to fair and impartial journalism and do not intend any disrespect towards any religion or community. If we unwittingly did so, we are deeply apologetic.

Thank you for your interest in CNN IBN

Regards,

Kshipra Jatana | EVP & Head Legal

TV18 Broadcast Limited


From: Vinay Joshi [mailto:murdikar@gmail.com]
Sent: 23 November 2011 20:25
To: complaint
Subject: Complaint regarding content

Dear Ms. Kshipra Jatana,

EVP & Head Legal

TV18 Broadcast Limited

Hello,

CNN-IBN has broadcasted programme titled “Face the Nation” on November 9, 2011,the topic of the discussion was, “Should spiritual leaders participate in anti-corruption campaign?” Sagarika Ghosh was an anchor conducting the episode. A prerecorded interview of Sri Sri RaviShankar, the spiritual head of Art of Living, was passed on as a live one. The manner in which the various quotes of Sri Sri Ravishankar were used clearly showed that there was a malicious attempt to demonise Sri Sri. Ravishankar.

IBN shamelessly fabricated, manipulated, amended and twisted the pre-recorded interview of Shri Shri Ravishankar and presented it to audience as LIVE debate with Shri Shri Ravishankar.On September 16.2011 News Broadcasting Standards Authority’s Annie Joseph with her signature on it, had issued advisory to all it’s members regarding use of cation “LIVE”.But within very short time span Sagarika Ghosh efficiently sidelined the advisory.

It clearly proves that CNN-IBN staff neither respects such a advisory nor it has any value for NBA advisory. Also manner with which Sagarika Ghosh conducted the episode proves that she clearly knew that Shri Shri Ravishankar is not live, also she was aware about fabrication made with interview, but she had intention to demonize Ravishankar.

With this letter,I am requesting you to take stern action against Anchor Sagarika Ghosh and editor of the channel along with each and every person responsible for this cheating If you fails to do so,I have to explore other possible ways to punish respective persons, who cheated audience and Shri Shri Ravishankar.

Regards,

Vinay Joshi

Who owns the media in India ? Muslims, Christians Or Hindus?

Need I say anything more?

Posted on August 17, 2010 by Sam Hindu’s Blog.
SOME TIMES BY ; SANTOSH BHATT 

Who owns the media in India ?                                         

  • Let us see the ownership of different media agencies.
  • when i was in india and young journalist working for Goenka group and first time when people started talking about foreign investment i opposed it.
  •  I was against of any foreign investment due to this kind of long-term effects it will have on …country and mass..and Culture and Rape to the country by thoughts of bigots,.
  • NDTV: A very popular TV news media is funded by Gospels of Charity in Spain Supports Communism. Recently it has developed a soft corner towards Pakistanbecause Pakistan President has allowed only this channel to be aired in Pakistan .
  •  Indian CEO Prannoy Roy is co-brother of Prakash Karat, General Secretary of the Communist party of India . His wife and Brinda Karat are sisters.
  •  India Today which used to be the only national weekly which supported BJP is now bought by NDTV!! Since then the tone has changed drastically and turned into Hindu bashing.
  • CNN-IBN:This is 100 percent funded by Southern Baptist Church with its branches in all over the world with HQ in US. The Church annually allocates $800 million for promotion of its channel. 
  • Its Indian head is Rajdeep Sardesai and his wife Sagarika Ghosh.
  • Times group list : Times Of India,  Mid-Day,  Nav-Bharth Times, Stardust, Femina, Vijay Times, Vijaya Karnataka, Times Now (24- hour news channel) and many more… Times Group is owned by Bennet & Coleman.   World Christian Council does 80 percent of the Funding, and an Englishman and an Italian equally share balance 20 percent.              
  • The Italian Robertio Mindo is a close relative of Sonia Gandhi.
  •  Star TV:It is run by an Australian, who is supported by St. Peters Pontifical Church, Melbourne.
  • Hindustan Times: Owned by Birla Group, but hands have changed since Shobana Bhartiya took over. Presently it is working in Collaboration with Times Group.
  •  The Hindu: English daily, started over 125 years has been recently taken over by Joshua Society, Berne , Switzerland .. N. Ram’s wife is a Swiss national.
  • Indian Express: Divided into two groups. The Indian Express and new Indian Express (southern edition) ACTS Christian Ministries have a major stake in the Indian Express and latter is still with the Indian counterpart.
  •  Eeenadu: Still to date controlled by an Indian named Ramoji Rao. Ramoji Rao is connected with film industry and owns a huge studio in Andhra Pradesh.
  • Andhra Jyothi:The Muslim party of Hyderabad known as MIM along with a Congress Minister has purchased this Telugu daily very recently.
  •  The Statesman:It is controlled by Communist Party of India.
  •  Kairali TV: It is controlled by Communist party of India (Marxist)
  • Mathrubhoomi: Leaders of Muslim League and Communist leaders have major investment.
  •  Asian Age and Deccan Chronicle: are owned by a Saudi Arabian Company with its chief Editor M.J. Akbar. Gujarat riots which took place in 2002 where Hindus were burnt alive, Rajdeep Sirdesai and   Burkha Dutt working for NDTV at that time got around 5 Million Dollars from Saudi Arabia to cover only Muslim victims, which they did very faithfully…Not a single Hindu family was interviewed or shown on TV whose near and dear ones had been burnt alive, it is reported.
  •   Tehelka.com’s Tarun Tejpal  regularly gets blank cheques from Arab countries to target BJP and Hindus only, it is said.

