From the Diary of a Jihadi Indian Journo (Satire)

I am doing all I can for this misguided lot because theirs is the only faith that’s worthy of being saved. When they kill people from other faiths, it’s not really killing people because those from these other faiths don’t actually count as human beings. So, here I have been working long, more importantly since 2002 to help this lot flourish, defend them when they get trashed (for doing what I think is right) but sometimes one can’t be blatant and say that they’re right in what they do, so I say that the folks who engage in terrorism are not true adherents of their faith. It’s the best defence under the circumstances. Then there are other methods like calling a terrorist a social media warrior or a commander of a dashing militant outfit. Do note, we emphasize that this outfit works for freedom and independence. Best to not mention that this and similar outfits and its adherents engaged in ethnic cleansing of that group of infidels by subjecting them to the most horrific of abuses, I won’t say human rights abuses because the group of infidels don’t count as human beings in my eyes and in our Book either. I am smart enough to never ever mention that ethnic cleansing part. When it had just happened, I did a story on how those infidels had it coming for being well off compared to this lot of believers and tried to prove that economics was the important factor to distract folks from focusing on the Book and its teachings. That’s Rule 1, never ever concede that a wrong happened by our side. To concede ethnic cleansing of a vile sort happened would be like conceding territory to the bunch of infidel enemy.

Remember in Feb 2002 when a bunch of some 59 from the infidel lot were burnt in a train by our believer lot, we first said it was an accident and then said they (infidels) had it coming for they were “karsevaks”. We didn’t reveal that those in that train compartment included women and little children and infants. So what if they were burnt to death in what (we said) was an unfortunate accident? Of course, courts later indicted a lot of the believers lot and said it was a conspiracy. Whatever! I never ever retracted my false stories or apologized for being an incompetent journalist when what I reported was proved to be wrong or false. Nor did I or my channel retract our falsehoods when we called one of our own, that LeT terrorist innocent and the FBI and so many other entities had clinching evidence of her being an LeT operative. After her LeT links were found to be conclusive, we harped on the fair-trial angle. Even if someone is a terrorist, they cannot be killed in a fake encounter was the line we stuck with. When other news channels recently released footage to prove that it wasn’t a fake encounter at all and those who were killed died in a genuine encounter and were armed, then we just reported other stories and didn’t bother with this one. That’s how it’s done.

So, as I was saying, it’s a lot of work. Spin news left and right. If an infidel dies not to make a mention of it at all but when the believer lot engages in terror, even if 1 victim belongs to the believing faith, we must harp on how the major victims of such terror are folks of the same faith. Another important back breaking job is to go and hunt for victims from this group and humanize them. Do note, even if they are perpetrators of terror, they are in a sense victims because of all those other evil forces out there (non believers, those who fight terror including the Armed forces, those who don’t understand how misguided they are, etc). Next is humanizing the perpetrators and presenting them as victims. If there are some actual victims from this faith, a human angle story is that much easy to create and we do those stories as often as we can.

So there was a story of a man killed in a tussle over a stolen calf. I saw to it that him stealing a neighbour’s calf, killing it and eating it was left out of the narrative and presented it as a story of the evil others (infidels of course) who killed a man for his choice of diet (beef). I created a non-stop 4 or 5 weeks of outrage and furore to depict this whole infidel group as a fascist lot which wants to monitor what others eat and don’t eat. I thought my work was done, but just as I turn my attention to the story of humanizing a killed terrorist by presenting him as a son of school head master and as one who is merely a social media warrior, guess what the courts do? They find out the actual truth about the family of the man that was murdered for stealing the calf. And they go around filing an FIR against his family. The cheek!

So really, this is a thankless job. And just when I was busy doing a human angle story about stone-pelters who got hit in the eye due to guns with pellets used by the evil Armed forces who just can’t let terrorists and their stone throwing supporters be, guess what my lot of believers in another land do? They kill some 80 odd infidels using a truck. Of course, our lot (of media Enablers) knows what to do in such instances. We took no names. After all evil infidel saffron wasn’t involved so many of the outlets like mine just said a truck went out of control and many people got killed. But there are some outlets which have the cheek to broadcast facts so it got out as being another attack by our believer lot. Now it’s going to be some task to find believer victims among the 80 odd who died. Then we can make it about how our own lot suffers the most from misguided believers who misinterpret our great Book. Yes, don’t quote specific verses from The Book to me—like the ones which say infidels must be killed. We aren’t yet at a place where we can bluntly say that that’s the right thing to do–so we have to beat about the bush and talk about how folks are not true adherents and misinterpret the Book blah blah (blah blah BTW is one of my favourite terms when I give it back to evil infidels who corner me with facts).

But as I said, it’s a lot of hard work, working for my believer lot, using this argument some time, and the other one another time. There are *duffers* who notice and call out my saying this for one instance and another thing another time or not speaking against murder of infidels. That’s the nature of the job–we have to use what works for a given situation, we just can’t afford to be consistent or logical. And for now, no point in providing clarity on what our lot actually wants and believes in because we haven’t reached our ideal of setting up a society which adheres to all the laws in the Book.. but there’ll be a time when the world becomes Sh–ia compliant and I’ll have less work to do..

P.S. Please don’t think money is involved in the services I provide to our believers lot.. I do believe in the cause too.


Thanks to Social Media…

The UPA and Congress party misdeeds are no longer well kept secrets and the sinister Omerta on Sonia is now a thing of the past. Sonia is openly named as the possible kingpin of many of the humungous UPA scams and is an accused in the National Herald case. The carefully built edifice that the mainstream media (MSM) had created has come crashing down. Owing to this and other issues related to the Congress party, the voters are unequivocally rejecting the Congress as evident in the state elections (even in Puducherry, Cong did lose vote share).

Panic seems to have set in, even more in the MSM studios than in Congress stables. If the Congress party is annihilated, who will fulfil the greed of these MSM worthies? MSM celebrities have had nearly two decades of playing kingmakers when they controlled the nation through lies, withholding truth, fabricating stories, and maligning Hindus. Agusta Westland revelations show that there was also a constant flow of freebies and hefty commissions for such Patrakars. Wonder what pains them more today, losing the opportunity to make ill-gotten wealth or the loss of control over the nation’s narrative? In any case, the biradari is in great pain. They’ve started whining about “abuse” on social media.

In what they must consider the golden era, Indian media fiberals dwelt in their own world undisturbed when they were almost the sole gatekeepers of public opinion. They could be selective about what news to highlight and what news to suppress. They could project one side as the villain and the other side as the wronged. They could spin the news to suit the narratives they wished to promote.  MSM rampantly used this free licence to twist, spin, and falsify.

Looking back, it is evident how during the earlier years of cable news, MSM, as a gatekeeper of public opinion, played a major role in the Congress party’s return to power as the UPA coalition in 2004, thanks to its non-stop coverage of fabricated propaganda on the 2002 post-Godhra riots. During the 2004 to 2009 term of the UPA, the economic reforms of the Vajpayee years were paying a dividend. Additionally, the MSM was engaged in insulating the government by suppressing and playing down its scams and other negative happenings which enabled UPA to return to power in 2009.

After the 2009 victory, the MSM had not only abandoned its watchdog function altogether but now virtually operated as media managers and propagandists of the government. They became more active in carrying out systematic hit jobs on enemies of the Sonia regime (Sreenivasan Jain’s kali dadhi safed dadhi and Chhota mota blast story, for example). Not surprisingly, the political office bearers of UPA2 epitomized hubris and arrogance that power minus accountability accords.

Insulating the government is a two-way street. Merely projecting the government in a positive light from within studios may embolden the government to carry on with its insensitive ways but it hardly tackles the issue of discontented citizens. A co-opted fourth estate also prevents negative feedback from reaching the government for possible path correction. The government’s MSM team failed to realize that absence of feedback would ultimately affect the Congress party’s electoral fortunes. Perhaps, both within the party and the MSM, the belief was strong that polarizing people on the basis of religion and creating fear about BJP amongst minorities would suffice to keep BJP out. Making BJP a political pariah by branding it as communal would ensure that “secular” parties would never ally with it.  Thus, news management on these lines was considered as a sure-shot way of maintaining the political status quo in favour of the Congress party.

News management meant:

They were silent on the humungous scams which were taking place at the time: CWG, 2G, CoalGate, Agusta Westland, National Herald, Thorium, Maharashtra’s Irrigation scam, and numerous others.

They spent a lot of air time on fake stories to malign rivals of the Sonia regime.  Numerous media trials were held on Modi’s “complicity” in 2002, the Ishrat Jehan “fake encounter” case and non-existent “saffron terror.”

The MSM peddled false narratives which targeted Hindutva outfits including the RSS and tried to project these as evil and diabolical while going easy on Islamist Imams and terrorist groups. Then came the narrative “terror has no religion”. Next was the fabricated narrative of saffron terror. All possible attempts were made to sell the narrative of bad Hindus, benign Muslims, even when Islamist terrorist acts continued unabated. There were various ways in which MSM tried to absolve the real Islamist perpetrators of their crimes by coming up with “root cause” theories.

While much of this narrative peddling didn’t succeed, MSM were mostly successful in hiding the sinister activities of the UPA regime. It was social media that exposed various MSM lies systematically and through factual research.

