भाई दीपक आपने इस पोस्ट से जाटलैंड को दीपक की तरह प्रकाशवान कर दिया है। आपको इस बेहतरीन पोस्ट के लिए सह्रदय धन्यवाद !!
पी एम हो तो मोदी जैसा...........
- Thread starter jatshiva1947
- Start date
- Status
मलिक भाई, आप भधाई के पात्र है की पहली बार अपने इतनी सीधी और समझदारी वाली पोस्ट डाली. पर आपकी पोस्ट पढ़ कर एक बात निश्चित है की आप ने मेरी पोस्ट पढ़ी तो ज़रूर पर समझी कत्तै नही. या फिर आपने कुछ ही पोस्ट पढ़ी जिनसे अधूरा ग्यान प्राप्त हुआ. मुझे फरक नही पड़ता आप किस तरह से एक बात को समझते है, वो आपकी सोच और आपकी परेशानी है पर आप अपने सोचने और समझने की क्षमता के उपर मेरा विश्लेषण ना करे, कृपा होगी. अब चूँकि आपने इतने सवाल पूछे है तो मेरा फ़र्ज़ बनता है जवाब देना, आशा है आप वो ही समझना चाहेंगे जो मैं समझाना :
1) आप अगर मेरी पोस्ट पर गौर करे तो मैने चंद उदाहरण दिए कैसे आतंकवाद से हुई मौते कम हुई है भाजपा के शशण के मुक़ाबले, उसमे क़ानून व्यवस्था का ज़िकरा कहीं नही था. क़ानून व्रयवस्था एक राज्य का विषय है. उस पोस्ट कर कपिल जसपरीत ने सटीक विचार रखे, तर्क कुतर्क किया जो आतंकवाद के सन्दर्भ मैं था ......... और बाकीओ ने भाजपा कॉंग्रेस का मुद्दा बना कर क़ानून व्यवस्था का राग अलापा, जो उस थ्रेड का उद्देश्या तक नही था, ग़लती किसकी?
2)
मोदी एक मिथ्या है जो हवा के कारण गुब्बारे समान ऊड रहा है, मैं सिर्फ़ कोशिश करता हू उस गुब्बारे का खोखलापन दिखाने की जिसे लोग रॉकेट की उड़ान समझ रहे है. फिर से, मेरे तर्क वितर्क सबूतो के साथ होते है, भावनाओ के नही
3)
मोंटेक सिंघ के ब्यान का विरोध नही करना उसका समर्थन भी तो नही, ये आप की सोच है, अँग्रेज़ी की एक कहावत है never assume- read further yourself, might not be apt to say
4)
आप मेरी एक पोस्ट दिखा दीजिए जहाँ मैने उसे क्लीन चिट दी हो या उसे बेकसूर कहा हो, मैने सिर्फ़ इतना कहा था की वाड्रा और DLF इतने बेवकूफ़ नही की वो घोटालो के दस्तावेज़ भारत सरकार की वेबसाइट पर रखे, कुछ ग़लत कहा?
उसी DLF की एक डील उसी टाइम मोदी के साथ भी उछली जहा मोदी ने सूरत में कोडिओ के भाव ज़मीन दी SEZ के लए, उसका ना आपने ना मोदी के समर्थको ने विरोघ किया ना आपने यहा उनके खिलाफ लिखा और फिर आप कहते है आप एक तर्फी बात नही करते?
5) क्या बेहतर है, मूक बधिर बन के कॉपी पेस्ट पढ़ते रहने या तथ्य पेश करना? आप की बताए?
6) ज़मीनी हक़ीकत को उज़गार करने का और कोई उपाय है आपके पास सिवाय आँकड़ो के? आप अपेक्षा करते है मैं भी कार्टून बनाऊँ और लोगो को, नेताओ को ग़लत नाम से बूलौऊ, वो ही तरीका है ज़मीनी हक़ीकत पेश करने का?
किसानो को लाइसेन्स देने का मतलब है पटवारीओ के चक्कर लगाना, घूस खिलाना और अपने हक के लए रिश्वत का प्रोत्साहन करना. आप इसे सुंदवा और नहर की बातो मैं उलझा कर रख दिया, जिससे इसका कोई सरोकार तक नही, शायद इसलिए क्यूंकी मोदी ने इस बात को छेड़ा, और फिर आप कहते है आप मोदी समर्थक नही? आप मुझे एक किसान दिखा दीजिएगा जो पानी के लाइसेन्स की हिमायत करे, जैसे मोदी के समर्थक खुद को १०० करोड़ हिंदू की आवाज़ बताते है, उसी तरह आप खुद को किसानो की, हक़ीकतसे दोनो कोसो दूर
P.S.
मैं कॉंग्रेस्स का समर्थक बिल्कुल नही हू पर मैं मोदी विचारधारा मैं भी विश्वश नही करता जिसमे छोटी से छोटी बात को इतना बड़ा दिखाया जाए की वो ही अखंड सत्या लगने लगे. मोदी प्रगति करने का नही, प्रगती दिखाने का उदाहरहण है और दोनो मैं काफ़ी फरक है. आप ही की तरह मैं भी देश का भला चाहता हूँ और उस देश की कल्पना करता हू जहाँ धर्म अधर्म जात पात ना हो, भारत एक धर्म निरपेक्ष देश है और एक ऐसे नेता की उमीद करता हू जो सब धर्मो को साथ ले कर चल सके... और असली प्रगती को प्रगती कहा जाएँ ना की करोड़ो रुपये खर्च करे जाए राई का पहाड़ बनाने मैं
आशा करता हू मेरी इस पोस्ट से आपके कुछ मिथ्या टूटे होंगे, धन्यवाद सहित।
Last edited:
V
vikda
Guest
Baaki sab to theek hai par ye kya hai bandhu??? Mazaak achaa kar lete ho unintentional hi sahi!!
Well, my point was that it is a bogus report. Congress and BJP get 20-30% vote shares at max. To imagine one leader having 43% support is a bit too much. I can go and do a survey where he may have 100% support. Conducting a scientific survey is very tricky. Opinion polls done at a much wider and better scale still fail to make good predictions. He has a good amount of support in the urban areas, metros, upper caste Hindus, etc. But do villagers in Haryana want Modi? In Punjab? Bihar? Tamilnadu? Andhra? Kerala? Bengal? NE? It is not like they don't like him. They don't care or worse don't even know him. I don't think even Nehru or Indira Gandhi at their peaks, when they were very popular would have had 40%+ support.