 The ownership explains the control of media in India by foreigners. The result is obvious.

When print media and TV continuously air systematic venom towards the same culture and country and dumb politicians and common man  are  blind to see the long-term effects of their actions, Hindus are bound to get demoralized and their young generation will grow up hating its own heritage and culture.   

WHO OWNS INDIAN MEDIA? COMMUNISTS, CHRISTIANS or MUSLIMS?

Here is an eye-opening list of linkages of media people in India. As can be seen, it is an incestuous cabal of Communists, Christians and Muslims that is dominating Indian English Media. It is a closed group and Hindus are simply not welcome. Only in India with an 80 percent Hindu majority can this kind of nonsense be accepted by the majority.

  1. Suzanna Arundhati Roy is niece of Prannoy Roy (CEO of NDTV)
  2. Prannoy Roy married to Radhika Roy
  3. Radhika Roy is sister of Brinda Karat (CPI(M))
  4. Brinda Karat married to Prakash Karat (CPI(M) – General Secretary)
  5. CPI(M)’s senior member of Politburo and Parliamentary Group Leader is Sitaram Yechury.
  6. Sitaram Yechury is married to Seema Chisthi.
  7. Seema Chisthi is the Resident Editor of Indian Express
  8. Burkha Dutt works at NDTV
  9. Rajdeep Sardesai was Managing Editor at NDTV
  10. Rajdeep Sardesai is married to Sagrika Ghose
  11. Sagarika Ghose is daughter of Bhaskar Ghose.
  12. Bhaskar Ghose was Director General of Doordarshan.
  13. Sagarika Ghose’s aunt is Ruma Pal
  14. Ruma Pal is former justice of Supreme Court
  15. Sagarika Ghose’s another aunt is Arundhati Ghose.
  16. Arundhati Ghose was India’s permanent representative/ambassador to United Nations.
  17. Y.S.Rajasekhara Reddy was the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh.
  18. YSR Reddy was from the Congress party (INC).
  19. YSR Reddy’s father, Raja Reddy, setup a degree college and a Polytechnic in Pulivendula.
  20. YSR Reddy had said that his one year study at Andhra Loyola College (ALC), a Jesuit institution, influenced him so much that he handed over the Pulivendula colleges to the Loyola Group.
  21. The YS family has established several educational institutions in Andhra Pradesh.
  22. YSR Reddy’s daughter is Sharmila.
  23. Sharmila married Anil Kumar, Anil Kumar converted to Christianity after the marriage.
  24. Anil Kumar set up “Anil World Evangelism” and is an active Evangelist.
  25. YSR Reddy’s son is YS Jagan Mohan Reddy.
  26. YS Jagan is Chairman of Jagati Publications Pvt. Ltd.
  27. Bhumna Karunakara Reddy is close to YSR Reddy.
  28. Karunakara Reddy is the Chairman of Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam.
  29. JPPL publishes the newspaper Sakshi.
  30. Chandra Babu Naidu has claimed that Lanco group was forced to invest in JPPL.
  31. L. Sridhar is alleged to have made the investment from Lanco Group.
  32. L Sridhar is Lanco Infratech’s Vice Chairman
  33. L Sridhar’s brother is L.Rajagopal.
  34. L.Rajagopal joined Congress in 2003.
  35. L Rajagopal is the son-in-law of P.Upendra.
  36. P.Upendra is a former Minister from Congress.
  37. Lanco Group’s Chairman is L. Rajagopal
  38. Andhra Prabha is a telugu newspaper started in 1938.
  39. Andhra Prabha is owned by The New Indian Express Group.
  40. Andhra Jyothi is a telugu newspaper.
  41. Andhra Jyothi’s Managing Director is Vemuri Radhakrishna.
  42. SUN TV Network is owned by Kalanidhi Maran.
  43. Kalanidhi Maran is the Chairman & Managing Director of SUN TV Network.
  44. SUN TV network owns: Sun TV, Gemini TV, Teja TV, Surya TV, Kiran TV, Udaya TV, Surjo TV among other channels.
  45. Kalanidhi Maran owns the tamil daily `Dinakaran’.
