Home Blog Page 4738

IC 814 hijack: Where are those three terrorists India released in exchange for hostages?

Twenty-one years ago, on December 24, 1999, the Indian Airlines IC 814 carrying 178 passengers and 11 crew members from Kathmandu to Delhi was hijacked by Pakistan-based Islamic terrorists. The airline was hijacked by Harkat-ul-Mujahideen with the active support and assistance of Pakistan Army before landing at Kandahar, Afghanistan.

The Indian Airlines IC-814 was en route from Kathmandu to New Delhi. The hijackers directed the pilot Captain Devi Sharan to fly to Lahore initially. The captain, realising the imminent danger, flew to Amritsar citing insufficient fuel and persuaded the hijackers to allow him to land the plane at Amritsar. Before the Indian bureaucracy jumped into taking stock of the situation, the aircraft had already left Indian airspace.

According to people who were part of the decision-making process during the incident, there was a 45-50 minute window to carry out an operation to end the hostage crisis, however, the government of the day did not prefer to take the risk, fearing the casualties. The reluctance from the government to go for an NSG operation also came from the fact that the opposition led by the Congress party, aided by its friendly media had put severe pressure to make sure that the Vajpayee government did not consider any military operation to release the hostages.

After briefly touching down at Lahore and Dubai, IC 814 was eventually taken to Kandahar in Southern Afghanistan. After the IC-814 reached Kandahar, which incidentally was the base of the Taliban government, headed by Mullah Mohammed Omar. The hijackers demanded the release of 35 terrorists from Indian prisons, including the dreaded terrorist Maulana Masood Azhar in addition to $200mn in cash.

The Indian government sent in a team of negotiators headed by Diplomat Vivek Katju, Ajit Doval, who was a high ranking Intelligence Bureau officer then, Nehchal Sandhu, and CD Sahay, along with few other representatives of Bureau of Civil Aviation Security. During these negotiations, Doval was also effective in bringing down the number of terrorists to be released from 35 to just three.

On December 31, 1999, after seven days, the hostage crisis came to an end as India agreed to release three of the top militants including Masood Azhar, the founder of the terrorist outfit, Jaish-e-Mohammed, Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh and Mushtaq Ahmed Zargar.

What are these three released terrorists now?

Masood Azhar, Jaish-e-Mohammed

After his release, Maulana Masood Azhar regrouped his terror organisation, renamed his terror outfit ‘Harkat-ul-Ansar’ to ‘Harkat-ul-Mujahideen’ (HuM). A year later, Maulana Azhar, with a renewed vigour, started a new outfit – ‘Jaish-e-Mohammed’ (JeM). Azhar was actively backed up by Pakistan Army, who provided all the assistance.

Even the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, Osama bin Laden and multiple Sunni sectarian organisations based in Pakistan backed Azhar to set up his new terror organisation. Within a year of its inception, Azhar’s Jaish-e-Mohammed launched a series of deadly attacks that almost brought India and Pakistan to the brink of a full-scale war.

Maulana Masood Azhar, since his release, has been responsible for several direct attacks on Indian soil including on the 2008 Mumbai terror attacks and the Pathankot airbase attack in January 2016. The most recent terror attack carried out by Jaish-e-Mohammad was the 2019 Pulwama terror attacks. An Islamic-terrorist carried out a suicide attack with his explosives-laden vehicle into a CRPF convoy in Pulwama killing 40 personnel.

Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh, Harkat-ul-Ansar

Omar Sheikh, just like Maulana Masood Azhar, became one of the biggest security threats not just for India, but for the United States as well due to not only his connections inside Pakistan’s military but also his links with the innermost circles of Osama Bin Laden and the Al-Qaeda. Sheikh is the most infamous for the 2002 beheading of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, who was investigating the financing of Al-Qaeda.

Reportedly, Sheikh had lured Pearl into a trap by lying to arrange an interview with an Islamic cleric and kidnapped him. Sheikh had demanded the release of halted US shipment of F-16 fighter jets to the Pakistani government in exchange of Pearl. After nine days of captivity, Sheikh had released a videotape showing Pearl’s severed head.