Last edited:
vipinrathee
New member
Modi ne bhi chance de denge.. janta bilkul masum si hai...ek se tang aaye toh dusre ne vote dedo....asal mein hamare desh mein bjp aur congress ke alawa teesra vikalp koi nahi hai....issi baat ka faayda yeh rajneta uthate hain.. behla fusla kar vote lena inki fidrat hai...
janta jab jaagruk hogi aur unhi mein se koi layak banda chunaav ladega tabhi kuch hoga...
janta jab jaagruk hogi aur unhi mein se koi layak banda chunaav ladega tabhi kuch hoga...
Vikas, making corruption charges on others in middle of the Vadra story is the sort of defense that only Congress leaders make. That an alleged corruption by Modi is being ignored may be an important issue. But it is irrelevant to the topic of Vadra's scam.
Similarly, if you show a bias in choosing evidence that shows Congress or its leaders in positive light (like MMS making India safer than NDA on terrorism), it is natural for others to consider you as Congress sympathiser.
I find the charge you make on Modi above as true. But the same is true for Congress on a bigger scale. All these full page ads with "Madam, we remain on your feet for your contribution to the nation" - that is propaganda as well. If you find it as an issue with Modi, you should perhaps have a bigger issue with Congress as well. Just like all the Modi fans, there is no dearth of Rahul baba fans in the Congress. Modi atleast has a record (good or bad) that can be discussed. What has Rahul done - what does he stand for - there is not even anything to discuss.
I don't think there is any harm in being a congress supporter. A large part of India, including Jats, vote for Congress and will continue to do so. There is nothing wrong in being a BJP supporter either. None of these parties will ever be perfect. The issue is when people get extremist in their support and abusive of the opposition or when they show blind faith, hypocrisy, double standards and all.
malikdeepak1
New member
भाई कपिल अवश्य होंगे। किन्तु प्रश्न खान्ग्रेस या बीजेपी को सप्पोर्ट करने पर नहीं, सरकार की नाकामी और विफलताओ को स्वीकारने की बजाये किसी भी अंत-शंट आंकड़े के द्वारा उन पर पर्दा डालने की कोशिश करने पर उठे है । आंकड़े कभी सही नहीं होते। क्या जो रिपोर्ट देसी भाई ने प्रस्तुत की है वो 120 करोड़ भारतवासियों से पूछ कर बनाई गयी है? या कुछ चंद इलाको में घूम कर कुछ लोगो से पूछ कर बनाई गयी है? क्या गारंटी है की जिसने ये कहा हो की मैं सुरक्षित महसूस नहीं करता, उसको तोड़-मरोड़ कर सुरक्षित दिखा दिया हो रिपोर्ट बनाने वाले ने? इसलिए मैं कभी आंकड़ो पर विश्वास नहीं करता। हकीकत कुछ और होती है, और ये आंकड़े कुछ और ब्यान कर जाते है। आपने ठीक कहा है की ऐसी रिपोर्ट भी बनाई जा सकती है की मोदी को शत-प्रतिशत वोट मिल जाये। तो ऐसी रिपोर्ट पर गौर करना भी बेमानी है।
PS : I don't support the ideology of eye for an eye. What happend to karsevaks or in godhara are equally condemned and should never happen. But questions do arise when people stage a biased approach towards one happening.
Last edited:
malikdeepak1
New member
गुरु देसी! आप ये पहले भी कह चुके है बजट वाले लेख पर!
मैंने तो पहले ही स्वीकार किया है की हम आपकी अतुलनीय सोच के सामने तिनके मान है। फिर भी अपने सीमित ज्ञान द्वारा आपके दिए गए जवाबो का विश्लेषण करना चाहूँगा :
1. आपने स्वयं ही वर्तमान सरकार और बीजेपी सरकार में तुलना कर दी अपने प्रथम लेख में। तो स्वाभाविक है बाकि लोग भी तुलना अवश्य करेंगे। आपने कहा की वर्तमान सर्कार ने पिछले 8 साल में अच्छा काम किया है जो मौत कम हुई है। अब ये तो आपने रौल बाबा का समर्थन कर दिया की कुछ तो मरेंगे ही। हमारा देश कितना बड़ा है, हर जगह सुरक्षित नहीं बना सकते। तो भई सरकार में क्यों हो? आप तो अमरीका में निवास कर चुके है और अब भी वही है। क्या कारण है की 9/11 के बाद अमरीका में आतंकवाद का हमला हुआ ही नहीं है? उसी भांति क्या हमारे देश को सुरक्षित नहीं बनाया जा सकता? 9 साल काफी समय होता है देश की सुरक्षा व्यवस्था को बदलने के लिए। परन्तु किया क्या? कुछ नहीं।
आतंकवाद के हमलो को मौत से ना जोड़े। यु तो 9/11 में एक व्यक्ति 85वि मंजिल से कूद कर बच गया था, तो क्या इसे हम उपलब्धि मान ले सरकार की कि केवल 100 मरे, 101 नहीं??