  46. Dinakaran was started by a former DMK Minister K.P.Kandasamy.
  47. Kalanidhi Maran’s brother is Dayanidhi Maran.
  48. Dayanidhi Maran was Minister of Communications and IT in the UPA government.
  49. Kalanidhi Maran’s father was Murasoli Maran.
  50. Murasoli Maran was a Union Minister from the DMK party.
  51. Murasoli Maran edited a tamil daily `Murasoli’.
  52. Murasoli Maran was an editor to `The Rising Sun’ a English weekly.
  53. Murasoli Maran as a publisher published the following tamil magazines: Kungumam, Muththaram, Vannathirai & Sumangali.
  54. Murasoli Maran’s uncle is M.Karunanidhi.
  55. M. Karunanidhi was Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, from the DMK party.
  56. M. Karunanidhi launched Kalaignar TV in 2007.
  57. M.K. Azhagiri owns Kalaignar TV.
  58. M.K. Azhagiri is M.Karunanidhi’s son.
  59. M.K. Stalin is another son of the M. Karunanidhi.
  60. M.K. Stalin was named after Joseph Stalin.
  61. Joseph Stalin was the authoritarian leader of the Soviet Union.
  62. M.K.Stalin is the Minister for Rural Development and Local Administration in Tamil Nadu.
  63. Kanimozhi is one of the daughters of M. Karunanidhi.
  64. Kanimozhi was a sub-editor for the `The Hindu’.
  65. Kanimohi was Editor in Charge of `Kungumam’ a tamil weekly.
  66. Kanimozhi became a Rajya Sabha member in 2007.
  67. Kanimozhi conducted programs in SUN TV and Vijay TV.
  68. Kanimozhi’s second husband G.Aravindan is Singapore based Tamil literary figure.
  69. Dilip D’Souza was member of PIPFD
  70. Dilip D’Souza’s father was Joseph Bain D’Souza.
  71. J.B.D’Souza was former Maharastra Chief Seccretary and activist.
  72. Teesta Setalva member of PIPFD
  73. Teesta Setalvad married to Javed Anand
  74. Teesta and Javed run Sabrang Communications.
  75. Javed Anand is General Secretary of Muslims for Secular Democracy { ?? }
  76. Javed Akhtar is spokesperson for Muslims for Secular Democracy
  77. Javed Akhtar married to Shabana Azmi
  78. Karan Thapar owns ITV
  79. ITV produces shows for BBC
  80. Karan Thapar’s father was General Pran Nath Thapar COAS during 1962 war, when India lost under his watch.
  81. Karan Thapar was very good friend of Benazir Bhutto and Asif Ali Zardari.
  82. Benazir Bhutto was Pakistan’s Prime Minister.
  83. Benazir Bhutto’s father was Zulfikar Ali Bhutto.
  84. Z.A. Bhutto served as Pakistan’s President.
  85. A.A. Zardari is the current Pakistani’s President.
  86. Karan Thapar’s Mama was married to Nayantara Sahgal.
  87. Nayantara Sahgal is daughter of Vijayalakshmi Pandit.
  88. Vijayalakshmi Pandit was sister of Jawharlal Nehru.
  89. Medha Patkar is a leading spokesperson for Narmada Bacho Andolan.
  90. NBA was helped by Patrick McCully of International Rivers (formerly Internal Rivers Network.)
  91. Angana Chatterjee was on the board of IRN
  92. Dipti Bhatnagar was an Intern/Volunteer at IRN.
  93. Dipti Bhatnagar is an activist at NBA.
  94. Dr. Angana Chatterjee is part of PROXSA 9Progressive South Asians)
  95. PROXSA is mother-ship of FOIL
  96. ASHA endorsed by FOIL
  97. Sandeep Pandey co-founder of Asha for education (ASHA)
  98. Dr. Angana Chatterjee is married to Richard Shapiro
  99. Richard Shapiro is Director and Associate Professor of the Graduate Anthropology Program at CIIS (California Institute of Integral Studies)
  100. Shubh Mathur co-wrote a letter with Angana on ‘Humanitarian Crisis in J&K’
  101. Biju Matthew is co-founder of FOIL (Forum of Indian Leftists)
  102. Vijay Perasaud is co-founder of FOIL.
  103. Vijay Prasa co-authored with Angana Chatterjee and wrote against IDRF 9India Development ad Relief Fund).
  104. ASHA has association with AID (Association for India’s Development)