In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks in the United States, the US investigators had discovered that Omar Sheikh used aliases to send money from the United Arab Emirates to Mohamed Atta –  the main terrorist leader of the 9/11 attacks.

Sheikh, who was born in the UK and a student at the London School of Economics, has worked with several terrorist organisations such as the Jaish-e-Mohammed, Al-Qaeda and even the Taliban. Currently, Sheikh, who was arrested in 2002 in Lahore in connection with Daniel Pearl’s murder, has been sentenced to death.

Mushtaq Ahmed Zargar, Al-Umar Mujahideen

After his release, Mushtaq Ahmed Zargar, who belonged to the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF), has carried out several terror attacks in Kashmir. Zargar is believed to have picked up the activity of Al-Umar Mujahideen in Pakistan-occupied-Kashmir initially, close to the LoC. Zargar has recruited and trained youngsters for ‘Jihad’ in Kashmir and is believed to have been working to renew the sleeper cells.

The intelligence officials believe that Zargar is suspected to be the man behind the June 2019 terror attack in Kashmir’s Anantnag, in which five CRPF personnel were killed and three others were injured after terrorists attacked them with grenades. In 2017, Zargar claimed responsibility for many of the grenade attacks on the security forces in the Kashmir valley.

Zargar, sponsored by Pakistan’s intelligence agency – ISI to send terrorists and carry out attacks inside India, is currently believed to be living in Muzaffarabad without any restrictions.

OfCom: The secretive govt censor that has fined the UK affiliate of Republic Bharat. Why people are rejoicing and what it means

Yesterday morning, for scores of Indian liberals, Christmas came early. They woke up to the cheer of the UK affiliate of Republic Bharat being hit with a fine of 20,000 British Pounds for broadcasting “hate speech.” This is the first time I have heard of the OfCom, the UK government body that served the fine.

For scores of India’s elite liberals, this was not the day to talk about free speech. It was a day to celebrate.

There were a couple of things that were noteworthy about the reporting around the incident. First, the OfCom was described to us as a “regulator” for the media. Okay, what does it regulate? Apparently, all the things that you can say on air. You know we have the National Board of Film Certification in India with a similar brief for what you can show in the movies. Our media usually refers to it as the unofficial term Censor Board. So why didn’t the media refer to the UK’s OfCom as a “censor”?

Oh, I get it. When they do it, it’s called regulation. When we do it, it’s called censorship.

Second, the sense of liberal cheer was not dampened when the nature of Republic Bharat’s alleged offense began to emerge. It turns out that in the backdrop of India’s Chandrayaan mission last year, the folks on Republic Bharat had referred to India as a nation that produces scientists, as opposed to Pakistan which produces terrorists. Hate speech for sure. And how untrue! Seventy-three years after partition, it was heartwarming to see the imperial British government, the Pakistanis and the Indian liberals come together to celebrate a common victory.

But I wanted to know more about this OfCom. It’s full name is the Office of Communications. It holds sweeping powers over broadcasting, telecommunications and even postal industries in the UK. That’s reassuring. I do hope that the OfCom is under the Ministry of Truth in the UK. Dear George Orwell, are you hearing this?

So what methodology does the OfCom use to decide whether something is hate speech? I did a simple google search. It led me to this letter, posted on the official website of OfCom in response to a Freedom of Information request (similar to our RTI):

What OfCom considers ‘hate speech’

That’s just awesome. The methodology is secret. And the OfCom’s Secretary has confirmed that it is not in the “public interest” to release it.

Thank you, dear Secretary to Ofcom, for looking out for the public interest. Seems the good people of the United Kingdom had some kind of meeting, where they elected this faceless bureaucrat as God. Or at least the official guardian of public interest.

As a concession to those of us who are not guardians of public interest, the Secretary was kind enough to provide “Annex B” setting out the reasons why this methodology must be kept secret. And it makes for truly amazing reading. They have two columns, one listing factors for disclosure, while the other lists factors for withholding. And below that, the Secretary, who is a “qualified person” as defined by law, has delivered the final verdict.