Even without inputs from social media about MSM complicity, citizens had started to suspect that all was not on board through the manner in which the MSM dealt with happenings. For example, one can recall the shameful way the MSM covered the crackdown on the Ramlila Maidan protest in June 2011. If one remembers rightly, the protest happened after the Congress party’s unethical and strong-arm tactics to prevent the democratic functioning of the Joint Parliamentary Committees which had been constituted to examine whether there was a prima facie case to investigate the CWG and 2G scams. A group of citizens mobilized by Baba Ramdev gathered at Ramlila Maida in June 2011 to peacefully protest against UPA’s unwillingness to let the scams be investigated by neutral bodies. Citizens were protesting to demand proper enquiries and to bring back looted black money.

The brutal midnight crackdown on June 4, 2011 ordered by the Congress leadership on these citizens is one of the blackest chapters in the recent history of India’s democracy and one that has not been discussed or debated by the erstwhile MSM. The Delhi police, under orders from the UPA leadership, used tear gas and brutally lathi charged unarmed citizens while they were sleeping. The excessive use of force led to several people being injured seriously. One such citizen, the 53 year old Rajbala suffered a paralytic attack. She later died in hospital in the same week. The brutal crackdown was reminiscent of the Emergency under Indira Gandhi’s Congress, but the MSM response to this brutality was an eye opener for citizens who may have had no inkling about the MSM’s complicity in UPA’s crimes. Not only was the MSM response less than lukewarm, but worse, rather than condemn this crackdown in the harshest of words, one witnessed the likes of Rajdeep Sardesai ridiculing Ramdev for fleeing in a woman’s dress (salwar kameez). To ordinary citizens, MSM coverage of this event was clear evidence of MSM complicity.

Over the years, social media has revealed that the MSM was not merely Congress compliant, but was propagandist and co-conspirator in the numerous crimes and cover ups of the political dispensation. What changed between UPA’s victory for the second term and 2014 was the advent of social media. Specifically, through social media, citizens were able to share information, vent their anger, and participate in public discourse. This single event was the game changer that led to Modi Sarkar’s spectacular win in 2014.

After the victory of the BJP in May 2014 and social media’s increased activity in uncovering and revealing the black deeds of the previous regime, many officials, who had been  intimidated into carrying out unethical and even illegal acts by the UPA dispensation, became emboldened enough to speak out.  This is how the #IshratFile and the “saffron terror” conspiracies were uncovered. Citizens who had thus far been kept blissfully unaware of the machinations of the UPA in cooking up conspiracies to malign and weaken Hindus have only recently learned about UPA’s diabolical games. The fact that democratic institutions were denigrated through threats and intimidation of law-abiding officials of the NIA, IB, CBI, and other agencies is primarily an indictment of the MSM. Had the MSM played the role it’s meant to play in a democracy, such blatant denigration of institutions could not have occurred.

Even today, the skeletons continue to roll out. Apparently, there’s an endless supply of skeletons that were held in UPA’s cupboards. It is almost certain that some of these skeletons will eventually end up revealing the criminality of the sold out MSM tribe–which is why MSM co-conspirators are making a coordinated attempt to “regulate” social media.

Is it a co-incidence that a few days ago, Sunetra Chaudhary tried putting words in the mouth of the WCD minister about online trolling being considered an act of violence? The WCD minister was speaking in the context of marriage portals and intimidation and cheating that can happen on such portals but the story and its headline (later changed) was made out to be about online trolling. Next was Pranoy Roy and his pathetic whining about social media abuse. And now a Congress spokie writes about “abuse” of women on social media. Then come all the usual suspects posting tweets of outrage on online abuse in a choreographed fashion.

So, for all that pretence of being liberals who respect democratic principles of equality, these whiners from the MSM can’t seem to accept information symmetry and want to be the only claimants to the right to have their opinions heard. Their true elitist sentiments of entitlement are out in the open for the world to see, thanks again to social media.

Just as in the fabricated “intolerance” debate which was all noise and no substance, the “abuse” debate is presented without providing any clarity or definitions. After all, in a manufactured issue only plain victimhood can prevail over making sense.

What exactly do the fake liberals refer to when they speak about online “trolling” (like it’s the worst ever crime that could ever occur) and online “abuse”? Do they mean threats? If any person makes threats of bodily harm to another, whether in person, on phone, or through social media platforms, we already have laws to deal with this. Is a separate law needed to “regulate” social media with respect to threats? If this is not about threats but about maligning someone, then in fact, it is the MSM that has far greater capacity to malign reputations as what they broadcast is deemed to be authentic news (may not be the case anymore as they have lost credibility). In fact, it is the MSM that has a history of propagating falsehoods to malign as it did in 2002, the Ishrat Jehan “fake encounter” story, and in several other instances. Then there is abuse which fiberals keep whining about. While verbal abuse is bad, it is the person who engages in abuse who loses credibility and respect. Ideally, this should be true irrespective of the ideology of the abuser but we usually see silence on the abuse by the “left wing” side and playing up of the abuse if the person engaging claims to be a BJP supporter.  Why else would the same feminists who outrage over abuse by the “right wing” be silent on Kanhaiya Kuman’s abusive behaviour of urinating in public and “flashing”? Verbal abuse also happens in person in public places like streets, buses, and trains. Cops can hardly be permitted to regulate language in such instances so verbal abuse (where foul language is used) on social media may be bad but is hardly a crime. If media fiberals are alleging that rumours can be spread through social media, facts have proved that more rumours have been spread by MSM worthies (through social media or on air) than ordinary citizens spreading rumours. MSM stalwarts had been at the forefront in spreading rumours about RSS causing the exodus of people from the North Eastern states from Bangalore while Islamist threats and incidents of physical assault by Islamists was the actual cause. The doctored Kanhaiya video rumour (which lab reports now prove wasn’t doctored at all) was also spread by MSM worthies on social media. Ironical that those spreading rumours, aiding and abetting polarization and hostilities on social media, and fabricating stories want voices of ordinary citizens on social media to be curtailed and “regulated”.



Random Thoughts

We had a great civilization once and perhaps part of the reason why we are where we are today is because we have failed to acknowledge our past glory. The reason why we fail to do so is mostly because our history has been documented by our enemies or Indian historians with colonized and “secularized” mindsets. Indian historians or others who have documented our past for what it is are sidelined and it is only the distorted versions that portray us in a poor light that have been mainstreamed the world over, so that the greatness of our Vedic past has remained unacknowledged and only aspects that portray Hindus in poor light are highlighted. This has led to most of the world with what little it knows about us, to look at Hindus/ Indians in a poor light.

That is one part of our story. Then there is another, yet again for which the common citizen may not be responsible, and that is the India of today. It is the Congress government which was in power for most of the 68 years of independence and a large portion of the situation can be blamed on our elected representatives.

Still, we are also a country where all sections of society have had and continue to have infinite tolerance for and almost an acceptance of:

  • corruption,
  • mal-governance,
  • filth,
  • absence of basic amenities,
  • absence of dignity of human existence,
  • abysmal infrastructure

Long before I ever stepped abroad for the first time, I always wondered what pleasure Indians found in driving huge cars when even so-called cities are mostly overgrown villages with tiny lanes and bumpy roads full of potholes. I’d rather live in a city/country with quality infrastructure than drive around in a world class car on the kind of roads we had back then and still have.

Those who have lived abroad in the developed world for a considerable quantum of time will note how third world we remain even in terms of the roads we continue to have. Things haven’t changed in terms of the quality of roads and the parking space situation is a nightmare. The only change is the Indian middle class and upwards drive around in swanky and often huge cars, with few bothering to see that Indian cities are too third world for driving around in such cars and this activity doesn’t make these folks citizens of an affluent nation but only contributors to traffic jams and pollution. The concept of parking space as a pre-requisite to be able to drive a four wheeler is sadly lacking among the majority of car owners in India.

The Indian middle class many of whom in the last 2 or 3 decades have had some exposure to living abroad at least for a short while are still into concepts like “freedom to own and drive a four wheeler”, when a sensible approach would be pressurizing municipalities of each city to provide world class streets and world class public transport amenities. How many of us would be ready to sacrifice giving up driving a four wheeler within city limits and instead try and make our cities less third world? We want to compete with developed countries in the types of cars we drive but how about competing with them in the type of infrastructure we have, the cleanliness of our streets, the type of public transport we have, the pollution free and green zones our cities have?

It is the same with our tolerance of slums and people living in the utmost filth. How have we as Indians over the years happily “accepted” the presence of slums and undeveloped rural pockets where people live in horrendous and inhuman conditions that are completely lacking in human dignity?

Yes, we have many things to be proud of and our current Prime Minister has rightly tried to lift the Indian psyche out of the inferiority complex that our media and the Congress party had pushed us into over the years. But do we realize how we look to the outside world? With people having lived in unhygienic environs life long, many have no concept of public hygiene. A majority spit in public spaces without thought, and almost all Indians litter and throw garbage. Yes, the municipal workers may be partly to blame for the garbage littering the streets but a large part of it is because Indian citizens have happily tolerated littered streets instead of protesting. Indians protest and carry out hunger agitations for caste reservations but not for having their garbage lifted daily from the streets.

I think what our ancestors speak about also includes having respect for the environment but current day Indians think it’s okay to live in filth and minus basic infrastructure and the basic dignity of life for all but it’s the end of the world if we can’t burst crackers, have noisy celebrations that disturb senior citizens, overcrowd our rivers with Ganpati idols or cover our streets with the blood of goats to celebrate Eid.

Yes, we have the richest and most beautiful ancient culture in the world but today as Indians we are characterized by this:

  • corruption,
  • mal-governance,
  • filth,
  • absence of basic amenities,
  • absence of dignity of human existence,
  • abysmal infrastructure

and unless we fix this, don’t expect the world in general to respect us only because we’ve had a “glorious past”.

