Report on Kaligram Muharrum riot, October 2016

The report has been prepared using eye-witness accounts by social worker and technologist Bhaswar Goswami, who hails from Kaligram village and is currently working in Bengaluru.

Durga Puja is a time for celebration, Aradhana of ‘Naari Sakti’ and a way to worship mata for the emancipation of the individuals and the upliftment of the society in Bengal. It is a time when every household buys new cloths, gifts them to family and friends and celebrate the occasion with full merriment everywhere in rural and urban Bengal. But, the same is not true for the villagers of Kaligram, which is about 75 kilometers from the town of Malda in Bengal (location on the map).

This culturally rich and educated village has not known a peaceful Durga puja for at least three decades. Every year, Durga puja is accompanied by the horrors of Muslim oppression and aggression committed in the name of Muharrum celebration. This is especially true when both the festivals fall on the same day or close to each other. Each time, the Muslim procession used to cross this Hindu village, it wreaked havoc in the otherwise peaceful village. In 2015, the village saw gruesome Muslim violence [Read here]. This year the same has repeated again.

Even before the Puja started, as the villagers of Kaligram prepared with joy and devotion for the celebration, there was a fear among the Hindu households about the possibility of Muslim disruption and the flare up of communal tension, since Muharrum coincided with Durga Puja. Local administration had issued multiple discriminatory orders like ‘Hindus cannot play music while Muharrum is underway’, ‘immersion of Durga Idols cannot be done as per practice on certain days’, etc. These orders, though discriminatory were silently accepted by the Hindu villagers in order to maintain communal harmony. Yet, despite this compromise by the local Hindu community, Muslim mob attacked the village on the evening of October 14 and inflicted huge damage to Hindu lives and property.

Here is a chronological account of the incidence:

13th October, night around 9 PM: Hindus were busy taking their Durga Idol immersion procession through the village, as per Police guidance. Same night Muslims were celebrating what they call ‘Basi karbala’, a specific type of violent celebration for Muharrum practiced in Bengal.

13th October, night around 10 PM: While immersion procession was passing through the village as per prior schedule, Hindus got to know that local police led by IC Chanchal PS, had diverted ‘Basi karbala’ procession with thousands of Muslims brandishing swords, lathis and other sharp weapons. This was a clear deviation from the 24 years old court settlement that mandated no ‘Basi karbala’ procession to be allowed to pass through the village for ensuring safety and security of the Hindu life.

13th October, night around 11 PM: Hindus protested to the police and in return got flak from the IC Police. Moreover, Hindu women were insulted by the police administration.

14th October, early morning around 12 AM: Fearing the dire consequences of ‘Basi karbala’ procession passing through the village, Hindus decided to block the road by keeping Durga Idol and not to carry on with the immersion. This made the Muslims to change their mind and divert the ‘Basi karbala’ procession through outer roads.

14th October, early morning, around 4 AM: Malda police administration reached Kaligram with armed police and forced the villagers to take the Durga Idol for immersion. Villagers agreed.

14th October, early morning, around 5 AM: While most of the villagers were busy doing the immersion of their mata with heavy heart, police asked 8 Hindu youth leaders (Ratan Das, Siddharta Nandi, Suman Guha, Manish Sarkar, Gopesh Sarkar, Ajit Pramanik, Ramkrishna Das, and Advocate Himadri Das) to accompany them to police station Chanchal in order to have some discussion. After taking them to the police station, all were arrested, though they had committed no wrongs.

14th October, morning, around 7 AM: News about the arrest of the either people spread through the Village men and women decided to do ‘gherao’ of Chanchal police station in protest of the arrest.

14th October, evening, around 5 PM: Finally, giving in to the demands of the villagers SDPO apologized to the people and released the arrested eight Hindu youth leaders without any condition.

14th October, night, around 10 PM: Muslim mob gathered around the village with country made bombs, pistols, pipe guns, swords, lathis and other ammunitions, and started to loot and burn the houses. Rapid Action Force (RAF), which was deployed at the place came under attack as well. Two Police personnel got severely injured and the RAF men ran away leaving the villagers completely unguarded. Villagers called up Malda District administration in desperation, but the calls were unanswered.

15th October, around 5 PM: District Magistrate, Superintendent of Police and other officials from the administration reached Kaligram with huge police force, but by then, the mob, which had already inflicted heavy damage to the Hindu property and human life, had run away. Around 50 houses looted and burnt to ashes. Two cars and one truck were also burnt. One jewelry shop & two grocery shops were looted. Cattles were taken away. Hindu women were molested. Three Hindu temples were vandalized beyond repair and their idols Hundreds of Hindus were left homeless and lost their life savings.

Now, that the Section 144 has been imposed by the administration and the central armed forces are patrolling the village, there is a temporary relief to the Hindu villagers. In the last five days, a bustling village has turned into a riot hit desert, with hundreds becoming homeless, including children and many infants, who are now living in other’s homes and consuming community food. No relief or compensation has been provided by the administration till now.

Villagers are running pillars to post in order to file FIRs and looking for ways to bring the issue to the attention of the entire nation, while there are attempts in the local media to suppress the incident in the name of maintaining communal harmony and the administration has chosen to remain a mute spectator.

Here are three video clips showing the damage to Hindu property in the attacks.

Video 1

Video 2

Video 3

 Source: indiafacts

The Ideology of Exodus – The Fleeing of Hindus from Kairana

By Tufail Ahmad, New Age Islam

On June 9, it emerged that an exodus of Hindus has been taking place over the past two years from the predominantly Muslim town of Kairana, situated just 124 kilometres from India's national capital of New Delhi. Hukum Singh, an MP from the Kairana parliamentary constituency, has produced a list of 346 families which were forced to flee Kairana, leaving behind their homes and businesses. The immediate reasons for the exodus include extortions, murders, targeted attacks and other forms of banditry. Though these appear as acts of crime, the important point is that all of the fleeing families are Hindus.

According to a report by Zee News, which brought the issue before the nation, the town of Kairana had 30 percent Hindus and 68 percent Muslim population as per 2011 census. However, the Hindu population has declined to eight percent in 2016 while the Muslim population has risen to 92 percent from 68 percent in just about six years, as estimated by local officials. Kairana is not an isolated case. There are areas in India which are called "mini Pakistan" – not by Hindus. A Muslim locality I visited in India a few years ago, a highly educated Muslim youth told me proudly, "This area is mini Pakistan." I turned to him and asked, "Is it something good for Indian Muslims?" As realisation fell upon him, he became silent. The religious nature of the exodus from Kairana fits similar patterns of forced migrations in history.

Health of societies is defined by movement of ideas. Ideas travel across time and territories through wars, technologies and globalisation. The consequences of ideas do not register on human minds because these take place over long periods of history, often across several lifetimes. Let's explain it this way: if we lived for 200 years and more, our minds would be better equipped to grasp how the society in which we were born has changed over the course of two centuries. Since our lifespan is on an average just about 80-90 years, our mind fails to grasp the movement of ideas occurring over the course of several centuries. In the 7th century, a movement of ideas began from Mecca as a consequence of which there are no Jews in Saudi Arabia today.

This movement of ideas reached Iran as a result of which today there are no Zoroastrians in Iran, originally their homeland. In the 12th century, this movement of ideas arrived in the Indian Subcontinent as a consequence of which there are no Hindus in Balochistan, there are no Hindus in Afghanistan, there are no Hindus in Pakistan, there are no Sikhs in Lahore which was a Sikh metropolis till recently. In 1947, it took a piece of ours away from us. In the 1990s, in our lifetime, Hindu Pandits were forced to flee from Kashmir. This historical template fits the exodus of Hindu families from Kairana. There are concerns that similar patterns of exclusion are happening in Malda and parts of Assam.A senior police officer who toured Malda recently tells me that cops are being treated as thugs and criminals.

As per this historical template, this movement of ideas makes it extremely difficult for non-Muslims to live in lands where the Muslim population rises to become dominant. The defining traits of this movement of ideas are: exclusion, intimidation, persecution, conversion and forced migration. For example, not a week passes when a Hindu girl is not abducted and forcibly converted in Pakistan's Sindh province. Forced conversion of Hindu girls in Sindh, sometimes carried out in order to occupy their land, is considered a pious work. The case of Bangladesh is no different where Hindus are being persecuted and systematically murdered.

But there are counterfeit liberal editors who give examples of Hindu-Muslim unity. Such examples are isolated acts of humanism, not outstanding patterns of communal behaviour that can be described as features of modern civilisation. Exclusionary religions counter pluralism. On Twitter, senior journalist R. Jagannathan tells me that religions need not change, but their adherents must change in support of pluralism. Like Islam, Christianity, being a monotheistic religion, is also exclusionary but its adherents have changed liberally, notably in America and Europe. In the United States, Christians allow their churches to be used by Muslims for Friday prayer, sometimes for a fee. However, Muslims will never allow their mosques to be used by Hindus for any ritual.

Contrast this with a common scene in the inner circle of New Delhi's Connaught Place where Hindus make way to allow Muslims to offer weekly Friday prayers on public property. The best example of exclusionary practices rooted in religion can be given from the activities of Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind. While we see many Hindus defending Muslim riot victims in Gujarat and many others parts of India, the Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind tracks riot victims and innocents lodged in prisons, and ensures first that they are believers of Islam before taking up their cases. If Hindus were to do the same before helping riots victims, they will be called bigots.

It will be against the historical template of this exclusionary practice to argue that cases like the exodus of Hindus from Kashmir and Kairana will not happen again. Currently, this exclusionary practice is enabled by the Indian state. For example, the rationale of the Indian state demands that Kamlesh Tiwari, the Hindu man held for derogatory remark against Prophet Muhammad, be arrested. Although India does not have Islam's blasphemy law, practically it enforces the blasphemy laws prevalent in other Muslim countries. For example, Kamlesh Tiwari has been languishing in prison under the National Security Act (NSA) without any court hearing. Tiwari's detention is a blot on the face of the Indian republic, as most democracies today do not allow any person, not even a terrorist, to be in imprison without charge.

Contrast this behaviour of the Indian state towards Kamlesh Tiwari with its behaviour towards a set of Islamic clerics led by Maulana Anwarul Haq Sadiq of Bijnor who went in public, on Indian television, to announce a reward of 51 lakh rupees for anyone who could behead Tiwari whether in prison or outside. All of these clerics are free because the rationale of the Indian state demands that Muslim thugs will not be arrested while any Hindu can be arrested for bad behaviour. I have also been reliably informed that Tiwari's arrest enjoys the support of the Home Minister of India Shri Rajnath Singh. At issue is not Rajnath Singh but the historical template that has become the rationale of the Indian state. This rationale demands that the president of India organise Iftar parties every year at the expense of the taxpayer while not organising religious events of other religions.

Until this rationale of the Indian state is defeated electorally, politically and constitutionally, please prepare for this historical template to reproduce more examples like Kairana. The question is also this: what can the Indian state do? It will be too much to expect from the current centre-right government in New Delhi. Much like the Congress governments practised secularism and quota politics, the current centre-right government believes in giving Muslims Sufism – not mathematics, economics and physics to Muslim girls from grade one through 12. This outstanding rationale of the Indian republic must be countered so that India becomes an authentic republic with zero tolerance for anyone who breaks law.

For India to establish itself as a Great Power, the rule of law is the only hope. Currently, the rule of law is routinely mauled by cops who rob poor thela walas for a weekly extortion of ten rupees. Therefore, cops are morally incompetent to secure the Indian republic for our future generations. Here is also something to do: India could invest $100 billion and more in upgrading the last-mile police stations and get foreigners to train cops in professionalism, due process and honesty.

Tufail Ahmad is author of "Jihadist Threat to India – The Case for Islamic Reformation by an Indian Muslim."

Source: newageislam

American Progressives also typify others: Olmsted and Pollock

There are striking parallels between the seemingly progressive yet deeply prejudiced views of leftist American intellectuals of the 19th century and today.

by Kausik Gangopadhyay

Sene One: Mid Nineteenth Century 

Abolition of Slavery is a landmark event in American History. At the peak of American Civil war, President Abraham Lincoln abolished slavery as a strategic move to win the war through the Emancipation Proclamation (1863). Planters in the Southern states of America used to justify slavery on the ground of supposed racial inferiority of the Negros and need of Slavery as an institution for the benefit of the Negros. But what was the role of progressive American intellectuals of that era regarding abolition of slavery?

The voice against slavery was gaining ground in the preceding decades. This may give the reader an impression that progressive intellectuals sympathetic to abolition of slavery believed in equality of all races, as opposed to those conservatives who supported slavery as the right institution for upliftment of blacks. Such an understanding, however, would be deeply flawed.

Frederick Law Olmsted was a versatile personality of that era. He was a farmer as well as a landscape architect, journalist, social critic and public administrator. He was commissioned by the New York Times editor in 1852 to prepare a series of articles about Slavery in the south. His famous book, The Cotton Republic (1861), was based on these articles which presented an all-encompassing picture of slavery. Eminent personalities of that era, including Karl Marx, were influenced by Olmsted's views. What were Olmsted's views exactly? He was firmly against slavery — not primarily because of exploitation of the slaves but mostly on account of the supposed inefficiency of the slaves who, in his understanding, accomplished one third to one half as much work as did “the commonest stupidest domestic drudges at the North.”

It is not Olmsted alone but other contemporary progressive intellectuals of the United States of the time such as Cassius Marcellus Clay and Hinton Rowan Helper had similar opinions, which formed the core of anti-Slavery argument of those times.

Do their arguments make sense? Absolutely Not. Eminent economic historians of the twentieth century—Robert William Fogel and Stanley L. Engerman—analysed American slavery in their book Time on the Cross (1974) for which Fogel was awarded the Nobel Memorial Prize in economic sciences. Their data-based work did dispel many popular false perceptions about slavery, in particular, the myth of Negro slovenliness. The Negros were definitely more hard working and more productive than free white labourers. 

Fogel and Engerman further explain,

 “The antislavery critics...conceived of blacks as members of an inferior race...Most expected that freed Negroes would have to be constrained in various ways if an “orderly” society was to be maintained.”

No wonder, “one of the biggest biological crisis of the nineteenth century” happened right after abolition of slavery when at least one quarter of the four million former slaves got sick or died between 1862 and 1870. (Jim Downs, Sick from freedom; 2012)

Scene two: Early Twenty-first century

 A large number of American academics probably do not recognise Indian civilisation anything worthy of cognisance. The present West—American society being certainly at the forefront—is the product of the European renaissance in the Middle ages, which awakened the scientific exploration and risk-taking ventures of the West. At the heart of this revolution, argues Peter L. Bernstein in his book Against the Gods (1998), lies the Hindu-Arabic number system developed by the Indian civilisation and passed over to the West by the Arabs.

 Sheldon Pollock is a scholar and a leading expert on Sanskrit. Pollock, a chaired professor in a reputed US university, is the editor of the Murty Classical Library of India, a project launched to translate many volumes of Indian classics into English. This shows identification of Pollock with the cause of Indian civilisation. Rajiv Malhotra's book, The Battle for Sanskrit (2016), summarises Pollock's views on Sanskrit and Indian culture. Pollock considers Sanskrit a Brahminical project and source of oppression in India. Sanskritic hegemony, Pollock feels, deprived India of all creativity. The Ramayana, according to him, is a socially irresponsible book.

 Sanskrit connotes to the language of the cultured people by etymology. But Sanskrit is not really an exception; in civilizational projects, languages often evolve from the high culture of society and their names are indicative of this feature. For example, Mandarin is the imperial lingua franca of China (the language of the bureaucrats); Hebrew and Turkish are two artificially revived languages of the twentieth century by the cultural elites of the respective nations. Nevertheless, two most prominent compositions of Sanskrit, the Ramayana and the Mahabharata, are both composed by authors belonging to the subaltern classes (left liberal terminology wise)—Valmiki was a highway robber and Vyasa illegitimate Child of a boat-woman. These epics form the heart and the soul of Indian culture. What can be better proof of the fact that Sanskrit integrated the masses of India?

 Pollock is—very crucially—factually wrong too. He considers circa 260 BC as the birth of writing in India, overlooking the extensive evidence of writing found in Harappan sites (second or third millennium BC). Moreover, days when Sanskrit was India's lingua franca, India was one of the most advanced country of the world in terms of science, technology and economic prosperity. It is quite naive to insinuate that Sanskrit is responsible for Indian inferiority (the claim of Sheldon Pollock).

Progressive Typification

 The world-views of two leading progressive scholars of two very different generations show a similar pattern. Indeed, two examples are, by no means, sufficient to make a complete evaluation of the American progressives. However, they may bust some myths about American Progressives and their world-view which is often projected as neutral to race and religion.

 A. Olmsted was for abolition of slavery but strongly believed in inferiority of the Negroes. Pollock is associated with promotion of Indian civilisation but strongly believes in inferiority of Indian civilisation.

 B. Olmsted was factually wrong and prejudiced to consider the slaves as slovenly; but he pretended to be objective. Pollock's worldview has also factual inconsistencies as explained above. He is supposedly objective; so it does invoke the question: does he nurture deep prejudices in his psyche?

 C. Olmsted wanted Negroes to be constrained in an orderly society; he could not imagine a complete equality of the races. Pollock wants to send Sanskrit to museum as a dead language. He is utterly against revival of Sanskrit. Parity of Indian civilisation to its western counterpart is an unacceptable idea for him.

 D. Though slavery was no progressive institution, slaves did survive as second class inhabitants in American society with receipt of almost 90% of payment made to the free workers (Fogel and Engerman, 1974). There was no systemic genocide by slave-owners. However abolition of slavery caused Negroes to perish in unprecedentedly large numbers during 1860s. Likewise, American conservatives are no friends of Indian culture. Indian cultural studies—while being dominated by western academic discourse—can survive without any state patronage from them. But it is difficult to conclude the same with Pollock as gatekeeper for Indian culture. Such a “friend” of Indian culture would probably end up being catastrophic.

Source: pragyata

Mass communication or mass manipulation? Is journalism living up to the ideals it espouses?

Intolerance in India is not the preserve of political parties as is constantly being made out to be. My experience, detailed below, reveals that intolerance and blocking the expression of alternate views is a national malaise, in which a large mass of people of all hue and color and possible Congress loyalties are also major offenders.

I was invited to speak at a panel discussion ‘Mass Communication or Mass Manipulation?’ which was held at the Delhi College of Arts and Commerce on Monday, February 15, 2016, but rudely interrupted and shut down within minutes of my speech, the full text of which is pasted below. Please decide for yourself if the contents are objectionable enough to invite such behavior.

My speech on ‘Mass Communication or Mass Manipulation?’

As an individual for whom journalism has been more of a passion than a profession, it is somewhat disturbing to be speaking on a topic like this, which states an endemic problem rather than poses a question.

While its fair to say that both communication and manipulation coexist in the media, the taint of manipulation has been growing stronger and for obvious reasons. The main ones include: the corporatisation of media, with ownership of media being increasingly concentrated in the hands of big business and politicians along with the commoditization of news – with TRPs/circulation/advertising revenue/profits and political and market influence becoming central to all news gathering efforts rather than the activity of journalism itself.

Though journalists attribute credit for this distressing model to one large media house, it has been shamelessly embraced by all media firms. It has become omnipresent and omnipotent. It is an absolute. There is no getting away from it.

But that is existence. The essence is centered in journalism’s real objective, which is to function as the soul of a nation – as a conscience keeper, while the role of any journalist should be to relentlessly work for meaningful change, eventually leading to the upliftment of humanity. A journalist’s only obligation is to the truth. Truth that can be verified in public interest. And journalism is only reliable when it is delivered by a journalist who is independent in mind and spirit.

Some of you might argue that this sort of idealism is impractical and only palatable in theory. But if you do indeed believe that, then why even have this debate? Why indulge anger over alleged mass manipulation by the media? People make their choices – to be either the best or the worst of themselves and their choices are not our concern. But if we are upset about anything in our world, if we find it hard to accept the status quo, then we must focus on our own choices and subsequently, the actions and reactions, the rewards and punishments that lead forth from those choices.

Let me quickly take you through my own journey as an investigative journalist to illustrate the significance of individual choice.

When I became a journalist in 1995, the first briefing given to me by a senior colleague was that salaries would always be depressing, and it was impossible to progress without a Godfather – more so for a woman. That most journalists who were successful, were corporate agents, that there was no question of attempting to write anything about a growing club of powerful corporates who were additionally private treaty partners with media houses, or even in challenging the ruling political establishment, since they would hit back with legal notices, and finally, that I would become a victim of crippling boredom and cynicism within a maximum of 10 years just the same as everyone else.

At the time this was shattering, because I believed journalism was a calling and one that resonated with the highest ideals. In retrospect, I am deeply grateful to this senior colleague for re-setting my expectations to zero on my very first day in the job. I was now free to concentrate on my work, knowing full well that I could not expect any professional gain, since I neither had any powerful connections nor the mindset or the aptitude to cultivate them.

Interestingly, it is in this very backdrop of cynicism, vested interests and gender discrimination that I later went on to deliver, in a span of just 7 years, a deeply incriminating body of investigative work exposing what is now popularly known as the Rs 1.76 lakh crore, 2G telecom scam: the award of 2G telecom licenses to builders rather than telecom players on January 10, 2008 at historic 2001 prices based on an illegal first-come, first-served allocation policy.

This was followed by an expose of the Rs 1.86 lakh crore coal scam, popularly known as Coalgate. Vadragate, the shady land deals of Congress President Sonia Gandhi’s son-in-law, Haryana chief minister B.S. Hooda’s largesse in licensing 22 thousand acres of land to first-time builders at the cost of poor farmers; Himachal Pradesh chief minister Virbhadra Singh’s corruption scandal, NABARD’s largesse towards rich corporates at the cost of the rural poor; the 4 billion dollar Sahara Ponzi scandal; the potential abuse of power in the award of new banking licenses and Chhattisgarh ex-chief minister’s son Amit Jogi’s election scandal, followed in quick succession.

The 2G expose, undisputedly the biggest and most rigorously documented financial scam in independent India, culminated in a Cabinet minister A Raja, his telecom secretary, along with several officials of privately held firm Swan Telecom being jailed for 18 months or more. Similarly, the Supreme Court cancelled 214 of 218 coals mine permits in its order of September 24, 2014. A Public Interest Litigation against the Himachal Chief Minister is being heard in court, while legal action is being prepared against the former Haryana chief minister, B. S. Hooda. Sahara chief, Subroto Roy once an untouchable has also been a resident of Tihar jail since February 2014 while the Robert Vadra scandal became a major cause for the Congress Party’s debacle in the recent elections. NABARD has withdrawn its controversial scheme favoring corporates at the cost of the rural poor.

However, establishing the direct involvement of the then finance minister, Mr. P Chidambaram, the prime minister’s office and even former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh himself in the 2G and Coalgate scandals invited severe hardships. These included personal and professional attacks, surveillance, threats and censorship. It was around October 2008, after many months of reporting on the basis of access to secret documents that the then prime minister, finance minister and telecom minister Mr. A Raja met and decided to have a press conference to clarify that all these stories that I had done were wrong. I was threatened by Raja’s personal secretary and the tightening pressure by the government and big telecom players involved in this scam was used to first censor and eventually block all my stories. This is despite Raja going to jail, the Controller and Auditor General of India, or the CAG independently verifying my exposes, a government committee endorsing the stories and even a landmark Supreme Court verdict in February, 2012 upholding the allegation of illegality that I had made way back in 2007 by cancelling all the 122-telecom licenses.

Through all of this, the worst attack came from within, colleagues and senior editors, the gatekeepers of newsrooms would sit around me discussing with earshot how the 2G corruption didn’t qualify as a story. Since every minister was corrupt, how was the singling out of the telecom minister any great achievement? They doubted my sources, dismissed the verification of facts as opinion, even going so far as to say I didn’t know how to write. This was despite my then tenure of 16 years and the fact that my stories were always printed without any editing and completely overlooking the fact that I was absolutely a zero maintenance resource, with no legal notice to my name till date, despite challenging the richest and most powerful people in the country.

It is in this backdrop of hostility and complete scorn for the truth that I still continued to deliver stories. I was told that newspapers didn’t support campaign journalism or activism so basically I learned that it’s not okay to be identified as an activist journalist in India. Such a label is a matter for ridicule and not honor. Once you are given such a tag, your colleagues will persistently suspect your motives, ignore your research and dismiss you for being emotional, and all of this is aimed at destroying the journalist professionally.

Despite this hostile environment, the 2G scam was rigorously documented in over 50 or 60 stories, becoming the symbol of big and embedded corruption, exposing the nexus between journalists, PR firms, bureaucrats, big business and politicians. Its unexpected upside was that it unleashed unprecedented social and political transformation as the outcome of public anger against corruption.

The 2014 general election in India was fought on 3 primary issues: corruption, governance and governments’ political accountability – a first in India’s 67 years of Independence. Through these years, I continued to counter the anger of colleagues, since investigative journalism also hits at the interests of beat reporters who survive by protecting their sources and keeping them happy. And the only way to do that is by not telling the real story and preventing others from doing so as well.

Another smart way of killing investigative work is to deny news space, since the devil lies in the detail, especially in the unveiling and unraveling of complex financial scams. So when an editor says that he will only publish your story if it can be condensed to 450 words or less, it is obvious his intention is to block the investigation.

This journey, painful as it has been, has only confirmed for me my core belief: that the only reward for any work, particularly journalistic work, is the work itself. The effect of undertaking such work is that such journalists are pushed to the fringes by their own community. The punishment is that they never become editors, ensuring that they are never given the authority to set the agenda.

Such punishment, such sacrifices can not be undertaken by the faint hearted. Eventually, journalism or any other profession, can only achieve its purpose of serving humanity if it attracts the best people. The best people are those who are strengthened by a deeply spiritual core. This makes the discussion of character, conduct and spirituality even more relevant in a world of ever-expanding and dissenting voices. But it is a discussion that doesn’t seem to interest too many people.

At one level, my story is everybody’s story – a complex and often competing mix of existence and essence, in which true winning emerges out of the ability to endure pain and struggle, about being able to sift the grain from the chaff, and most importantly, to be able to eventually make the right choices.

The real question to be asked in the cacophony of these times is how many people are willing to step forward to truly and joyfully choose the path of service – in this case, mass communication – rather than the path of professional advancement or the path of mass manipulation? If choosing the path of service means embracing a crown of thorns, are they still willing to take the plunge?

According to Ernest Hemingway – an American novelist, short story writer and journalist – “The best people possess a feeling for beauty, the courage to take risks, the discipline to tell the truth, the capacity for sacrifice. Ironically, their virtues make them vulnerable; they are often wounded, some times destroyed”.

Thank you.

Some disclosures which reveal why this incident was condemnable:

On Monday night, one of the panelists called to express their dismay at the condemnable conduct meted out to me, which confirmed that this public humiliation was not lost on anyone, the panelists, the students, or the DCAC faculty present there. However, nobody present made the slightest attempt to intervene or rescue the situation.

1. When I was invited, I was told that the decision to select the topic was inspired by the revelations made by me in two interviews published recently – October 9, 2015 and January 22, 2016 – on the state of the media.

2. Prior to the interview, I checked multiple times with the organizers and the moderator, urging them to indicate the structure of the discussion and the kind of issues they would like to discuss, but they chose not to revert. On Sunday evening, at around 5 pm, I enquired, via a whatsapp message to the organizer, how much time had been allotted to each speaker to speak and was informed that it was 10-12 minutes.

3. I then called the moderator to ascertain if he, too, was in agreement with the time limit.

4. I was the first speaker at the event. Barely 3 minutes into my speech, I was abruptly asked to stop and leave the podium. This was while I was pointing out that establishing the direct involvement of the then finance minister, Mr. P Chidambaram, the prime minister’s office and even former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh himself in the 2G and Coalgate scandals had invited severe hardships. The DCAC FACULTY which had invited me to the event, DID NOT INTERVENE. They remained silent spectators.

5. Though things became hazy after that, most panelists made it a point to disagree with me on the sliding values in the media.

One panelist scoffed at my belief that “journalism’s real objective, is to function as the soul of a nation – as a conscience keeper, while the role of any journalist should be to relentlessly work for meaningful change, eventually leading to the upliftment of humanity”. She did not specify what her own idea of journalism is.

Another panelist indulged himself with a dig – that since everyone was talking about themselves, he wouldn’t. Thanks to the clumsy moderating, none of the panelists were introduced, which is customary protocol. How can a journalist speak without some contextual reference to their work and circumstances?

The panel, in self congratulatory mode, eventually went on to cheerfully concur that the media space was fair, balanced and above board. None of the other panelists were snubbed or cut short, like I was.

6. My work and views are well known, particularly to these organizers and journalists, who had read my recent interviews. I have never sought respect or honor and thats why repeated attacks of humiliation have not crippled me so far. But I am completely certain of one thing: that it is despicable to invite someone just to humiliate them in full public view and in front of students.

7. The conduct that I witnessed, further displays the appalling standards of educational institutions as well as the incompetence and laziness of the faculty. If they don’t have the skill to coordinate a simple event of this nature, be gracious hosts, they should not attempt it. On February 16, I received a message from a DCAC faculty member admitting that the situation was “unfortunate”. Well, who was responsible? How would you have described it if you had been up there on stage instead of me?

8. Character is established by conduct, not false talk and fancy writing. It is horrifying to see well-educated people, people of privilege and influence, passively witness events – without the slightest urge to intervene and correct them.

The author can be contacted on Twitter: @shaliniscribe

Source: newslaundry

An open letter to Rajdeep “IAmAntiNational” Sardesai

Dear Rajdeep,

It seriously doesn’t matter to me what’s your self-image: Nationalist or anti-nationalist. I don’t even care what people think about you. I don’t even see a reason why an honest journalist needs to advocate his ideologies in a national newspaper’s op-ed page. I don’t even know how many honest journalists can get this opportunity of ‘self-promotion’ as most of them are vernacular, non-lutyens journalists, struggling to find news in scorching heat of India that exists outside of Delhi.

Since your article is based on an absolutely wrong premise, besides self-pity, I think, as a true nationalist, its my duty to correct it and put it in right perspective before your lie becomes the mainstream narrative.

You write:

“In the 1990s, the country’s polity was divided by secular versus pseudo secular faultlines; now, another divide, and frankly far more insidious, is sought to be created between ‘national’ and ‘anti-national’ forces.”

In the 1990s, the country was divided between haves and have-nots. That’s why the main theme was ‘Garibi Hatao’. As it still does. Then liberalization happened. With liberalization, India got divided on a new fault line. Ones who wanted to make a better livelihood by working hard and those who wanted to milk liberalization with corruption. Corruption requires middlemen, brokers, pimps and sycophants. Thus a group mushroomed, disguised in the garb of secularism and unfortunately you chose to become their voice. Indians have been secular for thousands of years. I hope you know, words like ‘religion’ and ‘secular did not even exist until the advent of Christianity. I am sure your grandfather must have told you that Hindu civilization existed even thousands of years before Jesus Christ.

‘Secularism’ was a tool that corrupt Congress and the beneficiaries of its corruption used to protect ‘the ecosystem’ from millions of hungry, unemployed, exploited, oppressed but honest, hard-working common citizens. Secularism was invented to consolidate minority votes without isolating Hindus and without appearing to be a minority appeaser. With liberalization, came new multi-national businesses who wanted to overcome red-tapism and needed licenses whereas the ruling parties needed funds. Coincidentally, at the same time English news channels were also in red so they also needed funds. So news channels with power to make or break images needed money and corrupt Congress with money needed image. Thus emerged a new group – The Secular group.

Anyone who disagreed with their ‘Idea of (corrupt) India’ was labelled non-intellectual and thus the middle class, vernacular Indian who did not have the privilege to study in St. Xaviers, Christchurch, Doon, Scindia, Oxford or Cambridge was made to feel inferior in his own country. They were typecast as illiberal, regressive Hindus. Supporting Pakistan was seen as intellectual. Rejecting Hindu customs and traditions became an intellectual exercise. People who take pride in Hindu philosophy were systematically labelled ‘illiberal’. You were seen protecting, promoting and nurturing such voices.

Rajdeep, your grandfather must have also told you that everything that is traditional isn’t illiberal. Similarly, everything that’s rebellious in nature isn’t liberal. But Secular India had silenced the grandfathers of India. On TV channels, for sure. That’s how India was divided between organized and funded club members of a ‘Secular India’ and unorganized, simple, honest and truly secular Indians. They were denied entry into mainstream narrative of India. Nobody was talking for them. Nobody was listening to them. It was by design. You were one of the designers.

Since you love old Hindi songs you must have heard ‘Jiska koi nahin uska to khuda hai yaaron…’ and khuda listened to this hapless mass. A technological innovation came as their rescue. Social media happened. Of course, the secular brigade tried to monopolize it but the entry was open to all. It wasn’t a club. It was a platform. When so-called ‘smart trolls’ started exposing your secular club members of their lies and sinister intents, your wife tried to humiliate them and create further divide by labelling them as ‘Internet Hindoos’.

They weren’t Hindoos. They were Indians. They wanted to take pride in India. And you wanted to crush that pride. For that pride would have been counter productive to thekedars of ‘idea of India’. Two ideas, two Indias came out in open. One who loved India. And another who loved ‘idea of India. That’s how ‘nationalist’ and ‘anti-nationalist’ debate started. Nobody called you anti-national. You decided to ridicule nationalists. You started calling Modi supporters as ‘sanghis’, bhakts, and pseudo patriots, without even realizing that these people love Modi for he is a India Bhakt. They will drop Modi the day they doubt his integrity.

You misunderstood that Modi bhakts are also BJP, RSS bhakt. Your fundamentals were wrong. That’s why it took one evening of prime time for one of your ex-colleagues to demolish your game. Today you have become a victim of your own game. You have sensed that being anti-Hindu, anti-India is not paying dividends and it’s too late for you to be called nationalist. You don’t have credibility, and now it’s a matter of survival for you. If your grandfather was alive, he would have warned you that the race you, Arvind Kejriwal, Rahul Gandhi and friends are running ends only in a dark well. Where even penance doesn’t help.

Nothing can be a more resounding proof than the fact that today you have to use an op-ed page to publicly justify your ideological defeat with a vicious hashtag #IAmAntiNationalist

 You write:

“Yes, I am anti-national because in a plural democracy I believe we must have a dialogue with Kashmiri separatists as we must with those in the North-East who seek autonomy. I will listen to student protestors in Srinagar or Imphal as I will to those in an FTII or a JNU.”

I would advise you have a dialogue with Arnab Goswami. With Subhash Chandra. Have a dialogue with Bhakts like me. With Internet Hindoos. Have a dialogue with the innocent Modi supporter who you had beaten up at MSG. But listening isn’t your agenda. If it were you, I would have listened to so-called trolls on twitter and understood why they are so angry with me. But you chose to whine all day about trolls and their abuse. If you can tolerate anti-India slogans I am sure you can also tolerate some abuse on your TL.

On your timeline thousands of ‘trolls’ keep screaming why you don’t show India’s growth story? Did you listen to them?

I want to have a dialogue with you. Listen to you. Understand you. But are you ready to invite me? To listen to my point of view?

Prosecute all those who break the law, incite violence, resort to terror but don’t lose the capacity to engage with those who dissent. The right to dissent is as fundamental as the right to free speech: shouting down alternative views, be they on prime time TV or on the street, is not my idea of India.

Forget Idea of India, first tell us what is India. Is Malda India? Are the states other than Delhi India? Are other CMs not Indian CMs? Is Ramchandra Guha the only Indian intellectual? Or the death of a journalist who was burnt for exposing corruption less secular than the lynching of Akhlaq? Or the turmoil, conflict, negativity, opposition, communalism, intolerance, awards wapsi… only themes of India?

Is Nemo the only dog in India?

If your channel is the only source of information, one would die believing India is Delhi. Modi its villain. Ramchandra Guha its Buddha. Kejriwal  its Christ plus Prophet. Those 5-6 panelists as Supreme Court. Regressive Hindus are killing innocent Christians, Muslims, Dalits, writers and now poor students. Rest of the population is starving without beef. And Sonia Gandhi never existed.

My grandfather told me a journalist’s only requirement is integrity. Integrity isn’t honesty. Integrity is the ability to tell the truth even when no one is listening. When was the last time you raised real issues of India? When was the last time you made your viewers hear a common man’s concerns. Hate Modi. Hate RSS. Hate Bhakts. Hate Hindus. But why this complete blackout of ‘Rest of India’. Do you work for ‘India Today’ or ‘Delhi Today’?

Yes, I am anti-national because I don’t believe in doublespeak on issues of nationalism. If support for Afzal Guru is to be seen as ‘sedition’, then at least half the erstwhile Cabinet in Jammu and Kashmir, where the BJP is in coalition with the PDP, would be held guilty.

I absolutely agree with your logic. And by that logic, and no doublespeak, you must also hold Arvind Kejriwal guilty for having partnered with Congress and Congress for partnering with Owaisi and Nitish for partnering with Lalu. Even you must be held guilty for partnering with corrupt and crony capitalist Ambani and your wife for partnering with your unethical enemy group: Times of India

What you have failed to understand is that ‘is hamam mein sab nange nahin hai, yeh nangon ka hamam hai’. You are one of them.

 If the Kashmiri youth today see Afzal as someone who was framed, they should be challenged to a legal and political debate but can they be branded as ‘jihadists’ simply because their views are repugnant to the rest of the country?

 You are again confusing issues. It’s not about Afzal. It’s about India. It’s about ‘India go back’. India ki barbadi’ ‘ India tere tukde honge’. It’s about that. Afzal, sedition law, FoE, Lawyers’ hooliganism etc are games journalists like you play to shift focus, confuse issues and keep the ‘ecosystem’ protected.

It’s about terrorism. It’s about alleged terror links of some students. It’s about supporting terror groups. It’s about terror funding. It’s about threat to India’s sovereignty. That’s why people are concerned. Leave sedition laws for the court. You tell us where do you stand? Without any buts. If you are seen protecting the rights of these allegedly terror-linked students, or seen spinning this news and covering them up, you won’t have to put any hashtag, because soon you will become a hashtag yourself – of all anti-nationals.

 Yes, I am anti-national because while I am a proud Hindu who wakes up to the Gayatri mantra, I also like a well done beef steak, which, according to BJP minister Mukhtar Naqvi, is a treasonous act, enough to pack me off to Pakistan. I celebrate the rich diversity of my country through food: Korma on Eid, pork sorpotel with my Catholic neighbours in Goa during Christmas and shrikhand during Diwali is my preferred diet. The right to food of my choice is again a freedom which I cherish and am unwilling to cede.

Unfortunately, your understanding and definition of Hinduism is limited to Gayatri Mantra, beef steak and shrikhand.  The day you will understand Hinduism you will regret that you had to waste all your productive life to learn secularism, tolerance, inclusiveness, nationalism etc. when all this wisdom was available in your grandfather’s diaries.

 Post-script: Last week, at the Delhi Gymkhana litfest, I suggested that the right to free speech must include the right to offend so long as it doesn’t incite violence. A former army officer angrily got up and shouted, “You are an anti-national who should be lynched right here!” When even the genteel environs of the Gymkhana club echo to such strains, we should all be very worried.

I don’t know much about club culture but I know one thing for sure: when journalists stop travelling beyond their studios to reporting facts, fighting over TRPs instead of truth, and using media to further their agenda or to defend and justify themselves, we should all be not just very worried but take time out to introspect.

The other day I was invited to a Times Now panel for an Arnab Goswami show where he was exposing the hypocrisy of Indian seculars and liberals. My views about Indian Secular gang are well-known and I expressed them frankly. Next morning, while walking in my park without a dog, a gentleman called me ‘bhakt’. Exactly like you do. Do you know, in Hindu philosophy, Bhakti is a human quality, attained only by honest people. He accused me of being critical of award wapsi gang who hate intolerant Hindus who support Modi and that too on a Arnab Goswami show who is exposing those who hate India and Modi who loves India and who has the support of Hindus who love India which is also loved by Modi…

If supporting India means supporting Modi and vice versa then I’d rather be called a ‘bhakt’ than being seen exchanging notes with terror support groups.

Yes, #IAmABhakt, of India

Vivek Agnihotri is a filmmaker, writer and columnist. His next film ‘Buddha In A Traffic Jam’ deals with Naxalism at India’s premier institutes.

Vivek tweets at @vivekagnihotri

Source: opindia

HOW NOT TO DEAL WITH THE IDEOLOGY OF HATE

Sunday, 07 February 2016 | Kanchan Gupta | in Coffee Break

Theological pamphleteering, no doubt well meaning and sincere, is of no consequence to the peddlers of violence and death. The latter's taunting tone is already discernible over the babble vacuous politically correct discourse

At last week’s Counter-Terrorism Conference, organised by India Foundation and themed around the rising tide of global jihad, speaker after speaker waxed eloquent on well-known basics without addressing the core issue: The ideology of hate and how to deal with it. Theological pamphleteering, no doubt well meaning and sincere, is of no consequence to the peddlers of hate, death and destruction. I doubt if Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the self-appointed caliph of the Islamic State, and Abubakar Shekau, who heads Boko Haram, are remotely impressed by counter-scholarship. That would be equally true of the mullahs of Taliban and the foot soldiers of jihad.

To ignore the ideology that drives Islamism and its resultant violence would be to ignore the real reason behind the continuing surge in transnational terrorism. The barbarians may not be at our gate as yet, but the unstoppable march of  zealots, whom George W Bush described as ‘Islamofascists’, as the civilised world retreats, conceding ground with each passing day, should not go unnoticed. To turn a blind eye, to be indifferent, or worse, to be politically correct and tolerate the intolerable would be to our peril. For let there be no mistake, the taunting tone of those who believe in the inevitability of a homogenous ummah replacing the diverse world we know is already discernible over the babble of ill-informed and vacuous politically correct discourse.

Soon after the ghastly London bombings when Islamists blew themselves up with deadly effect, Ed Husain’s book The Islamist was published, recording his disillusionment with radicals who use faith as a cover for their murderous deeds. A particular passage in that book remains indelibly printed on my mind: “Teacher, I want to go London next month. I want bomb, big bomb in London, again. I want make jihad!” “What?” I exclaimed. Another student raised both hands and shouted: “Me too! Me too!” Other students applauded those who had just articulated what many of them were thinking...

That’s how Ed Husain records his experience in the Saudi Arabian school where he had taken up a teaching assignment after embracing radical Islam. It was the day after the 7/7 suicide bombings in London that killed 52 commuters. Ed Husain, his faith in radical Islam by then dwindling rapidly after experiencing life in Saudi Arabia, was hoping to hear his students denounce the senseless killings. Instead, he heard a ringing endorsement of jihad and senseless slaughter in the name of Islam. Ed Husain returned to London and penned his revealing account in The Islamist Why I Joined

Radical Islam in Britain, What I Saw Inside and Why I Left. Debunking the Left-liberal intelligentsia’s explanation that deprivation, frustration and alienation among immigrant Muslims in Britain are responsible for the surge in jihadi fervour, Ed Husain wrote: “Many Muslims enjoyed a better lifestyle in non-Muslim Britain than they did in Muslim Saudi Arabia... All my talk of ummah seemed so juvenile now. It was only in the comfort of Britain that Islamists could come out with such radical utopian slogans as one Government, one ever expanding country, for one Muslim nation. The racist reality of the Arab psyche would never accept black and white people as equal... I was appalled by the imposition of Wahhabism in the public realm, something I had implicitly sought as an Islamist...”

So, what does an Islamist seek? The reams of rubbish churned out by bogus activists and windbag columnists desperately seeking to rationalise crimes committed in the name of Islam, ranging from the ethnic cleansing of the Kashmir valley to the Mumbai massacre, from the attack on Parliament House in New Delhi to the destruction of the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York, from the horrific assault on human dignity by the Taliban in Afghanistan to the nauseating anti-Semitism of the regime in Iran, and from the unspeakable crimes of the Islamic State in the Levant to the limitless horrors of Boko Haram in Nigeria, cannot explain either the core idea of Islamism or what motivates Islamists. For that, we have to go through the teachings of Hasan al-Banna, the original Islamist and progenitor of the Muslim Brotherhood which now wields power in Egypt, the land of the birth of radical Islam.

Hasan al-Banna’s articulation of Islamism in the 1930s, distilled from complex theological interpretations of Islam, was at once simple enough for even illiterate Muslims to understand and sinister in its implications when seen in the context of what we are witnessing today: “The Quran is our Constitution. Jihad is our way. Martyrdom is our desire.” Imagined grievances and manufactured rage came decades later, as faux justification for adopting this three-sentence injunction that erases the line separating the spiritual from the temporal and giving Islam a political dimension in the modern world, thus expanding the theatre of conflict beyond the sterile sands of Arabia.

Hasan al-Banna died a nasty death when he was murdered in 1949, apparently in retaliation of the assassination of Egypt’s then Prime Minister, Mahmud Fahmi Naqrashi, but the seed he had planted in his lifetime was to grow into a giant poison tree, watered and nourished by Sayyid Qutub (whose tract, Ma’alim fi-l-Tariq, was interpreted as treasonous, fetching him the death sentence in 1966) which over the years has spread its roots and branches, first across Arabia and then to Muslim majority countries; so potent is that tree’s life force, its seeds, carried by the blistering desert wind that blows from the Mashreq, have now begun to sprout in countries as disparate as Denmark and India, Turkey and Malaysia, changing demographic profiles and unsettling societies.

The world chose to ignore subsequent events and, like those who clamour for a gentler, accommodative approach to Islamism today by pushing for compromise over conflict, ‘enlightened’ scholars and public affairs commentators rationalised Anwar Sadat’s assassination by Islamists on October 6, 1981. Even Egypt erred in setting free scores of conspirators, including a certain Ayman Al-Zawahiri.

Similarly, the ‘Islamic Revolution’ in Iran with its blood-soaked consequences was hailed as a “people’s victory” over Shah Reza Pehalvi’s dictatorial regime. For Europe, long dubbed Eurabia, it was business as usual Iran’s oil swamped out rational analyses. If any country had the foresight to sense the danger signals, it was, and ironically so, Egypt under President Hosni Mubarak who remained wary of Iran, not least because of its export of rabid Islamism. Tragically, the new rulers in Cairo are not riled by Tehran naming a street after Sadat’s assassin, Khalid Islambouli.

It was in the immediate aftermath of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan that Islamism acquired a new dimension and a vicious edge when it was coupled with Wahhabism, Saudi Arabia’s severely austere version of Sunni Islam. Arab nationalism, which was unencumbered by Islamism till then, became an expression of faith in radical Islamism. In what passes for Palestinian territories, the intifada was born and reborn, and while the popularity of Yasser Arafat’s largely secular PLO began to decline, Hamas, led by its paraplegic spiritual leader, Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, began its murderous march which has culminated with Gaza Strip being declared ‘Hamastan’. Yassin was killed by the Israelis for inspiring young Palestinians to blow themselves up in buses, restaurants and markets, but that has neither shaken Hamas nor weakened its faith in what Hasan al-Banna preached. In Lebanon, the Hezbollah is now facing competition from Fatah-al Islam in Palestinian refugee camps and Syrian dissidents who equally believe ‘Islam is the solution’. In Britain, Hizb ut-Tahrir is seducing young Muslims like Ed Husain with its acid message of intolerance and bigotry. In India, we have the Jamaat-e-Islami and the Tablighi Jamaat. The Deobandis are not to be scoffed at.

To neutralise the three-sentence injunction of Hasan al-Banna, we need more than a ‘War on Terror’. We need to launch an assault on the idea that motivates radical Islamists. There is no scope for accommodation, nor is there any reason to capitulate or strike a compromise. We still have time to mount a counter-assault. But to do that, and do so successfully, we must first acknowledge and debate the Idea of Islamism.

(The writer is a current affairs analyst based in NCR)

Source: dailypioneer