2. मैं तो ये कह रहा हु की वर्तमान सरकार ने इतने घोटाले किये है की उनको अब कुर्सी से हटाना चहिये। बहुत समय दे चुके इनको हम। हमारी मेहनत की कमाई को यु चाटते जा रहे है जैसे बिल्ली दूध को चट कर जाती है। और एक बात पे गौर फरमाइयेगा की ये पोलिटिशियन है, और सारे एक जैसे है। और हमारे पास विकल्पों का अभाव है। तो जाहिर सी बात है जो कम चोर होगा उसको चुनना पड़ेगा।और ये मैंने कभी नहीं कहा की मोदी ने घोटाला नहीं किया है। भला कोई नहीं है इस खेल में। पर आप जो कह रहे है की मोदी एक मिथ्या है, तो सीधी सी बात है गुरुदेव की मीडिया तो खंग्रेस के पास भी है। भूपेंदर हूडा को क्यों इतनी फुटेज नहीं मिल रही? जबकि उसने तो "नम्बर 1 हरयाणा " बना रखा है? कही कुछ तो हकीकत होगी मोदी के विकास में? मैं ये नहीं कह रहा की मोदी ने बहुत ज्यादा या कम विकास किया है, और न ही ये मानता हु की वो कायापलट कर देगा देश की, पर बिना परखे सिरे से नकार देना भी तो उचित नहीं। और मैं तो पहले ही कह चूका हु की अगर खंग्रेस देश को प्रगति के रस्ते पर ले कर जाये तो मुझे उसमे कोई भी आपत्ति नहीं है। परन्तु ये हजारो करोड़ के घोटाले उसपर भरोसा करने से मना करते है।
3. गुरु देसी, जब आप 600 रूपये में 5 लोगो वाली योजना का मुखर होकर स्वागत कर सकते है, तो 31 वाले बयाँ पर तो आपकी सहमती स्पष्ट रूप से दिखती है। थोडा गणित इस्तेमाल कर लेते है (आपकी भाषा में आंकड़े जिनपर आप अत्यधिक यकीन करते है):
31 * 30 = 930 रूपये
अब अगर 5 आदमी महीने भर में 600 रूपये में भर पेट भोजन कर सकते है, तो 930 रूपये में तो एक आदमी की बल्ले-बल्ले होना स्वाभाविक है!
4. अशोक खेमका एक बेहद ईमानदार अफसर माने जाते है। इसीलिए ही उनके तबादले जल्दी जल्दी होते है की ये कही कोई गड़बड़ न पकड़ ले। वो आईएएस अधिकारी है, तो जाहिर सी बात है मूर्ख तो होंगे नहीं जो बिना सर-पैर गाँधी परिवार के दामाद पर आरोप लगा देंगे? पर आपने वहा आलोचना करने के बजाए बीजेपी (या यु कहे मोदी) का राग अलापना आरंभ कर दिया। अब ये तो वही बात हो गयी की "रे तेरी सायकिल की चैन उतर गी?" बल्या "जब सुसरे, तेरी भी तो छोरी भाज गी थी पछले साल!"
उस आरोप की विवेचना किये बिना आप आरोप-प्रत्यारोप पर आ गए। जो की मुझे लगा की उचित नहीं था।
5. तथ्य पेश करना और तथ्यों को तोड़-मरोड़ कर पेश करना दोनों अलग बात है। इसपर आप भी सहमती जताएंगे की तथ्य तरोड़े-मरोड़े जा सकते है। और ये बात दोनों खंग्रेस और बीजेपी पर लागू होती है, या किसी भी अन्य रिपोर्ट पर। सब लोग कहते है की हूडा ने तो रोहतक चमका दिया। पर जरा रोहतक में जाकर तो देखिये, उस चमक के पीछे कितना अँधेरा हो चुका है। जवान बालक पढना छोड़ कर नशे की गुलाम हो चुके है (क्युकी जमीन के पैसे पड़े है). अब ये बात रोहतक वालो से बेहतर कोन जान सकता है की एक मिनट भी घर को अकेला छोड़ा नहीं की घर साफ़! कानून व्यवस्था की धज्जिया उडी पड़ी है विकसित रोहतक में। ये है असली तथ्य विकास का जो आपको किसी रिपोर्ट में नहीं मिलेगा।
6. जमीनी हकीकत को समझने के लिए आपको जमीन से जुड़ना पड़ेगा। आप कह रहे है की लाइसेंस राज आ जायेगा तो पटवारी के चक्कर काटने पड़ेंगे। रिश्वत चलेंगी। तो देसी गुरु क्षमा चाहता हु फिर से प्रश्न पूछने के लिए, परन्तु क्या आपको पता है की पानी का ओसरा(बारी) कोन बाँट-ता है? आपका वही पटवारी(और कुछ लम्बरदार कही कही पर)
. तो भई रिश्वत तो वहा पहले से चलती है। क्या आपको लगता है की बिना बेलदार की सहमती के पानी चोरी करना संभव है? इनकी ड्यूटी होती है रात को नहर पर ये देखने की कही कोई चोरी तो नहीं कर रहा पानी की। पर क्या ये करते है? नहीं करते तो क्यों नहीं करते? आशा है आपको अब ये जवाब मिल गया होगा की मैंने वो सुंडवे वाला प्रश्न क्यों किया था आपसे। और मैं इसकी मुखालफत पहले ही कर चूका हु की ये लाइसेंस लाने से कुछ नहीं होने वाला। इसमें काफी खामिया है, जो दूर होनी चाइये।मैं आपसे कतई ये आशा नहीं करता की आप कार्टून बनाये या भद्दे नाम पुकारे। परन्तु ये आशा जरुर करता हु की अपनी बुद्धिजीविता को सिर्फ आंकड़ो तक सीमित न रहने दे।
धन्यवाद सहित।
नोट: उपरोक्त कथन में मैंने जहा तक हो सका वहा तक पक्षपात से दूर रहने की कोशिश की है। हो सकता है सीमित सोच के कारण कही कुछ सही से उल्लेख न कर पाया होउ। गुरु देसी की छात्र-छाया में आशा करता हु उसका निवारण होगा!
Last edited:
I agree, and I used that example to show hypocrisy of others, who claimed me to be biased.
May be, but even they do who are they? if someone supports congress why is words used like sycophancy and chamcha used when others support Modi blindly too?
In numerous posts I have appreciated BJP as well for what little they deserve but I feel sorry more often than not I do not agree. I have said it plenty of time too that Modi is more experienced than Rahul to be PM(but not better), but it is conveniently ignored.
I have never denied Congress has its flaws, sycophancy culture being one but at the same time if people with in Congress are happy with the system, who are others to criticize? I dont think Dynasty has a place in democracy, ultimately everyone has to go through the test of elections to come to power and if people have voted Congress under SG back to power then it means people at large accept the structure of the party. Whereas BJP makes its own mockery with the cat fight.
I feel BJP has a lot better candidates to field who have a proven track record, e.g. Shivraj Singh Chauhan, he is no less than Modi in governance, his state is doing much better but just because he does not market himself as a communal Hindu leader and Messiah of Growth, people dont call his name.
गुरु देसी! आप ये पहले भी कह चुके है बजट वाले लेख पर!
मैंने तो पहले ही स्वीकार किया है की हम आपकी अतुलनीय सोच के सामने तिनके मान है। फिर भी अपने सीमित ज्ञान द्वारा आपके दिए गए जवाबो का विश्लेषण करना चाहूँगा :
1. आपने स्वयं ही वर्तमान सरकार और बीजेपी सरकार में तुलना कर दी अपने प्रथम लेख में। तो स्वाभाविक है बाकि लोग भी तुलना अवश्य करेंगे। आपने कहा की वर्तमान सर्कार ने पिछले 8 साल में अच्छा काम किया है जो मौत कम हुई है। अब ये तो आपने रौल बाबा का समर्थन कर दिया की कुछ तो मरेंगे ही। हमारा देश कितना बड़ा है, हर जगह सुरक्षित नहीं बना सकते। तो भई सरकार में क्यों हो? आप तो अमरीका में निवास कर चुके है और अब भी वही है। क्या कारण है की 9/11 के बाद अमरीका में आतंकवाद का हमला हुआ ही नहीं है? उसी भांति क्या हमारे देश को सुरक्षित नहीं बनाया जा सकता? 9 साल काफी समय होता है देश की सुरक्षा व्यवस्था को बदलने के लिए। परन्तु किया क्या? कुछ नहीं।
आतंकवाद के हमलो को मौत से ना जोड़े। यु तो 9/11 में एक व्यक्ति 85वि मंजिल से कूद कर बच गया था, तो क्या इसे हम उपलब्धि मान ले सरकार की कि केवल 100 मरे, 101 नहीं??
2. मैं तो ये कह रहा हु की वर्तमान सरकार ने इतने घोटाले किये है की उनको अब कुर्सी से हटाना चहिये। वहा तक पक्षपात से दूर रहने की कोशिश की है। हो सकता है सीमित सोच के कारण कही कुछ सही से उल्लेख न कर पाया होउ। गुरु देसी की छात्र-छाया में आशा करता हु उसका निवारण होगा!
Deepak,
Angrezi mein likhunga, main bhadhai post dekh kar deta hu aadmi dekh kar nahi isilie aap jitni baar achi post likhenge, badhai ke patra banenge
1) America aur bharat ko compare karna moorkhta bhara vichar hai... America ek bahut hi samridh aur agda desh hai jo duniya par hukumat karta hai, America hatyaro ka niryatak hai aur yudh karna iske hakk main hai, America charo taraf paani se ghira hua hai, uske dushman se kafi door
Bharat main stithi alag hai- bharat ke charo taraf dushman hai, hume ladne ke lie hathyar khareedne padte hai, ham abhi bhi growing economy hai aur hamare pass aur bhi cheeze hai jo aar paar ki ladai se jaruri hai. Agar itne sab ke bavjood atankwaad se hone wali mauto main kami aai hai to mujhe lagta hai isme kuch galat baat to nahi?
2)Congress ki sarkar main jitne ghotale hue hai, shayad hi pahle kabhi hue ho par ye kahna ki sirf Congress ki sarkar mein ghotale hue hai galat hai. Main Gujarat nahi gaya aur sirf aankdo ki baat karta hu aur un aankdo ko dekha jaye to vikas hua hai, par utna nahi jitna shor hai. Suna bhi hai Vikas hua hai, sadke ban gai, bijli aati hai, nayi nayi compania aa rahi hai, bhadiya hai bhai par is vikas ke piche keemat kya chuka raha hai Gujarat wo koi nahi batata? Jo bhedbhaav is Vikas ke piche hai, wo koi nahi dekhta.... aur akhri baat, Modi ne aaj tak Godhra ke lie ek shikan tak nahi dikhai, aap chahenge aapka pradhan mantri aisa ho jo sampradayik ho?
3) Again, I never commented on his so your assumption is what you think I would have said... though I agree with your analysis and I also find it abrupt
4) Khemka ne jo kaha satya kaha hoga, Vadra ki growth akalpanik hai and least govt shld have done is enquiry par maine jo baat kahi wo hypocricy dikhane ke lie kahi thi, jo log Modi ka usi scandal main aane ke bad aankh moond lete hai wo kis hak se Congress ke upar chillate hai? Why cant it be a level playing field?
Aur tu kahega main Modi ko la raha hu par Sanjeev Bhatt is an IPS officer who has said a lot of things about Modi, do you believe that all to be true? If yes, you still support him for PM?
5) Mere saare thathya aur analysis tark vitarak ke lie khula hota hai aur main auro ki tarah apne virodh karne walo ko bhadde shabd nahi kahta. Shayad hi meri koi post padhe jisme maine kisi ke upar niji waar kia ho(unless that person has frustrated me a lot). Infact, you will find me agreeing sometime with person on other view, example is the same thread of security you are criticizing. I believe in a healthy debate of agreement and disagreement, not just disagreement.
6) Bhai, just because I am in America does not mean I do not know ground realities. I have stayed in villages and I am from a farming background. Mujhe shabdo ka gyan na ho kyunki hamare yaha ye boli nahi boli jati but iska ye matlab nahi mujhe kisano ke dukh dard aur takleefo ka nahi pata
Baaki mujhe Guru kahne ke lie dhanyawaad, aasha karta hu jawab aap ki aasha par khare utre
Coming back to the Wharton affair. Business Standard makes the cases that uninviting or dis-inviting Modi doesn't trample over the right to free speech. Its the college's right to invite or withdraw invitation to anybody.
******************
The Wharton affair (or the Right to Bad Manners)
he circumstances of Mr Modi's invitation by a students' association at the University of Pennsylvania's business school, and subsequent un-ceremonious un-invitation following protests, are well known.
What is less clear is the correct interpretation of what happened. Mr Modi's supporters, and even some who don't support him, have cried foul. Notably, Wall Street Journal columnist Sadanand Dhume, explaining why he withdrew from the conference, called the decision "the intellectual equivalent of an eviction notice".
That it's impolite to first invite, and then un-invite, someone should be conceded. So far, fair enough.
The problem arises when it's next claimed that cancelling Mr Modi's invitation represents a violation of "free speech" or "freedom of expression". Mr Dhume claims the university opted to "toss aside the principles of free speech and reasoned debate".
But is this really true? Or is free speech rather a red herring in this debate?
The right to free speech, and free expression more generally, is protected by the US Constitution and constitutions elsewhere in the world.
This is where the confusion (or obfuscation) begins. For the right to speak freely implies no corresponding obligation for someone else to give you a platform to exercise that freedom. The First Amendment of the US Constitution - and Article 19 of the Indian Constitution - prohibit government censorship of expression.
But neither constitution prohibits a student body or indeed a university from deciding who it wants to invite, or un-invite. Indeed, un-inviting and "rudeness" in general, though a violation of the rules of etiquette, is also a constitutional exercise of free speech - not its abrogation.
Ania Loomba, a professor of English literature who helped lead the campaign against Mr Modi's participation in the Wharton event, makes a similar point persuasively in an interview to the New York Times' India blog. Objecting to an invitation to Mr Modi isn't tantamount to depriving him of free speech; on the contrary, in itself represents an exercise of free speech by his critics.
Further, had the organisers stuck to their guns and the invitation to Mr Modi stood, then those who opposed it would, presumably, have protested peacefully or merely boycotted the event. This, again, is a perfectly legitimate expression of freedom of expression, not its contrary.
So the Wharton affair isn't at all comparable to, say, the cancellation of Salman Rushdie's appearance at last year's Jaipur Literature Festival due to the presumed threat of violence from mobs gathering outside the venue. There is a world of difference between boycotts and peaceful protest on the one hand and thuggery and the threat of violence on the other. When mobs intimidate those with unpopular views and governments fail to guarantee individual freedom, it is threats of violence they are failing to address. No such threat was present or implied in this case.
While "free speech" is, thus, a red herring in the debate, could one take a different tack, and argue that the university has done disservice to its liberal ethos and the values of free debate and discourse that it presumably cherishes? Ashutosh Varshney, a distinguished scholar and outspoken critic of Mr Modi, believes as much. Mr Varshney suggested that the right model was how Columbia University handled a controversial visit to campus by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a few years ago: "critique if you disagree, but don't disinvite". On that occasion, despite pressure to cancel the visit, the university allowed it to go ahead, but President Lee Bollinger put Mr Ahmadinejad on the mat and made remarks critical of his guest in his presence and in a public forum.
One could debate how successful the Columbia compromise was. After all, if it's bad manners to un-invite you, isn't it equally poor grace to invite you and then humiliate you in front of other people? You might just wish you'd been un-invited instead.
More substantively, it would be difficult to sustain the view that there is only one correct way to respond to such a situation. Universities must weigh the benefits to the campus community of engaging with an interlocutor, perhaps one that is disliked by many, against the costs of so doing. In this case, allowing a keynote address on economic development by Mr Modi would involve legitimising, with honour and endorsement, a controversial and polarising figure.
You could certainly question the manners of whoever ultimately took the decision to un-invite Mr Modi - whether the organisers or the university administration is unclear from the public record - but to suggest that this represents a fundamental failure of liberalism itself is quite a stretch.
The dilemma of how universities - to say nothing of governments - in the US and elsewhere should deal with Mr Modi isn't going to disappear anytime soon. If he does, in fact, become Prime Minister of India, will the "Ahmadinejad solution" be applied? Or will he be shunned, as was Austrian President Kurt Waldheim when his Nazi past became known? Either way, in the hurly burly of contested ideas, the right to change one's mind, the right to condemn, and the right to be impolite remain a vital part of constitutional and academic free speech.
Dehejia is an economics professor at Carleton University in Ottawa, Canada, and co-author of Indianomix: Making Sense of Modern India. Nundy is an advocate at the Supreme Court of India and a legal policy adviser to various governments and the United Nations
******************
The Wharton affair (or the Right to Bad Manners)
he circumstances of Mr Modi's invitation by a students' association at the University of Pennsylvania's business school, and subsequent un-ceremonious un-invitation following protests, are well known.
What is less clear is the correct interpretation of what happened. Mr Modi's supporters, and even some who don't support him, have cried foul. Notably, Wall Street Journal columnist Sadanand Dhume, explaining why he withdrew from the conference, called the decision "the intellectual equivalent of an eviction notice".
That it's impolite to first invite, and then un-invite, someone should be conceded. So far, fair enough.
The problem arises when it's next claimed that cancelling Mr Modi's invitation represents a violation of "free speech" or "freedom of expression". Mr Dhume claims the university opted to "toss aside the principles of free speech and reasoned debate".
But is this really true? Or is free speech rather a red herring in this debate?
The right to free speech, and free expression more generally, is protected by the US Constitution and constitutions elsewhere in the world.
This is where the confusion (or obfuscation) begins. For the right to speak freely implies no corresponding obligation for someone else to give you a platform to exercise that freedom. The First Amendment of the US Constitution - and Article 19 of the Indian Constitution - prohibit government censorship of expression.
But neither constitution prohibits a student body or indeed a university from deciding who it wants to invite, or un-invite. Indeed, un-inviting and "rudeness" in general, though a violation of the rules of etiquette, is also a constitutional exercise of free speech - not its abrogation.
Ania Loomba, a professor of English literature who helped lead the campaign against Mr Modi's participation in the Wharton event, makes a similar point persuasively in an interview to the New York Times' India blog. Objecting to an invitation to Mr Modi isn't tantamount to depriving him of free speech; on the contrary, in itself represents an exercise of free speech by his critics.
Further, had the organisers stuck to their guns and the invitation to Mr Modi stood, then those who opposed it would, presumably, have protested peacefully or merely boycotted the event. This, again, is a perfectly legitimate expression of freedom of expression, not its contrary.
So the Wharton affair isn't at all comparable to, say, the cancellation of Salman Rushdie's appearance at last year's Jaipur Literature Festival due to the presumed threat of violence from mobs gathering outside the venue. There is a world of difference between boycotts and peaceful protest on the one hand and thuggery and the threat of violence on the other. When mobs intimidate those with unpopular views and governments fail to guarantee individual freedom, it is threats of violence they are failing to address. No such threat was present or implied in this case.
While "free speech" is, thus, a red herring in the debate, could one take a different tack, and argue that the university has done disservice to its liberal ethos and the values of free debate and discourse that it presumably cherishes? Ashutosh Varshney, a distinguished scholar and outspoken critic of Mr Modi, believes as much. Mr Varshney suggested that the right model was how Columbia University handled a controversial visit to campus by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a few years ago: "critique if you disagree, but don't disinvite". On that occasion, despite pressure to cancel the visit, the university allowed it to go ahead, but President Lee Bollinger put Mr Ahmadinejad on the mat and made remarks critical of his guest in his presence and in a public forum.
One could debate how successful the Columbia compromise was. After all, if it's bad manners to un-invite you, isn't it equally poor grace to invite you and then humiliate you in front of other people? You might just wish you'd been un-invited instead.
More substantively, it would be difficult to sustain the view that there is only one correct way to respond to such a situation. Universities must weigh the benefits to the campus community of engaging with an interlocutor, perhaps one that is disliked by many, against the costs of so doing. In this case, allowing a keynote address on economic development by Mr Modi would involve legitimising, with honour and endorsement, a controversial and polarising figure.
You could certainly question the manners of whoever ultimately took the decision to un-invite Mr Modi - whether the organisers or the university administration is unclear from the public record - but to suggest that this represents a fundamental failure of liberalism itself is quite a stretch.
The dilemma of how universities - to say nothing of governments - in the US and elsewhere should deal with Mr Modi isn't going to disappear anytime soon. If he does, in fact, become Prime Minister of India, will the "Ahmadinejad solution" be applied? Or will he be shunned, as was Austrian President Kurt Waldheim when his Nazi past became known? Either way, in the hurly burly of contested ideas, the right to change one's mind, the right to condemn, and the right to be impolite remain a vital part of constitutional and academic free speech.
Dehejia is an economics professor at Carleton University in Ottawa, Canada, and co-author of Indianomix: Making Sense of Modern India. Nundy is an advocate at the Supreme Court of India and a legal policy adviser to various governments and the United Nations
I am not sure what point you are trying to make here. We all know that a private organisation can invite and then revoke that invitation. Its ok but the way it is done just show that how they have been pressurised to do that. Yes its not a denial to the free speech as Mr Modi has lot better platform to express himself. If anyone has lost anything here ,in my opinion, it is Wharton (as for Mr Modi this isn't new and at home he probably only increased his vote count by one or two). You highlighted the last few lines about Ahmadinejad and Kurt. Are you comparing three of them? Its bit vague and one can only make assumption.
Why Modi Deserved To Be Heard
Wharton had the right to do so - that goes without saying. That it doesn't have an obligation to provide a platform to Modi is also quite obvious.
But the act of taking away the platform after providing it, because of pressure from certain sections, is against the idea of free speech. It also comes in the way of those who wanted to listen to Modi, whether they agree with him or not. Listening is different from agreeing. Also my understanding of such forums is that the speaker has to face tough questions. This article puts it in an excellent way:
http://www.newslaundry.com/2013/03/why-modi-deserved-to-be-heard/
***********************************
Let me get straight to the point. Institutions of higher learning are not meant to be political battlefields. They aren’t supposed to be assembly lines which churn out MBAs and MScs and PhDs with the homogeneity of a ginger-bread man cookie-cutter. They should ideally be forums to unlearn stereotypes and give nuance to opinions. Which is why, it is very disappointing that Wharton has cancelled Narendra Modi’s speech. No, I’m not a NAMO-bhakt. This isn’t in defence of Modi, but in defence of free speech.
When it comes to the freedom of speech, there isn’t that one moment which you can pinpoint and say “THIS is when I started believing in the freedom of expression”. It’s an evolutionary process, which hopefully begins in school where accidentally or by design you learn to make your peace with contrarian opinions which vary in severity to your own personal belief system. Which is why educational institutions should give space to all voices, no matter how hated, contrary or politically incorrect. Listening to Modi speak isn’t an endorsement of his views, it’s a chance to validate your own opinions and to support them with a first-hand experience.
As a graduate student at the London School of Economics (LSE), I attended a lecture given via video link by Colonel Muammar Gaddafi in December 2010 (watch it here, here, here and here). We were told that the Colonel would be speaking on Libya’s position in the world. The auditorium was packed a good 20 minutes before the talk began and it was quite apparent that for many of us, it was the most interesting “lecture” of our academic lives. Does that mean that those of us who attended the lecture supported non-democratic governments? Nahhh, we just wanted to see what a dictator had to say.
Watch the videos carefully. It focuses only on the audience and their reaction is telling. The sheer ridiculousness of the Colonel’s ramblings means that he was subjected to disdainful chuckles and derisive laughter. He didn’t answer a single question in any meaningful way and his comments were outrageously (and unintentionally) funny. He accused Thatcher and Reagan for conspiring against Libya, he offered condolences to a (baffled) Pakistani student on Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s execution, and when asked what he thought was Libya’s position in the world, he explained its geographical position. When an audience member asked him two separate questions, one on the Lockerbie bombings and the other on Tony Blair’s help in the image makeover for Libya, he mixed up the two and asserted that Tony Blair had nothing to do with the Lockerbie bombings and that it was a conspiracy (?!). He said Obama was a good president because he is “not a Yankee” (again??!!). The pièce de résistance of his “talk” though, was his “map according to Gaddafi” – an atlas that formed the backdrop and showed how Gaddafi believed the world would politically evolve into unions of states and would have no space for individual national identities, at which point an annoyed student from Azerbaijan got up and asked that since his country was clubbed with Russia, was the Colonel implying that it would be annexed? Moral of the story? If what you say does not resonate with your audience, they have the ability to reject it.
My faith in democracy is as strong as ever, thankyouverymuchforasking. One hour or one speech is not enough to indoctrinate students. Yet, there is a certain nuance to my opinion on dictatorships now. Before Dec 2010, I thought that they were bad because they suppressed self-determination and were a violation of basic human rights. While I still believe this, there is a second reason to my opposition to non-democratic governments – despots who are in power lose touch with reality, become delusional and pose a threat to the entire region that they’re in.
I’m not comparing Modi and Gaddafi as leaders. What I am comparing are situations in which two polarising figures were asked to address a body of students seeking an education. Modi should have spoken at Wharton not because he necessarily needs to be heard, but because students have the right to question those who want to lead them.
Not everyone disagrees or agrees with Modi’s politics for the same reasons. Yet, the journey to forming an opinion for or against an issue is much, much more important than the final opinion itself. The Whartons and LSEs of the world are meant to nurture mature views, not reinforce pre-conceived notions. I would much rather engage in a conversation with a person who says he would/would not vote for Modi for reasons X, Y and Z rather than someone who says he won’t vote for him because he’s a monster or will support him because…you know development/growth/randomeconomicindicator. The talk at Wharton should have been an opportunity to question Modi on his politics and his economics. He should have been told that he can’t cherry-pick the questions to suit a propaganda – that he would have to answer any question, no matter how uncomfortable which any student may have to ask him. It’s not clear if these terms were laid out, but had they been unacceptable to him, that itself would have said a lot.
There is nothing more disappointing than a university quelling an unpalatable point of view. Heck, it’s the one time in your life when you want to challenge and be challenged, offend and be offended and bare yourself to the widest spectrum of ideas without real world consequences. It’s called gaining an education. What exactly are those opposed to the speech afraid of? That Modi will brainwash students? Or that it signals some sort of an endorsement of his politics? Oh come on! Give the students some credit! They probably have a collective score of 9734287489347 on their GRE/GMAT and are more than capable of deciding whether or not they want to support Modi.
A few weeks after Gaddafi’s talk, the Arab Spring engulfed Libya – but not before it rapped LSE on the knuckles. Houghton Street, the main street which houses the LSE, saw vociferous protests by students against the college’s links with Libya, the “extra support” which Saif Gaddafi (Colonel Gaddafi’s son) got for the completion of his PhD and for the donations which it accepted from the regime. The Woolf Inquiry was set up to independently assess LSE’s association with Libya subsequently, the then Director of the LSE, Howard Davies had to step down on account of the school accepting a GBP 1.5 mn donation from the country. So here’s what, it wasn’t a speech that was an endorsement of Gaddafi’s views, but unethical donations, which was rejected by the students. In fact, the Woolf report states of the lecture that:
The LSE does not consider its lectures give a platform to objectionable speakers, because it has a strict rule that it will never allow an event unless the speaker is willing to take questions and the LSE does not allow the speaker to handpick the audience. (Pg: 115)
Somewhere along the line, we’ve come to interpret “listening” to mean “agreeing”. Yet if you don’t listen, how do you know what you’re disagreeing with? I once asked an octogenarian holocaust survivor (again, at the LSE) what he thought of holocaust-deniers and whether he thought they should be banned. He said that people denying the holocaust isn’t going to make him stop believing – that he knew what had happened. In fact, he wouldn’t support a ban because the world could then see how ridiculous and bigoted they were.
His logic is appealing – free speech is not a scarce resource. It is a public good. It cannot be allocated according to a perceived benefit to society. Anyone with an opinion to air is entitled to it, including the Modis and Rahuls or the Owaisis and Togadias of the world. Listening to ideas or thoughts which I find distasteful or disagree with, is the price I pay for my freedom. Yes, there are some serious questions and concerns about Modi’s ability to lead the nation, but they aren’t going to disappear by clamping down on his public appearances.
Learning to accept intellectual discomfort is a vital part of the university experience. Those who don’t learn to deal with it are paying tuition fees just for a degree, not for an education.
The views expressed by the author are personal
***************************************
Wharton had the right to do so - that goes without saying. That it doesn't have an obligation to provide a platform to Modi is also quite obvious.
But the act of taking away the platform after providing it, because of pressure from certain sections, is against the idea of free speech. It also comes in the way of those who wanted to listen to Modi, whether they agree with him or not. Listening is different from agreeing. Also my understanding of such forums is that the speaker has to face tough questions. This article puts it in an excellent way:
http://www.newslaundry.com/2013/03/why-modi-deserved-to-be-heard/
***********************************
Let me get straight to the point. Institutions of higher learning are not meant to be political battlefields. They aren’t supposed to be assembly lines which churn out MBAs and MScs and PhDs with the homogeneity of a ginger-bread man cookie-cutter. They should ideally be forums to unlearn stereotypes and give nuance to opinions. Which is why, it is very disappointing that Wharton has cancelled Narendra Modi’s speech. No, I’m not a NAMO-bhakt. This isn’t in defence of Modi, but in defence of free speech.
When it comes to the freedom of speech, there isn’t that one moment which you can pinpoint and say “THIS is when I started believing in the freedom of expression”. It’s an evolutionary process, which hopefully begins in school where accidentally or by design you learn to make your peace with contrarian opinions which vary in severity to your own personal belief system. Which is why educational institutions should give space to all voices, no matter how hated, contrary or politically incorrect. Listening to Modi speak isn’t an endorsement of his views, it’s a chance to validate your own opinions and to support them with a first-hand experience.
As a graduate student at the London School of Economics (LSE), I attended a lecture given via video link by Colonel Muammar Gaddafi in December 2010 (watch it here, here, here and here). We were told that the Colonel would be speaking on Libya’s position in the world. The auditorium was packed a good 20 minutes before the talk began and it was quite apparent that for many of us, it was the most interesting “lecture” of our academic lives. Does that mean that those of us who attended the lecture supported non-democratic governments? Nahhh, we just wanted to see what a dictator had to say.
Watch the videos carefully. It focuses only on the audience and their reaction is telling. The sheer ridiculousness of the Colonel’s ramblings means that he was subjected to disdainful chuckles and derisive laughter. He didn’t answer a single question in any meaningful way and his comments were outrageously (and unintentionally) funny. He accused Thatcher and Reagan for conspiring against Libya, he offered condolences to a (baffled) Pakistani student on Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s execution, and when asked what he thought was Libya’s position in the world, he explained its geographical position. When an audience member asked him two separate questions, one on the Lockerbie bombings and the other on Tony Blair’s help in the image makeover for Libya, he mixed up the two and asserted that Tony Blair had nothing to do with the Lockerbie bombings and that it was a conspiracy (?!). He said Obama was a good president because he is “not a Yankee” (again??!!). The pièce de résistance of his “talk” though, was his “map according to Gaddafi” – an atlas that formed the backdrop and showed how Gaddafi believed the world would politically evolve into unions of states and would have no space for individual national identities, at which point an annoyed student from Azerbaijan got up and asked that since his country was clubbed with Russia, was the Colonel implying that it would be annexed? Moral of the story? If what you say does not resonate with your audience, they have the ability to reject it.
My faith in democracy is as strong as ever, thankyouverymuchforasking. One hour or one speech is not enough to indoctrinate students. Yet, there is a certain nuance to my opinion on dictatorships now. Before Dec 2010, I thought that they were bad because they suppressed self-determination and were a violation of basic human rights. While I still believe this, there is a second reason to my opposition to non-democratic governments – despots who are in power lose touch with reality, become delusional and pose a threat to the entire region that they’re in.
I’m not comparing Modi and Gaddafi as leaders. What I am comparing are situations in which two polarising figures were asked to address a body of students seeking an education. Modi should have spoken at Wharton not because he necessarily needs to be heard, but because students have the right to question those who want to lead them.
Not everyone disagrees or agrees with Modi’s politics for the same reasons. Yet, the journey to forming an opinion for or against an issue is much, much more important than the final opinion itself. The Whartons and LSEs of the world are meant to nurture mature views, not reinforce pre-conceived notions. I would much rather engage in a conversation with a person who says he would/would not vote for Modi for reasons X, Y and Z rather than someone who says he won’t vote for him because he’s a monster or will support him because…you know development/growth/randomeconomicindicator. The talk at Wharton should have been an opportunity to question Modi on his politics and his economics. He should have been told that he can’t cherry-pick the questions to suit a propaganda – that he would have to answer any question, no matter how uncomfortable which any student may have to ask him. It’s not clear if these terms were laid out, but had they been unacceptable to him, that itself would have said a lot.
There is nothing more disappointing than a university quelling an unpalatable point of view. Heck, it’s the one time in your life when you want to challenge and be challenged, offend and be offended and bare yourself to the widest spectrum of ideas without real world consequences. It’s called gaining an education. What exactly are those opposed to the speech afraid of? That Modi will brainwash students? Or that it signals some sort of an endorsement of his politics? Oh come on! Give the students some credit! They probably have a collective score of 9734287489347 on their GRE/GMAT and are more than capable of deciding whether or not they want to support Modi.
A few weeks after Gaddafi’s talk, the Arab Spring engulfed Libya – but not before it rapped LSE on the knuckles. Houghton Street, the main street which houses the LSE, saw vociferous protests by students against the college’s links with Libya, the “extra support” which Saif Gaddafi (Colonel Gaddafi’s son) got for the completion of his PhD and for the donations which it accepted from the regime. The Woolf Inquiry was set up to independently assess LSE’s association with Libya subsequently, the then Director of the LSE, Howard Davies had to step down on account of the school accepting a GBP 1.5 mn donation from the country. So here’s what, it wasn’t a speech that was an endorsement of Gaddafi’s views, but unethical donations, which was rejected by the students. In fact, the Woolf report states of the lecture that:
The LSE does not consider its lectures give a platform to objectionable speakers, because it has a strict rule that it will never allow an event unless the speaker is willing to take questions and the LSE does not allow the speaker to handpick the audience. (Pg: 115)
Somewhere along the line, we’ve come to interpret “listening” to mean “agreeing”. Yet if you don’t listen, how do you know what you’re disagreeing with? I once asked an octogenarian holocaust survivor (again, at the LSE) what he thought of holocaust-deniers and whether he thought they should be banned. He said that people denying the holocaust isn’t going to make him stop believing – that he knew what had happened. In fact, he wouldn’t support a ban because the world could then see how ridiculous and bigoted they were.
His logic is appealing – free speech is not a scarce resource. It is a public good. It cannot be allocated according to a perceived benefit to society. Anyone with an opinion to air is entitled to it, including the Modis and Rahuls or the Owaisis and Togadias of the world. Listening to ideas or thoughts which I find distasteful or disagree with, is the price I pay for my freedom. Yes, there are some serious questions and concerns about Modi’s ability to lead the nation, but they aren’t going to disappear by clamping down on his public appearances.
Learning to accept intellectual discomfort is a vital part of the university experience. Those who don’t learn to deal with it are paying tuition fees just for a degree, not for an education.
The views expressed by the author are personal
***************************************
‘India First’ is my definition of secularism, says Modi
http://www.thehindu.com/news/india-first-is-my-definition-of-secularism-says-modi/article4494238.ece
http://www.thehindu.com/news/india-first-is-my-definition-of-secularism-says-modi/article4494238.ece
I identify with the overall theme of the article and I am not making a point. I just shared it as I said I identified with its theme.
And highlighting something means I am drawing attention to it, not necessarily I agree with it all.
That is an interesting view point and one that has been addressed by quite a few columnists. I identify with the view point that it would have been interesting experience to have Modi speak at Wharton and allowed to be questioned by students. As the author points out, it would have been a learning experience for the students as well.
At the same time, denying him the right to speak isn't an act against freedom of speech. Modi didn't have a right to speak at Wharton, he had a privilege extended to him by Wharton and that privilege could be withdrawn as they saw fit. One can say it was in bad taste but it was Wharton's prerogative to let him speak or not. They decided not to let theirs be the platform for Modi to advance his PM ambitions. Of course, as the author above says, it might after all could have turned out the other way round and Modi could have regretted his decision to speak if tough questions could have been asked. That is something we'd never know.
Ha Ha ok My Bad, I thought a person copy and paste article when he is endorsing those views. Anyway if you are just highlighting something may be just paste the link and help managing load on the server
cutejaatsandeep
New member
i am pasting a link here...n it tells you why modi should be the next prime minister of india....sabarmati river was once like river yamuna...but now see what modi has done to it
http://www.narendramodi.in/changing...r-visionary-leadership-of-shri-narendra-modi/
http://www.narendramodi.in/changing...r-visionary-leadership-of-shri-narendra-modi/
See again you are biased here Vipin- the suggestion comes for someone who at-least posts some informative stuff.
Since you sound like a DB expert, I am sure you know pictures load server more than text. Why would you not also recommend those who copy paste pictures from various FB forums, in bad taste?
Since you sound like a DB expert, I am sure you know pictures load server more than text. Why would you not also recommend those who copy paste pictures from various FB forums, in bad taste?
Ha Ha ok My Bad, I thought a person copy and paste article when he is endorsing those views. Anyway if you are just highlighting something may be just paste the link and help managing load on the server
- Status