Dear Leslie Udwin

Dear Leslee Udwin,

The controversial documentary you made has its share of supporters and then there are those that believe that sensationalizing an unfortunate, horrendous incident for viewership is highly insensitive. Yet others who oppose your documentary go even further and think that there’s a larger agenda that is being served through your documentary, namely that of targeting Indian society and painting all Indian men as perverse.

Rape is indeed the most horrendous of crimes and yes sure it, like all other crimes, is based on the mindset of the individual carrying it out. We don’t need an Einstein or a documentary maker to tell us that people with a specific mindset would do something so horrendous and perverse, do we?

If you look at rape statistics across the world like here, you’d see that India doesn’t feature in the top 5 countries of the world for highest rape cases. Instead the countries listed are: Lesotho, Sweden, St Vincent and the Granadines, New Zealand, and Belgium. New Zealand and Belgium must definitely rank pretty much high on the gender sensitivity scale.

Yet another compilation of latest statistics states that:“The countries with highest rape cases are Lesotho (91.6 per 100000), Trinidad & Tobago (58.4 per 100000), Sweden (53.2 per 100000), Korea (33.7 per 100000), New Zealand (30.9 per 100000), United States of America (28.6 per 100000), Belgium (26.3 per 100000), Zimbabwe (25.6 per 100000) and United Kingdom (23.2 per 100000).” (Source: India does not feature on this list at all.

One older compilation like this one does mention India, but apparently the list is based on the assumption that: 1) there is under-reporting, and 2) a rape is reported every 22 minutes. Under-reporting is definitely a likelihood in the Indian context, but given that we are a democracy with free media, such under-reporting would be far lower than in autocratic regimes and in misogynist Islamist nations. Secondly, assuming a rape being reported every 22 minutes is a correct estimate, one must take account of India’s population figure of 1.25 billion before coming up with rankings. Thirdly, do notice that despite this, countries that rank higher than India in this report are Sweden, South Africa, and United States. These 3 countries must definitely rank pretty much high on the gender sensitivity scale. Doesn’t this prove that the “mindset” related to rape doesn’t stem from upbringing and values relating to gender?

The simple truth is that one has perverts and sick minded people in all kinds of societies, cultures, and religions. In our own “intellectual” and so-called liberal circles, we end up finding filthy minded folks like a Tarun Tejpal (an accused in a rape case) and an R.K. Pachauri (who has been named in a case of sexual harassment at work). One can be pretty sure that both these folks were raised in gender sensitive environments by educated parents.

Why does the United States feature high on the list? The answer is because rape is a crime of opportunity. In permissive societies, women are more likely to venture out alone, frequent bars, stay out late. Given the lower population density compared to countries like India, perverts are more likely to find women at secluded spots. These two factors together provide more “opportunities” for sick minded and perverted individuals. That’s why countries like the United States, Sweden, and Belgium feature so high on the list.

So, mindset and opportunity are the 2 key factors to understanding rape. For a comprehensive understanding of mindset, it would have been good if you had also interviewed rapists from developed nations who were raised in countries that rank high on the gender sensitivity index. Having failed to do that and focusing only on India, one can only conclude that perhaps there’s a larger agenda that is being served through your documentary, namely that of targeting Indian society.

There’s one more very important point that I’d like to make. One Rajya Sabha member who vocally supported your documentary is Mr Javed Akhtar. Mr Akhtar spoke eloquently about the perverted mindset of the interviewed rapist, wherein the rapist blamed the rape victim for “inviting it” by the kind of clothes she wore. One can only agree with Mr Javed Akhtar’s view on this. The irony is that the very foundation of Muslim women being made to don the hijab or burkha, is based on this very same mindset. Mr Javed Akhtar, a Muslim himself, has never spoken against the custom of burkha that is rampant amongst Indian Muslims. The reason is obvious. Critiquing Indian (read Hindu) society is safe but pointing out regressive practices within Islam is taboo in our country. The same double-standard reigns supreme when the Censor Board readily agrees to delete scenes from a film when Christians say their sentiments are hurt, but a movie which ridicules Hindu beliefs (PK) is released without any deletions under the name of free speech and creativity.

This brings us to repressed, misogynist, and autocratic societies such as Saudi Arabia. Can you imagine the extent of domestic and sexual violence and abuse that must exist behind closed doors in regimes like these? Wonder whether your research on rape will ever take you to study Islamist societies which are the epitome of gender insensitivity and women’s repression that you allege as true for India.

Having said this, I’d like to add, that you do have an opportunity to prove that you have no agenda of targeting pre-dominantly Hindu India. All you need to do is make your next documentary on violence against women in the context of Islamist regimes such as Saudi Arabia.

From Faux Secularism To Idolizing of a Terrorist (Ishrat Jehan) Misleading the Nation-II

IV. Absence of Investigative Reporting of Congress Scams

While questions are asked of the kind of reporting biased media do, questions also need to be asked about the kind of reporting they DO NOT DO.

1) A case in point is that of Pawan Bansal’s massive corruption that came to the fore through the CBI. It has been said that the purpose of letting the CBI onto Bansal was for ousting Manmohan loyalists from the cabinet (check this). The consequent sudden clean chit by CBI proves that the CBI was indeed used.

Prior to getting Bansal sacked, the CBI exposed 5 years of misuse of office by Bansal and his relatives and massive corruption and looting through several mechanisms. The question that the MSM needs to answer is how ministers can indulge in 5 years of massive corruption and none in the MSM learn of it until this is revealed by some investigation (even if motivated).

If the smart, savvy, and know-all MSM anchors had no clue about massive scams like CWG, 2G, Coal Gate, Railway Gate, Thorium Gate, Rotting Food Grains, NHRM, and several others happening during UPA 1 and UPA2, are they really fit to be journalists or run TV channels? Why should such inept and incompetent people even be allowed to run media houses? On the other hand, if they did know and did not reveal it to the people, then they deserve to be in prison along with the rest of the Congress scamsters.

The brazen MSM continues to “report” as if such massive scams occurring for years and years while they were winning Padmashris for journalism are “normal”. The swagger and overconfidence when painting the BJP and its stalwarts as communal, comes from the very same “journalists” who lacked efficiency and/or integrity to uncover these Congress mega-scams.

2) Not a single large Indian media house dared to touch the subject taken up by a foreign publication that published that Sonia Gandhi was the fourth richest person with $19 billion in overseas accounts. Neither did they report it and hold debates on it, NOR did they challenge it with your own investigations.

V. Dividing Society for Promoting Congress’ Faux Secularism

The larger scheme of things for the MSM has been to peddle the faux secularism practiced by the Congress party to create and cultivate vote banks of radical minorities. The media has been an active partner in promoting such faulty definitions of secularism by propagating victimhood of radical Muslims so as to divide society and brand the BJP as communal.

To promote a faulty definition of secularism by peddling victimhood is by itself worthy of scathing criticism, but when this is done through means like distortion of facts, promoting fabrications, and withholding of facts, entities that participate in such campaigns must be made to answer.

Defamation laws must certainly take account of deliberate and focused attempts to malign and such entities must be made to face the consequences of their deliberate lies.

The attempt to malign Narendra Modi for Gujarat 2002 (but such attempts seem to have largely backfired) by propagating victimhood of radical Muslims to divide society was done by the media as a part of the larger scheme of peddling the idea of false secularism of the Congress.

Picking only on the Gujarat 2002 riots despite the fact that the country has witnessed severe communal riots both prior to 2002 (including the infamous Nellie massacre where 3300 Muslims were massacred in Assam) and after it (including the recent Assam riots) is evidence of this. Additionally, the media has been largely silent on the Hashimpura massacre that occurred under the directives of a Congress minister in 1987.

It may also be noted that many of the Hindu-Muslim riots that occurred prior to 2002 were more severe in terms of duration they lasted, number displaced, loss of property, and numbers killed, and number of Muslims killed.

Many of the riots happened in Congress regimes and under the watch of Congress CMs but no debates have been held by the MSM to discuss the “complicity” of CMs under whose watch these riots occurred or to discuss competence of these CMs in effective management of law and order to control the riots.

This reveals the MSM’s intention to play propagandists for the divisive Congress party. Fortunately, this larger scheme has been seen through and is constantly challenged by social media activists so that, time and again media lies have been exposed.

Apart from Hindu-Muslim communal riots, the 1984 Sikh Genocide took place after Indira Gandhi’s death, was perpetrated by high ranking Congress politicians but for which the Congress party has, even after 29 years, managed to scuttle the justice process that would have provided closure to the victims and their families.

That the media works as peddlers of the faux secularism of the Congress and encourages divisiveness is even by itself, an extremely dangerous phenomenon.

Under the UPA regime of the last 9 years, there has been a systematic attempt to subvert institutions like the CVC, CAG, CEC, ED, and even the judiciary. The CBI, which never had autonomy has become a “Caged parrot” of the ruling UPA government and instances of its misuse may be hard to count and keep track of.

VI. Implications of Media Coverage Of The Ishrat Jehan Case

Even before the Ishrat Jehan case, the Congress has engaged in devious games of deception such as where “saffron terror” was sought to be implicated.

In the Ishrat Jehan case, the MSM narrative on fake encounters conspicuously omits the number of such alleged encounters in various states and under CMs of various parties. The NHRC figures state that between 2002 and 2007, there were 440 alleged fake encounters in the country, of which 231 were in UP, while in Gujarat there were 4 such encounters that include the Ishrat Jehan and Sohrabuddin cases. Despite Gujarat having a record of very few such alleged encounters, almost all media attention pertaining to fake encounters has been focused on Gujarat.