First, let us read the factors in favor of disclosing the methodology. It’s remarkably short.

OfCom’s methodology

Ah, the “general desirability” that the actions of the regulator should be transparent! The public’s right to know how their government decides what they are allowed to say? That’s just generally desirable, though apparently not important enough. You have to give it to the British. They do condescension well.

Now let us find out the much longer and more important factors for withholding this methodology. First, there is this.

Factors for withholding methodology

Ah, the government needs a safe space where they can decide what should be censored. If the general riff-raff get to know what is being said here, the government might get its feelings hurt. And then the government might feel shy about expressing its views in the future.

Dear President Xi Jinping, do consider giving a bear hug to these sensitive souls in the British government.

And finally, there is this.

OfCom’s methodology

Long sentences. So, we’re going to have to break it down. The monitoring is only effective if the broadcasters don’t know when and who is being monitored. If this information becomes public, the broadcasters might become alert in time and fix their conduct before the sword falls on them. Then, how would the government know who the thought criminals are?

So everyone is suspect, all of the time. At any time, a government bureaucracy, using a secret methodology, might decide that you have broken their secret rules. Nothing to worry here. As long as you only talk about unicorns and rainbows, you will be just fine. Hopefully.

And finally, the Secretary delivers the expected verdict. No disclosures, sorry.

“Public interest favours withholding information”

Observe how long the sentences are in the latter part of Annex B. Unlike the simple, easy to understand sentence that mentioned the general desirability of things being transparent. In case you are wondering, you do have a right to appeal. In that case, the OfCom will do an “internal review.”

This is modern liberalism. A parody of itself and its alleged goals. Honestly, tell me. If I had not told you at the very beginning, would you have known if these were documents from the British government or the Chinese government?

But to scores of Indian liberal elites, all this matters little. They don’t care if the bosses of some TV channel cheat investors using insider trading. They don’t care if notable journalists are on tape fixing portfolios in the Union Cabinet with lobbyists and big business. And they don’t care if media coverage endangers lives of security forces during anti-terror operations. All they care about is making Republic Bharat shut up about Pakistan.

In other words, yes to corruption. Yes to terrorism. No to free speech.

Rahul Gandhi peddles The Print’s lies about India-Russia relations, gets ‘fact-checked’ by the Russian Embassy in India

Rahul Gandhi, who will probably become Congress president again, continues to share misinformation and spread lies. Gandhi has recently claimed in a tweet that the annual summit between India and Russia has been cancelled due to Moscow’s unease with Quad. This is the first time the Annual Summit has been postponed since 2000. Interestingly Gandhi has quoted The Print’s report in which it was alleged the meeting was postponed after Russia “expressed severe reservations on New Delhi joining the Indo-Pacific initiative and Quad, thereby tilting more towards the US.”

The Print’s misleading report on India-Russia Annual Summit

Gandhi wrote, “Russia is a very important friend of India. Damaging our traditional relationships is short-sighted and dangerous for our future.”

The reality is far away from what Rahul Gandhi said

Anurag Srivastava, Spokesperson, Ministry of External Affairs, issued a statement. He said, “The India-Russia Annual Summit did not take place in 2020 because of the Covid Pandemic. This was a mutually agreed decision between the two Governments. Any imputation otherwise is false and misleading. Spreading false stories on important relationships is particularly irresponsible.”

Reacting to The Print’s allegations and Rahul Gandhi’s tweet, the Russian Ambassador to India, Nikolay Kudashev, has released a press release. He said the article is far from reality.

Press Release by Russian Ambassador to India

The same was tweeted by the Ambassador. He said, “Special and privileged strategic partnership between Russia and India is progressing well despite the Covid-19. Staying in close touch with our Indian friends to work out new dates for the summit, postponed due to epidemiological reasons,” he said. The summit will be held soon once the dates are decided, the press release added.