  105. AID works with FOSA (Friends of South Asia)
  106. FOSA started by a Pakistani – Ali Hasan Cemendtaur.
  107. Amitava Kumar associated with FOIL
  108. FOIL & FOSA opposed California Text Book Edits.
  109. California Text Book Edits was opposed by Michael Witzel.
  110. M.Witzel is Wales Professor of Sanskrit at Harvard University.
  111. Rahul Bose is brother-in-law of Khalid Ansari.
  112. Khalid Ansari is the Chairman of Mid-Day Group of Publication based in Mumbai.
  113. Khalid Ansari is Chairman of M.C. Media Ltd.
  114. M.C. Media Ltd. has a join-venture with BBC for FM radio brodcasting.
  115. Khalid Ansari’s father was Abdul Hameed Ansari.
  116. A.H. Ansari was a freedom fighter and active Congressman.
  117. Dr.John Dayal worked as a journalist with the N.Delhi edition of Mid-Day.
  118. Narasimhan Ram is the Editor-in-Chief of ‘The Hindu’.
  119. N.Ram’s first wife was Susan.
  120. Susan, an Irish, was in charge of Oxford University Press publications in India.
  121. N.Ram and Susan’s daughter is Vidya Ram.
  122. Vidya Ram is a journalist.
  123. N.Ram is now married to Mariam.
  124. N.Ram, Jennifer Arul and K.M.Roy participated in closed door Catholic Bishops Conference of India in Thrissur, Kerala.
  125. Jennifer Arul is the Resident Editor and Bureau Chief in South India for NDTV.
  126. Jennifer Arul is Chief Operating Office for Astro Awani – Indonesian news and information channel.
  127. K.M. Roy was a reporter in `The Hindu’
  128. K.M. Roy is the General Editor of the group of the `Mangalam’ Publications.
  129. Mangalam Group of Publications was started by M.C. Varghese
  130. K.M. Roy received the `All India Catholic Union Lifetime Award’
  131. All India Catholic Union’s National Vice President is Dr.John Dayal.
  132. Dr.John Dayal is also Secretary General of All India Christian Council (AICC)
  133. AICC’s President is Dr. Joseph D’souza
  134. Dr. Joseph D’souza founded Dalit Freedom Network (USA)
  135. Dr.Joseph D’Souza participated in the inaugural Religious Freedom Day
  136. The Religious Freedom Day was attended by former Republican Sentor Rick Santorum
  137. AICC claims Confederation of SC/ST Organizations (India) as a sister organization.
  138. AICC claims Christian Solidarity Worldwide (UK) as a sister organization.
  139. AICC claims Release International (UK) as a sister organization.
  140. Release International states it supplies bibles and literature to meet the need of growth and evangelism.
  141. Dalit Freedom Network partners with Operation Mobilization India.
  142. OM India’s South India Regional Director is Kumar Swamy
  143. Kumar Swamy is the State President of Communal Harmony Committee.
  144. Kumar Swamy serves with Karnataka State Human Rights Commission.
  145. OM India’s North India Regional Director is Moses Parmar.
  146. Moses Parmar serves as North India Public Relations officer of the All India Christian Council (AICC)
  147. OM seeks to plant and strengthen churches in areas of the world where Christ is least known.
  148. OM ministries work with Dalit-Bahujan people in India.
  149. Operation Mercy Charitable Company (OMCC) grew out of OM India
  150. OMCC works with Dalit Freedom Network (DFN).
  151. DFN has Dr. Kancha Illaiah on its Advisory Board.
  152. Dr. Kancha Illaiah is a Professor in Osmania University, Hyderbad.
  153. DFN has William Armstrong on its Advisory Board.
  154. William Armstrong is a former US Senator from Colarado (Republican).
  155. William Armstrong is currently the President of Colorado Christian University.
  156. Colorado Christian University’s one of the strategic objective is to share the love of Christ around the World.