The narrative fails to point out the Ishrat Jehan alleged fake encounter was cherry picked from as many as 440 alleged fake encounters in the country even though the victim of the encounter-Ishrat Jehan has been named as a proven terrorist by the country’s Intelligence Bureau and even by the Ministry of Home Affairs under a Congress government. MSM media have failed to indicate that such cherry picking amounts to a deliberate witch hunt by the Congress, using its “caged bird”, the CBI for harassing and maligning their bête noire, Narendra Modi

The Ishrat Jehan case symbolizes the dangerous depths to which the media have fallen in their attempts to peddle faux secularism. NDTV’s (partial) report was one such example of biased reporting which was questioned by Kartikeya Tanna here and here and analyzed by Ravinar brilliantly.

The lame response to the questions raised by Tanna, was once again exposed as an attempt at obfuscation and evasion. Read more from Ravinar on Congress-media communal politics on the Ishrat Jehan case here.

What makes the media role as dividers even more dangerous is that their fabrications are now threatening India’s national security and compromising institutions such as the Intelligence Bureau.

The media propagates a faulty definition of secularism that is discriminatory rather than one that would treat all citizens as equal and one that would treat all as Indians rather than treat them as majority, minority, backward caste, upper caste, and so on. A definition of secularism that says that a certain group be treated as one entitled to privileges is divisive in itself.

Unbelievably, the narrative has taken on ominous proportions such that the Indian media are now actively promoting and legitimizing not just radical Islam, but also terrorism, rather than promoting moderate Islam and creating an ethos where moderates can assume leadership of the Muslims in the country. This would be truly useful in helping the community see real progress.  Episodes such as these are but a direct consequence of MSM narratives that condone terrorism in the name of faux secularism.

The problem with definitions and policies that favor one side as well as work for radicalizing that side are that more and more must be given to that side to keep it happy. Demands for quotas and Sharia courts are just some of the possible consequences of the dangerous games that the Congress is playing for vote banks, and which the MSM is aiding and abetting.  Note how such “secularism” has to be progressive constantly.

Progressive secularism is symbolized in how the new face (poster girl) of secularism is Ishrat Jehan’s mother while the former was Zakia Jaffri. From the family of riot casualty to that of a proven LeT operative, as the symbol of secularism, there has been massive “evolution” .

To dignify a proved terrorist as a martyr is not something one would have imagined was even possible and no other so-called “left” “liberal” media in the world has ever condoned terrorism on their own respective lands.

Although it is true that the social media actively challenge and disprove many of the biased mainstream media’s contentions, it is sad that Indians citizens are being consistently and deliberately misled. Indian citizens have to sift through tons of obfuscation before they can glean the truth about current affairs and learn the truth not BECAUSE of the media but INSPITE of it.

Why do Indian citizens not know who Haji Bilal is? Misleading the Nation-I

I. Biased Reporting and Gross Omissions:

Biased reporting by the MSM may have existed before, but biased reporting using fabricated content and factual distortions began perhaps with their coverage of the post-Godhra Gujarat 2002 riots.

Little said about the “trigger”, the Godhra carnage

MSM personalities like Shekhar Gupta, Rajdeep, Barkha, Sagarika, and Arnab must answer why the incident that triggered the Gujarat riots, namely the Godhra train burning carnage has barely been reported, analyzed, debated, or talked about in the MSM (More on Godhra here).

Complete obliteration of the Congress connection to the Godhra carnage

The above personalities must also be asked why the MSM has not conducted debates and discussions on the Congress-party’s hand in triggering the Gujarat riots when the main conspirator and perpetrator Haji Bilal of the Godhra carnage was a Congress party leader when the incident occurred.

If one tries to google the name of Haji Bilal it will be hard to find any mainstream newspaper or TV news channel reports Haji Bilal, the man that triggered it all!  The MSM’s refusal to acknowledge and speak of perpetrators of communal violence acts if they are Muslims and if they belong to the Congress party is thus obvious. Contrast this with the endless and infinite coverage of Muslim “victims” (real or imagined) including Zakia Jaffri and the latest Ishrat Jehan (notwithstanding that the latter had been named as a proven terrorist by the country’s Intelligence Burea and even by the Ministry of Home Affairs under a Congress government).

The failure of the MSM to speak about Haji Bilal and his Congress affiliations, to hold even one independent debate on the Godhra train burning carnage, or name a single Hindu victim from the 58 who were roasted alive in the Sabarmati Express speaks for itself. Compare and contrast with the endless coverage of the Gujarat 2002 post-Godhra riots where 789 Muslims and 250 Hindus died.

II.  MSM Lies

1) The MSM has lied time and again labeling the post-Godhra Gujarat 2002 2-way riots as a Genocide or Pogrom (not to forget it was triggered by a communal violence incident started by a Muslim Congress leader that resulted in the death of 58 Hindu men, women, and children).

Note the faulty labels flung around: A genocide is defined as the deliberate and systematic extermination of a racial, cultural, or political group. A pogrom is defined as an organized massacre.

Can 2-way riots that lasted for 3 days be characterized as either a genocide or a pogrom? How can riots that were triggered by a burning to death of Hindu pilgrims be considered as an organized massacre or a pogrom against Muslims? How can riots in which those rioters who were shot by the police (state machinery) had 60% of Hindus and 40% of Muslims?

Any media group that has used or promoted the two words Genocide and Pogrom in the context of the post-Godhra Gujarat 2002 riots, needs to apologize for using inappropriate words as well as state that the usage was wrong based on statistics and findings of courts and other committees.

If BJP has any self-respect, it must approach courts for objectionable use of these words, even sue for slander, the entities that have willfully been using such labels and fabrications repeatedly.

2) Aided and abetted by panelists like Teesta Setalvad and Sanjeev Bhatt who were later discredited and now face charges of perjury and other serious offences in courts of law, the MSM have promoted lies and fabrications to be repeated over and over again. The onus of checking the credentials of panelists must lie with the media houses that invite them. Moreover, if certain facts are being deliberately mis-stated by these panelists, the onus to point out factual errors must lie with media houses.

Wherever such factual errors have been let pass it is essential to hold that specific anchor/commentator responsible for willful misreporting or irresponsible reporting. Once again, the BJP must gather such instances through videos of debates on various channels collected from 11 years of coverage and seek legal recourse about this willful witch-hunt of Narendra Modi.

Deliberate biases of reporting rather than neutral reporting are an offence when those with such biases distort facts, engage in fabrications and half-truths, and use innuendo and insinuations to spread falsities as propaganda. All MSM entities must be made answerable for each such instance.

III. Protecting the Corrupt And the Incompetent

1) Reporting of these Congress-party supporting media shows how gross failures of the Congress government such as during Assam riots or during the Uttarakhand floods have been consistently played down. Tough questions are not asked to those responsible for mal-governance and the highest most authority of the Congress party is never made answerable or accountable for failures that have led to massive loss of life.

Using euphemisms and terms like “has the political class failed in Uttarakhand” instead of saying has the Congress party messed up in Uttarakhand are just instances of the subliminal mechanisms these corrupt media use to shield and insulate the Congress party from accountability and public wrath.

2) Similarly, even in cases of out-and-out criminality of the Congress through its mega corruption scams, the MSM’s attempts to dignify such condemnable acts, is shameful. Dear MSM, even ordinary non-discerning citizens intuitively understand that some things are beyond debate and most of the looting acts of UPA2 have never even been debate worthy, but deserved to be condemned outright. The MSM’s unwillingness and reluctance to outright condemn looting by the Congress has exposed their hypocrisy to the world. Using obfuscation, technicalities, and legalese where none is needed, the MSM have bent over backwards to protect the Congress from accountability on one hand and public rage on the other.

This kind of kid-glove approach towards Congress’s humungous loot becomes all the more conspicuous when they infinitely outrage over comparatively minor infarctions of those in the BJP.

No doubt, in the process of trying to keep the Congress party from having a sullied image, these MSM honchos have successfully blackened their own faces, but that’s another matter.


(To be Continued)

MSM Versus Social Media

MSM Versus Social Media

The MSM versus SM debate

The mainstream media (MSM) versus social media (SM) debate is currently one of the hottest topics of the time.

MSM including print media are predominantly a one-sided medium. Online newspapers were supposedly open for receiving comments but even here, dissenting voices can be stifled and those questioning facts or disagreeing logically often found that their comments never made it to the public domain.

  • SM are popular for expressing oneself on all issues including political ones since these media are perfectly democratic unlike MSM: all voices are heard equally.
  • Additionally, SM are interactive unlike MSM which is a one way street.

These are the obvious factors that can be cited for the growing popularity of SM over MSM.

As elsewhere in the world, in India too, SM has gained as a medium of political discourse, for dissemination of politically relevant information, and as a forum for exchange of ideas between people who share political interests.

The rapid rise of SM as an increasingly popular mechanism of discourse on political content is set in a context.

History of MSM

Historically, print media in India have represented a spectrum of ideologies, with different English language and vernacular publications representing different ideals and ideologies (and consequently representing parties that espouse these ideologies). Many mainstream publications were daringly anti-establishment even during trying times such as the Emergency. While some publications steadfastly espoused one ideology all the time, certain other publications were seen to change their positions and leanings as editors changed and may have had phases of pro-establishment and anti-establishment content.

Additionally, print media content in each publication can be varied and may cover a wide range of ideologies. When one speaks of pro- or anti-establishment content, one refers to the predominance of such content in that specific publication.

