There is no surprise of course in them batting for Modi. But there is no issue in being openly biased about your agenda. There is nothing wrong in having a right-wing agenda, just like there is nothing wrong in having a left-wing one. As long as you are transparent and honest with your agenda, your arguments can be analysed for their logical coherence. Paid news is much worse, as it is not based on honest opinions, but secret backroom deals.
पी एम हो तो मोदी जैसा...........
- Thread starter jatshiva1947
- Start date
- Status
There is no surprise of course in them batting for Modi. But there is no issue in being openly biased about your agenda. There is nothing wrong in having a right-wing agenda, just like there is nothing wrong in having a left-wing one. As long as you are transparent and honest with your agenda, your arguments can be analysed for their logical coherence. Paid news is much worse, as it is not based on honest opinions, but secret backroom deals.
Geelani and Hurriyat leaders have done it for years and no one says anything (in my opinion, rightfully, but I won't bother you with the explanation). Point is that even when good old BJP was in power, they didn't say anything to Geelani and co for the same crimes as above. If anything, Vajpayee tried much more in having a channel open with Hurriyat than the current government.
Arundhati is a different type altogether. You need to understand where she is coming from - for her the concept of nation state has no value unlike most of us. I disagree with her almost most of the time, but she does remain consistent with her principles.
As for the other gentlemen, you are absolutely right about them. They have been framed by an inept government that can't even do its bad deeds efficiently.
I absolutely agree with you Kapil that there is nothing wrong in being an open right-wing or left-wing supporter but then dont be hypocrite about media eveytime someone does journalism against your believed political party and blame congress to buy media(which is unproved) where as BJPs media channel is out there in open.
I was pointing out the hyprocite approach that several members adopt to sample news coverage, not rightness or wrongness of paid media.
I was pointing out the hyprocite approach that several members adopt to sample news coverage, not rightness or wrongness of paid media.
I think he does try and target someone (some party?) by mentioning mandir, police protection and Modi. But its just a ploy to keep the masses weaned on the opium that is religion and away from the real issues.
ankurmalik
New member
full speech Hyderabad MLA Akbaruddin. divisive politics, using religion agenda.
alleging whole world. blamed Jews for attack on world trade center, full of hate, communalism.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyQTYCOATeM
आपको वरुण गांधी के चुनावी भाषण पर भारत के मीडिया में आया उबाल याद है? youtube पर आन्ध्र प्रदेश के चंद्रायन हैदराबाद से मजलिस ए इत्तेहादुल मुसलमीन Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (MIM) के विधायक अकबरुद्दीन ओवैसी के भाषण का वीडियो उपलब्ध है जिसमें वो 'हिन्दुस्तान'को खुलेआम धमका रहा है। भारत के मुसलमानों को भारत के खिलाफ खड़े होने को उकसा रहा है।भारत के पच्चीस करोड़ मुस्लिमों से शेष काफिरों के विरुद्ध युद्ध को तैयार होने को कह रहा है। हिन्दू आराध्यों पर अभद्र टिप्पणियाँ कर रहा है। हिन्दुओं को इतिहास के भयंकरतम खून खराबे से भी भयंकर खूनखराबे की धमकी दे रहा है। हिन्दुओं को गौ मांस खाने की सलाह दे रहा है। अज़मल कसाब की फांसी पर सवाल उठा रहा है। टाइगर मेमन की तरफदारी कर रहा है। आन्ध्र प्रदेश के मुख्यमंत्री पर अश्लील टिप्पणी कर रहा है।
अकबर का बड़ा भाई और हैदराबाद से सांसद असादुद्दीन ओवैसी भी सोशल मीडिया पर खुलेआम आपत्तिजनक देश विरोधी टिप्पणियाँ करता रहा है।
"दुनिया से कोई हिन्दुस्तान देखने आता है तो राम या कृष्ण के मंदिर देखने नहीं आता"
"आज हम पच्चीस करोड़ हैं, पर हज़ार साल पहले हम एक करोड़ भी नहीं थे, तब भी इस मुल्क का हर पंडित और पुजारी हमारे दरबारों में झुककर सलाम अर्ज़ करता था"
(अब अकबर ओवैसी दंगों में मुस्लिम के नरसंहार का रोंगटे खड़े कर देने वाला शब्द चित्र खींचता है और फिर मुसलमानों पे अत्याचारों की दुहाई देते हुए मुंबई बम धमाकों को न्यायोचित ठहराता है ).... ऐ हिन्दुस्तान .. यदि मुसलमानों पे ज़ुल्म नहीं होते तो मुंबई में धमाके नहीं होते
हम जायेंगे तो ताज , क़ुतुब मीनार सब ले जायेंगे ... बचेगा क्या .. अयोध्या का वो टूटा फूटा मंदिर बचेगा
मोदी एक बार हैदराबाद आ जा तेरे को बता दें
अरे हिन्दुस्तान हम पच्चीस करोड़ है न .. तुम सौ करोड़ हो ना ..ठीक है .. पंद्रह मिनिट को पुलिस हटा लो बता देंगे किस्में हिम्मत है कौन ताकतवर है
ये बीजेपी , संघ परिवार , आरएसएस .. ये सब क्या है? ...ये सब ज़हरीले सांप हैं ..सांप कैसा नाचता है देखा है
अरे आडवानी , बाजपेयी , उमा भारती मोदी बता आखिर राम की माँ कहाँ कहाँ गयी किधर को जनम दीकाश कि वो भी खा के देखें कि कितनी मजेदार है ये ..
बदनसीब हैं कि नहीं खा रहे ..हम तो खाते आये हैं बड़ा मज़ा आ
Last edited:
ankurmalik
New member
Even few Jatland 'intellectuals' here also feared the same after reading it.
i think he is trying to attract the attention and want to disturb the peace via provocative n hatred speech. it wld a dream come true for such leader if media & leaders gv him attention. best medicine is to turn a blind eye and work in background to curb the problem.
cheers.
Ohh! Mate this post of mine wasn't in response of your latest post. Rather it was related to my earlier post #720 which I posted yesterday.
ankurmalik
New member
k. nvr mind. it was a knee jerk reaction. tk it easy
ankurmalik
New member
finally a FIR against Hyderabad Muslim MLA
जहर उगलने वाले विधायक पर एफआईआार, कसाब के लिए दुआ करने वाले इमाम की जांच
[FONT=Bhaskar_WEB_Intro_Test]हैदराबाद. यहां की एक स्थानीय अदालत ने एक व्यापारी की शिकायत के बाद मजलिस-ए-इत्तेहादुल मुसलेमीन (एमआईएम) के विधायक अकबरउद्दीन ओवैसी के खिलाफ जांच के आदेश दिए हैं। ओवैसी पर एक समुदाय के खिलाफ भावनाए भड़काने का आरोप शहर के एक व्यापारी ने लगाया है। [/FONT]
[FONT=Bhaskar_WEB_Intro_Test]वेंकेटेश गौड़ नाम के व्यापारी की शिकायत पर कार्रवाई करते हुए अदालत ने ओस्मानिया यूनिवर्सिटी पुलिस को विधायक अकबरउद्दीन ओवैसी के सीआरपीसी की धारा 156/3 के तहत मामला दर्ज करके 28 जनवरी से पहले जांच रिपोर्ट पेश करने के लिए कहा है। [/FONT]
[FONT=Bhaskar_WEB_Intro_Test]गौड़ ने अपनी शिकायत में अदालत से कहा था कि शहर के चंद्रयानगुट्टा क्षेत्र से विधायक अकबरउद्दीन ओवैसी ने बहुसंख्यक समुदाय के खिलाफ बेहद भड़कीला भाषण दिया था जिसे 8-9 दिसंबर को स्थानीय टीवी चैनलों पर प्रसारित भी किया गया था। कोर्ट ने अपने आदेश में कहा है कि आरोपों की गंभीरता से जांच की जरूरत है।[/FONT]
[FONT=Bhaskar_WEB_Intro_Test]हालांकि यह पहली बार नहीं है जब एमआईएम के नेताओं पर भड़काऊ भाषण देने के आरोप लगे हो। सांसद असदउद्दीन ओवैसी और विधायक अकबरउद्दीन ओवैसी अपनी भड़कीली भाषा के लिए खास पहचान रखते हैं। हाल ही में अकबरउद्दीन ने आदिलाबाद में एक जनसभा को संबोधित करते हुए बेहद भड़कीला भाषण दिया था। इससे पहले बांग्लादेशी लेखिका तसलीमा नसरीन जब हैदराबाद आईं थी तब अकबरउद्दीन ओवैसी ने कहा था कि फतवे के मुताबिक ऐसी औरतों का सिर कलम कर देना चाहिए। [/FONT]
जहर उगलने वाले विधायक पर एफआईआार, कसाब के लिए दुआ करने वाले इमाम की जांच
[FONT=Bhaskar_WEB_Intro_Test]हैदराबाद. यहां की एक स्थानीय अदालत ने एक व्यापारी की शिकायत के बाद मजलिस-ए-इत्तेहादुल मुसलेमीन (एमआईएम) के विधायक अकबरउद्दीन ओवैसी के खिलाफ जांच के आदेश दिए हैं। ओवैसी पर एक समुदाय के खिलाफ भावनाए भड़काने का आरोप शहर के एक व्यापारी ने लगाया है। [/FONT]
[FONT=Bhaskar_WEB_Intro_Test]वेंकेटेश गौड़ नाम के व्यापारी की शिकायत पर कार्रवाई करते हुए अदालत ने ओस्मानिया यूनिवर्सिटी पुलिस को विधायक अकबरउद्दीन ओवैसी के सीआरपीसी की धारा 156/3 के तहत मामला दर्ज करके 28 जनवरी से पहले जांच रिपोर्ट पेश करने के लिए कहा है। [/FONT]
[FONT=Bhaskar_WEB_Intro_Test]गौड़ ने अपनी शिकायत में अदालत से कहा था कि शहर के चंद्रयानगुट्टा क्षेत्र से विधायक अकबरउद्दीन ओवैसी ने बहुसंख्यक समुदाय के खिलाफ बेहद भड़कीला भाषण दिया था जिसे 8-9 दिसंबर को स्थानीय टीवी चैनलों पर प्रसारित भी किया गया था। कोर्ट ने अपने आदेश में कहा है कि आरोपों की गंभीरता से जांच की जरूरत है।[/FONT]
[FONT=Bhaskar_WEB_Intro_Test]हालांकि यह पहली बार नहीं है जब एमआईएम के नेताओं पर भड़काऊ भाषण देने के आरोप लगे हो। सांसद असदउद्दीन ओवैसी और विधायक अकबरउद्दीन ओवैसी अपनी भड़कीली भाषा के लिए खास पहचान रखते हैं। हाल ही में अकबरउद्दीन ने आदिलाबाद में एक जनसभा को संबोधित करते हुए बेहद भड़कीला भाषण दिया था। इससे पहले बांग्लादेशी लेखिका तसलीमा नसरीन जब हैदराबाद आईं थी तब अकबरउद्दीन ओवैसी ने कहा था कि फतवे के मुताबिक ऐसी औरतों का सिर कलम कर देना चाहिए। [/FONT]
Ye baawli tared ke maarega hamne, iske to khud ke hi saath aalo ne almost maar hi diya tha 2 saal pehle isko, leking suhar bach gaya.
watch the video -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDfWtxZc8gc
watch the video -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDfWtxZc8gc
full speech Hyderabad MLA Akbaruddin. divisive politics, using religion agenda.
alleging whole world. blamed Jews for attack on world trade center, full of hate, communalism.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyQTYCOATeM
आपको वरुण गांधी के चुनावी भाषण पर भारत के मीडिया में आया उबाल याद है? youtube पर आन्ध्र प्रदेश के चंद्रायन हैदराबाद से मजलिस ए इत्तेहादुल मुसलमीन Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (MIM) के विधायक अकबरुद्दीन ओवैसी के भाषण का वीडियो उपलब्ध है जिसमें वो 'हिन्दुस्तान'को खुलेआम धमका रहा है। भारत के मुसलमानों को भारत के खिलाफ खड़े होने को उकसा रहा है।भारत के पच्चीस करोड़ मुस्लिमों से शेष काफिरों के विरुद्ध युद्ध को तैयार होने को कह रहा है। हिन्दू आराध्यों पर अभद्र टिप्पणियाँ कर रहा है। हिन्दुओं को इतिहास के भयंकरतम खून खराबे से भी भयंकर खूनखराबे की धमकी दे रहा है। हिन्दुओं को गौ मांस खाने की सलाह दे रहा है। अज़मल कसाब की फांसी पर सवाल उठा रहा है। टाइगर मेमन की तरफदारी कर रहा है। आन्ध्र प्रदेश के मुख्यमंत्री पर अश्लील टिप्पणी कर रहा है।
अकबर का बड़ा भाई और हैदराबाद से सांसद असादुद्दीन ओवैसी भी सोशल मीडिया पर खुलेआम आपत्तिजनक देश विरोधी टिप्पणियाँ करता रहा है।
"दुनिया से कोई हिन्दुस्तान देखने आता है तो राम या कृष्ण के मंदिर देखने नहीं आता"
"आज हम पच्चीस करोड़ हैं, पर हज़ार साल पहले हम एक करोड़ भी नहीं थे, तब भी इस मुल्क का हर पंडित और पुजारी हमारे दरबारों में झुककर सलाम अर्ज़ करता था"
(अब अकबर ओवैसी दंगों में मुस्लिम के नरसंहार का रोंगटे खड़े कर देने वाला शब्द चित्र खींचता है और फिर मुसलमानों पे अत्याचारों की दुहाई देते हुए मुंबई बम धमाकों को न्यायोचित ठहराता है ).... ऐ हिन्दुस्तान .. यदि मुसलमानों पे ज़ुल्म नहीं होते तो मुंबई में धमाके नहीं होते
हम जायेंगे तो ताज , क़ुतुब मीनार सब ले जायेंगे ... बचेगा क्या .. अयोध्या का वो टूटा फूटा मंदिर बचेगा
मोदी एक बार हैदराबाद आ जा तेरे को बता दें
अरे हिन्दुस्तान हम पच्चीस करोड़ है न .. तुम सौ करोड़ हो ना ..ठीक है .. पंद्रह मिनिट को पुलिस हटा लो बता देंगे किस्में हिम्मत है कौन ताकतवर है
ये बीजेपी , संघ परिवार , आरएसएस .. ये सब क्या है? ...ये सब ज़हरीले सांप हैं ..सांप कैसा नाचता है देखा है
अरे आडवानी , बाजपेयी , उमा भारती मोदी बता आखिर राम की माँ कहाँ कहाँ गयी किधर को जनम दीकाश कि वो भी खा के देखें कि कितनी मजेदार है ये ..
बदनसीब हैं कि नहीं खा रहे ..हम तो खाते आये हैं बड़ा मज़ा आ
Those Who Do Not Want to Bury Modi
Those who like Narendra Modi, or perhaps more accurately, no longer consider him a danger, are suddenly growing in number. Some are only a more sophisticated version of the internet loonies who pass for right-wing supporters, but they at least have the virtue of consistency. Some are industrialists, who claim to speak dispassionately, but they at least know what it is to attract Modi’s ire in a state that has been home to big business long before he was in politics. But there are others, who are now telling me—by ‘me’ I mean someone who embraces the descriptions ‘worried about Modi’, ‘anti-Modi crusader’ and ‘Modi’s enemy’—that I am ‘blindfolded’, I am choosing ‘fury over fact’, and that by attacking Modi, I am ‘disguising’ my ‘larger complicity’.
Let me cite some instances, because only through these is the cant on offer obvious. It is a cant that clubs together all those who oppose Modi and smears each with the views and associations of a few.
Pratap Bhanu Mehta, in The Indian Express, states:
‘Those worried about him first need to set their own house in order.’
And then goes on to write: ‘You can look at the convictions of Modi’s cabinet colleagues and point to those as proxy proof of his culpability. You can also look at them and wonder why so many Congress cabinet ministers still have not been made to answer for 1984. The point is not to use 1984 to politically exonerate Modi. The point is that it is hard to attack evil when we so widely condone it in other contexts. Third, the social and political isolation of Muslims is a large, complex phenomenon, in part a product of the tyranny of the compulsory identities the Congress has produced. It is also exacerbated by the fact that friends of minorities like the Samajwadi Party are running no more than protection rackets for them, depending on a permanent tutelage. Unfortunately, attacking Modi has become a way of disguising our larger complicities. It is more about assuaging our guilty conscience than setting things right. No wonder the attacks lose their sheen.’
Mehta’s odd use of pronouns is obvious even on a cursory reading, and it says something about the sleight of hand used to make the argument. Let me begin with his sentence, ‘You can also look at them and wonder why so many Congress cabinet ministers still have not been made to answer for 1984.’ I have indeed wondered, and have written that I believe Rajiv Gandhi’s complicity in the 1984 violence against Sikhs is similar to Narendra Modi’s in 2002, I have written that I think Kamal Nath’s presence in this Union Cabinet, given his role at the head of a mob that burnt two Sikhs to death in 1984, is a disgrace. Have you, Mr Mehta?
So perhaps when you say that ‘it is hard to attack evil when we so widely condone it in other contexts’, the ‘we’ is misplaced. I have not condoned it, you have, and now you want to shift that burden onto my shoulders, which is how you could reach the absurd conclusion that ‘unfortunately, attacking Modi has become a way of disguising our larger complicities’. Not ‘ours’ Mr Mehta, but yours.
In the same newspaper, its editor Shekhar Gupta writes:
‘By choosing fury over fact, delusion over reason, passion over politics, Modi’s enemies — beginning with the Congress — make Gujarat politics a one-horse race.’
Writes Shekhar Gupta: ‘What gives Narendra Modi such invincibility? Shall we call it a self-defeating conspiracy of the faithful? The entire community of Modi haters and baiters, political rivals and ideological questioners has driven itself into a hole, creating its own delusions and believing them.’
He goes on to explain: ‘How can we, as modern, liberal Indians, accept the brazenness with which a politician with as dodgy a record as Amit Shah is fielded in this election? But should our journalists confine themselves to still covering the riots of 2002? Do we take note of the intervening decade of governance and politics, or not? This is not an argument about moving on. Far from it. This is an argument about professional diligence in journalism, as well as academia and, indeed, politics. Modi’s detractors, including most of us in the media, have allowed our judgement to be led by our views on what we see as the “core” issue with Modi. The Congress has lazily taken the cue. The Congress has not tried to put together a five, even a ten-year plan to defeat him. That’s why I called it a conspiracy of the faithful.’
In 2010, a piece in the same newspaper had asked, ‘In fact, it is precisely in that realm, of education and health and social services, that Modi’s rhetoric must be tested. How effectively has he drawn the state’s religious minorities into Gujarat’s growth and success? Does his fabled governance genius translate into a better life for those his politics rejects?’ Now this paper’s editor wants me to forget the answer to this very question.
It seems to me that to be true to my calling as a journalist, I must consider who gained and who lost out in Modi’s version of governance and politics. Travelling through Gujarat, the answer is obvious, as it is obvious in Modi’s own constituency, particularly, where he has selectively chosen not to engage with Muslim voters over the past decade.
But beyond subjective observations, there is ample statistical data to back up this claim.
To quote from a recent article that appeared in The Indian Express, ‘At the 2007 NDC meeting to discuss the Eleventh Plan, Modi had openly hit out
at the prime minister’s 15-point programme for minorities, demanding that it be dropped “in the interest of maintaining the social fabric of the nation”. He subsequently never implemented the Centre’s scholarship scheme for minorities.’
That Indian Express article also states, ‘The final version of the Twelfth Plan document has named Gujarat among four states with the maximum number of Muslims below [the] poverty line…’
Which is why, when Madhu Purnima Kishwar argues in Outlook (‘The Kettle Hits Back’ , issue dated 25–31 December 2012) that ‘anti-Modi protestors run their rabid campaigns blindfolded’, she cherry-picks data to make her point. For example, she writes, ‘Recently, The Times of India reported that Gujarat with a nine per cent Muslim population has in its police stations a law-keeping force, 10 per cent of which is Muslim. No other state matches this figure. If this is not proof of inclusive governance, what is?’
Well, in 2002, the Muslims of the force were confined to police stations, and the 10 per cent figure is a reflection of an overall Gujarati reluctance to join the police. Why doesn’t Madhu Purnima Kishwar ask of this state, so given to patriotism, how many Gujarati soldiers have died defending Indian borders?
These are excuses to conceal the truth that Modi’s decade in power has seen the logic of the 2002 violence in Gujarat against Muslims pursued by other means. The violence then was as ‘efficient’ as his administration is now, and its aim was much the same. This ideology of exclusion is ingrained in Modi. As a member of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) since a young age, he would know that Veer Savarkar had written, ‘…our Mohammedan or Christian countrymen who had originally been forcibly converted to a non-Hindu religion and who consequently have inherited along with Hindus, a common Fatherland and a greater part of the wealth of a common culture—language, law, customs, folklore and history—are not and cannot be recognised as Hindus. For though Hindustan to them is Fatherland as to any other Hindu yet it is not to them a Holyland too.’ By the very notion of ‘holyland’, this can never be true of Muslims or Christians, and hence they must forever lie outside the RSS’s idea of cultural nationhood.
Modi, a demagogue, combines the chauvinism of this worldview with an authoritarian streak. Those who believe that he will moderate his stance and become more inclusive are living out a fantasy. If he were to let go of exclusion and hatred, he would not be Modi.
Those who like Narendra Modi, or perhaps more accurately, no longer consider him a danger, are suddenly growing in number. Some are only a more sophisticated version of the internet loonies who pass for right-wing supporters, but they at least have the virtue of consistency. Some are industrialists, who claim to speak dispassionately, but they at least know what it is to attract Modi’s ire in a state that has been home to big business long before he was in politics. But there are others, who are now telling me—by ‘me’ I mean someone who embraces the descriptions ‘worried about Modi’, ‘anti-Modi crusader’ and ‘Modi’s enemy’—that I am ‘blindfolded’, I am choosing ‘fury over fact’, and that by attacking Modi, I am ‘disguising’ my ‘larger complicity’.
Let me cite some instances, because only through these is the cant on offer obvious. It is a cant that clubs together all those who oppose Modi and smears each with the views and associations of a few.
Pratap Bhanu Mehta, in The Indian Express, states:
‘Those worried about him first need to set their own house in order.’
And then goes on to write: ‘You can look at the convictions of Modi’s cabinet colleagues and point to those as proxy proof of his culpability. You can also look at them and wonder why so many Congress cabinet ministers still have not been made to answer for 1984. The point is not to use 1984 to politically exonerate Modi. The point is that it is hard to attack evil when we so widely condone it in other contexts. Third, the social and political isolation of Muslims is a large, complex phenomenon, in part a product of the tyranny of the compulsory identities the Congress has produced. It is also exacerbated by the fact that friends of minorities like the Samajwadi Party are running no more than protection rackets for them, depending on a permanent tutelage. Unfortunately, attacking Modi has become a way of disguising our larger complicities. It is more about assuaging our guilty conscience than setting things right. No wonder the attacks lose their sheen.’
Mehta’s odd use of pronouns is obvious even on a cursory reading, and it says something about the sleight of hand used to make the argument. Let me begin with his sentence, ‘You can also look at them and wonder why so many Congress cabinet ministers still have not been made to answer for 1984.’ I have indeed wondered, and have written that I believe Rajiv Gandhi’s complicity in the 1984 violence against Sikhs is similar to Narendra Modi’s in 2002, I have written that I think Kamal Nath’s presence in this Union Cabinet, given his role at the head of a mob that burnt two Sikhs to death in 1984, is a disgrace. Have you, Mr Mehta?
So perhaps when you say that ‘it is hard to attack evil when we so widely condone it in other contexts’, the ‘we’ is misplaced. I have not condoned it, you have, and now you want to shift that burden onto my shoulders, which is how you could reach the absurd conclusion that ‘unfortunately, attacking Modi has become a way of disguising our larger complicities’. Not ‘ours’ Mr Mehta, but yours.
In the same newspaper, its editor Shekhar Gupta writes:
‘By choosing fury over fact, delusion over reason, passion over politics, Modi’s enemies — beginning with the Congress — make Gujarat politics a one-horse race.’
Writes Shekhar Gupta: ‘What gives Narendra Modi such invincibility? Shall we call it a self-defeating conspiracy of the faithful? The entire community of Modi haters and baiters, political rivals and ideological questioners has driven itself into a hole, creating its own delusions and believing them.’
He goes on to explain: ‘How can we, as modern, liberal Indians, accept the brazenness with which a politician with as dodgy a record as Amit Shah is fielded in this election? But should our journalists confine themselves to still covering the riots of 2002? Do we take note of the intervening decade of governance and politics, or not? This is not an argument about moving on. Far from it. This is an argument about professional diligence in journalism, as well as academia and, indeed, politics. Modi’s detractors, including most of us in the media, have allowed our judgement to be led by our views on what we see as the “core” issue with Modi. The Congress has lazily taken the cue. The Congress has not tried to put together a five, even a ten-year plan to defeat him. That’s why I called it a conspiracy of the faithful.’
In 2010, a piece in the same newspaper had asked, ‘In fact, it is precisely in that realm, of education and health and social services, that Modi’s rhetoric must be tested. How effectively has he drawn the state’s religious minorities into Gujarat’s growth and success? Does his fabled governance genius translate into a better life for those his politics rejects?’ Now this paper’s editor wants me to forget the answer to this very question.
It seems to me that to be true to my calling as a journalist, I must consider who gained and who lost out in Modi’s version of governance and politics. Travelling through Gujarat, the answer is obvious, as it is obvious in Modi’s own constituency, particularly, where he has selectively chosen not to engage with Muslim voters over the past decade.
But beyond subjective observations, there is ample statistical data to back up this claim.
To quote from a recent article that appeared in The Indian Express, ‘At the 2007 NDC meeting to discuss the Eleventh Plan, Modi had openly hit out
at the prime minister’s 15-point programme for minorities, demanding that it be dropped “in the interest of maintaining the social fabric of the nation”. He subsequently never implemented the Centre’s scholarship scheme for minorities.’
That Indian Express article also states, ‘The final version of the Twelfth Plan document has named Gujarat among four states with the maximum number of Muslims below [the] poverty line…’
Which is why, when Madhu Purnima Kishwar argues in Outlook (‘The Kettle Hits Back’ , issue dated 25–31 December 2012) that ‘anti-Modi protestors run their rabid campaigns blindfolded’, she cherry-picks data to make her point. For example, she writes, ‘Recently, The Times of India reported that Gujarat with a nine per cent Muslim population has in its police stations a law-keeping force, 10 per cent of which is Muslim. No other state matches this figure. If this is not proof of inclusive governance, what is?’
Well, in 2002, the Muslims of the force were confined to police stations, and the 10 per cent figure is a reflection of an overall Gujarati reluctance to join the police. Why doesn’t Madhu Purnima Kishwar ask of this state, so given to patriotism, how many Gujarati soldiers have died defending Indian borders?
These are excuses to conceal the truth that Modi’s decade in power has seen the logic of the 2002 violence in Gujarat against Muslims pursued by other means. The violence then was as ‘efficient’ as his administration is now, and its aim was much the same. This ideology of exclusion is ingrained in Modi. As a member of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) since a young age, he would know that Veer Savarkar had written, ‘…our Mohammedan or Christian countrymen who had originally been forcibly converted to a non-Hindu religion and who consequently have inherited along with Hindus, a common Fatherland and a greater part of the wealth of a common culture—language, law, customs, folklore and history—are not and cannot be recognised as Hindus. For though Hindustan to them is Fatherland as to any other Hindu yet it is not to them a Holyland too.’ By the very notion of ‘holyland’, this can never be true of Muslims or Christians, and hence they must forever lie outside the RSS’s idea of cultural nationhood.
Modi, a demagogue, combines the chauvinism of this worldview with an authoritarian streak. Those who believe that he will moderate his stance and become more inclusive are living out a fantasy. If he were to let go of exclusion and hatred, he would not be Modi.
Owaisi is Chauvinistic Politician, just like the rest who is using religion as tool to divide people and rule.
Bigger question here is, is the anger shown against Owaisi just against Owaisi or is it also against the fundamental self-centered hardcore religious thinking which includes Hindus too?
Bigger question here is, is the anger shown against Owaisi just against Owaisi or is it also against the fundamental self-centered hardcore religious thinking which includes Hindus too?
Last edited:
I think the funniest thing is the exchange of allegations and vote-bank politics between the pots and the kettles. Varun Gandhi or Togadia says something, the Congress and Muslim parties cry foul; Owaisi or the Imam of Delhi Jama Masjid says something, the BJP cries murder! While in reality both of these groups are equally to be abhorred. They are two sides of the same communal coin. They both feed off each other and as Kapil pointed out divert the attentions from the real issues with emotional appeals and fiery speeches.
That reminds me that Togadia was in Hyd a few days ago and sowed the seeds to this controversy, Owaisi was replying to Togadia's speech by being more stupid.
Here is the video:
Both are culprits of spreading hatred and should be criticized equally, no?
ankurmalik
New member
Agree bro, right wing facism. but i hv found muslims being more intolerant than hindus. they cry and whine first. they start fight first. infact muslims started riots pre independence in bengal for a separate nation. killed innocent hindus. than hindus retaliated.
sanjeev1984
New member
The thing is, who initiates violence first becomes rather inconsequential when other forms of oppression have been used for ages. The Hindu Zamindars in Bengal subjugated the labor. East Bengal had more Muslims who worked as farm labor and generally poor. So resistance to the oppression of the landlords took a religious color. This was later tapped up by religious parties like the ML.
Many Kashmiri Muslims recount how Pandits used to treat them with disdain. Not allowing them to drink from the same well or asking them not to enter the house. This when many Kashmiri Muslims are Pandit converts. So when Pandits were wrongly pushed out, this factor of discrimination was used to build up mass support for the militants.
Do understand, this is no way a justification of violence. Just an attempt to understand the factors that lead to it.
sunillathwal
New member
... and this is not his first time. He has been doing similar speeches for a long time and yet he was a darling of "secular" Congress. Not sure why main stream media never took him to the task earlier!! Even this time it was social media (mostly twitter and Facebook) which highlighted this speech and compelled MSM to take notice. Funny thing- certain news channels that played Varun Gandhi's speech like million times for days refused to show Owaisi's speech on screen under the pretext that it is a 'hate' speech hence censored. By this logic they should not have shown Varun Gandhi's speech either! No wonder a large section of society is cynical about media.
Whats sad to see is- certain intellectuals & 'seculars' defending & justifying Owaisi with 'I condemn his speech BUT...', 'He got carried away...', 'IF Modi... THEN...', 'Oawisi is a nice guy, he has done "SECULAR" (actual word!!) work in past', 'Not a single muslim agrees with Owaisi (never mind that thousands were cheering his speech and egging him)..'
'Parveen Togadia too..','RSS.. ' etc. bullshit. Seriously? If Owaisi is justified by such secularists, why do they see red (or saffron) in case of VHP and Bajrang Dal?
Anyway, nothing is going to happen to Owaisi. He has already fled to London. Will come back once this issue get settled. court case will drag on for years and finally nothing will come out of it. I don't expect Akbaruddin or his equally evil brother to tender any apology. Indian govt will continue to treat 'extremists' with kids-gloves. He will make such provocative statements in future too and he WILL win elections.
If BJP or RSS or VHP wants to give a fitting response, they should play this video in each of their rally during elections over and over; they should advertise this speech as bullet points in national newspapers during election; better put it on hoarding boards in all major cities & towns. Let there be a poetic justice... a complete religious polarization. Sooner the facade of pseudo-secularism falls-off the better.
Last edited:
- Status