Rahul Gandhi’s habit of spreading misinformation

Rahul Gandhi has been a serial fake news peddler. He had to apologise in the Supreme Court for attributing false, politically motivated slogans to the judges. He had spread deliberate falsehood and blatant lies about crucial issues regarding defence, national security and international relations. Interestingly, despite his lies being caught every time, the Congress price neither bothers to apologise nor correct his habits.

Loyola College in Chennai asked to pay Rs 64 lakh compensation to woman who accused Father Xavier Alphonse of sexual harassment

0

In a major victory for sexual harassment survivors, Loyola College in Chennai has been asked by Women’s Commission to pay the staffer Mary (name changed) to pay compensation amounting to Rs 64.3 lakh. This also covers remuneration for 81 months. As per the commission, the victim had a good track record in service and there was no reason her services should be terminated abruptly the way Loyola College did.

As per reports, the victim faced abuse and sexual harassment from Father Xavier Alphonse SJ, the Director of the Alumni association. She had accused the institute of delaying the due process for almost a decade and had eventually approached the Madras High Court.

In November this year, the woman reached out to Tamil Nadu State Commission for Women. Based on her allegations, an inquiry was conducted. On December 15 after Francis P Xavier, current Rector of Loyola College expressed his inability to respond to summons because of his old age and the risk to exposure of COVID-19, the commission members visited the institute in person.

Sexual harassment charges against Father Xavier Alphonse

According to Mary (name changed), she started facing problems about a decade ago when she was appointed as an administrator for both the Loyola Development Office and the Alumni Association. She had questioned allegedly dubious methods used by Father Xavier Alphonse SJ of siphoning amount close to Rs 1 crore to his personal trust. He was then the Director of the Alumni Association. She had also accused him of misusing scholarship scheme by college.

After she brought these issues to the notice of the college principal, Father Xavier Alphonse’s financial powers were curtailed. In retaliation, he started allegedly harassing her. According to her, the only action the college took was to shift her own department. No further investigation was carried, she said.

In September 2014, the college Rector allegedly asked Mary to stop coming to work and she was told that she will be informed when the accused had ‘moved’ from the college. After he was shifted to another Jesuit college in Trichy, the college allegedly stopped communication with her. While she was assured of compensation as soon as she resumes service, according to her she was never called to rejoin duties.

The college has claimed that Mary has not preferred any complaint to the Internal Complaints Committee or any other authority regarding the sexual harassment allegations.

Donald Trump vetoes USD 740 billion annual US defence bill, calls it ‘gift to Russia and China’

0

President Donald Trump on Wednesday vetoed the legislation concerning the United States military’s $740bn annual budget, a defence policy bill that had broad bipartisan support in the Congress, thus opening up another confrontation with the legislative.

According to the reports, the US Senate had overwhelmingly passed a sweeping defence budget bill two weeks back with an overwhelming majority after President Donald Trump had threatened to block the legislation before leaving his office in January.

The $740.5 billion defence budget had earned Trump’s opposition after it did not abolish provisions under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, that granted social media firms liability protection for third-party content on their platforms. Donald Trump has called for lawmakers to include limits on social media companies after there were attempts made by these companies to influence the recently held Presidential elections in the US.

“Your failure to terminate the very dangerous national security risk of Section 230 will make our intelligence virtually impossible to conduct without everyone knowing what we are doing at every step,” Trump wrote.

Trump called the bill “a gift to China and Russia”. He also objected to the language in the National Defence Authorisation Act which would constrain his ability to withdraw troops from Afghanistan, South Korea and Germany.

China would be the biggest beneficiary of the defence bill: Donald Trump

The annual defence budget also had provisions that allowed 3 per cent pay raises for US troops and authorised billions of dollars in military programmes and construction. President Trump had also called for stripping out language that allows for the renaming of military bases such as Fort Benning and Fort Hood, in the honour of Confederate leaders. He had also claimed the biggest winner from the defence bill would be China.

The vetoing of the annual bill by President Trump has now forced members of Congress to return to Washington in between the upcoming Christmas and New Year’s holidays in order to re-pass it.

Earlier, the Republican-led Senate voted 84 to 13 to pass the bill. The Democrat-controlled House had passed the bill by a vote of 335 to 78 on December 8 – both margins greater than the two-thirds needed to override the presidential veto. 