The story with television or audio-visual media has been diametrically different, more so, with the English Language Media (ELM). To begin with were the days of Doordarshan, openly a government mouthpiece. Since the Congress party has been the ruling party at the center for 55+ years out of 65 years of independence, one can use the term government controlled media and Congress controlled media interchangeably.

After independent channels were created in the mid to late 1990s, it was felt that television as a medium was now free from the shackles of control of the ruling party. This was why in the first few years, even politically savvy citizens tended to mistake independent cable channels as representing the voice of the watchdog.

MSM Bias

The biased tone and one-sided tenor of reporting by television channels went unnoticed initially and seeped into public consciousness only gradually, but eventually individual citizens began to increasingly notice that the discourse on these channels was biased. Perhaps individuals did not systematically categorize or analyze what was wrong in the reportage but it became increasingly clear that there was a bias in favor of the Congress and against Hindutva forces:

  • Bias against BJP’s definition of seculraism “equality for all appeasement of none”.
  • Depicting Hindutva as bad.
  • Representing Hindu groups as the sole villains without providing a logical basis for such representation.
  • Vilifying Hindu groups and yet not condemning blatantly communal verbiage and actions from Imams and Mullahs.
  • Vilifying BJP as communal while labeling Muslim appeasing parties as secular despite such parties blatantly seeking discriminatory policies

Thinking citizens who regarded themselves as secular began to notice this blatant double standard.

Mechanisms for demonizing and vilifying individuals from the Hindutva side or the party as a whole, included:

  • Framing stories based on distorted definitions.
  • Excessively covering stories that project BJP and its members in a bad light and not covering or barely covering stories that expose Congress mal-governance or misdemeanors.
  • Holding debates and discussions on issues and topics that help demonize individuals from BJP or the party as a whole.
  • Not covering certain topics (such as the Kashmiri Pandit ethnic cleansing of the 1990s and the increasing radicalization in local mosques and Madarsahs) for debates.
  • Inviting panelists who lie about facts and figures and not correcting the falsehoods.
  • Inviting panelists who provide distorted or one sided definitions (for example, of secularism) and not providing the counter view.
  • Inviting panelists who provide distorted or one sided definitions (for example, of secularism) and holding this definition as the correct one and basing all arguments on this.
  • Often the representation of different views is skewed, more so since the anchor is an active participant for one side instead of being the moderator of the discussion.

Innumerable such instances of biased reporting and biased debates have been systematically analyzed at

Just as in TV reporting, biases in the print media may be gauged by the number of articles that oppose one point of view and promote another, types of stories covered, placement of such stories, etc. A recent measure for example could be by determining how many polemics were written to “debunk” the Gujarat growth story or to condemn Modi and the 2002 Gujarat riots.

Loss of Credibility of MSM

People continued to buy untruths peddled by the MSM for quite some time, perhaps due to the lack of a mechanism to know otherwise. SM has provided this very mechanism through providing a forum where people learn that there are many others who think what they think. Additionally, SM is a source of information and exchange of information helps disseminate it multiple fold.

Loss of credibility of MSM happened when citizens began to notice that the spin was neither random nor co-incidental. The spin was consistently such that the Congress party gained while BJP was at the receiving end.

MSM has been accused of being anti-Hindu but some critics of MSM claim that even that would be worthy of at least some respect if it was merely based on ideology. Critics claim that, on the contrary, what the MSM does is in fact pure business, as it is funded by entities (foreign or domestic) that support Islamism and/or cultivate Muslim vote banks.

MSM Anchors in the arena of Social Media

Until the advent of SM, MSM anchors were complacent in their knowledge that they were gatekeepers of information and perhaps major influencers of opinion as well. These anchors entered the SM arena in the belief that they could similarly dominate this medium and manipulate it as a means of influencing people.

Safe in their studio one-way ‘journalism’ where unpleasant feedback and dissent were kept out, MSM anchors had begun to mistake ‘journalism’ minus fact checks for freedom of speech. They had of course forgotten that like themselves, other citizens also have the right to freedom of speech and expression.

Entering the arena of SM, MSM anchors were in for a jolt. Words that they had forgotten: “accountability” “feedback” “questions” “fact check” “criticism” came back to haunt them. Such has been their suzerainty in TV studios that on SM, any person that expected accountability, provided feedback, asked questions, expected a fact check /correction, or critiqued/criticized began to be blocked on Twitter and such behavior was conveniently defined as abuse. That sections of people on SM spread across different political ideologies actually engage in abusive language is certainly true, but citizens seeking clarifications or pointing out factual errors politely cannot be painted with the same brush as such abusers and trouble makers.

MSM junks its watchdog role

A heavily critiqued administration in many democratic countries would address criticism by discussing governance failures. Policies would be brainstormed and an action plan put into place to address the lacunae.  The UPA dispensation is however not worried about its infinitely poor governance record or even for that matter about its looting coming to light. Such issues are brazened out and shrugged off. As long as the government can continue to remain in power through means fair and foul, they are not much concerned. As long as individuals who participate in scams can stay safe from the arms of the law, all’s well.

The role of MSM in aiding and abetting this approach to governance is considerable, but with the focus on MSM’s BJP bashing and creation of faulty narratives of secularism, MSM complicity in UPA’s undermining of institutions remains largely ignored. We have such low expectations of the MSM that we rarely ask them what they were doing while mega-billion scams were being perpetrated under UPA rule. We almost take it for granted that investigative journalism as a preventive check to corruption and looting is not a part of the MSM function.

Just as we castigate MSM for fabricating stories (especially those of the anti-Modi anti-saffron variety), we also need to condemn them for abandoning their investigative role and letting UPA perpetrate scam after scam. Using ploys such as labeling the PM or the Defense Minister as “honest” despite massive scams happening under their noses, or focusing on “perception” and perception management, rather than on effective action and factual truths, like here, the MSM deftly abandoned their watchdog function. In doing so, they rang the final death knell of their credibility which had already been lost with their anti-Hindu anti-BJP biases during reporting.

This loss of credibility now extends to almost any luminary who espouses the carefully crafted MSM narrative. Not to mention that on close inspection, many such luminaries presented as ‘objective critics’ have a finger in a government doled out position or pie…almost always.

With MSM’s near abandonment of its watchdog role, the undermining of institutions has been an ongoing process by UPA and over time, scuttling investigations to safeguard kingpins and chief beneficiaries of mega scams of unbelievable proportions has become routine. Name the institution and it appears to be compromised or to be controlled by compromised elements in cahoots with the government.  Institutions such as the CAG that stand up to the government are accused of being allies of the opposition and are undermined through an adamant refusal to act on their suggestion.

The Congress party and SM

This strategy has suited the Congress party thus far, but with the inevitability of elections either later this year or in early 2014, among Congress rank and file and Congress-supporting MSM entities there’s trepidation regarding the growing influence of SM to vent and inform against Congress corruption and mal-governance.

To counter the growing support for BJP, and to contest citizens that voluntarily support BJP, the Congress party began an exercise of looking for paid volunteers as seen here and here. For enlisting support for this endeavor, registration was sought (see this).

After all, desperation is the mother of changing the status quo.

The I&B Minister Manish Tewari said: “the ministry hopes that engaging people in dissemination of government policies and programs at various social networking sites and other spaces on the internet could give much better results.”

More on this here.

Parallels are bound to be drawn in this approach of paid SM volunteers for propaganda with the routine allegations of paid MSM.

It was the thousands of falsehoods propagated a thousand times that prompted a spontaneous citizen’s movement on SM. Surprisingly, even this fact that BJP support is largely spontaneous and constituted by individual elements not officially affiliated with the party is now being distorted.

An important principle of selling is that one must believe in the product one is selling/promoting, which is why social media has been effective for BJP/Modi. Therefore, it remains doubtful how much benefit the Congress party can reap from this strategy.

MSM outreach to SM

This brings us to the recent outreach effort by NDTV’s Vikram Chandra which resulted in this episode of the Big Fight.

Was this outreach effort in the nature of a “Know thy enemy” (Know the Congress’ enemy) exercise? Only, the “enemy” here is the common citizen.

Those representing the BJP point of view on the debate were so effective in exposing Congress falsehoods that they could even be role models to some of the ineffective BJP spokespersons on TV debates. Makes one wonder: Is the BJP top leadership using social media to influence citizens or is the converse true?

To conclude, it appears that SM activism is here to stay. How much it affects electoral outcomes in the near future remains to be seen, but we are at the threshold of history in the sense that a major entrenched establishment, the MSM has been shaken from the status quo.

The True History of Muslim Secessionism in India

The True History of Muslim Secessionism in India

The 1857 mutiny is regarded as the first war of independence against British rule. What Prof. Sheshrao More postulates is otherwise. In a series of books written using painstaking research, Prof. More has attempted to present the real history of India. The author of numerous books in Marathi, some of which have been translated, Prof. More’s research finds that the 1857 ‘war of independence’ can more correctly be termed as a jihad.

Prof. More’s books include ‘Savarkarancha Buddhivaad: Ek Chikitsak Abhyas’Savarkaranche Rajkaran: Satya Ani Viparyas’, ‘Kashmir: Ek Shapit Nandanvan’ ‘1857 chi Jihad’, and ‘1947 Sali Congress ani Gandhijine Akhand Bharat Ka Nakarla’.

In 1857, since Muslims could not fight the war on their own, they sought the help of Hindus, which was politically exigent at the time. In fact, Dr. More postulates that each conflict in the history of the world reveals that alliances tend to be based on convenience and exigency rather than due to a shared philosophy or ideology.

In the book ‘1947 Sali Congress ani Gandhijine Akhand Bharat Ka Nakarla’ he researches the question of why Muslims were not made to leave India during partition when the partition was done on the basis of religion and why Muslims in India were given voting rights.

Partition involved the migration of  74,80,000 people from Pakistan to India (49,05,000 people from West Pakistan and 25,75,000 from East Pakistan). In both India and Pakistan, a total of 1,56,30,000 people had to be rehabilitated post partition.

The year 1820 saw the end of the Peshwai, 1857 witnessed the revolt or rather the jihad, 1885 was the year the Congress party was formed, 1916 was the year of the Lucknow agreement, 1920 was witness to the Khilafat movement, while 1935 was the game changing year when Jinnah re-entered the political arena.

At the time of British rule when India had around 24 Cr Hindus and just 6 Cr Muslims residing in the sub Continent, Hindus were more than willing to give proportional representation to Muslims, but Muslims were not content with this.

Dr More postulates that Hindu-Muslim equations and independence of India from British rule were intertwined issues. Narratives about Hindu-Muslim relations have often overlooked realities and attempted to present a rosy picture. It’s apparent that political correctness that forms the basis of India’s so-called secularism today has a history that dates back to partition and even earlier. All and any narratives that pushed the reality of the contentious Hindu-Muslim equations under the carpet were therefore propounded.

These narratives include the following five theories alternatively used at various times and by various thinkers:

1)    India was never meant to be one complete country as there was no universal culture, but rather is composed of a multitude of cultures and languages. Add the Aryan Invasion theory to this mix and the British had a brilliant formula whereby they propounded that the Congress party would become representative only when all religious groups joined it.

2)    Another theory postulated that there were never any problems between Hindus and Muslims. The two communities were said to have lived in harmony for centuries. Akbar was the epitome of secularism. (Dr. P.N. Oak’s book ‘Who Says Akbar Was Great’ contradicts this thesis.)

3)    A third hypothesis that has its roots in Communist thought claimed that religion was opium and hence did not matter. This later gave rise to Socialist thought. It was claimed that unless India freed herself from the shackles of religion, there would be no progress.

4)    Yet another explanation was that the basis of Hindu-Muslim strife is merely the effect of economics. Thinkers like Chittaranjan Das and even Subhash Chandra Bose propounded this theory.

5)    Nehru’s greed for power drove the ‘secular’ Jinnah towards the Muslim League.

Dr More’s research finds that none of the above theories correctly explains the actual state of affairs. After the mutiny of 1857, the British realized that the main threat to their rule in the sub Continent came from Muslims. The book ‘The Loyal Muhammadans of India’ with the alternate title ‘The Causes of the Indian Revolt’ has been written by Sayyid Ahmed Khan. The book aims to analyze the causes of the 1857 mutiny.

It is evident that Sayyid Ahmed Khan helped influence British policy in order to make it more pro-Muslim. Thus Urdu was promoted and the Aligarh Muslim University was established. Ironically, since Sayyid Ahmed Khan did not oppose English as a medium of instruction, the Ulemas of the time condemn him. Over time, due to his support of English, Sayyid Ahmed Khan began to be described as modern and the epithet ‘secular’ was added later to describe him. Sayyid Ahmed Khan however had stated “The Koran stands for the truth and there is no other true religion other than Islam.” Sayyid Ahmed Khan also opposed women’s education and supported polygamy as well as the practice of ‘burqa’.

After 1857, the Muslim community that had faced a leadership crisis found Sayyid Ahmed Khan suitable as a leader for filling the leadership vacuum. In a span of 40 pages, Prof. More presents information about Sayyid Ahmed Khan, for, according to Dr. More, this was the period when the seeds of Muslim secessionism were first sown.

Muslim secessionism continued to be a core belief and struggle of Muslim leaders. After Sayyid Ahmed Khan, Sayyad Amir Ali, who was highly educated and a judge, was another prominent leader known to share Sayyid Ahmed Khan’s views that the British were friends of Muslims while the Hindus were enemies. It was felt that the British were fellow ‘Kitabis’ and closer to Muslims than Hindus (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all believe in ‘the book’ or ‘Kitab’) as all other sins may be condoned but not the sin of multi-theism as Hinduism was/is perceived to be. The belief was that non-‘kitabi’ faiths had the option of either converting to ‘kitabi’ faiths or getting themselves killed.

Prof. More also states that the European Christian psyche was at least equally evangelical if not more, and the Spanish General Pizarro (also read this) who went to South America engaged in so much bloodshed and brutality that even Taimurlane or Khilji would be considered benign in comparison.

While many of the beliefs of Sayyid Ahmed Khan and Sayyad Amir Ali were identical, the latter believed that a separate Constitution for Muslims was essential. In 1877, Sayyad Amir Ali founded the Central National Mohameddan Association in Kolkota. In a year the Association had 53 branches. Sayyad Amir Ali was the Chairman of this Association for 25 years. Due to his belief that Muslim issues were different from those of Hindus, Sayyad Amir Ali did not participate in the activities of the Indian Association in Kolkota founded by Surendranath Banerji. Sayyad Amir Ali also refused to attend the Congress Convention held in Kolkota in 1886.

Sayyad Amir Ali helped strengthen the feeling of Muslim separatism. Although Muslims constituted around 5 Cr of the population vis-à-vis around 24 Cr Hindus, Sayyad Amir Ali was of the view that Muslims could not be treated as a minority community. In terms of religion, tradition, and goals, Muslims constituted a separate nation according to him. Sayyad Amir Ali wanted:

  • A separate electorate for Muslims
  • More representation
  • 50% representation in government.

Uniform citizenship was not acceptable to him.

A Committee under the leadership of another Muslim leader, Aga Khan (Sultan Mohammed Shah) approached Lord Minto with demands for giving Muslims greater representation and to consider them as a separate community.

Based on this, Prof. More concludes that the divide and rule policy did not originate with the British, but rather the seeds for ‘divide and rule’ were sown by the Muslim leadership in India.

On December 30, 1906, Nawab Vahar Ul Mulak chaired a Muslim Educational Conference. At the Conference, Nawab Salimullah presented the idea of establishing the Muslim League. Present at the Conference were Mohammad Ali Jouhar (who later in 1923 became the Congress President), Hakim Ajmal Khan (who later in 1921 became the Congress President) and Maulana Abul Kalam Azad (who later in 1923 presided over the Congress special session). Notably, all of the 220 participants including Maulana Abul Kalam Azad voted in favor of the idea.

Briefly, from 1857 to 1908, the Muslim psyche showed the following:

1)    They knew opposing the British was not easy.

2)    They believed that Muslims needed to get along with the British in their own interest.

3)    However, they were aware that after the British left, Hindus would be in numerical majority and Muslims could possibly be at the mercy of Hindus.

4)    They were rulers and had always been victors.

5)    They had a separate entity and only Muslims together constitute a nation.

6)    While dealing with them, the British need to keep in mind that Muslims had a glorious history.

7)    Being different, they needed separate electorates.

Maulana Hali and Maulana Shibli, through their poetry, canvassed Pan-Islamism that preached:

  • Islam is not curtailed by geography.
  • Loyalty to the nation is a form of idol worship.
  • If nationalism is accepted, Islam will be destroyed.
  • Secularism that separates religion from state is unacceptable.
  • Embrace the Koran.

Maulana Abul Kalam Azad was inspired by Maulana Shibli and his teachings on Pan-Islamism. Being a great orator, he was far more effective than Maulana Shibli in achieving his goal of bringing all Ulemas under one umbrella. In a speech made in 1940 as a Congress President he maintained that he continued to hold the same beliefs he propounded between 1912 and 1916.

However, Mahatma Gandhi considered Maulana Azad as his adviser. Also, history lauded Maulana Azad and Dr. Muhammad Iqbal for opposing the British and equated this with nationalism, without taking account of the fact that although they opposed the British, they also vociferously advocated Muslim nationhood and Muslim secessionism. (Similarly, Tipu Sultan from the 18th century continues to be praised for battling the British despite his anti-Hindu stance.)

In 1914, Hindus and Muslims came together for the Lucknow Pact to ask the British to give self-rule to India. Muhammad Ali Jinnah joined the Muslim League in 1916, after being ‘persuaded’ by Maulana Mohammad Ali Jouhar and Sayyad Wazir Hussain. Prior to this, he was a member of the Congress and opposed the Muslim League’s separatism. Jinnah was considered modern and was westernized in thought and attire. He was not a religious Muslim. He had previously been a disciple of Gopal Krishna Gokhale. He had also previously been a lawyer for Lokmanya Bal Gangadhar Tilak.

However, it is apparent that his psyche was not different from the general Muslim psyche. In 1916, he put forth the following demands:

1)    Muslims be allowed to hold their own elections to elect their own representatives.

2)    One third of the seats in the cabinet must be reserved for Muslim ministers.

3)    In local legislative bodies, Muslims must get proportional representation as per population.

4)    If 75% of any community opposes any legislative body, then any legislation that affects this community cannot be discussed or debated by this legislative body.

The year 1914 was the beginning of World War I. In Turkey, British forces fought against the Caliphate (see this for more on the Ottoman Caliphate).

Mahatama Gandhi has often been accused of (further) opening the doors for Indian Muslims to develop loyalties with Muslims outside by encouraging them to participate in the Khilafat struggle. However, Prof. More claims that such transnational Pan-Islamism was a pre-existing condition and did not require inputs from Mahatma Gandhi, and that such transnational loyalty existed for 1300 years and originated when Muhammad Bin Quasim stepped on the Indian soil.

To the question as to why the response to the Khilafat movement was more radical in India than in Turkey or Islamabad, Prof. More opines that by nature and tradition, the majority of Hindus in India tend to be tolerant and inclusive, treating all faiths as equal and at that time, Hindus did not feel the need to study and understand other faiths before being tolerant of them and practicing peaceful co-existence. This, states Prof. More, made India a fertile ground for the spread of Pan-Islamism. When Muslim invaders ruled India even while Muslims were in minority, such rulers received help from Muslims outside the country and the Khalifa issued certificates honoring such invaders.

If Muhammad Ali Jinnah is described as a nationalist, Prof. More wonders why Jinnah did not attempt to change the above-mentioned Muslim psyche. Shouldn’t Jinnah have asked what linked the Khalifa and Indian politics?

On the contrary Muhammad Ali Jinnah stated that Muslims were not minorities but a separate nation by itself. Hamid Dalwai, a progressive Muslim social reformer had stated that Jinnah had always been a Muslim communal at heart. As is well known, the demand for Pakistan came from Jinnah for the first time in 1940.

Sawarkar’s ideology in the context of Muslim secessionism and Pan-Islamism:

The context of Muslim secessionism is of importance when studying Swantantrata Veer Savarkar’s Hindutva thesis. By Savarkar’s thesis, Hindutva is far broader than the Hindu religion or Hinduism per se. Savarkar states that when Europe was wild and uncivilized, India was an evolved civilization with Vedas and Upanishads. Sanskrit is a mother of almost all languages of the world and is also one of the most scientific languages. The Vedic philosophy is profound as well as exhaustive and speaks of world unity.

A Hindu, according to Savarkar must be defined in such a way that the definition should not be too broad to include unsuitable elements, nor must it be too narrow so as to leave out important elements that need to be included. Geographically describing the motherland as stretching from the river Sindhu to the Sindhu ocean, Savarkar states that all those who think of this land as their nation and also as the home to their religious places or places of faith–are Hindus.

Savarkar spelt out the definition that those dwelling outside India are not Hindus. Similarly, those whose religious sacred places and religious faith exist outside India are not Hindu. Savarkar’s definition of Hinduism is thus not pegged to any religious scripture, historical entity, race, or God. Scriptures are outside the boundaries of time, a religious persona’s glory fades, new ‘Gods’ are born or created, new deities and modes of worship are created, and there is no such thing as a pure race. All these aspects are changing goalposts. The Indian nation or land is however, unchangeable. Loving ones motherland is Hindutva for Savarkar.

Further, Savarkar stated that the nation and its ancient and rich culture would survive only if Hindus (as per his definition of Hindutva) are unified. When a person crosses the boundaries of Hindutva to think for all mankind, the person becomes a true Hindu.

Savarkar was also a strong opponent of casteism. In 1932, he built the Patit Pawan Mandir at Ratnagiri which was the first temple in India that offered unrestricted access for prayer to all castes from the Hindu community (also see Ref: Savarkar also supported reservations for lower castes for a limited period of time.

This article is loosely based on a Marathi article by Girish Dabke that appeared in the Diwal 2012 issue of the Marathi magazine ‘Kistrim’.


A Tangled Web

Sequence of Events:

Despite mainstream media’s efforts to confuse and obfuscate issues, the sequence of events that began with morphed videos as a means of inciting a certain community, leading to attacks on individuals from the North East in some cities; riots in Mumbai, Lucknow, and other cities; and a panic-led exodus of North Eastern Indians from many cities is now well known. In many cases, individual attacks and threats led to panic and the resultant exodus. In other instances, rumors through SMSs that suggested large-scale violence against North Eastern Indians prompted fear, panic, and exodus.

Celebrity media journalists first insinuated that right-wing Hindu groups were behind morphed videos and SMS that ‘incited’ the community in question into attacking North East Indians and running amok in Mumbai and Lucknow. Later, it was learned that the chief source of morphed videos was a website from a neighboring country in the North West. For a good expose on how insinuations were flung around, please check the six-part expose (links to Part 2 and Part 3 provided here).

The source of morphed pictures and videos was confirmed as the neighboring country while circulation through mass SMSs was carried out by some anti-national elements from India, as evident from this arrest in Coimbatore. Thus, when it was seen that it had no links with Hindu groups, celebrity media journalists then insinuated that the rumors to spread panic and encourage the large-scale exodus from cities of North East Indians originated from saffron sources. It was insinuated that since these saffron groups were running help lines for, assuring safety and security to, and providing food at railway stations to the fleeing North Easterners, such rumors were being spread by these very saffron groups to project themselves in a good light. However, even after extensive investigation, not even a single saffron source has been found to be connected with SMSs that spread panic. Instead, so far, the ‘incited’ community that engaged in violence against North East Indians (for which arrests have been made in some cities) was also found to be spreading panic through SMSs (as evident from arrests made in Bangalore and Pune. Some additional links for these are here).

Hate Speech and Free Speech:

What exactly is hate speech? In addition to the following links, the Internet provides adequate information on what constitutes hate speech in India and the world.

Free speech is meant to protect unpopular speech. Popular speech, by definition, needs no protection….Neal Boortz

What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist…Salman Rushdie

Censorship as a Response to Breakdown of Law and Order:

Given the history of the UPA2 in attempting to curb and censor free speech, the mass breakdown of law and order was once again deemed to be an opportune ‘rationale’ for blaming as well as censoring social media and targeting what they call ‘hate speech’. (In the past, in December 2011, Kapil Sibal had raised the issue of controlling ‘blasphemous’ content on social media. At that time, it was learned that what was considered blasphemous was content that portrayed Sonia Gandhi and PM Manmohan Singh in a poor light as well as content that would hurt the sentiments of communities. Later again in April this year, in the light of the leaked video of the then Congress spokesperson Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, the issue of censorship was once more raised spurring debates on where to draw the line between privacy and censorship.)

Most of the mainstream media intellectuals did not question the basis where speech is the culprit and violence in ‘reaction’ is permitted without condemnation. Media celebrities failed to point out that the censorship policy is based on the assumption that rioters are entitled to riot. While most from the Indian mainstream media were silent or defensive of censorship there were some healthy responses to the clamp down that came from outside. For example, Dean Nelson (@DelhiDean) tweeted “The casual way web content has been blocked without notification or explanation begs serious questions of the world’s largest democracy”.

There is then the question of differentiating between speaking/writing the truth and deliberately spreading canards spread with the intention to incite. Can truth, however harsh, constitute a hate speech? This is a question that needs to be addressed. The distortion and re-writing of history in India, which has been rampant is just another example of curbing truth by labeling it as a ‘hate speech’. Attempts to distort even recent history such as the mass exodus of Kashmiri Pandits from J&K shows that the Congress party along with its Media Enablers has redefined hate speech as ‘presenting facts that portray members of a certain community in a poor light’. It is lamentable that none of the media celebrities and self-christened liberals ask the question: Should truth be censored?

A Tangled Web:

What lies at the root of the situation we find ourselves in?  The question is how did India get here in the first place?

Oh! what a tangled web we weave. When first we practice to deceive!—Walter Scott

Divide and rule policies were initiated by the British while they ruled India. Post-partition, for the obvious and now scarcely undisguised goal of ensuring a vote bank, the Congress party (which has been in power for 55+ of the 65 years of India’s independence, and which is currently in power for the last eight years) has, ensured that secularism be understood as policies and actions that please and favor the largest religious minority group in India, namely Muslims.  

In propagating that policies like repealing Article 370 or enforcing a uniform civil code (UCC) are ‘communal’ issues, the Congress party has arrived at a twisted definition of secularism.

An intelligent debate on the UCC, for example, would reveal that, for laws pertaining to marriage, divorce, adoption, inheriting property, etc., such a code would include best practices drawn from laws across the world and would not be Hindu laws imposed on other groups. Best practices are those that ensure gender equality, and the Indian Constitution does guarantee equal treatment to all citizens irrespective of gender.

Similarly, on the repealing of Article 370 in J&K (which, includes Ladakh with a near equal Buddhist Muslim population, and Jammu, with a majority of Hindus) as was envisaged by the creator of the Indian Constitution, Dr.  Ambedkar, a healthy debate is essential.

The thesis propagated by the Congress is that issues like the UCC and revoking Article 370 in J&K pertain only to the Muslim minority, and not to the country as a whole. Modern democratic states where citizens follow one law of the land and settlement and property ownership rights are uniform across states strengthen the national and social fabric. Separate laws for separate groups and different settlement policies in different states tend to breed (and in the Indian context have bred) separatism.

Another issue with the Muslim appeasement approach is that it assumes that the radical amongst the Muslim community (Imams/Mullahs that currently control the discourse) represent and speak for the whole Muslim community. This assumption is rarely questioned if at all.  Politicians collaborate with radical elements from the community so as to control thought processes and attitudes of a large segment of the Muslim population. Reports of certain Imams being extremely close to top Congress party leaders are an open secret.

A political party is of course expected to devise strategies that ensure its repeated electoral success, but this specific strategy of twisted secularism selected by the Congress disregards the basic principles of equality of all before the law and separation of religion from state. This approach also works towards preventing the mainstreaming of the Muslim community and instead breeds ghettoization. This means that many Muslims are kept away from mainstream education which would enable them to think for themselves and not vote blindly as per the diktats of the local Imam of their mosque. Such alienation from mainstream exposure and education also perpetuates a spiral of poverty and victimhood, easily exploitable by: 1) certain community leaders with vested interests, 2) Imams/mullahs, and 3) by the political party seeking electoral leverage from this state of affairs.

However, what is questionable is that the mainstream media and English language media has shied away from taking on Islamic fundamentalism head on. Like domestic abuse victims with the Stockholm syndrome, these media celebrities dare not speak up against the increasing radicalization among Muslims,  and also try to restrict truth from being spoken by others by labeling it as ‘hate speech’.

The Secularism Conundrum and is the so-called Liberal Left Really Liberal and really Left?

I recently watched a video clip of a ‘We The People’ episode that dealt with Muslim identity. Participants included Shahrukh Khan, Soha Ali Khan, Kabir Khan, Karan Johar, and Zakir Naik and another Imam, along with others. After one of Shahrukh’s comments about Muslim identity, Barkha Dutt had quipped, ‘But is it really so simple?’ Perhaps if religion and governance were really and truly separated and if there were equal laws and policies for Indians across religions it could all have been simple.

The Indian Constitution intended that all Indian citizens be treated equally in all walks of life. The Constitution’s Directive Principles for State policy spoke about a uniform civil code to be instituted shortly. Not only was this directive principle ignored, but somewhere along the way, Haj subsidies for Muslim pilgrimages crept in but none for Hindu, Christian, Sikh, Buddhist, Jewish, and Jain pilgrimages. Likewise, Muslim religious education institutions-Madarsahs became heavily subsidized by the government. At one stage, George Orwell’s famous quote ‘All are equal but some are more equal’ was considered an outlandish joke that could never touch a vibrant democracy like India. Later it began to be applied to corrupt politicians who broke laws but slipped away using the heavily flawed judicial system in the country. Today, the statement ‘All are equal but some are more equal’ undoubtedly additionally describes the status of Muslims in India, who are privileged citizens in a country that, sadly, was created for Hindus.

The media anchor who posed the above question on simplicity appears to have a rather simplistic definition of secularism, as have her fellow journalists belonging to the mainstream media. Implicit in their reporting is the implied definition of secular–Standing for Muslim demands (no matter how unfair and unjustified the demands are) is being secular. Speaking out against discriminatory policies that benefit Muslims at the cost of other communities, on the other hand is non-secular or communal.

However, even when the implied meaning is evident from the tone of their political commentary, the proponents of this kind of secularism do not provide an honest definition of this kind of secularism, for, in doing so, they would have to admit that it is discriminatory, unfair, and unjust. If they were to provide an honest definition, such ‘secularism’ could be defined simply as Muslim appeasement. Knowing that under Imam directives, a large number of Muslims tend to vote en masse; secularism as it is defined today in India can be defined as Muslim appeasement to harvest Muslim vote banks. Muslim vote banks tip the balance due to their en masse voting (block votes). Opportunistic political parties vying for block votes eagerly jumped on the bandwagon of this brand of so-called secularism. What, however, is not easy to either understand or digest is the role of mainstream media to a) NOT question the innate unfairness of this brand of secularism, and, b) to in fact propagate this kind of secularism.

India is a country characterized by corruption, chaos, and confusion. One more characteristic of the country is how terms like ‘secularism,’ ‘left liberal,’ ‘right,’ and ‘minorities’ have been loosely bandied about without a thought to what they really should mean.  As a result, in India, they have taken on meanings that are rather different from what they were originally created to describe. This sullies the discourse on fair legislation, equality of citizens across religions, a need for uniform laws, etc.

 Defining Secularism and Minorities:

Given the uniqueness of the Hindu non-evangelical ethos, vis-à-vis Christian democracies, the terms and labels ‘secularism’, ‘left liberal’, and ‘right’ cannot be directly lifted/borrowed from the west to imply the same politico-social dynamics in India as they would, there.

In fact, even for western democracies, the term secular is used to describe a government that treats all its citizens equally and fairly, for it indicates a separation of state and religion. Additionally, in the west, the term secular applies predominantly to collective entities such as the state or government and may also describe policies or governance but is rarely if at all used in the context of individuals. In India, however, the term ‘secular’ is additionally used to describe individuals (politicians, celebrities, etc.,) who tend to be ‘minority’ friendly. Then again, in the Indian context, the term minority or minorities has come to mean the Muslim community. Hence, a secular individual is one that is friendly to the cause of Muslims. (Ideally, the term minority should define a host of communities including Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Christians, Jews, and others, but that is not the case.)

If the term secular were used in its correct and original spirit, it would describe qualities such as ‘all encompassing,’ ‘inclusive,’ or ‘pluralistic,’ but in India it has come to connote rather the opposite by implying Muslim friendly. In fact, when the term secular is used to define ‘all encompassing,’  a Hindu individual becomes more of a Hindu when s/he is secular (inclusive), but a Muslim individual will no longer remain a true Muslim when s/he is secular (pluralistic/inclusive). By the Muslims’ holy book, being inclusive and being a Muslim is a contradiction in terms. How can a true Muslim  look at individuals of other faiths as symbols of universal humanity—for, as per their holy book, all individuals of other faiths are non-believers or ‘kafirs’ who need to be discriminated against, intimidated, eliminated, or converted to the ‘one true faith’ that is Islam. The secular conundrum arises from the difference in the way the two faiths look at genuine inclusiveness or secularism.

There is then the concept of free speech that is an implicit component of a modern democracy. However, Islam and free speech are not compatible. Amongst many European leaders who have become vocal opponents of multi-culturalism in Europe, Geert Wilders is one, and his argument about how Islam and democracy are not compatible can be seen here.

Defining Left Liberal Intellectuals:

Are They Liberals?

This in turn brings us to individuals from the mainstream media who have christened themselves as the ‘Liberal Left’ or even as ‘Left Liberal Intellectuals’. Any intellectual would see the inherent contradiction between secularism and Islam at both the macro and the individual levels, and both in terms of tolerance and free speech. An intellectual would also clearly also see that Hinduism provides an innately secular ethos, but apparently the breed of ‘‘Left Liberal Intellectuals’ in India do not, and if they do, they would rather not discuss it.

Even without consulting a dictionary, one can fathom that the term liberal means generous. Liberals are supposed to be generous in thought. What is supposed to differentiate Liberals from others is their generosity in accepting different beliefs.  

Multiple questions arise from the notion or principle of acceptance of diverse beliefs and faiths. When a Liberal tolerates other beliefs, would s/he tolerate intolerance? Would they tolerate the implicit intolerance of Islam? Any individual true to their principles would see the inherent contradiction of tolerating intolerance, but apparently our mainstream media notables do not. Perhaps it would help if they at least cared to debate or discuss the issue but there is an ominous silence from these intellectuals.

Then again, it appears that these self-christened Liberals have restricted the principle of acceptance to religious beliefs. A self-christened Left Liberal is therefore accepting of all beliefs however bigoted they may be and therefore includes Islam/Muslims in this acceptance. Why then, do they not extend this courtesy to beliefs other than those of the religious kind? Why not be equally accepting of ideologies divergent from their own?  

When it comes to practicing acceptance of views and ideologies that are not religious per se, self-christened Left Liberals portray a streak of intolerance. Thus, they are quick to dismiss the right-wing ideology on the basis of its alleged intolerance. So, a) the intolerance of Islam is acceptable to them but not the alleged intolerance of right-wing ideologies. b) Their own intolerance when it comes to right-wing ideology contradicts the definition of a Liberal as an individual that respects all points of view and beliefs. If intolerance of any kind is so despicable to this breed, it is surprising that they engage in radical intolerant behavior when it comes to right-wing groups. Similarly, if intolerance of any kind is so despicable to them, how can they willingly embrace and espouse the Muslim cause that is founded on an inherent intolerance?

Consistency of principles requires that they would reject the intolerance of Islam as well as the intolerance that stems from radical right-wing ideologies or embrace and accept both as part of a multi-faith multi-ideology society. Also true Liberals would choose to co-exist with divergent ideologies in a multi-faith multi-ideology society and not themselves engage in intolerant behavior that includes belittling, labeling, name calling, stigmatizing, or refusing to engage in discussion with right-wing ideologues. A large group among the right-wing are merely questioning of the inherent intolerance of Islam.

Based on the above, the title Liberal to describe these political commentators and media personalities is fallacious. These are radicals that choose to blindly and eagerly support Islam’s intolerance, while engaging in a studied hate campaign against those that question Islam’s compatibility with democracy, using labeling, stigmatization, ranting as mechanism.

Do they represent the interests of the disenfranchised?

The Left is by definition expected to represent the interests of the disenfranchised or the poor. However, our mainstream media are notoriously pro-Congress-establishment. The Left is supposed to be pro-poor and pro-people but coverage during the Anna Hazare anti-corruption movement amply showed how mainstream media went overboard to discredit the movement through discrediting its members, alleging ulterior motives, and being overly concerned about what they called the ‘subversion of democratic institutions’. A real ‘Left’ media would have encouraged and supported a people’s movement where people’s pressure groups get to influence policy and pressurize an errant government to bring a stringent anti-corruption legislation in the face of numerous scams of humongous proportions.

If there is any doubt that mainstream media are mere minions of the Congress establishment, you can check this, this, this, and this. There is a reason why mainstream media are no longer trusted and social media are increasingly taking over the dissemination of information as noted here and here.

If there are any doubts about mainstream media being elitist, perhaps this story would be very telling.

Clearly, the self-imposed title of ‘Left’ is also a misnomer when it comes to our media notables.

Can the notable from media be called ‘intellectual’?

Stories abound about the rotten state of the media. Check this one out. For another story on shoddy journalism, check this out. Perhaps, intellectual is not quite the word either.