We all blog in gated communities. Not by choice, but it happens that way. We mostly read those people whose views we agree with. As a result on most personal blogs, the comments on each post read something like this:
- You’re so right!
- I couldn’t have said it better!
- I agree completely
- etc etc…
But what are we doing really? A lot of us blog on issues that matter to us. And I’d like some change to come about as a result of that. But it can’t happen if the only people I engage with are those who already agree with me! I need to go out, and talk to those who disagree with me. That way, I can learn how they really feel and get to understand them.
Fundamentally, I believe that everyone is decent and wants to do the right thing. I won’t go and take a superior attitude. I go with the intention to talk – with the understanding that we’re all decent folks. That way, I hope to not only get some of my main ideas across, I seek to understand why they feel the way they do. If I do that, perhaps some of my own opinions will change. And I’m willing to let that happen if it’s a better opinion based on logic. So here goes…
I started with this right wing post. The basic idea of the post is that Muslims and Christians are ganging up on Hindus to fight them. I made an honest attempt to engage in dialogue with those who commented in an attempt to understand where they’re coming from. It wasn’t easy – there were lots of ad hominem attacks on me questioning my education, my character, my motives etc.
One person even asked me why my blog has posts from 2006 when my domain name was registered only in 2008! When I explained that I was blogging on blogspot and migrated all my posts, this was the reply:
“That explains it man. The seeming timing mismatch of your blog posts is wonderfully explained just as I thought it would be. Though if I were you I’d have retained blogspot also, for record’s sake.”
54 comments later, I’m still trying to reach a proper dialogue with those are interested. But in spite of this, there were many cogent responses and some were partially cogent. From what I was able to understand these are the main points (I’m not passing judgment on any of these opinions as of now – I just want to understand):
- They feel that Muslims and other minorities are a threat to Hindus
- Minorities are trying to eradicate Hindu culture
- They feel that the “Liberals” and the “sophisticated intellectuals” forgive the Muslims anything but severely criticize any violation by a Hindu group
For my part, I kept finding these recurring themes:
- A willingness to generalize. The word “Muslims” encompasses every single Muslim with no allowances made for the vast majority of non violent members
- Many refuse to discuss a particular incident against Muslims (like the Godhra riots) and bring in all the other incidents of violence by Muslims they can remember. They do this because they feel that Muslims are getting a “free pass” by the press and society in general while any violation by Hindus is decried strongly.
I want to dispel some of the paranoia here. If those on the right are reading this, let me set the record straight:
- No violence is ever excused. If the violence is committed by a Muslim, they will be criticized as much as possible. Many bloggers have dedicated posts talking about injustices by the Taliban and how stupid fatwas harm soceity etc…
- We have nothing against Hindus and Hindu culture. We all have the right to follow any Hindu tradition we like as long as it’s in accordance with the law and the Constitution. Our Constitution is an expansive one. This means that you can do almost anything you want and no one has the right to stop you. If someone tries, all of us “liberal” bloggers will back you up and roundly denounce those who want to stop you from following your traditions irrespective of whether they’re Muslim, or Christian or any other religion.
- Our biggest concern is that innocent people will get caught up in any acts of retaliation against a particular community. That is why we denounce statements against “Muslims” in general – it’s because there are lots of innocent and non violent Muslims who don’t deserve hatred.
- Importantly, none of us are trying to downplay incidents of Islamic terror. Everyone cannot focus on everything. You have our deepest respect and admiration if you wish to address injustices to Hindus or Sikhs – like the 1984 Sikh massacre. Let’s use our strength in numbers to fight everything and not to bring in other incidents of violence when we’re discussing one particular incident. Let’s bring all the guilty people to justice without getting in one another’s way!
And most importantly, let’s not be at cross purposes. We all want to address injustices to everyone and anyone. Let’s have a dialogue instead of abusing one another. I assure you, we want to do what’s right – and I’m sure you do too. We’re in the Internet age and have the tools of communication. Let’s use this communication to achieve something that has never been done before – achieve harmony, or at least an understanding of where the other side is coming from.
I’m going to be commenting on your blogs from now on and I encourage you to read those written by liberals. Let’s put in some effort to understand where we’re coming from. I suggest tools like guest posts where you can air your views and we can do the same. Let’s be creative.
What say?
Hi, It was very nice to see you to go to far right for starting dialouge through the blog. But, a point should be considered before that. Why you are writing the blog ? You are writing this blog to express yourself or remove the doubt of others. Then, it would be easier to start dialouge with others. I had also thought on the point of having dialouge through blog on different issues. But, it fails miserably. My blog has became limted for the people who can come, read and go. Beliefs can only be questioned by us but the answer should be searched by the believer only. If point of clarity doesn’t solve problem at first place, more discussions over it is futile. I give only one advice to all orthodox people : Don’t stereotype and be creative.
Hi Himanshu, nice to have you here!
You're right. This is blog is primarily to express my views. But I'd like it to mean more than that if possible. I'd like it to help improve things…
And you're absolutely correct that if clarity doesn't solve a problem, then it's likely that further discussions will fail. But why not try and obtain clarity first? When I commented on Sandeep's blog, I found that many people thought I was defending Muslims and giving them preferential treatment over Hindus. I'd like my blog to clarify that there's no preferential treatment being given.
If only we can at least clarify things and really understand why people feel the way they do, I will call that a success…
You posed the right question – why is Jal Park writing this blog? He is not just reaching out, he is actually behaving like the self-appointed spokesman of the sickular establishment.
He took the liberty of "setting the record straight". As if he knows exactly what all lefties/sickularists are thinking and doing. Is he not making a generalisation himself, the sort that he seems to be whining about so much in his blogs and posts, when he makes broad statements and declarations on behalf of ALL leftists/communists?
Who made him the spokesperson for all the India-hating (synonymous to me with Hindu-hating) leftwingers?
And as far as reaching out is concerned, why doesnt Babar Jal Park also reach out to the commies, the jihadists, and others? Oh, but then, he is secular. (Or perhaps just scared of the consequences?)
Be fair. Be bold. Be Hindu.
You're repeating your comments. Please don't waste comment space by doing this on my blog.
Hi bhagwad
came to yr site via hubpages comment by you. Thank u.
I am neither from left nor from right. But over all I feel in the current atmosphere in country it is the so called left or people who claim to have passion for their own brand of secularism etc. who look to me to be much more away from the reality and lost in useless games.
For example is it not clear that just now our country faces the problem of terrorism which is mainly oriented from Pakistan and created by its army top and feudal ruling class and from similar ruling class sin some other countries. They are helping and manipulating this terrorist machinery and giving it a Muslim color mainly to use it as a tool to continue their corrupt and weak rule in their own country and to become powerful outside their country.
But in India I find any talk of handling this machinery against us is always confused unnecessarily by left oriented politicians and media (Congress, Communists or parties like sp, bsp etc. with one person feudal rule -who claim to be leftist). They create confusion about it by saying that it is against Muslims in India. Your article also seem to have been affected by this kind of confusion and propaganda.
I wrote some articles about this terrorist turmoil now affecting whole world. see for example
http://hubpages.com/hub/NewsViews-April-2010-Terr…
http://hubpages.com/hub/Reasons-for-Current-Sprea…
Almost similar is the case with a very different problem of Naxalism and similar other local terror type groups. There is little doubt that some of it is being generated by help from China and some times again by criminals and spy agencies based in countries like Pakistan. There are also social issues involved with in the country. But again domination of this so called left oriented politics does not allow a proper discussion and analysis on the topic.
Irony is that while it is this so called left oriented lot which is confusing the issues involved and do not want to listen to even other side, they always accuse others. For example all left oriented parties accuse regularly BJP and other right oriented groups of uncompromising etc. But they do not want to have any even conversation in public with them by calling them communal, while BJP etc. are ready to discuss issues – (I do not call parties like Shiv Sena, MNS, AIDMK, SP, BSP or DMK etc. right oriented or left oriented, they are mainly ruled in feudal manner by one family, who will use any principal to keep their hold on party etc. to some extent even Congress has similar ruling pattern but it is too large, so is forced at least to have some grace) . Is this attitude not strange? For last 60 years they have been forced to deal with so called right then why this posing and denying that other people do not exist or do not deserve to be addressed in public.?
Over all while so called right in India (BJP etc. ) generally says that our country's basic culture is "sarva dharma smana bhava" the so called left accuses them ( and not just them practically every body in India- specially Hindus) quite unreasonably that they are communal. While I find in practically every decision making, it is mainly the left which confuses the issues much more, brings in religion, communal aspects etc. unnecessarily even where it is not there. While so called right parties may not be all that great, it is the so called left which has ruled India for most of the time and has created much more confusion and trouble for average people some of it to hide its mismanagement.
As far as silent majority in India is concerned they are among the most liberal in world. We have tradition of "sarva dharma saman bhava" in our blood and culture and it is followed for centuries by all, irrespective of their religion — Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, Christian etc. in India. We do not need much discussion about it, to see that. Just go to any temple mazar or church and see who are the people who visit there. I have written articles about these aspects also . Here is a link to one , http://hubpages.com/hub/religions-and-science-Ind…
I feel your article has also been affected by this false propaganda and unnecessary confusion creation by left dominated political and media ruling class. It has very little to do with behavior of silent mass in India.
As of now, I'm not going into talking about one party over another. I'm interested in engaging people in dialogue.
My concern is over the vitriol being spewed by a large number of people on blogs all over the net. One day that vitriol could erupt into real world violence, and so my desire is to clear the air. I want to make it clear that not everyone belonging to a certain religion is violent – so they must never be stereotyped.
Also, there are a lot of trolls around who need to get jobs…
Hinduism is a cool religion that is also oriented towards peace and prosperity."""
I just read the link…I thought your comment was accurate and so can’t understand people’s objection…
I’ve come to realize from experience that being an atheist or agnostic is considered ‘bad’ by most Indians…Like that commentator who blamed the education system for creating atheists (people without roots)…What an idiot!
Keep writing…Your posts are thoughtful and interesting…
BTW, it's interesting that you are getting upset over "lumping all Muslims in one category" but you yourself indulge in such labeling ("far right") of all who disagree with you or show pro-Hindu tendencies. :)
I’d love to engage in a dialog with you, but perhaps you could answer these two questions for me and indulge my curiosity:
1. Why do you think you have the handle on what is cogent and what is not cogent? And how do you judge your own writings/responses whether they are cogent or not?
2. Why did you use the label “far right” without quotes, but used “liberal” in quotes? And why “far right”? What are the factors that make some thoughts “far right” and how are that different from “right”?
Oh, and BTW, I am the only person who will decide whether your response to the above questions – if it comes across – is cogent or not. In other words, if your answer does not match my pre-determined idea of why you wrote what you wrote (i.e. I’m putting you in a convenient box with a label on it…ummm…let’s go with “sophisticated intellectual”), your answer will be considered dishonest. :)
As for your assertion that –
“They feel that the “Liberals” and the “sophisticated intellectuals” forgive the Muslims anything but severely criticize any violation by a Hindu group” -
1. Have you done your research on this issue with an open mind??
2. Do you think that there’s no truth to this assertion based on what you read in newspapers and what you see on TV after violent incidents involving religion happen in India?
If all Indians are indeed equal and the media believes in secularism, then you should see equal amounts of outrage as well as same/similar decibel levels for all such incidents. If you are really being honest, you will agree that it doesn’t happen that way, with much lenience shown to Muslims. Pick any 5-6 incidents from the past few years and compare the outrage over it and you’ll see that for yourself. If you are unable to do that, let me know and I’ll pick those incidents to help you get started.
cheers.
Hi Kaffir, thanks for getting a dialogue going. Here is what I feel:
1. You yourself have commented on the blog post in which I participated. Many comments involved personal attacks and conspiracy theories.
For example, take this comment by Incognito:
“The education system that these people underwent never allowed them to grow respect for their culture. It deracinated them, cut off their cultural moorings, making them seek refuge in the porus shadow of ‘secularism’, ‘atheism’ and ‘modernity’.”
These are sweeping statements that we call ad hominem arguments, where you attack the person instead of the thing they’re saying. Many comments were like this. So I called them not cogent.
2. I just took the definition of “right” from Wikipedia which says:
“In politics, right-wing, rightist and the Right are generally used to describe support for social stratification with the preservation of traditional social orders and values”
Since many comments in that post were in favor of special treatment on the basis of religion, I used this term. If it’s offensive or you feel it’s wrong, I will gladly accept my mistake and change the term. But I have to use some word to describe the feelings espoused there, which you should admit are quite different from the views I hold.
Moreover, many comments in that post called my views “liberal”, and so I just picked up that term. Again, if you need me to use another word, let me know how you feel.
For the second points, here is my reply:
1. Comments like those of Anand clearly show that he feels I forgive Muslims and criticize Hindus. Here’s one comment:
You wanna protect Muslim and Christian extremists. I shake my head in disbelief and sadness.
or this comment by Malavika:
You deliberately completely ignored supari of Danish cartoonist by a ‘secular’ politician of a particular religion. Perhaps, you should open your eyes and be aware of events
2. As far as outrage goes, I and lots of other “liberal” bloggers react equally to all incidents of violence. If you don’t believe me just two days ago, we participated in a campaign to protect a woman sentenced to be stoned to death in Iran. The protest seems to have worked.
We also attacked the Taliban for lashing a young woman and protested against that as well. I hope you believe me when I say that we protest against whatever violence we come across and are not biased towards any particular religion at all.
And why should there be a bias? As a non religious person myself (and there are lots like me), why on earth should I prefer one religion to another, or one community to another? It makes no sense…
There is also a difference in outrage when the violence is systematic and organized by a political party. The reason there is extra outrage over the Godhra riots for example, is because it was implied that the government itself was directly or indirectly complicit. Similarly, the pub attack by Muthalik was carried out by a political group who was blatantly on TV. If Muthalik had just shut up and not talked to the cameras, there would have been much less outrage. Instead he had to go live and claim that he was “protecting Indian culture etc.” Naturally everyone got more irritated with him!
And I would love to know about incidences which you feel are being ignored.
One more question. :) (Hey, you wanted a dialog, so here are my thoughts.)
From an emotional point-of-view, which incident made you more upset – Muthalik pub violence, or the recent chopping of hand by some Muslims? If there was some difference between your two emotional responses, how do you explain it, since you claim to be an atheist and view all people – and all incidents of violence – as equal?
The hand chopping incident was terrible and was protested by lots of bloggers all over. Here is one example by Nimmy.
Muthalik’s pub violence was a different kind of incident. This is what made it different:
1. He was moralizing. He made sweeping statements against every single woman who drinks or goes to a pub. He didn’t attack any single woman in general, but all women with a certain “attitude.” This naturally gets people’s goat up since we’re all potential victims at his mercy of what he thinks is “right.”
Also, as mentioned above, Muthalik is a political guy. Violence is more dangerous when it’s organized by a political party who’s trying to make a name for itself. If that guy gets some real power in the system, he could be very much more dangerous. That is why there’s so much outrage against Muthalik.
There may be other reasons that I’m missing here…
The hand cutting incident makes us afraid. But (so far), no single person has stood up and said: “Listen everyone in India. If you dare write the name of Mohammed or say anything against him, the xyz party will deal with you”.
If the above happens, I can guarantee you that the amount of outrage will be ten times that of what was vented on Muthalik
I agree with you Bhagwad – it’s bad enough to hurt, it’s more dangerous to preach that hurting for a given cause is justified. Making hate and hate related crimes look like saving a culture or faith is more dangerous.
You wanted dialogue, you got dialogue :-)
Very interesting…Keep it going…
It’s nice to be able to discuss fundamental ideas in a non emotional way :)
@Sraboney – LOL :) All the endless dialogues one can ever imagine can be started if one speaks about this one issue.
Hi! Bhagwad
Place where I live in Mumbai has all around me Muslim Business people owning small shops to big industries. Place where I work has people from all communities Hindus, Muslims, Christians, lower caste, Upper caste, atheists, poor, rich middle class, any class you can think of. Near my home on the side of the raod there is a small statue of Christ, I see as many Hindus or people from other religions bowing with respect as Christians. I travel to many other cities very often in India (also aborad) including cities of Gujarat. No where I see these people from any community of class are that much worried about the questions so called liberals or extremists (from left or right or feudal rule supporters) want them to dragged into. All are mainly worried about how to improve their life style and life styles of their family members. How to improve management in their business or their employing organization. None seem to be that much worried or threatened by any other communities as your article tries to create impression. Main threat they face is from badly managed economy and infra structure, despite our country being full of resources.
Main focus in India should be on these issues. Issues for example to which among public figures like Kalam will like to have debate on (though looks like so called liberals do not find him exciting). Aim should be to have an economy and business atmosphere in the country in which every working person can have a life of minimal decency for himself/herself and all his/her family. This requires our improving our infra structure (electricity, roads, rails, education etc.), working conditions etc. a lot. This aim can be used as a driving force of our economic growth and better social life. Most of the problems for Muslims or any other communities will automatically get solved if we first get this minimal life style. Most other countries in world have achieved this long back.
The debate in which you want to drag people and keep engrossed the country looks a little empty and being carried out in vacuum in the absence of this minimal life style. Let West or countries like Japan, Singapore have such debates – they have achieved this minimal already long back. Let us first talk about bringing a decent life to every one– is that not liberal?
In your debate you do not seem to be ready to give space to one important aspect today in our country. The harm caused in the name of liberalism, by people in Media, press, politics etc. who are filling practically whole space in India for all discussions, debates on only on one issue “Muslims in our country or in some region are being harmed by other communities” or similar other issues about one community against other community etc. ((their pet region is Gujarat — though Gujarat must be among most liberal state and most welcoming to any community and other communities for them mainly means Hindus- Though Hindus as community are among the most liberal ones in whole world towards other communities, In fact all Indians belonging to any community must be among most liberal in their attitudes towards others. That comes from our multi cultural attitudes for milleniums).
As a result, when our focus of the country, which may have among best resources in world but is still among poorest (in terms of number of poor) should be on issues I mentioned above or on issues I mentioned in my previous comments, our so called liberals want to drag whole country only on these useless discussions of putting one community against others etc. All our media, press, political space is filled with only such issues (interestingly Muslims themsleves by and large do not like this focus on them but the so called liberals think they are doing service to them by keeping whole country engrossed only in these issues, fortunately Internet gives some relief).
I hope you realize that even though we have strong democratic traditions, most of this space in our media, press and politics is being controlled in very feudal manner by a selected few who own them or rule over organizations. It is they who are dragging our country to these issues, partly to keep discussion away from mess they were responsible to create.
Way you want to carry out this debate it looks to me that you are also effected by their charms. You think of your self as liberal but to me (and I think to all silent majority of Indians including that from Muslims) in the above discussion Kafir looks to be more liberal and more open and respectful to all communities and all thought process.
Soumya, these things (development and human rights) can and must go together. We have enough people to handle both issues without getting in each other’s way. I can’t directly do anything for the economy. But I have the power to do my best in other ways. My purpose in starting this dialogue is to try and increase the understanding of disparate groups and prevent violence like Godhra from happening which I’m sure you’ll agree isn’t good for our country.
After all, economic development is nothing without human rights. I would rather live in India than in China for example where there is no freedom of speech and you and I won’t be able to have this discussion on an Internet forum if it criticizes the government.
Exactly Bhagwad!
As You say freedom is an important aspect. I did not say development or humanright, those are your words. I said a minimal life style for the family of every working person. A minimal life style has to include freedom to criticize government etc. Freedom or democracy are part of minimal life style.
But I do not see freedom or democratic process in the style you claim to be liberal or you want to propagate. Liberalism or freedom is not singing just Godhra -riots- songs or anti -Modi -songs. What you are saying amounts to essentially sort of a lynching rule — “Look I decided that Modi was responsible for Godhra riots so he is responsible. or “Look I decided that Muslims in our country are being troubled by Hindus so they are” — “if you do not accept it then you are not liberal.”
For example many Hindus and people from other communities were also killed or troubled during riots after those brutal burning in train in Godhra. Their number was not that small. But rarely I have seen that being mentioned by people whom you call liberal and whom you want to follow (not that they do not mention at all- if they mention anti Modi song or killing of Muslims in the riots 100 times then they may mention once about others.
While in this style of liberalism the main focus seems to be just to accuse this guy that girl of communal, to me this style looks to be much more communal and feudal than any thing else. In fact during this onslaught of riots they ended up accusing practically whole of India ( a rare country in which almost every major religion, every race has been followed by millions peacefully for years) accept themselves as communal.
You claim that you fear that violence might erupt soon if your style of liberalism is not followed by every one. There is a trace of feeling in this thought –”look I am intelligent and wise but you are not, you should adopt to my style – that is the only right style”. I do not see in this style much liberalism or freedom. This is more like feudalism.
Lebralism and freedom also means respecting others – every one whether they follow some god or not, whether they follow any system or not. Why do you not have respect and faith in silent majority in India. For thousands of years they have been living peacefully in 1000′s communities, systems. This is the country where people like Charwak who propagated what you call atheism more than 2000 years back, were respected as rishi. Where people like Akbar tried to build up a new religion just to rule better. I do not see much reason why one should not respect and have faith in intelligence of silent majority here.
Our criminal justice system is not working well. That causes riots like Godhra or those killings in train or anti Sikh riots after killing of Indira Gandhi. I could have understood if you were pleading “Let us improve our criminal justice system so that such riots do not happen again” But that does not seem to be your line of argument. Your line of argument is more like “Look we liberals have decided that Modi is a criminal so he is”– (at one time the followers of your brand of liberalism even supported manipulating of commission -by Lalu and Congress to declare that brutal train killing was an accidental or self burning of passengers in train — how many people do you think will agree with that ? Don’t you feel that supporters of this style of justice themselves also did not faith in such arguments?
I did not see at that time so called liberals arguing “Look let us not manipulate a the system of commissions in India so much” — “let us have proper criminal justice system instead of making accusations and Lynching or showing disrespect to the dead”
As I said earlier we have strong democracy. But we also have parties and media and press controlled by feudal family rulers. What you are proposing with the color of liberalism looks more to me to be tools created by some of these feudal bosses – by Lynching or branding people who do not follow their style, where as Kadir says “do nor look at just Godhra — we have had many riots” or in other “words need to imporve criminal justice system” To me that looks more liberal than your style.
Soumya, I’m puzzled by a lot of things you’ve said. You seem to think that I hold certain opinions and then you attack those things. This is a strawman argument.
For example:
“What you are saying amounts to essentially sort of a lynching rule — “Look I decided that Modi was responsible for Godhra riots so he is responsible.”
But where did I say that?
“Look I decided that Muslims in our country are being troubled by Hindus so they are” — “if you do not accept it then you are not liberal.”
I was never interested in “Hindus” and “Muslims.” I don’t care about religion. Just violence.
But rarely I have seen that being mentioned by people whom you call liberal and whom you want to follow”
Why do you say I wish to “follow” anyone? I’m not affiliated with any party or group. I’m just me.
“While in this style of liberalism the main focus seems to be just to accuse this guy that girl of communal”
I’ve never supported punishing anyone without evidence. Why do you think I feel otherwise?
“You claim that you fear that violence might erupt soon if your style of liberalism is not followed”
What is my style of liberalism? For that matter, what do you think is liberalism?
“Why do you not have respect and faith in silent majority in India. “
Why do you think I don’t respect the majority of India?
“For thousands of years they have been living peacefully in 1000′s communities, systems”
But what is “peacefully?” India’s history has been as full of violence as many other countries. There were many barbaric practices that were prevalent. There wasn’t any “golden age” any more than other countries had theirs…
“Your line of argument is more like “Look we liberals have decided that Modi is a criminal so he is””
Where have I said this? We need to investigate him and if the courts find him guilty he must be punished accordingly. There’s nothing wrong with that surely?
“at one time the followers of your brand of liberalism even supported manipulating of commission -by Lalu and Congress”
There’s no “my brand of liberalism.” I don’t associate myself with any group and don’t take responsibility for anyone else’s actions. If you feel the Congress or anyone else has done something wrong, don’t take it out on me! What have I got to do with them?
“But we also have parties and media and press controlled by feudal family rulers.”
There are many newspapers in India. Do you have reason to believe that certain political parties are paying them to report favorable news? If so, why?
“What you are proposing with the color of liberalism looks more to me to be tools created by some of these feudal bosses – by Lynching or branding people”
I’d really like to know why you feel I support lynching.
Please let’s let go of misconceptions and preconceived ideas about each other’s views. I may have many preconceived ideas about you, in which case I will be grateful if you will disabuse me. At the same time, I would not like to be judged beforehand – only by what I personally say.
One of the things I find happening in such discussions is labeling those we disagree with. So if you dislike violence – you are a liberal and then you automatically fit into some other labels too, like you support modern western ideas, you do not know the real India, because, you have lived in cities and studied in expensive English schools, and of course you do not know about Indian culture, traditions etc, and hence you don’t care how much danger they are in.
That’s totally true. I’ve had many adjectives thrown at me in the past few days including:
1. “Intellectual”
2. “Urban Elite
3. “Armchar Intellectual”
4. “Cocktail Sipping Intellectual!”
5. Fashionable
6. Wannabe
7. Modern Secularist
8. Western
etc…
It’s difficult to stay on track when the other person uses these words because they give the impression of saying something without actually saying anything!
I wonder what these armchair, traditional, rural downtrodden, conservative commentators are doing about their beliefs other than commentating in English sitting in armchairs in ac rooms…
Hi! bhagwad
First of all let me say that I did not try to convey that you follow this or that. But what I have written above is from the impressions your articles and link give. Ask any one what view your articles convey. I think most people will say that it gives the same impression as I have mentioned.
But of course impressions can be wrong from articles. If it is wrong, I am as happy as you may be, not so much because these views may be wrong but more because at least you are open to different style of reasoning.
I am also not attacking any opinion. I am only saying that some of these opinions are similar to those being propagated in a feudal manner by some people, who control some powerful political parties and some powerful media and press organizations and some of their ideas may not be exact facts. It is not very difficult to trace that, if you carefully go through news etc. in our media channels and press.
I liked your idea of making some effort to understand what is happening and to do some thing about it via your blog. Hence I was only trying to make you see that one has to be careful about these aspects.
I do not agree with several statements you expressed in the above. But I have already written too much, let me just point out about two of them
1. You say in one of your articles mainly on Modi “We must never forget that the government is for the people. The government is the servant of the people and not its master. How can a state serve its people by killing them? Those who excuse Modi’s involvement in the Godhra riots by pointing to the “development” of Gujarat are committing the terrible blunder of forgetting history and ignoring the purpose of government.”
I do not know what you felt but to me this is essentially lynching not just Modi but our whole government machinery and law and order system. When I wrote Lynching I did not mean just physically harming some one. Harming a person’s or government’s reputation (For example your sentence “How can a state serve its people by killing them?”) is also for me lynching without going through not just legal process but also in a bit irrational manner.
There is no need to defend Modi, he is strong enough to defend himself if he is innocent but let me just give for arguments sake some possibilities — I wonder whether you have thought about them. I have at least not seen these possibilities mentioned in media and press or in articles written by the so called liberals (in India some times they give certificate to themselves of being secular also )–
When Gujarat riots happened Modi had just become Chief Minister. If I remember correctly it was just a few weeks of time. He did not have before this as far as I know much experience of administration at that high level post. It is quite possible he was a little taken back by sudden eruption of riots and initially he may not have made so strong statements as he should have perhaps made about law and order. With in one of two days he was a bit in control and did handle quite ok after that. There is certainly enough evidence to see that after one or two days, way army and police was used is much better than earlier handling of riots in India.
If his crime is only above that initially he could not handle properly, I do not see any reason that he should be lynched and hounded as he has been the so called liberal media and press and by you also with statements like one above. This kind of lynching Modi has become almost an industry in our country’s political media and press space today and is quite harmful. It does not allow even an inquiry to be conducted in a proper manner. So far I do not see much evidence that his involvement was more than this. It is quite possible that he may have handled in worse manner than this.
This just to give you an example to try to look at other possibilities also than just one directly visible. I am sure you may also see many such examples not just about Modi
2. You say “But what is “peacefully?” India’s history has been as full of violence as many other countries. There were many barbaric practices that were prevalent.” and then “There wasn’t any “golden age” any more than other countries had theirs…”
I find interesting that while for the barbaric practices you want to make in absolute statements about India — the second one you only want to make comparative statement with respect to other countries. I am not so sure to judge some thing in past by today’s measures how right it is. It is quite possible people of that time may consider today’s time barbaric.
I do not want to go through too much details, there is enough info available on internet to see these ideas may not be so right (which were again propagated quite a bit by the so called liberal group who controlled our history academic circle quite a bit for decades – there is nothing wrong in their propagating their ideas but what they managed was not to allow even study of other styles for decades — only now when even western countries have started studying in a different style atmosphere has changed a little but srill in our country not as much as desirable).
Let me give just one example – I feel that does imply the possibility that these ideas may not be up to that much mark as impression your statement gives. I do not see in our country evidence of much violence with religious motivation before Muslims came to India. You your self gave one example in your articles about Hitler in Europe. In USA whole races of several red Indians tribes have been wiped out. Earlier crusades were also examples. In our country such violence of trying to wipe out whole races or cities is almost not there (except things like Taimur declared Katle aam in Delhi). In fact there is enough evidence to suggest that people followed different religious ideas more as parallel thoughts. There is enough evidence that during Buddha’s time or Shankaracharya’s time people were converted to another format more by winning battles by arguments (shastarth) and not by killing.
Chandra Gupta Maurya after being a Hindu emperor for practically whole of India for a long time adopted to Jainism, spent several years as a simple Jain monk in Karanataka. Such examples are very rare in other countries.
If you look around us practically all countries have Muslim majority. There must be some strength in our style and culture after all that despite such attacks Indian style and culture still survives. Even Muslims changed their style in India. They adopted to local style of accommodating others. Akabar’s style and Barelvi sects of Muslim religion which depend on Sufism are examples.
I do not see much evidence of violence in India which disturbs you so much? There have been occasional riots in recent times. But most of it is because of not having proper law and order machinery. In any case average people are not much involved in it. I was trying to follow during last riots in Mumbai with Shah Rukh khan’s movie, happenings in Mumbai on daily basis and tried to analyze the situations in several articles, in my hub. If you are interested do go through them.
Please note that I am not trying to refute your ideas or trying to have an argument duel with you. I am writing more out affection generated by your efforts. All I want to do is point out to you that there can be other views which should not be neglected just because of some ideological difference. To me liberalism means that. After all right path has to be towards truth.
Thanks for taking the time to reply Soumya – I appreciate it. Let me say you have some valid points and I can see why you feel the way you do. It’s unfortunate that my motives are so unclear and I’ll try and clear the air.
To quickly address your issues:
I see where you’re coming from. If you take my sentence about Modi, development etc, it indeed seems like I’m unfairly targeting Modi. But I was responding to a TOI comment that said something like:
“After Godhra train carnage whatever happened was not Modiji wish but wish of more than 1 billon Hindus in India and worldwide”…etc
In that context, I was merely replying to this gentleman’s point of view. If you read his comment, he gives the strong impression that even if Modi is guilty, development is a more important factor. Hence my statement saying “How can a state serve it’s people by killing them.” At that point, I’m not talking about Gujarat anymore. My objective is to tackle the issues that arise irrespective of Modi’s guilt.
I hope you believe me.
I’m the last one to feel that anyone should be punished without evidence. Even Kasab who everyone knows is guilty has to go through the court system.
And this investigation of Modi isn’t my responsibility. It’s not my job to sift the evidence. Things are never what they seem in a political scenario and there are far more competent people than me. I leave that to the courts. I don’t know if you feel that the courts are controlled by the government. If you do, why do you feel that?
About our county’s past – it’s quite possible that “Religious” violence per se was not a huge factor. But why look at that? After all, the situation is what it is now, and Islam and other religions are an integral part of our country.
And about riots. I don’t care so much about riots by themselves. For example, the recent riots in Kashmir don’t interest me much. What I care about deeply is politically motivated violence and riots. Like the Shiv Sena and guys like Pramod Muthalik. These people are dangerous and even small riots have to be roundly condemned cause I’m terrified if these guys come to power.
Soumya,
I completely agree with your analysis of the mindset of BJP. The twists and turns of the arguments are quite fascinating. The questions that he poses are what? Let’s say it – innocent!
He says – “I think only about individuals, not groups.”
My response – Ignorance is bliss!
Shutting oneself from uncomfortable questions is the road to peace of mind!
He says – “India’s history is full of violence.”
My response – Ignorance is bliss.
You may get a short history lesson here-
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/11/hindus_jews_and_jihad_terror_i.html
He says – “There are many newspapers in India. Do you have reason to believe that certain political parties are paying them to report favorable news? If so, why?”
My response – Ignorance is bliss.
For educating himself, he can refer to some of Sandeep’s previous posts. He may try to find which channels are being funded by whom.
Last but not the least – Why the Bareilley riots were blacked out by the media. No outrage. No hue and cry. Compare this with Gujrat. There are enough videos on Youtube to get to know the truth. Enough tweets and blogs of ordinary people to know what happened. I have first hand accounts of what happened. BJP can also find out if he really tries to do so. And yes, did you blog about it? And what did you say? Show us.
What gives away his dishonesty is – selective outrage and patronizing advice to those who confront him with hard facts. And not replying to those facts but come out with feel-good statements about ‘all religions are equal’, ‘I am atheist’, ‘I don’t care for religions’, ‘India too has a violent past’, etc.
Lastly I will lament on the mindset of we Indians – this is perhaps what kept us under foreign rule for 1000 years: That is the slave mentality. Not having the Courage to stand up for your own interest. And easily falling prey to the wily and clever arguments of the ‘other’, which make you apologetic and reduce your anger to ‘meow’.
I wish you peace of mind BJP!
Hi GyanP – nice to see you here.
I’m sorry you feel I would rather be ignorant. There is some knowledge that isn’t actionable. For example, even if we assume that following a certain religion predisposes a person to violence, what can we do? We can’t ban a system of thought and we can’t condemn everyone in that religion. That is why I choose to ignore groups and only look at individuals.
And do you really feel that the media is being controlled by the government? You’ve asked me to look at some posts, but do you have hard evidence for this conspiracy theory?
I just read up on the Bareilley riots. From what I’ve seen, there’s no evidence that those riots were politically motivated – and though people were injured, no one seems to have been killed. You can’t really compare that with the Gujarat riots can you? For me to get involved, I must see that the riots were politically motivated.
I’m also sorry to know you feel I’m dishonest. I hope I can convince you otherwise…
Hi! GyanP
Thanks a lot. Actually it is not his fault so much. The dominating elements of our politics, media and press have indeed caused a lot of harm. Very few people of this type are ready to see in all directions. But I hope our comments make him see that it is much more interesting and illuminating to try to assess truth oneself first.
Trying to lead others is not so interesting as have confidence in others. In any case , one’s views should be reassessed several times for truth, before you try to change others. It will be disastrous if you lead others in some direction and later find out “Oh! I was wrong.” It will be very hard for a good person to get out of guilt of such kind. He seems to a young guy. I hope he will learn to see that trying to lead others to certain path is involves a lot more responsibilities.
One thing I’ve noticed is that you feel there’s a huge conspiracy brewing involving the media, politicians etc to suppress a certain way of thought and hide certain facts. You’ve hinted at this conspiracy quite a few times now. Do you have any evidence of this conspiracy, because if it’s true I would be most interested to know more.
But before believing such a thing, one needs more than just opinions. One needs a testable and falsifiable theory that can make predictions about how certain things will happen in the future. Would you like to elaborate on this?
Bhagwad, I didnt fully go through the other post that you are refering to here.. or the entire comments.. I am a staunch hindu .. I believe in God.. am not agnostic or atheist.. my neighbours are Christians and muslims.. I look forward to Ramzan (for their lovely dishes) as much as I look forward to Diwali.. I call myself a liberal.. well those are the labels I give myself..
What prompted me to comment was the discussions here about media.. liberal.. right .. left.. 'intellectual english' dailies or 'worthless regional' language ones.. I have had a good exposure to the business of media because of my family backgrounds.. and know pretty well what happens in the background.. I cant give you details as am not supposed (remember these happen in the background).. but something that I can say is I Know for myself that media is as corrupt and as dishonest as any other profession around.. Gone are the days of noble men carrying a cloth bag and pen as their arsenals in search of truth.. No one cares about the truth nowadays..
Well thats my 2 cents..
Thanks for chiming in on this Sakthi. Its nice to have an input from someone on the inside.
So is it really true that the media selectively ignores Muslim violence and hypes up Hindu violence as is being claimed?
Oh! bhagwad!
You twist words and put words in mouth of others often and in a wrong way. Perhaps you understand wrongly, what others express.
I did not say any where conspiracy. I have said often in above comments that many of our dominating political parties and many of our dominating media and press organizations are being controlled in a feudal manner by certain people and opinions news styles are affected by this feudal control.
There is no conspiracy in it. It is very open and fact of life. Finding out this, is not such a big big job as GyanP above has also said. After all you are an internet expert. Just search yourself and see who owns what and who are controlling anchors and editors etc.
Soumya, when you (and others) say:
“many of our dominating political parties and many of our dominating media and press organizations are being controlled in a feudal manner by certain people and opinions”
and
“Why the Bareilley riots were blacked out by the media. No outrage. No hue and cry. Compare this with Gujrat”
and
“I hope you realize that even though we have strong democratic traditions, most of this space in our media, press and politics is being controlled in very feudal manner by a selected few who own them or rule over organizations. It is they who are dragging our country to these issues, partly to keep discussion away from mess they were responsible to create.”
and
“affected by this false propaganda and unnecessary confusion”
These are textbook definitions of a conspiracy theory. I’m not saying you’re wrong. I just want evidence to support these assertions. And it’s not so evident at all because I know a very very large number of highly intelligent people who don’t feel this way at all!
Soumya,
Yes, true, he is a young guy and needs to imbibe more hard facts of real life to understand the undercurrents. Today even the history has been falsified. I will refer him to keep a track of the following site maintained by extremely sharp lady Radha Rajan-
http://vigilonline.com/
He needs to read her book on NGOs, available online for free .
Somewhere he has said why should we keep on remembering past events again and again. I wanted to reply to this point in my previous post but forgot. My reply is as under.
As human beings and as individuals we are the product of our past. The past not only consists of the events that came to pass, but also consists of our interpretations of what happened. What happens to a person when a person falls sick psychologically? He goes to a psychotherapist. He goes through the past events again and again, until he re-interprets them, finds peace, and then moves on. He re-gains his strength and courage and starts living his life in the truest sense.
The same is the case with countries – they are also like individuals, they have histories, and it’s (country’s) own – logical or illogical – reactions to those events. When there are the signs of disturbance – as is the case of India presently – then it starts looking towards the past to understand – hey, what went wrong?
Then it goes through the past ad nauseum till it gets to understand yes, here we went wrong.
This is exactly what is happening now. We are trying to understand where we went wrong. What caused us to remain under foreign rule for such a long time. Why Hindus are living under the shadow of fear even though they are the majority. Thinking of one’s own interest and survival is essential – doesn’t matter if the ‘others’ call me selfish. I know I am not. I am taking corrective measures. Saving your own life, sanity and society is not selfishness. This is your moral duty. This is your Dharma.
If I start to understand the strategies of the ‘other’,then , obviously, ‘they’ will feel nervous and will start calling me all sorts of names. OK, fine, I am just doing what I should be doing.
To understand with some examples from history -
1. The great Prithviraj Chouhan, after the battle of Tarain in 1191, pardoned Ghauri, not understanding his true nature. He had to repent in 1192, when Ghauri defeated him, captured him and got his eyes pierced, and kept him as a prisoner for several years.
This happened because he assumed that since he was good hearted and brave the same is true of Ghauri also. What lesson do you learn here?
2. Japan learned its lesson from WWII and came out with a new Japan. Now it doesn’t need to remember that period because it has outlived it and overcome the past and has moved ahead.
3. Jews learned their lesson, and created Israel. Now they are not hounded by the past. Yes, they remember it, but use it to renew its strength. Here I am not taking any side, but just showing how lessons were learned by some nations from their histories to use it for their own betterment.
In India, it seems this country is always going through some kind of hysteria, – it has to understand it, and learn its lessons — unless they are learned there are complete chances of its falling again prey to the old problems. It has still not learned its lessons. That’s why – the constant remembering of past – which is only to understand the present. But that ‘light’, that ‘enlightenment’ is nowhere to be seen. It is still ‘sick’.
And in the end, I may remind you BJP- the final solution may be good for all. Only, some may have to change their habits, that’s all.
That’s where it rubs!
There is no right, far right, left or far left, or center of it. Once you start labelling – you loose touch with your real quest – which is the quest for truth. That is the only thing that matters.
“Yes, true, he is a young guy and needs to imbibe more hard facts of real life to understand the undercurrents.”
Let’s leave the ad hominem arguments out eh? Let’s discuss ideas and not people. Please don’t do this again or I will need to edit that part of your comment. Incidentally, I’m almost 30 and don’t think I can be considered “young” anymore!
“The same is the case with countries – they are also like individuals, they have histories”
Unlike individuals, countries are made of people who die and new ones replace them. This allows us to get over the past and not be bogged down by it.
I agree with that part of your comment where you say that we should learn from history 100%. But to allow long ago historic events to prevent us from seeing the situation as it is now is counterproductive. For example, when an incident of violence takes place, we shouldn’t say “But in 2007…etc etc). What is important is that violence has taken place now and the instigators need to be punished end of story.
History has it’s place, but we should know when to make use of it to guide us and when to throw it away before it hinders us.
A very good analysis Gyanp! You express so well! There is no link to your website etc. Do you write in a blog or hub. Please do send me address. The link you sent earlier of article by Andrews G. Bostom was also very illuminating.
You and me have given enough information to him if he wants to see reality. All he has to do is to make a little effort. I hope he does take that much trouble. After all he aims at teaching lot of people. But if he just wants to sing songs about proofs, evidence etc. and play with words to indulge in just a game we can not help much. Nor is it interesting to get into such useless games.
I remember long back once Gandhi had expressed very nicely — one can wake up a sleeping guy but you can not do much with a guy who is awake but closes his eyes and pretends to sleep.
You’re being unfair. I don’t think it’s asking for much to require proofs of what is obviously a quite serious allegation – namely that the media is being manipulated by a few powerful people.
What would you do? Wouldn’t you ask for the same?
Well as I said in previous post manipulated or conspiracy or allegations are your words, not mine. All I am saying is that many of our dominating media and press organizations and political parties are being managed and controlled feudal manner by family rules. Managing such organizations does include selection and editing of news, opinions etc. There is no conspiracy or manipulation or allegation in this. It is a fact which is visible every day. To see the effects of this all you have to do is
Find out who owns and runs these organizations and what type of opnion or policy these organizations stand for and propagate. Just try it with open mind you will be able to see the reality. It is not a hidden fact that you need proofs etc. Just see/read news daily carefully.
For example just today’s papers have one main headline about advertisements being given as news items and paid by one of the chief ministers. Election commission has set up an inquiry about it, a case is also in court. This is just an example of what can go on.
There are a lot of discussions in news and media “whether paid advertisements can be passed on as news items without telling a reader that these are ads.” These discussions are quite open. Just try to find out about it. These are just very minimal examples to start.
Such news and discussions appear daily in our news and media. You have to make an effort to go through such news items daily and try to understand what they imply to form your opinions. It is not a one or two line job.
Just try. There is no need that your opinions should be the same as mine or that of GyanP. But at least try to see reality in your style, in all directions not just one.
“Find out who owns and runs these organizations and what type of opnion or policy these organizations stand for and propagate.”
I just did this. I couldn’t draw conclusions of the type you’re referring to. Perhaps my research skills are not good enough. But if you have the answers, why not tell me in terms I can understand?
For example you’ve mentioned more than once that the train burning incident in Gujarat didn’t get enough attention by everyone including the media. If you know, tell me why this happened, and who suppressed it…was anyone controlling the media? If so, who?
I assure you no one is reading my blog waiting to catch someone who says something dangerous. If you have information, share it. Give me names of political parties, names of leaders, and how it’s demonstrable that the media is not doing a fair job! And if you’re right, you can be assured that I’ll spread the word to as many people as possible and work hard to see that it gets maximum exposure.
About advertisements as news, that’s a very important topic. But I also see that an inquiry is being set up and in fact, there are even laws on the anvil meant to stop this. The current government has introduced many great pieces of legislation and I have no doubt that this will be take care of by the courts.
Hi! Bhagawd
This is not some game which you win by words. As GyanP lso wrote to you idea is more to try to see truth. Way you write comments it looks like you just want to play a game of twisting selectively sentences, words etc. and be satisfied with it.
You have to learn to see reality your self up to some level instead of playing such games. Only after than one can understand or analyze things together. Nobody can help you to move towards truth if you do not want to see even primary facts your self
But Soumya, asking for proof is not playing games! What you say is obviously not so clear as you think it is since not everyone agrees with you.
You can’t say “It’s so obvious” when it’s not obvious to most people. I’m not dismissing your ideas out of hand. I’d like to know what you know – so tell me!
Hi! bhagwad
Let me give you here two examples from your articles and comments you wrote to make again the point I and Gyanp were trying to help you understand but you are either unable to see or are not ready to see it.
1. in comment number 20 you wrote “But what is “peacefully?” India’s history has been as full of violence as many other countries. There were many barbaric practices that were prevalent.”
then in comment 24 you accepted that it is not true “About our county’s past – it’s quite possible that “Religious” violence per se was not a huge factor.”
2. In your comment 20 you quoted my sentence “What you are saying amounts to essentially sort of a lynching rule — “Look I decided that Modi was responsible for Godhra riots so he is responsible.”
then asked
“But where did I say that?”
When I quoted in comment 23 your sentence
“We must never forget that the government is for the people. The government is the servant of the people and not its master. How can a state serve its people by killing them? Those who excuse Modi’s involvement in the Godhra riots by pointing to the “development” of Gujarat are committing the terrible blunder of forgetting history and ignoring the purpose of government.”
and wrote
“I do not know what you felt but to me this is essentially lynching not just Modi but our whole government machinery and law and order system. ”
You accepted it in comment 24 by saying
“If you take my sentence about Modi, development etc, it indeed seems like I’m unfairly targeting Modi.”
but tried to explain that why you had to do it.
Are these examples not enough for you to at least consider that when you write so quickly you tend to make mistakes (you almost accept it also).
There is nothing wrong in making a mistake in one’s thinking, if you are not ready to make initial mistakes in thinking you may not be able to go much further.
But it is a different matter when after some understanding you want to express. One has to make some commitments -
It does not matter whether you do science, arts, engineering, marketing, politics or even write a free blog one has to see that
a. I will try my best to express nothing but truth. My goal is to find out the truth and understand it further. Even teaching, research or writing a blog is not just for others, it also helps much more oneself to learn and understand his/her own ideas and those of others better. This requires an infinite commitment to “nothing but truth”
Even when you feel you are 100% right one should assess and reassess 100 times “oh! what I am expressing has no mistake.”
b. One has to be 100% sure that what ever you are doing is not going to hurt others physically, reputation wise or in any other way.
(now look at what you were doing — in this light? Here you almost say you had some excuse to lynch not just a person our whole government machinery and accuse it of being a killer- you say you did not mean it but surely you must have felt how it may be taken? Is it enough to express regret later by such sentences or give an excuse for causing hurt to some one?)
Of course there are millions, may be even billions, who do not follow such principles. But choice is with you, whether you want to be one of them or a good blogger, engineer doctor or what ever or just play games, more than any thing else it is of being a good human-being (that does not require one to have religion or atheism- it is one’s own basic instinct. A good person does not need any body else for himself/herself to be taught these principles.
Once you see things in this light I am sure you yourself will try to assess why you made such errors. You will find many other similar errors in your blogs and above comments itself.
Perhaps you may want to even assess what were the causes which led to such errors (you already did a little bit of that in above comments). It is difficult to guess a person to guess thinking of another person. But from general observations one can infer that such mistakes one makes when one is blinded by one fact or one goal and blinds oneself to see reality coming from other directions.
Now look at public figures from politics, media and press.
1. Just try to see that in a free blog where you have all the freedom and no money involved you can err so easily and with a motivation to prove some thing go to the extent of hurting reputation of the whole government machinery by almost declaring that it may be a killer, what happens to those whose profession is to pass through such events in hourly basis. If they do not follow the above principles they can be much more blind aqnd become quite helpless. They can not easily accept mistake as you can do in a free blog. They can loose their job, their reputation. Once they make one such mistake, it may start a never ending cycle.
It has happened in India to even top editors. Some years back one chief editor of the top news paper or magazine lost his job because it turned out that he allowed a false news item to be published motivated by similar blindness of going in only one direction and ready to nail or lynch some body who had different ideas then his own. He expressed regret later. But questions raised then were also is a regret enough for such motivations?
If you do not know about it just try to find out more details about it. It should not be difficult to find on internet this incident even though it was a few years back. Don’t try to find it as evidence but try it more as a learning process.
When systems are managed in a feudal manner by some people or family, one obviously needs full loyalty from people in the organization. The choice of getting managers is then limited. The same person was appointed again as a top person after a few months.
2. Let me explain to you since you are not ready to understand yourself, why I have said in my comments that you seem to be not interested in truth that much but in just playing some games.
You asked several times evidence, I wrote to you just look at news paper of any day to learn and as an example I gave you from yesterday’s news papers. The news items say that
a. Chief minister of one of the largest states accepted that he has paid for news items to appear in news and media ( he says he paid for an ad to appear as a news item – but does it not amount to the same) .
b. Top representatives of editor’s guild want government machinery (election commission) to control some basic questions of ethics about news item since they can not control it. Editor’s guild is one of the bodies which is supposed to keep control on ethics and discipline of news organizations but here it wants government to get into controlling it?
Don’t you feel that these are serious enough items. In most countries itwill create a furor. In India also it appeared as headlines. You live in USA, if you unable to see seriousness of such events ask some people there. If you do not want to see that these are serious enough incidents to at least start exploring how our media, press and politics are being managed then nothing can be serious enough. Again this exploration has to be not for searching for scandals, conspiracies or allegations, it has to be a self learning process to understand what is happening in our country.
Such self learning is need first if you want to lead others or write good blogs or follow two principles I mentioned above. Choice is yours whether you want to do this or just play games. I need not say going to second choice is much easier.
Thanks for your careful reply Soumya. You rightly said that I can make mistakes in a personal blog and I accept them when it's pointed out. And of course, blogs are different from newspapers in that they're essentially personal opinions. Unlike a newspaper, I have to be less careful about being impartial.
You've also accurately summed up the problems newspapers face. You're quite right and I agree with everything you say. No contradiction.
My question was: is one single party (say the Congress) controlling more of the media than another? (say the BJP?)
To be more specific – Is the press suppressing one type of violence violence and enlarging other types of violence? This was the question that started this entire "media" discussion. I'd like us to focus on this specific question and proofs of it.
[...] so much outrage Jul 11th, 2010 | Filed under Politics Leave a comment | TrackbackIn my attempts to engage those who hold differing opinions, I understood one very important issue. A large number of people feel that violence by Hindu [...]
Bhagwad, Soumya has given you enough reason for lots of – yes, not a little – a lots and lots of introspection. I cannot go on and on, when it is obvious that nothing meaningful is coming out of it.
Hi, Soumya, Thanks for your kind words. Do you have a blog or a website? I can contact you that way.
I may contact you through hub pages, though so far I do not have hub pages.
Dear all,
I have been reading all the comments here and the blog which Bhagwad referred here. I am simple guy and this comment may look foolish and emotional here but what I observed in this entire discussion is:
1. Everyone is discussing about Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, Christian, but no one ever talked about Humanity.
2. We all are discussing on Gujarat, Andhra, Rajasthan, Malegaon, Kashmir and so on, but no one wants to think about a united India.
Soumya, Shakthi and Gyan P, you provided very good insights.
Let's do something for our country then resting our belief on religious differences. To start with, do give your beautiful smile to the Human siting next to you…
Quite correct Sajid. My most sincere feeling is that we should just stop using words like Hindu, Muslim etc. What a person has in his head is not my business. Let's just look at actions instead of thoughts.
That way we can focus on those who are really causing violence instead…
GyanP please feel free to contact me via hupages on any one of the articles I have written. You do not need to be a member of hubpages to leave your comment. Though why not become a member and at some stage when you feel like also write articles. Even otherwise hubpages is a nice friendly place. Many there write quite carefully and with pleasure.
bhagwad. I feel a bit sorry but it looks like you still prefer to be lost in games. Wish you all the good luck
=>
"Thanks for your careful reply Soumya. You rightly said that I can make mistakes in a personal blog and I accept them when it’s pointed out. And of course, blogs are different from newspapers in that they’re essentially personal opinions. Unlike a newspaper, I have to be less careful about being impartial."
=>
I'm not sure why a blogger doesn't have to be careful about what s/he writes. The responsibility of speaking the truth and being honest shouldn't be limited to just newspapers/media, but applies to all who write a public blog. Yes, the consequences of media being dishonest are worse as compared to an individual blogger, but that doesn't mean a blogger should have no such standards for oneself.
As for impartial, everyone has their loyalties (even you do), but that doesn't mean one plays with the truth.
When I say I have to be less impartial, it doesn't mean I play with the truth. It means I will give my own opinions and interpretations of facts which a news channel can't.
This isn't a news blog. You can find many news websites if you wish. But when you come here, you will listen to my opinions and we can then have a debate on those if you wish.
=>
"But to allow long ago historic events to prevent us from seeing the situation as it is now is counterproductive. For example, when an incident of violence takes place, we shouldn’t say “But in 2007…etc etc). What is important is that violence has taken place now and the instigators need to be punished end of story."
=>
True, history can bog one down. But, lack of awareness of history results in repeating the same mistakes. For example, one needs to question what are the motivations of people who indulge in violence today, and in what ways have these motivations changed – or not – over the past century/historically.
Agreed.
=>
"So is it really true that the media selectively ignores Muslim violence and hypes up Hindu violence as is being claimed?"
=>
Bhagwad, why do you need to ask this question of others? You seem like a sharp guy – do your own research. As I suggested, take 5-6 incidents over the past few years and then compare the outrage – in media, among bloggers – over those incidents to get your answers. You'll start seeing some patterns soon.
It’s very easy to see patterns when none exist. This game can also be played the other way. Many people have felt that Hindu violence is being ignored (Outlook).
Who is right here?
Hi! Kaffir
Thanks for one more try. Though as I write in a comment at another place it is not going to work. That Gandhi's quote "One can wake up a person sleeping but for a person pretending to sleep what one can do. I had decided not to come back – after his sentence "I have to be less careful about being impartial".
A person with that type of attitude can say any thing or do any thing. He seems to prefer that choice time being. But you and Gyan still tried hard. Thank you. I hope he understands that our good luck wish to him is for him to become a much -much better person.
Thanks for coming here soumya. I'm sure you feel you're right. I'm still willing to listen to you if given demonstrable evidence.
What you've given me at worst highlights incompetence and not manipulation. Your allegations are pretty heavy and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I haven't yet received extraordinary evidence.
For a theory to work it has to be falsifiable – meaning you should be able to say: "If xyz occurs, then my theory is wrong." I'd welcome such a construction from your end.
It'll be even better if you were to make predictions. If you can say "Just watch – such and such observable event will occur in the future" that would lend enormous credibility to your idea that the media is being manipulated overwhelmingly in favor of a particular political party. But you haven't made any such claims till now.
As an intelligent person who doesn't want to make a mistake, how can I in all good faith believe what you say?
[...] to the right Jul 13th, 2010 | Filed under Politics Leave a comment | TrackbackDays ago, I started an experiment to reach out to the other side and start a dialogue. Commenting for five days on the blog with a number of people was…interesting. After days of [...]
=>
“For example you’ve mentioned more than once that the train burning incident in Gujarat didn’t get enough attention by everyone including the media. If you know, tell me why this happened, and who suppressed it…was anyone controlling the media? If so, who?”
=>
Here’s an op-ed by Vir Sanghvi (a secular) – where he, in a rare manner, chose to be honest – to get you started:
link: http://www.hvk.org/specialrepo/guild/1.html
He has a point. Note the date the article was published – 28th Feb 2002.
When Sanghvi wrote this, the Godhra riots hadn’t fully unfolded. Doubtless the resulting Godhra riots tended to overshadow the tragic train burning incident. What made the riots worse was the allegations of political complicity, whereas so far as we know, the train burning incident wasn’t politically motivated.
The train burning incident was a tragic loss of human life – women, children and other innocent people didn’t deserve to die. It’s highly unfortunate that the gruesomeness was overshadowed by what took place afterwards. It’s a flaw that does exist, but I’m not convinced that it was a deliberate conspiracy to hide it.
=>
“Who is right here?”
=>
Use the facts and your critical analytical skills to arrive at the answer yourself. This is not a game where you have to appease all sides, or have to “fair and balanced”. Facts are facts.
The incidents mentioned in Nimmy’s blog about Hindu terror are also facts. In your urgency to find an underlying thread, don’t make the mistake of seeing patterns in a series of unrelated events.
If I were an idiot, I would read Nimmy’s blog and conclude that all terrorists are Hindus. But I’m not an idiot and so I don’t blindly condemn an entire group of people.
=>
“It’s very easy to see patterns when none exist. ”
=>
Even after I (and Gyan and soumyasrajan) have given numerous examples in my (our) comments, you still are unwilling to concede that point re: media bias. Seems to me that you’re not really interested in a dialog, as you wrote in the post. Oh well, at least I and others tried.
Good luck!
You don’t understand. Many feel that the media is biased in the opposite direction!
What about their facts? Am I supposed to ignore them? A theory has to be falsifiable and predictive. None of those test have been met yet. Our media may be incompetent in many ways, but I don’t believe they’re evil
Hey Bhagwad,
Just hopped over from Dilip's site. Nice disc on going here though I dont have the context. Just looking at the last few comments, you have something about media bias. Let me give you one example.
I often get really busy and dont follow media at all, or do so with a huge time lag. A few years ago I remember reading a series of articles, in the Hindu and some other places that praised Naveen Patnaik- this puzzled me since I thought the guy is aligned to BJP_ I seemed to remember they were critical of him but didnt care enough to look it up elsewhere and just followed it there.
After a few days and op pieces and "news reportage" with significant op-ed characteristics, it dawned the guy had dumped the BJP and was going it alone, and negotiating with Congress or something.
That penny-drop moment is wonderful Bhagwad, when you suddenly recognize the "engine" after seeing lots of bogies first :-) I hope you experience something similiar- ones own experience is the best teacher.
regards,
Jai
the religion of my grandfather is Hinduism and he says that it is a great religion.~~~
Hi Bhagwad
Good to see you putting up a fight. As I said in my reply to your comment on my blog, a lot of these commentators flood the blogosphere with their far-right ideas. I have encountered Kaffir, Malavika, GyanP etc. on another forum as well. Surprisingly, you've been spared a lot of sarcastic abuse by a few other inconsiderate commentators who are conspicuously missing from this blog.
Way to go though. You have my full support in the cause you've taken up. Don't bog down by these loud-mouths.
Cheers!
AD
Thanks for the support AD :) – you know, I actually got depressed for a few days knowing such people exist in the world who have so much hatred in them – I managed to get over it by looking at others who are tolerant and mature, but it was a big shock all the same.
Bhgwad
I went through your article and comments. What I see clearly is you seem to be a bit lost. I do not know any of thes people who have written comments here nor I have seen their articles or comments much on other sites. Among your article also I have gone through only this one in full. So my opnion is based on coments and your article here. To me comments from GyanP, soumyasrajan, Kaffir Jai and their attitudes look much more reasonable and balanced than yours. You claim, you want a discussion. But all you are doing is expressing your own views together with an attitude that it is ok even if I am a little not so honest on blog etc. That can not generate much confidence of others in you any way.
With this attitude more funny is you are not ready to listen to anybody else's views with respect. Moment they differ from you, you or your freinds like AD start indulging in either ornamenting others with adjectives or justifying yourself with phoney arguments like of the type (I am putting more bluntly then you express but that is what it amounts to "Oh! I am right because I can not be wrong" etc. Very soon you yourself also run into difficulty as your discussion with Soumyasrajan and GyanP "on India being full of violence" and on "Modi" show. You had to admit that you were not that careful, while expressing such opinions. It is bound to happen often that you will face similar situations in life quite often with your attitudes of being not ready to see reality and not ready to be careful about authenticity of your expressions. One graceful thing is that at least you admitted.
Your attitudes reminds me of the story of two frogs in Well. One of them who had come from ocean was trying to convince the other who had never got out of his well that Ocean is much bigger than his well. But the other one was not convinced and he wanted the intruder to get out of well.
Your attitude looks to be exactly like that of frog in the well, you seem to be intent on digging well further deep rather than getting out of it. Get out of your well man if you want to see truth and real world.
This is hilarious!
Far-left chap reaching out to his right.
Dude, have you ever considered the possibility that what looks like being on the "far right" to you might be something fairly in the centre, but since you happen to be sitting way too far on the left (close to the Mao-kissing naxal beheaders) everything else appears on the far right?
Depends on what you call "left." I use "far right" based on the definition in Wikipedia
Hey Jal Park,
You took the liberty of "setting the record straight". As if you know exactly what all lefties/sickularists are thinking and doing. Are you not making a generalisation yourself, the sort that you seem to be whining about?
Who made you the spokesperson for all the India-hating (synonymous to me with Hindu-hating) leftwingers?
And as far as reaching out is concerned, why dont you also reach out to the commies, the jihadists, and others? Oh, but then, you are secular. (Or are you just scared of the consequences?)
LOLA.
I never called myself a left guy. I'm neither right nor left. The fact that you say I'm "left" even though I never mentioned it anywhere shows how you see the world in black and white. Grow up.
And please define "commie" before you use it again. This is a rational debate. We don't use words which aren't properly defined.
And the right wing in India is far more vocal than any jihadist group. Show me some jihadist blogs in India if you can.