  157. Suhasini Haidar is daughter of Subramanian Swamy
  158. Suhasini Haidar is daughter-in-law of Salman Haidar
  159. Nadira Alvi married V S Naipaul
  160. Nadira Alvi, a journalist, is sister of recently assassinated Maj Gen Amir Faisal Alvi, the ex-chief of Pakistan’s elite SSG
  161. “Resalat” is a Tehran-based Persian daily.
  162. “Ettela’at” is another Tehran-based Persian daily.
  163. “Resallat” and “Ettela’at”signed MoU with “Siyasat” and “Munif”
  164. Siyasat and Munif are Hyderbad, Andhra Pradesh based dailies.
  165. Toseeh is another Persian daily.
  166. Toseeh has tied up with Vaarta.
  167. Vaarta is one of the dailies from A.G.A.Publications Pvt Ltd.
  168. A.G.A Publications Pvt Ltd is one of the companies in Sanghi Group
  169. Sanghi Group was co-promoted by Gireesh Sanghi with his brothers.
  170. Gireesh Sanghi is Congress M.P, Rajaya Sabha
  171. Gireesh Sanghi is All India Vaish Federation National President.
  172. Mahendra Mohan Gupta is on the Advisory Board of AIVF
  173. Mahendra Mohan Gupta is Chairman of Dainik Jagran Group
  174. Ramoji Group is headed by Ramoji Rao
  175. Ramoji Rao is Founder & Chairman of Eenadu
  176. Eenadu is the largest Telugu news daily in Andhra Pradesh.
  177. Ramoji Group also owns ETV Network.
  178. ETV Network produces content in Telugu, Bangla, Marathi, Kannada, Oriya, Gujarati, Urdu & Hindi.
  179. Ramoji is reported to be close to Chandra Babu Naidu and supported of Telugu Desam Party.
  180. Ushodaya Enterprises Pvt. Ltd’s parent company is Ramoji Group.
  181. Blackstone Group is reported to have invested Rs600 crore in UEL.
  182. Deccan Chronicle Holdings Ltd brings out The Deccan Chronicle newspaper.
  183. DCHL also brings out “Andhra Bhoomi” a telugu newspaper.
  184. DCHL also brings out “Asian Age”.
  185. DCHL became a publishing parter of `The New York Times’.
  186. DCHL began publishing `The International Herald Tribune’
  187. T. Venkatram Reddy is the Chairman of DCHL.
  188. T. Venkatram Reddy is former MP, Rajhya Sabha from Congress.
  189. M.J. Akbar was Editor-in-Chief of Deccan Chronicle and Asian Age.
  190. M.J. Akbar is Founder and Chairman of the fortnightly the Covert.
  191. M.J. Akbar worked at `Times of India’, `Sunday’ & `The Telegraph’
  192. M.J. Akbar was a Congress MLA from 1989 to 1991.
  193. M.J. Akbar joined The Brookings Institution, Washington in 2006, as a Visiting Fellow on U.S. Policy Towards the Islamic World.
  194. M.J. Akbar was a member of the `Forum of Islamic Scholars and Intellectual’ held in Makkha al-Mukaramma in 2005.
  195. M.J. Akbar’s wife is Mallika Joseph.
  196. Mallika Joseph worked at Times of India.

Above References are Posted by REAL FACTS  


Hildaraja's Blog

about my reactions and responses to men and affairs

બોઝિલ

EXISTANCE ON THE EARTH IS STILL BOZIL ..

Just Me With . . .

a blog without a niche

રઝળપાટ

- મારી કલમ ના પગલા

World Hindu Economic Forum

Making Society Prosperous

Suchetausa's Blog

Just another WordPress.com weblog

Guruprasad's Portal

Inspirational, Insightful, Informative..

Aksharnaad.com

અંતરની અનુભૂતિનો અક્ષર ધ્વનિ..

Ramani's blog

Health Mantras Hinduism Research Global Hinduism History Science Vedic Tamil Texts

Jayshree Merchant

Gujarati Writer & Poet

થીગડું

તૂટી-ફૂટી ગયેલા વિચારો પર કલમ થી માર્યું એક થીગડું.....

Swami Vivekananda

Let noble thoughts come to us from all sides, news too..

ACTA INDICA

The Saint Thomas In India History Hoax

2ndlook

Take a 2ndlook | Different Picture, Different Story

उत्तरापथ

तक्षशिला से मगध तक यात्रा एक संकल्प की . . .

Vicharak1's Weblog

My thoughts and useful articles from media

%d bloggers like this: