Media In India/elsewhere

10-16-2006, 03:49 AM

Instead of kenopaniShad being anti-women, it is the same upanishAd where there is a story of Goddess umA showing all the male gods such as indra, agni etc, (who had become egotistical), their proper place and enunciating the nature of supreme brahman for them.

10-16-2006, 05:05 AM

Welcome back Guroo.. <img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/rock.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='rock.gif' /> <img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/guitar.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='guitar.gif' />

10-16-2006, 08:14 AM

Thanks Rajesh. Have been away too long... <!--emo& Sad

--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif' />

10-16-2006, 03:37 PM

QUOTE(Ashok Kumar @ Oct 16 2006, 08:14 AM)Thanks Rajesh.Â Have been away too long...Â <!--emo& Sad

--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif' />
[right][snapback]59174[/snapback][/right]


Welcome back Ashok, trust everything is alright and in order. <!--emo& Smile

--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' />

Husky · (This post was last modified: 10-16-2006, 04:31 PM by Husky.)

Post 219:
Bodhi, thanks for explaining about why it's another desperate Christo lie.

What nonsense about women having a low spiritual position in Hinduism. Women in my family generally do not say the Gayathri mantra. When I was younger, I asked why that was (I was just curious). I was told both by my aunt and my grandmother that most of these mantras are compulsory for men (that men need to say them to experience their good effects), and that women need not even say them as they have the beneficial effects automatically conferred on them.

Post 218 (Ashok Kumar)
QUOTEDevi (goddess Durga), all vidyA's are your various forms , and so are all the women in the worldThere's a similar one in Devimahatmyam, XI, 5 - where the supplicant addresses the great Mother:
QUOTEAll sciences come from Thee, and all women in all the world are parts of Thee.
By Thee alone, O Mother, is the universe filled.
How can we praise Thee?
Art Thou not beyond the reach of the highest praise? (Translation from Ramakrishna math book)

Compare this to Christianity:
things they don't tell you about Christoism -After its having been missing for nearly all of this year, I've been emailed the new link to this site. It even looks different now.
QUOTEWoman was merely man's helpmate, a function which pertains to her alone. She is not the image of God but as far as man is concerned, he is by himself the image of God.
-- Saint Augustine (354-430)
"Wife: Be content to be insignificant. What loss would it be to God or man had you never been born."
-- John Wesley (1703-91), Reformer, founder of the Methodist movement
More of what respected Christians have said about women, firmly basing their views on the Bible.
The Biblical Curse of Eve was used by clergy to prevent physicians from administering anaesthetics to relieve pain during child birth.
Fact
584 CE Council Of Macon: bishops gathered to vote on "Are women human?" By a narrow vote (of 1), women obtained human status in Christianity.
Apparently, the decision was not final, as the question had to be reconsidered by the Protestants too:
Lutherans at Wittenberg debated whether women were really human beings at all.
-- The Dark Side of Christianity, by Helen Ellerbe
Equality in Christianity today:
"A wife should submit herself to the leadership of her husband. Leadership in the church should always be male."
-- Southern Baptist Convention (2000) [Link]There's more on the innate Christo hatred of women and Christo women's low place in their terrorist religion here

No wonder the Christos have to invent lies (as they have always done - like they did to Roman and Greek religion): they have to make themselves look good or at least not come out worse off. But there's no hiding the evils of Christo teaching.

Husky · (This post was last modified: 10-25-2006, 07:59 AM by Husky.)

This one is a particularly good summary of Christianity's view of women:
QUOTE[Churchfather] Tertullian (160?-220?): "Woman is a temple built over a sewer, the gateway to the devil. Woman, you are the devil's doorway. You led astray one whom the devil would not dare attack directly. It was your fault that the Son of God had to die; you should always go in mourning and rags."(So Christos blame Jews and women for the imaginary death of the imaginary Jesus?) Christo women should remember that Tertullian wants them to go around in mourning clothes. That means no Hindu sari for female converts to Christoism.

QUOTE"If [women] become tired or even die, that does not matter. Let them die in childbirth--that is why they are there."
-- Martin LutherMartin Luther wants to let them all die in child-birth. I hope all Lutheran converts heard the man - do they still find him worth looking up to?

10-16-2006, 05:45 PM

k.ram,

Thank you very much! Hanging in there.

Husky,

devI-mAhAtmyam, durgA-saptashatI, chanDI, chanDI-pATha etc. are names of the same text which is itself an extract from mArkaNDeya-purANam. The quote given by you is same as the one I gave ( even the chapter number and verse number match! <!--emo& Smile

--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /> )

10-16-2006, 06:04 PM

Ashok,
Totally missed that.
And I didn't know they were all different names for the same.

**acharya** · 10-17-2006, 08:11 AM

http://www.india-seminar.com/2004/539/539%...n%20chandra.htm
Elections as auctions
QUOTEThe more competitive an election, therefore, the more such voters from these groups are likely to benefit. But no matter how competitive it is, a democracy that does not guarantee access to a minimal set of entitlements for its most vulnerable citizens has malfunctioned in a serious way.

Paradoxically, however, this malfunction may well be the reason for the survival of democracy in India. When survival goods are allotted by the political market rather than as entitlements, voters who need these goods have no option but to participate.

http://assets.cambridge.org/052181/4529/sa...521814529ws.pdf
Why ethnic parties succeed.
http://www.deccanherald.com/deccanherald...04/br4.asp
http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2004/0...42400070800.htm

http://yale.edu/ycias/ocvprogram/licep/1...handra.pdf
Strategic voting

http://yale.edu/ycias/ocvprogram/licep/5/c...ndra-laitin.pdf
Frame work for identity change


Why Ethnic Parties Succeed: Patronage and Ethnic Head Counts in India. By Kanchan Chandra. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. 368p. $80.00.

In the post-9/11 world where the âclash of civilizationsâ has moved beyond classroom debates to the public realm, it is refreshing, and challenging, to see a study that does not give ethnicity an easy ride. The title of this book is slightly misleading, though, because even while it concedes that appeals for political support on the basis of ethnic categories based on ârace, caste, tribe or religionâ (p. 2) are frequently made, sometimes with considerable success, it asserts that such tactics do not always succeed. When they do, it is not necessarily because of their putative appeal to sentiments but, instead, because both ethnic candidates and their supporters, rather than being swayed by appeals to their nonrational selves, are actually driven by sophisticated calculations of expected gain. Their utility calculus takes the size of the ultimate prize as well as the probability of winning it into account when they choose to align themselves with one set of politicians as opposed to another. Kanchan Chandra's parsimonious and general model explains why ethic parties in India, riding on Hindu or, for that matter, Tamil nationalism, succeed in some contexts but not in others.

QUOTEEthnic Bargains, Group Instability, and Social Choice Theory
KANCHAN CHANDRA

This article makes two arguments: first, it argues that theories connecting ethnic group mobilization with democratic bargaining are based, often unwittingly, on primordialist assumptions that bias them toward overestimating the intractability of ethnic group demands. Second, it proposes a synthesis of constructivist approaches to ethnic identity and social choice theory to show how we who study ethnic mobilization might build theories that rely on the more realistic and more powerful assumption of instability in ethnic group boundaries and preferences. It illustrates the promise of this approach through a study of the language bargain struck in India's constituent assembly between 1947 and 1949.

http://www.aasianst.org/absts/1998abst/sasia/s-toc.htm

http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/politics/facu...ndra/as2000.pdf
Elite Incorporation in Multiethnic soceities

10-18-2006, 02:36 PM

Highly illuminating article! Exposes the anti-hindu ploy of the Indian media.

QUOTE Anti-Hindu Mindset Stories are fabricated to whip Sangh Parivar

By Dina Nath Mishra

It was Dang wherein a small incident of burning a hut-cum-church in retaliation to the desecration of a Hanuman statue was picked up. There were minor incidents of violence but not a single person died. Still it became a global controversy.

As a contrast Justice Wadhwa found that when in a village â23 houses of Hindus were burnt down by criminals belonging to the Christian community, the incident was largely unreported and totally ignored by the national and international media.â

Maybe in India secularists get a little political propaganda advantage by falsification of these incidents. Indian media ignores national interest, to say the least.

Mehtaâs âDiaryâ column in the Outlook dated May 23, 2005, is the best confession of a pseudo-secular journalist. âAt what point does a ânational treasureâ become a ânational liabilityâ? Pseudo-secularists like me have blindly defended and deified Lalu Yadav for his courageous, single-minded fight against communal forces.â

When UPA government came to power pseudo-secular media celebrated the result in which BJPâs tally was just seven seats less than that of the Congress. BJP failed to come to power. Media not only rejoiced it but multiplied its impact.

Indian mediaâs fabricated coverage of incidents tarnishes the national image of India in the world and brackets our situation with that of Pakistan. Pakistani press either ignores or nominally covers the real incidents of âWar Against Christiansâ whereas our English media fabricates, exaggerates and projects this type of incidents and gives credibility to them.

As a media person and a media watcher I can say with certain degree of confidence that right from the first general election of 1952, media has been biased against Hindus but had always kept a fig-leaf on its agenda. But this fig-leaf was discarded in the late 1980s with the beginning of Ramjanmabhoomi issue and bashing of Sangh Parivar became its main agenda. But this bashing was taken to new heights once the NDA government, led by the BJP was sworn in.

Mediaâs anti-Hindutva bombardment scaled even further heights, most punctuated by brazen lies, manufactured news and happenings that never happened. No other government had even faced such a brazen onslaught of media, however worst, corrupt, incompetent or tyrannical they may have been. The so-called secular media and the secular pen-pushers could not reconcile with the fact that the government of India is being led by BJP and its Prime Minister is a Swayamsevak of RSS. No other Government has ever experienced such a degree of hostility from the media and the Opposition. Even at the peak of the anti-Congress climate it was not so. The so-called secular parties and pen-pushers could not digest the arrival of the BJP at the seat of power. âHow can they be allowed to rule?â, was the mindset.

In fact, the Marxist and the westernised media find nothing great or inspiring in the history of ancient past of the country. Anything related to Hinduism is an anathema to them. It is for this reason Smt Brinda Karat, a Member of the Politburo of the CPI(M) led a vicious campaign against Baba Ram Dev, whose popularity has reached sky high after he successfully demonstrated that Pranayama and Yoga, can cure many diseases. Yoga has already got universal acceptance. Such was the public out-cry against Smt Karatâs frivolous campaign that she had to beat a hasty retreat. Baba Ram Dev was never a Sangh Parivar man but a great nationalist and believer of ancient Indian tradition.

Now I come to another example of attack on the Hindu belief namely the revered sacredness of the mother cow. The secularists, the communists and a group of historians are never tired of advocating beef eating by Hindus in the past. Vir Sanghvi, a leading journalist, wrote a full two-page article on the beef eating and various dishes that can be prepared from the beef. He adds, âWhat is it about beef? Evidence suggests that Vedic Aryans had no reservation about its consumption (though this evidence has caused another controversy). And while I respect Hindu sentiments, the whole point of Indian secularism is that we donât impose our religious beliefs on the nation. Muslims, Christians, Parsis and even many less orthodox Hindus are quite happy to eat beef. (Take my own case: Iâm a Jain by birth so I shouldnât even be eating onions or garlic.). Beef is easily available in at least two states that I frequently visit: West Bengal and Kerala. So, why do we get so hysterical about beef-eating in such cities, as Delhi?â (Brunch Supplement of Hindustan Times, dated November 20, 2005).

It is difficult to believe that such people will ever dare to hurt the sentiments of people who constituted more than 80 per cent of the population of the country and regarded cow as sacred, a creature which was considered aghnya (not to be hurt or killed) by the Rig Veda, and the Atharva Veda prescribes death penalty or banishment from the kingdom to a person who kills or injures cow. But our âsecularâ media hardly cares for the sentiments and beliefs of Hindus.

The present phase of the image war on the Sangh Parivar, including the BJP, is by far the most intense. In the last eight years, we have seen anti-Hindutva media bombardment on a dozen non-issues which lasted for quite some months, maybe over a year.

The Leftists have been the most perturbed after the rise of the BJP. Incidentally, they are the most unscrupulous propagandists too. These self-appointed guardians of secularism and the media have kept polity in combat mode. Every six months, there is an anti-BJP campaign. Image matters a lot. Image formation, good or bad, is an extremely intricate phenomenon. Image represents an intellectual and emotional complex in an instant of time, though the final perception may not be more than three or four words long.

The Sangh Parivar has worked hard for the image of being disciplined, well organised, growing fast and patriotic. The BJP too has assiduously built-up an image of âa party with a differenceâ. Its opponents have been out to demolish this image and, let me admit, they have been successful in denting the image of the party and that of the Sangh Parivar as well. Unfortunately we too have contributed in their success.

Media went hysterical when the Ramjanmabhoomi issue sprung up in late 1980s and turned out to be the greatest movement of Independent India. Media, generally the English media, went against it and hardened the secular and communal divide which ultimately climaxed in the destruction of the structure of the so called mosque. Anti-Hindu bias of media attained top gear when BJP led government came to power.

First, it was Dang wherein a small incident of burning a hut-cum-church in retaliation to the desecration of a Hanuman statue was picked-up. There were minor incidents of violence but not a single person died. Still it became a global controversy wherein ministers from Germany, Canada, US and Australia showed their concern.

Then came the Jhabua nun-rape controversy based on totally wrong linkages with Hindutva. The propaganda implicated the Vishwa Hindu Parishad in this heinous crime. The church organised hundreds of protest marches throughout the country and outside. This rape case became an international media event. It acquired high voltage because a Sangh Parivar organisation was said to be involved. Ultimately the truth emerged in an I.G. enquiry report, of the Madhya Pradesh government. 24 alleged rapists were arrested. All of them belonged to the Bhil caste, 12 out of them were Christians. The court convicted them. This crime had no communal angle. When the list of rapists along with their caste and religion was provided to media persons by Press Information Bureau (PIB), no newspaper of the national media published it, as already they had written so much about the Parivarâs involvement. Even today some newspapers write and blame the Sangh Parivar. The mainline media in India and outside and the church have never allowed the truth to come out, let alone regretting for a totally wrong and fabricated campaign.

The burning of an Australian missionary, Graham Staines along with his two children, created a furore the world over. The Wadhwa Commission castigated the media for linking Hindu organisations with the incident. We received a whipping by the media and media trials were conducted for more than a year. However the Wadhwa Commission found that Dara Singh was not a member of the Bajrang Dal and was in no way connected with the RSS. The commission was very critical about the biased role played by the media and practically indicted it for its bias. But the impact of the media against the RSS regarding this case left a durable impression on the mind of the whole world, for it was prominently reported in the world media A number of similar stories of attacks on Christians, and its linkages invented by media, did the rounds.

The Wadhwa Commission appointed to inquire into the Staines murder and other cases, established that the rape, âWas a made up storyâ, that investigations had proved that Sister Maryâs FIR stating she had been raped, was false. Justice Wadhwa had noted that it was highlighted all over the world as an attack on Christians. But it was a deliberate fabrication by the church itself, with clear communal intent.

Then came screaming headlines in the national media âJhabua repeated in Jhajjarâ. The fact was that the villagers protested against two nuns for meddling in some local committee election, but it was depicted by church spokespersons as something similar to that of the nunsâ rape on pattern of Jhabua. Shri Balbir K. Punj, who was then editor of the Observer, sent a reporter and a photographer to verify the Jhajjar case and the mischief was nipped in the bud or else it could have been a major subject for onslaught on the Sangh Parivar.

By that time it became fashionable to paint any incident communal wherein Christians were involved to whip Sangh Parivar organisations. Take the report of foreign news agencies which said an American doctor was attacked at Allahabad and he had to take refuge in a Baptist Church. The doctor himself denied the incident. It was found to be totally fabricated.

It was reported with the six column screaming headlines in a major English daily that âThe Christian nun was raped in a moving car in Baripada in Orissaâ. The rest of the press also repeated it and dubbed it as being the handiwork of Hindu fundamentalists.

A young girl and a boy were murdered in Candhamal in Orissa in one of the remotest areas. The Indian and the foreign media cited it as a continuation of attacks against Christians by Hindu fundamentalists. After an elaborate survey of the media the Wadhwa Commission noted that âthe incident was taken as an attack on the Christiansâ and said âultimately investigations revealed the crime was committed by a relative of the victims, who was also a Christianâ.

Some tribals attacked the Police station at Udaigiri, stormed and lynched two prisoners and later burnt some houses. The media immediately projected it as a clash between Christians and Hindus. The Wadhwa Commission found that it was a caste clash and had nothing to do with religion at all. As a contrast Justice Wadhwa found that when in a village â23 houses of Hindus were burnt down by criminals belonging to Christian community, the incident was largely unreported and totally ignored by the national and international media.â Imagine the reporting which would have followed if the 23 houses had belonged to Christians and the attackers were Hindus! What Justice Wadhwa indicated by this contrast was that while âattacks on Christiansâ were âmade upâ, factual attacks against the Hindus went unreported and unnoticed.

The media had reported that in a village of Orissa, Ranalai, Hindus, who were a minority, had sparked off a clash with Christians. The Wadhwa Commission found that actually the Christians had manhandled a police inspector, who later filed an FIR against them.

There are over a dozen or more similar incidents and it is needless to detail them, which are either total fabrications or a deliberate twist of communal colour was given to the incident. But let us realise the implication of this massive propaganda, the world over. Firstly the image of India has suffered a setback. India is being painted in a Pakistani colour, where Christians are deliberately being marginalised and their women are being raped. The Christians are falsely accused of blasphemy. They are regularly beaten to death. Their land is being grabbed by Muslims. There are 30 lakh Christians living in Pakistan in a nightmare. The Sunday Times Magazine (reprinted in Readersâ Digest, May 2000 as âPakistanâs War Against Christiansâ) reporters Cathy ScottâClark and Adrian Levy had written about systematic religious cleansing of a tiny minority.

Indian mediaâs fabricated coverage of incidents tarnishes the national image of India in the world and brackets our situation with that of Pakistan. Pakistani press either ignores or nominally covers the real incidents of âWar Against Christiansâ where as our English media fabricates, exaggerates and projects this type of the incidents and gives credibility to them. May be in India the secularists get a little political propaganda advantage by falsification of these incidents. Indian media ignores national interest to say the least. It goes to the extent of being not only unpatriotic, but anti-national. An important section of the media behaves as if they belong to the post nationalist era. On a societal plane they do not mind publishing anti-people and anti-society write ups. It is due to their exaggerated portrayal of Verrappan and similar anti heroes, at all levels, that society has to suffer. Practically the media never introspects or takes corrective measures. Even if in some quarters realisation dawns, it is too late. I quote Arvind Lavakare's article titled âThe English Mediaâs Hostility Towards Hindusâ from web site âShekhar Gupta, Editor-in-Chief of The Indian Express, displayed a rare ethical standard, combining as it did a fair degree of contrition with a healthy commitment to truthfulness, qualities which are difficult to find these days in our troubled land.

Letâs see the facts as outlined by the gracious Shekhar Gupta himself. His column stated thatââFirst of all in Jhabua, there has indeed been no evidence yet that anybody from the Sangh Parivar was involved in the rape of the nuns.â

âThen, despite all the commotion and outrage in the media and the world, not a single Christian has been killed in Gujarat yet. Also, Gujarat has a history of Hindu resentment against the missionaries dating back to Mahatma Gandhiâs time.â

âSimilarly, Orissaâ¦ a state run by the Congress, has a history of indigenous violence against the missionaries. Six persons were killed only last year and since the state has a large tribal population, conversions have been going on thereâ¦ There is no evidence yet that Dara Singh (the main suspect in the Staines incineration) was actively involved with any Sangh Parivar organizationâ¦â

Based on an examination of the above, Shekhar Gupta came to the conclusion that âOn facts, therefore, it would seem that we in the English-language media have something to answer for.â Just a few paragraphs later, Shekhar Guptaâs column recanted even more by stating that âSurely, we in the media have much to answer for.â

Now it is precisely such irreverence for the vital difference between âsomethingâ and âmuchâ that often exhibits itself in a lot of our newspaper copy and misleads millions of readers.â

At times one feels that the media has been derailed en route its objective destination. âNews is sacred, comments are freeâ is no more valid. Everywhere in the media be it newspapers, periodicals, TV channels to electronic superhighway one can often hear comments galore on ânewborn newsâ whose facts are unconfirmed and details are unknown. The speculative flight of the reporterâs imagination becomes the real news.

Earlier we have talked about this type of admission on the issue of pseudo-secular propaganda. Now look at the secular admission of guilt by one among the top ten secular propagandists Shri Vinod Mehta, editor of The Outlook weekly: In matters relating to the Constitution, Supreme Court, not a TV journalist, is the highest authority. The latter can make themselves heard and the former has no megaphone.

Outlook editor Vinod Mehta is undoubtedly one of the ten tallest secular propagandists who are instrumental in widening the secular-communal divide in the polity. When opinion leaders turn propagandists and occupy the highest positions in the media, they become a power centre unto themselves of the Fourth Estate, which in turn impacts fortunes of political parties. The debate on the secular-communal divide has been continuing for two decades.

Vinod Mehta has gone much beyond in his magazineâs âDiaryâ column than India Todayâs editorial conclusion of December 30, 2002, which states: âIn this country, secularism in practice meant romancing the minority and demonising the majorityâ.

Mehtaâs âDiaryâ column in the Outlook dated May 23, 2005, is the best confession of a pseudo-secular journalist. âAt what point does a ânational treasureâ become a ânational liabilityâ? Pseudo-secularists like me have blindly defended and deified Lalu Yadav for his courageous, single-minded fight against communal forces. We pretended that the havoc he has created in his home state was forgivable, if not understandable, given the caste antagonisms and social fabric of Bihar. His wit, buffoonery and rustic horseplay, we said, was a tribute to grassroots of Indian politics which had thrown up a genuine son of the soil. Torn, as he was between courts, Yadav consolidation and criminal MLAs/MPs, we overlooked his clear mendacity. When he made his simple-minded wife the chief minister, we said, âPoor man, who else can he trust?â Meanwhile, Bihar fell off the map of India and its galloping anarchy did not merit discussion because, in a sense, Bihar was not part of India. Bihar was Bihar. I donât absolve myself or Outlook from spreading the aforementioned logic. In the last 15 years, consequently, we have allowed Lalu a very easy ride.â

Through this great debate, the intelligentsia held the view on secularism similar to that of Supreme Courtâs 12 judgments. But propagandists were busy demonising Hindus, Hinduism, cultural nationalism, Sanskrit and the Hindutva. Gujarat riots came as a Godsend opportunity for propagandists. However, despite all hostile propaganda, the BJP registered an emphatic victory in the Gujarat Assembly elections. There was soul-searching among journalists, as reflected in the India Todayâs comments.

But how did Vinod Mehta reach this conclusion? Vinod Mehta says: âWhen Lalu was Chief Minister, his potential for mischief was limited. Bihar had reached the point of no return, so what could Lalu do to further aggravate its condition? We were insulated from his heavy hand. Sadly, he is now out of power in Bihar and a Cabinet Minister to boot. Thus, his imprint currently has national implicationsâand with Patna out of his grasp, he has time on his hands not to entertain us but to frighten us. Thereâs no rule he will not break, no institution he will not denigrate, no charge he will not fabricate to achieve his twin objectives: Win back the gaddi in Patna and mount onslaughts against the BJP. His behaviour at the railway crash site in Gujarat where the deceased were swiftly forgotten and all media attention diverted to publicise an exaggerated âdeath threatâ, and last weekâs shameful assault on one of Indiaâs proudest constitutional bodiesâthe Election Commissionâshould make all of us who champion him think again. Of course, he has 24 MPs and could bring down the UPA, but he knows what will follow will ensure that he stays permanently in jail. Lalu has nowhere to go. Itâs time we called his bluff.â

If one were to analyse the piece, it seems that Vinod Mehta is repenting mediaâs support to Lalu and not so much the secular-communal divide created by media. In his concluding part, Mehta wants somebody to mend Laluâs ways.

When UPA government came to power pseudo-secular media celebtared the result in which BJPâs tally was just seven seats less than that of the Congress. BJP failed to come to power. Media not only rejoiced it but multiplied its impact. They indulged in an exercise of confusing and disrupting the Sangh Parivar. The first big exercise was conducted in the Walk and Talk programme of a T.V. Channel. Media advertised two small sentences totally out of context again and again over a number of days communicating as if the RSS Chief was denigrating the BJP stalwarts. If one really goes through the whole text, it would sound quite different but when only two lines from the whole text are picked up out of context it will sound differently. It created a hell of confusion. It was repeated numerous times before the broadcast of the full text. It was meant to disrupt the relations among parivar members. Then came Shri L.K. Advaniâs visit to Pakistan. A section of the media instantly reported âJinnah was secular : Advaniâ.

The fact is that Advani never said that Jinnah was secular. The gap between this reporting and his arrival in Karachi was enough in creating a full-fledged controversy and unsurmountable chain of reactions. The media is deeply involved in the same exercise till date. Hindus of the country had become an unhappy lot untill realisation dawned in the Sangh Parivar. The damage control system seems to be succeding. This is on the political front. At the national level Indian people in general and the Hindus in particular are most unhappy the way the UPA is tackling Mohd. Afzalâs death penalty and his familyâs mercy petition. Human rights industry is working overtime advocating to condone even the worst terrorist, the key conspirator of attack on the Parliament. Media is giving them liberal coverage everyday. Those who were loudest in their condemnation of terrorist attack on the Parliament are today maintaining a deafening silence. This is because of nothing else but Muslim vote bank. And see the attitude of the media. On October 8, the leader of the Opposition, L.K. Advani and party president Rajnath Singh led a deligation to meet the President of India pleading against any type of mercy to master mind of the attack on the Parliament. But many newspapers dismissed these stories in a paragraph or two. These are some the facts, why I say that the English media has a anti-Hindu mindset.

http://www.organiser.org/dynamic/modules.p...&pid=153&page=9

10-20-2006, 10:39 AM

10-20-2006, 09:59 PM

While the article from Shri Mishra highlights some aspects of things, it has a lot of commentary and 1 person out of a 100 people coming across it will actually read it. Mr Mishra and other ex-media people have to think about how they can make their thoughts amenable to aam-aadmi. Or it will just get lost in the cacophony.

10-21-2006, 08:24 PM

QUOTEIndian media was never and is not anti-Hindu 
By Dr Pravin Togadia
http://www.organiser.org/dynamic/modules.p...pid=153&page=19

No media can focus on 12 per cent and claim 85 per cent TRP or readership 

This impartial, principled and courageous Indian media never ceased to exist even during Emergency. We all have seen many journalists including senior editors of prestigious newspapers going to jail carrying the torch of freedom of speech and freedom of thought.

Possibly, there are a few in Indian media who have a different take on Hindustan's social core. These are mainly 'discarded by China and vaguely in the process of extinction in India' types. Those ideologies that never belonged to Hindustan are always treated by majority of Indians as invasions. Such media and media persons do not reflect Indian ethos and therefore don't survive in the media competition.

While Pak borders were opened Indian media welcomed it but all of them cautioned of domestic security. And the same Indian media asked the decision makers as to whither their promises of Ram Mandir even after 6 years and why salute Jinnah in Pak.

Media'S responsibility is "to report" impartially. Therefore, to even expect media to take sides is not principally fair for anybody. To realise the peculiarity of Indian media, one has to understand as to how and why Indian media came about. Indian media is not just today's print and electronic media. Indian media has a history, which is much richer and glorious as compared to those in many other countries. Pre-British period, Indian media was mainly non-conventional media like folk arts and locally established forms of communicating the local events and happenings to a very limited target group. Print art was in a beginning stage and then newspapers mainly printed cinema and play ads with little local news. Once the momentum to movement against British invasion started building up, locally powerful and nationally inspired print media took shape like Lokamanya Tilak's Kesari, Hitawada, Anand Bazaar Patrika, etc. It had one goal that is to oust the invader. It had one target group namely, "all" Indians. Patriotism was the only theme of it and it worked with the majority of Indians.

British left India. While leaving, along with English education, they left fractured India, full of bleeding deep wound of Partition. The scars of which are still visible all over India and Pakistan. What happened to Indian media then? Indian media reported faithfully every happening including the choice made by the then Muslims to vote for separate Pakistan. Indian media kept on reporting for a long time not just the horrid stories of how Hindus were thrashed, burnt and killed by Muslims during Partition, but also reported persistently that 90 per cent Muslims of the undivided India had voted for Pakistan in 1946. Those who could not vote were 10 per cent and were from Baluchistan, Pakhtuniustan, which are already in Pakistan now. Post-independence media could see through this and kept on reporting that leaving apart 10 per cent, almost 99 per cent Muslims in present India had voted for separate Muslim state that is Pakistan. Editorials of all patriotic print media then criticised this mentality of Muslims and reporters kept on reporting how the Muslims who were left back in Hindustan always craved for Pakistan, tried to either go to Pakistan and when not possible tried to create many mini-Pakistans within Hindustan where Hindus were again burnt, stabbed, killed and raped even after 1947. Indian media consistently reported all those happenings and events even then.

So, looking into the history as well, we can very well say, Indian Media was never ever anti-Hindu. Indian media always impartially reported facts, happenings, events and printed true photographs then.

This impartial, principled and courageous Indian media never ceased to exist even during Emergency. We all have seen many journalists including senior editors of prestigious newspapers going to jail carrying the torch of freedom of speech and freedom of thought.

Now, to understand media's role in today's age, one must realise the basic fact that any means of communication like print, electronic and non-conventional media is a reflection of the society. It was evident then in the freedom fight, in the fight against Emergency and now as well. This means, media, being one of the social institutions, has to represent and reflect the happenings, events and facts of the majority society also. Modern day media fights tooth and nail with the competing media but when it comes to these reflections, opens up a plethora of Hindustan in front of its readers and viewers. Take any TV channel. What do they show? 'A generally watched by all' type of politics, sports, arts such as cinema, music, dance, etc, and lots of cultural aspects of Hindustan. What do they show in it? Indian festivals like Holi, Navratri, Durga Puja, Diwali, Dussehra. Indian religious events like Maha Kumbh, Moon and Sun eclipse, religious baths by lakhs of pilgrims, pilgrim like Kashi, Amarnath, Mansarovar, 12 Jyotirlingas in Shraavan.... The list is unlimited of all what today's Indian media shows. Obviously any media has to show or write what a majority of any nation watches or reads. Not just their advertisers expect to reach larger target group, but as any media, the core has to reach the largest group, which of course is the majority of any nation and in Hindustan, Hindus are the majority. Sure, Indian media reflects this majority. Therefore, even as a business logic and as a media core principle, Indian media can't be and is not anti-Hindu. Ultimately, no media can focus only on 12 per cent claim 85 per cent TRP or readership or circulation! Neither as business nor as media principle.

Indian media has always advocated open debates on various social issues and human-interest happenings. Don't we all remember India Today's journalism of courage when they printed a rare picture of how Hindus were thrashed in Kashmir. In 90s, schools of Kashmir had slogans written on the walls: 'Allah is our God, Koran is our constitution, Mohammad is our leader, Jehad is our way.' India Today printed these pictures without fearing. Even today, all media in the country has been consistently reporting gruesome terrorist acts be it 1993 Mumbai blasts, Parliament attack or 7/11 Mumbai train blasts. Indian media is not giving sensational pictures of these. Indian media including TV channels, Internet are analysing the links of various jehadi networks behind these attacks on Hindustan. Surely Indian media is not anti-Hindu.

Possibly, there are a few in Indian media who have a different take on Hindustan's social core. These are mainly 'discarded by China and vaguely in the process of extinction in India' types. Those ideologies that never belonged to Hindustan are always treated by majority Indians as Invasions. Such media and mediapersons do not reflect Indian ethos and therefore don't survive in the media competition of TRPs and even in the core media principles.

The pseudo classification of Indian media supposedly done by some of the so-called thinkers as secular media and non-secular media has no basis. Any media in any nation has great thinkers as journalists. In India, such thinkers have greatly contributed to the glory and richness of Indian media. Be it Amrita Pritam who wrote a world renowned novel Pinjar, be it Ramnath Goenka who stood against Emergency, be it Bhanupratap Shukla who sacrificed his position for pure thinking. There are many such examples. In fact, even the CNN of US had to show Haj to do PR with Saudi Muslims for oil when President Bush was speaking against Islamic Fascism. But Indian media has not done such compromises. CNN's new Indian wing CNN IBN has been consistently carrying its torch against Jehad. Zee at the cost of an attack on its journalist showed infiltration story. Star wasn't scared to show Dawood tapes. There are many such examples.

The Indian Express is very subtly writing the plight of each family of the victim in 7/11 blasts. Times of India bravely exposed SIMI's jehadi link. Aaj Tak very courageously showed Al Badr man's interview where he had said: For us any Hindustani is a qafir, be it Hindu or Muslim. We will finish Hindustan and establish Darul Islam. NDTV walked into Deoband and filmed their fierce teaching without being afraid. Indian media has been showing events of any social mal practice be it fatwas or horrid anti-women anti humanity ways of anyone. Here, Indian media represents majority society and therefore they do time to time criticise events like making Durga, Krishna wear jeans or making foreign women dance semi nude in Navratri, Garba and so on.

Indian media has been on the forefront of not sparing anyone, however mighty and powerful that person may be, when it comes to national interest. When India did nuclear test, Indian media was all for it. While Pak borders were opened Indian media welcomed it but all of them cautioned of domestic security. And the same Indian media asked the decision makers as to whither their promises of Ram Mandir even after 6 years and why salute Jinnah in Pak. Today the same Indian media is asking as to why J&K Chief Minister is advocating for clemency of a Supreme Court declared terror convict and why it shouldn't be treated as treason and contempt of court, same Indian media reports fearlessly when an ancient Shiv Mandir is broken in Dang in Gujarat in Navratri.

Sure, Indian media is not anti-Hindu at all.

(The author is renowned cardiac surgeon and international general secretary of Vishwa Hindu Parishad.) 
 <img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/specool.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='specool.gif' />

10-22-2006, 03:21 AM

QUOTE
Uncritical celebration of minority interests with corresponding denigration of Hindus
Create a parallel media not afraid to be nationalist or Hindu
By Swapan Dasgupta 

We saw this in evidence during the Vande Mataram controversy where editors and presenters failed to distinguish between objectivity and neutrality. It is the dharma of editors to be objective but this does not impose an obligation on them to be neutral in the battle between separatism and nationalism.

My own experience suggests that breaking the stultifying liberal consensus is a daily exercise in guerrilla warfare. In the aftermath of globalisation, the liberal consensus has veered round to a contrived expression of cosmopolitanism.

Fond belief that competitive democracy would force publications to recognise the force of Hindu disquiet has turned out to be horribly misplaced. The term of the NDA Government, for example, saw yesterday's pro-Congress newspapers being feted and flattered by representatives of the very government whose formation they had so uncompromisingly resisted.

I have been approached by numerous individuals seeking redress to what they see as an enduring media problemâthe "anti-Hindu" bias of both the print and electronic media.

*Â Â *Â Â *
Secularism in India has come to mean an uncritical celebration of minority interests and a corresponding denigration of "Hindu" interests. 

There are two subjects on which nearly every middle-class Indian has an opinion: cricket and the media.

On cricket, a complex game that has as much to do with the mind and playing conditions as with physical skill, the views are generally pedestrian and centred on a simple reading of the score-card. Although cricket is now a mass spectator sport, its popular understanding is not grounded in the ethos of the game.

Not so the media. The spread of literacy, improvements in living standards and the technology revolution has transformed the media from an elite habit to an item of mass consumption. The entry of a deregulated electronic media has made all the difference. Whereas access to newspapers and magazines were tempered by affordability, leisure time and education, there are few entry barriers to TV and radio. Indeed, the electronic media has been instrumental in enabling the literate and neo-literate population to secure access to news and information. To that extent, the media has been a great liberatorâparticularly after state monopoly over the electronic media ended in the 1990s.

Given its all-pervading reach and monumental potential, it is only right that nearly every citizen has an opinion on the media. Having been a media "insider" for the past 25 years, I am struck by the range of popular opinions on the political influence of the media.

Politicians, I have noticed, have an exaggerated view of the media's influence. Consequently, they have evolved elaborate strategies to use this influence to advantage and these have ranged from harmless spin doctoringâwhich, in the Indian context, also involves intimidationâ to plain bribery. Some of these strategies have also been adopted by corporate houses, leading to the emergence of a strange breed of so-called professionalsâ the public relations and communications experts whose sole job is to be the interface with the media.

The second feature of the public engagement with the media is over the question of political bias. Over the years, but particularly since the late-1980s, I have been approached by numerous individuals seeking redress to what they see is an enduring media problemâthe "anti-Hindu" bias of both the print and electronic media. Is the Indian media anti-Hindu? The question cannot be answered with a simple Yes or No, not least because the media is too large and diverse to be aggregated. However, based on my experiences in the English-language media, I can offer a few insights which may help clarify matters in the minds of media consumers.

First, while the origins of the print media are to be found in the freedom struggle, very little of that legacy survives. Today's media owners and editors perceive themselves as "professionals" responsible for maintaining the bottom line of the company. Their self-image is one of dispassionate but cynical observers of the political scene. There was a time when their approach was tempered by a few non-negotiables. Increasingly, these are being discarded and the media is now encouraged to view nothing as sacred.

There is an emerging rootlessness which manifests itself in skewed opinions.

Secondly, the tone and tenor of the entire media is set by the preferences of the English-language newspapers and channels. They have become the arbiters of both taste and opinion. These tastes and opinions in turn are not generated internally. In nine-out-of- ten cases, the intellectual orientation of the English-language media is shaped by newspapers like The Guardian and New York Times. These are publications that reflect what can loosely be called the liberal consensus. 

Obviously, the liberal consensus means one thing in the United Kingdom and the United States and something quite different in India. Whereas in the anglophone world, the symbol of liberalism is multiculturalism, in India the liberal consensus has veered round to a slightly skewed version of secularism. If multiculturalism abjures the Anglo-Saxon and Christian heritage of the English-speaking world, secularism in India has come to mean an uncritical celebration of minority interests and a corresponding denigration of "Hindu" interests.

It is not the case that undermining everything Hindu is wilful or conscious. It proceeds on the assumption that Hindu equals assertive majoritarianism and by implication a trampling of minority rights. This leads to peculiar situations. Since the English-language media is firmly on the side of so-called modernity, it is in the forefront of a campaign against some of the more oppressive features of Muslim Personal Law, particularly in relation to women. At the same time, it misses no opportunity to rubbish all demands for a Common Civil Code because this is seen to be against minority rights. The claims of the "moderate" Muslims are given a great deal of importance in the liberal media. At the same time, there is a grudging recognition of the British novelist Martin Amis's claim that whereas "moderate Islam is always deceptively well-represented on the level of the op-ed page and public debate; elsewhere, it is supine and inaudible." This inadequacy forces the editors to take a very apologetic view of radical Islamism.

It is rarely presented as a warped ideology and more as a protest against insensitive Western imperialism.

Finally, the warped pseudo-liberalism of the media in India reproduces itself in the form of peer group pressure on the new entrants to the profession. Once it is made sufficiently clear to all that professional advancement lies in toeing the line, the rest fall into place. True, there are stray voices of dissent. But such people are grudgingly tolerated. My own experience suggests that breaking the stultifying liberal consensus is a daily exercise in guerrilla warfare. In the aftermath of globalisation, the liberal consensus has veered round to a contrived expression of cosmopolitanism. This does not translate into a greater awareness of the world or a desire to view the world through the prism of India. It has invariably meant denigrating the faith in the nation-state and mocking Indian nationalism as archaic. We saw this in evidence during the Vande Mataram controversy where editors and presenters failed to distinguish between objectivity and neutrality. It is the dharma of editors to be objective but this does not impose an obligation on them to be neutral in the battle between separatism and nationalism.

The fond belief that competitive democracy would force publications to recognise the force of Hindu disquiet has turned out to be horribly misplaced. The term of the NDA Government, for example, saw yesterday's pro-Congress newspapers being feted and flattered by representatives of the very government whose formation they had so uncompromisingly resisted. If this had been a co-option strategy it would have been understandable but it turned out to be an expression of social inadequacy on the part of those who had championed Hindu interests in the political arena.

No wonder the fall of the NDA Government led to the English-language media reverting to its prejudices with renewed vigour.

The moral of the story is simple. Hindu nationalism cannot expect fair treatment from the English-language media as it is presently constituted. A shift has to be accompanied by both ideological confrontation and the creation of a parallel media which is not afraid to be either nationalist or Hindu. 

(The writer is a celebrated columnist.) 
http://www.organiser.org/dynamic/ modules.php? name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=153&page=5

10-23-2006, 04:43 AM

QUOTEWhy we are proud of India 
Pioneer.com
Reporter's notebook | Sidharth Mishra
How do I judge campaigns as successful when the Prime Minister refused to sing Vande Mataram, October 20 has passed and Afzal Guru continues to cock a snook and the Delhi Police despite its charade of busting terror modules has failed to bring the perpetrators of 2005 Diwali blasts to the book.

In the past few weeks the reporters of The Pioneer have been able to run three very successful news campaigns - National Song, Nation's Pride, Zara Yaad Karo Qurbani and Kahin Deep Jale Kahin Dil. Readers of the notebook could ask how do I judge these campaigns as successful when the country's Prime Minister refused to sing Vande Mataram on the day function's were held nation wide to commemorate it's adoption as national song.

Worse, October 20, 2006 has passed and the mastermind of the attack on Parliament House Mohammed Afzal Guru continues to cock a snook at the families of the 10 martyrs who died defending Indian Democracy. And lastly, the Delhi Police continues with its charade of busting terror modules without bringing the perpetrators of 2005 Diwali blasts to the book.

We at The Pioneer never intend and later never claim that we have had a hand in an act of Government. The idea behind these campaigns has been to force a debate on the issue of Indian Nationhood. Or should I put it this way, is Indian Nationhood any worth when the nation's leadership is ready for a compromise to gain a few political brawny points.

The campaigns aimed at giving a voice to the people who defend their nation without going into the semantics of inane theories. These campaigns were aimed at exposing people who have made a profession out of running down the Indian Nation. Unfortunately the articulation of these professionals have many takers in the English media both print and television. Those opposed to their idealism run the risk of being termed fascist.

How else do we suffer the blabber of a Yasin Malik, who compares himself with Mahatma Gandhi? He told a TV channel that like Mahatma was forced to travel on British passport, he was forced to carry the Indian papers. The anchor was illiterate enough not to retort that Mahatma withdrew a highly successful Non-Cooperation movement when Chauri Chaura happened and went on fast to atone for the 'crime' committed by the agitating crowd, which was provoked to lynch policemen.

Forget atonement not even a single sympathiser of Afzal Guru and Iftiqar Geelani has denounced the attack on Parliament. But why blame them. .The Indian intelligentsia has largely come to equate pride in the Indian Nation as pride in Hindu Rashtra. More than the Rashtriya Swyamsewak Sangh (RSS), it's the brigade of these articulate professionals, which is making the minorities vulnerable

The response to our campaigns has been very heartening. People have responded with warmth and encouragement. We are glad that there is rethink in the Government on pussyfooting the issue.

10-25-2006, 07:20 AM

QUOTEIndia Abroad Exposed- 

By T R Rao, USA
May 11, 2003
To: India Abroad Editor

Dear Editor, Sir

I am a life-subscriber to India Abroad for over a decade, and I have painfully come to the decision of canceling my subscription and ask you to stop mailing the issues due to me from now on. I took this step to boycott your paper, as I believe very strongly you are part of the machine for psuedo-secular (P-sec) anti-Hindu propaganda. Francois Gautier, an eminent columnist of Le Figaro wrote a year ago: "Oh! Poor India! Thy journalists are thy worst enemies" (Hindu, March 2002). I came to the same conclusion as Gautier quite a few times as I keep reading your paper. Let me illustrate a couple of cases to prove my point.

In the year 2000, there was a burst of Christian church bombings in South India. Your Eminency, India abroad, headlined on front pages for weeks and attacked ferociously the Hindutva groups assumed to be the architects of these dastardly acts. You had no proof and gave none whatsoever. You just assumed blindly just as all other P-sec media did. It must be Hindutva. Eventually when the proof came out and that a Muslim outfit, named Deen Daar Anjumaan (DDA), trained in Pakistan, was arrested and found guilty of these church bombings, the whole rogue media fell silent. We haven't heard anything about that DDA outfit or any further details. 'Mum' is the word for it. Your silence is indeed "deafening" as one Rediff writer put it. A very respected professor from Syracuse University (author of many books - his name I choose to withhold here) presented a paper (in a conference held at Stevens Institute of Technology, Sept. 2002) attacking the Hindutva groups for the many church bombings. When I asked him for the source of his points of attack, he said without much hesitation "India Abroad columns". That professor, when I gave the details of DDA and its bloody mischief to him, he expressed his profound shock and regretted his mistake. But, India Abroad! You are no professor and you have no such compunctions. When I wrote a letter asking you to retract all of the lies and innuendo against Hindutva groups, you chose to send that letter to your wastebasket. Do you need a more clear-cut case of your unabashed anti-Hindu propaganda of lies and innuendo?

Last year when Sir V. S. Naipaul of Indian origin received Nobel Prize for literature, we expected some self-congratulations, and praise for that great accomplishment. Alas! Your weekly immediately burst out with two one-page P-sec columns. As they expressed his masterly command of English prose writing, they are more critical of Sir Naipaul's views, particularly his writings about Muslim countries. One has gone even to the extent of attributing this Nobel to post 9-11 anti-Muslim tirade. Your P-sec writers have very imaginary traits. They also have profusely "bleeding hearts" when it comes to non-Hindus that are killed. It is okay, but why not a few crocodile tears when fifty-six or so Hindu men, women and children were burnt alive in a train. We hear about Gujarat carnage daily without a break. However, Godhra carnage, which started it all, is conveniently forgotten and does not get even an occasional mention.

As English language media's misinformation campaign, you play a central role in USA. Professor Romesh Diwan in his column "India Ascendant" (_http://sulekha.com/column.asp?cid=298065_(http://sulekha.com/column.asp?cid=298065) ) suggests a more appropriate name for your paper 'Pakistan Abroad'. He lists a large table of how P-sec media fabricate/slant reports and black out to further their anti-Hindu agenda. I pick a few of the incidents from that table for you here.

Place: Jhabua, Madhya Pradesh;
Incident: rape of four nuns;
Media Report: Blowed up. Blamed: RSS, and Central BJP government and workers; no mention of the state govt or tensions due to conversion activity

Facts: Rape by converted Christians. Madhya Pradesh Government is run by Congress
Media Response: Story never retracted; No apology to the Hindu parties so maligned. No explanation or self-examination for such false reporting.

Place: Manoharpar, Orissa.
Incident: Australian priest and his two sons burnt alive
Media Report: Blamed Bajrang Dal, and Central BJP government;
Facts: (i). An eyewitness detailed report in Rastradeep, a Oriya Weekly from Cuttack, Orissa, Jan 26, 1999, shows conclusively that the burning is the result of tension in the community caused by forced conversions and manipulation by Dara Singh, a Congress worker,
(ii). Orissa State government is run by Congress and Dara Singh helped the election of its ministers. Bajrang Dal has no presence there.
(iii) A Central Bureau of Investigation officer, Joginder Nayak, told a court of the District and Sessions Judge M. N. Patnaik on Monday that none of the 18 persons charge sheeted in the 1999 Graham Staines murder case belonged to the Bajrang Dal.
["Staines murder accused not Bajrang Dal activists:
CBI" January 27, 2003 _Rediff.com/news_ (http://rediff.com/news) [Emphasis added]
Media Response: Story never retracted. No apology to the parties maligned. No explanation or self-examination for false reporting.

Arundhati Roy, a darling of India Abroad and the colonial West liberals, wrote about Muslim young women in Ahmedabad by falsely giving a personal witness-like account of the nature of their rape and burning when in fact they were not in Ahmedabad but safe and sound in the US and this information had already appeared in the print media. The details are:

Fact: T. A. Jaffri, son of Mr. Iqbal Eshan Jaffri, killed in the riots, said, "Among my brothers and sisters I am the only one living in India. I am the eldest in the family. My sisters and brothers live in the U.S. No body knew my father's house was the target.

Fabrication: Arundhati Roy described 'the stripping and burning of two daughters' safely living in the US: "A mob surrounded the house of ex-Congress MP, Iqbal Eshan Jaffri. His phone calls to the Director-General of Police, the Police Commissioner, the Chief Secretary and the additional Chief Secretary (home) were ignored. The mobile police vans around his house did not intervene. The mob broke into the house. They stripped his daughters and burnt them alive. Then they beheaded Jaffri and dismembered him.

Arundhati Roy fabricates facts as neatly as she covers her true Christian name. Editor, sir, let me come to my final point. I have determined to send this letter to as many friends and like-minded Indians, organizations here and abroad to tell them of my boycott and ask them to join me in this boycott if they agree with me. I believe most NRIs are not going to lie low forever and take the non-sense your P-sec media is dishing out without fear of a counter attack. Your propaganda of lies will be exposed and I am ready to fight for Truth and India.

Sincerely Yours,
Dr. T. R. N. Rao, Ph. D.
Loflin Chair Professor of Computer Science
University of Louisiana at Lafayette, Lafayette, LA
70504

utepian · 10-26-2006, 02:23 AM

The letter above is an old one but a nice one. It appeared on Sulekha at the time it was written. Prem Panicker from the editorial board came online and basically dodged and pussyfooted with postors. His line was that the management of IA had changed since Rediff took over and that everything will be hunky dory after that. Yeah RRrright. Two months after that incident IA/Rediff appoint Kaleem Kawaja to judge the Person of the Year! The letters accpeted during the recent CA Textbook issue also left a lot to be desired.

11-01-2006, 05:02 PM

Indian media plays judge as justice system fails
http://in.news.yahoo.com/061101/137/68you.html

Bharatvarsh · 11-02-2006, 03:54 AM

QUOTEIndia's Plan to Kill Muslim Heightens Tension
by Philip Reeves
All Things Considered, October 31, 2006 Â· India plans to hang Kashmiri Muslim Mohammed Afzal, who was convicted of indirect involvement in the attack on India's parliament in 2001 in a trial that was riddled with shortcomings.

Controversy is raging both about his case and whether India should have the death penalty at all.

Large banners adorn the streets of Islamabad, calling for the international community to intervene in the Afzal affair. A former chief minister of India-controlled Kashmir says the country will go up in flames if Afzal is executed.

The Booker Prize-winning author Arundhati Roy has weighed in on Afzal's behalf. Much hinges on India's president, a Muslim, who is handling a plea for clemency from Afzal's family.

He has felt considerable political pressure: A survey by India Today magazine has just been published that found opinion to be overwhelmingly in favor of killing Afzal.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.p...638&ft=1&f=1004

11-02-2006, 02:33 PM

QUOTE(Bharatvarsh @ Nov 2 2006, 03:54 AM)<div class='quotetop'>QUOTEIndia's Plan to Kill Muslim Heightens Tension
by Philip Reeves
All Things Considered, October 31, 2006 Â· India plans to hang Kashmiri Muslim Mohammed Afzal, who was convicted of indirect involvement in the attack on India's parliament in 2001 in a trial that was riddled with shortcomings.

Controversy is raging both about his case and whether India should have the death penalty at all.

Large banners adorn the streets of Islamabad, calling for the international community to intervene in the Afzal affair. A former chief minister of India-controlled Kashmir says the country will go up in flames if Afzal is executed.

The Booker Prize-winning author Arundhati Roy has weighed in on Afzal's behalf. Much hinges on India's president, a Muslim, who is handling a plea for clemency from Afzal's family.

He has felt considerable political pressure: A survey by India Today magazine has just been published that found opinion to be overwhelmingly in favor of killing Afzal.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.p...638&ft=1&f=1004
[right][snapback]60200[/snapback][/right]
</div>

Interesting choice of words - India's Plan to Kill Muslim..not hang a terrorist, but kill a muslim - out of nowhere and for no reason. By highlighting the religion aspect of it, the reporting seems to suggest that it is more about atrocities or conspiracy against muslims - by who else but the majority hindus.

In a trial riddled with shortcomings - give me a break!

Login




Remember me Lost Password?