US President Donald Trump threatens Iran with retaliation after US embassy in Baghdad attacked with rockets

The United States President Donald Trump warned Iran on Wednesday saying he would hold the Islamic Republic accountable “if one American is killed” in rocket attacks in Iraq.

Taking to Twitter, President Trump blamed Tehran for the rocket attacks on the American Embassy in Baghdad. After a meeting with senior officials at the White House, President Trump said that Iran was behind rocket attacks on the American Embassy in Baghdad on Sunday.

“Now we hear chatter of additional attacks against Americans in Iraq,” he added, before offering “some friendly health advice to Iran: if one American is killed, I will hold Iran responsible. Think it over”.

The latest attacks in Iraq killed at least one Iraqi civilian and damaged the embassy compound. The attacks come at a time when tensions are growing tensions between the United States and Iran amidst the last days of Trump’s presidency. 

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo had already pointed the finger at Iran and the US Central Command that covers the region also said that the rocket attack was almost certainly conducted by an Iranian-backed rogue militia group.

“The United States will hold Iran accountable for the deaths of any Americans that result from the work of these Iranian-backed rogue militia groups,” US Central Command added.

Iran rejects US allegations, asks Trump administration not to provoke

Meanwhile, Iran has dismissed the allegations made by the US and responded to US authorities on Monday asking not to provoke “tensions”. Iran Foreign Ministry spokesman Saeed Khatibzadeh condemned the latest rocket attack in a tweet on December 21, refuting US accusations saying that the allegations are being made to create tensions.

Interestingly, in January this year, President Trump had ordered the drone attack to kill the powerful Iranian general and IRGC Quds Force commander Qasem Soleimani in Baghdad in retaliation to the similar attack from Iranian-backed militias against US assets in Iraq. Iran had also raised the red flag of doom above its tallest mosque symbolising that a war with the US was coming. The latest attacks on US embassy might trigger a similar retaliation from the US against Iranian-militia in Iraq.

The latest tensions also come at the backdrop of renewed talks between Iran and the United States over the issue of the nuclear deal. The outgoing President Trump has been extremely harsh in terms of his policy towards Iran. However, President-elect Joe Biden has expressed his willingness to revive the 2015 Iran nuclear accord, from which Trump administration pulled out in 2018. Any attacks on Iran by the US now would make the peace talks between the two countries unlikely.

True “wokeness” would see Christian missionaries are engaged in oppression by bringing indigenous culture under monopoly of the church

One hundred and fifty years ago, the United States was still a fledgling nation. The Atlantic and Pacific coasts had long been settled, but the vast swathe of the country in between had not. Then, the settlers began moving inwards. They built railroads across the great plains; hundreds of millions of acres of new farmland was established. There was capital infusion both from within and abroad. Hundreds of new cities, towns, villages, churches and schools were built. The prosperity of the nation grew and so did technological progress. So, is this just a wonderful story?

No, insists the “woke” perspective of today. What about the social and cultural costs of such expansionism? In particular, what about the Native Americans? The supposed treaties that the US government signed with them weren’t really voluntary and the native people never received just compensation. They lost their land, their culture and their way of life. The woke perspective takes these losses into account. In fact, in woke circles, it is common to refer to this age of America’s expansion as a genocide of Native Americans.

Now think about Christian missionary activity in India. Their big impetus came when India was under British colonial rule. What is their objective? To end the traditional Indic religions. To tell the people of India that they are “fallen” and need to be “saved” by a foreign god and his son. This foreign god is represented on earth by a king known as the Pope, who lives in Europe.

The missionaries carve up India into what they see as administrative divisions, or dioceses. Each diocese is headed by an officer, known as a bishop. He must be male; he is not elected by local people, but appointed directly by the Pope. The job of each bishop is to teach local people to bow down to this foreign god and pay tributes to this foreign king.

The missionaries insist that those of Indic faiths have been following the devil. They must give up this ancient culture, including goddess worship, venerating certain animals and forces of nature. They must erase their names. These names contain imagery in their native languages, traces of stories that they have told each other for centuries. They must go. Everyone must take new names, such as John and Mary.

Who funds this activity? Money is pumped in from white majority Western countries. Who does it target? People of color and in particular, the poorest and most vulnerable among them.

You have to wonder. How is the vegan, feminist, woke left not seeing the problem with this? When it comes to India, how come the sympathies of the global left appear to lie with the cultural invaders and not the political resistance being put up by native people, the so called Hindutva forces?

History shows that Christian missionary activity has always gone hand in hand with a mission to “civilize” native peoples. The white settlers who carried out the Native American genocide saw no difference between bringing in the railroad and teaching the natives to worship the Christian god. The same goes with the continents of South America, Africa and Australia. As late as the 1970s, aboriginal children were forcibly removed from their families and placed with church schools as part of the White Australia policy. If people of color could not be turned white on the outside, they could at least become white on the inside. The conversion to Christianity was seen as an essential part of this.

And yet, the modern woke left has little to say about the tentacles of missionary activity still spreading in India.

In fact, Indian people have a long history of recognizing this cultural aggression and fighting it. As a child, Birsa Munda was taken to a missionary school. The price of an education? He would have to give up his name and become Birsa David. As a grown up, he reclaimed his identity and his name. He organized local people to stop paying church taxes and led a violent uprising against the missions. The colonial authorities captured him and he died in jail.

How come the global left is aligned today with the Pope and not with Birsa Munda? Where is the wokeness?

What about the issue of religious “freedom”? If people in India are converting voluntarily, what is there to object?

We have now reached the nub of the argument. As a matter of fact, modern wokeness is all about realizing that “freedom” can be a mirage when faced with deeply entrenched systems of privilege. A multi-national corporation wants to cut down a forest to build a mine or a factory. In return, it promises jobs to the local people. Modern wokeness is all about insisting that this exchange is not really voluntary. The corporation is too powerful. On an individual level, no single person can refuse their deal nor bargain with them. They must organize and reject these inducements, so they can keep their way of life.

This is why the woke left goes into a frenzy against the WTO, the G-20 and the like. Their slogan? Fair trade, not free trade. Because they insist “free” trade is not really free. This is why the left gets all nostalgic about taking on the United Fruit Company in Central and South America in the 1950s and 60s. This is why the left dumped bras, fought the Miss America pageant and Barbie dolls that showed fair skinned blonde women with unnaturally slim body types, with no interests beyond cooking and baking. So what if women and girls were buying them? When you don’t have privilege, then “voluntary” is not really voluntary.

The woke left these days wont even tolerate slightly cooked sushi on American campuses. You can’t “appropriate” an Asian cuisine. You cannot even use pronouns such as “he/him” or “she/her” without permission. How dare you presume someone’s gender or box them into your notion of a gender binary? Don’t presume pronouns, okay? However, what you can do is take the side of the Church as it offers inducements to the poorest and most vulnerable in India to change their names altogether. In other words, there is just one exception to the way global wokeness works. And it is applied to missionaries in India.

The question of caste inevitably comes up here, even though it should not. What is wrong if backward castes and tribals, who have been marginalized within Hindu society, turn to the church? First, just as Hindu society is encumbered by a history of caste injustices, so is the church. The history of the church is tainted by centuries of aggression against native peoples, racism, imperialism, allying with fascists such as Mussolini, exploitation of women and children and much more. So who cast them as liberators?

Second, the lines of privilege often run over each other. For instance, at the time of the British Empire in India, most British whites were industrial workers battling terribly unfair labor conditions. Could their descendants opt out of white privilege? It is entirely possible for the same person to be on the privileged side of one divide and the less privileged side of the other. One does not cancel out the other. This is known as ‘intersectionality.’ You can hardly get more woke than talking about intersectionality. So how can you use the history of caste structure to justify the aggression of the church?

But as with most things about India, the usual woke perspective here is turned on its head. Anyone can see that the carving up of India in 1947, into one fixed deposit and one joint account, was inherently unfair. In this, it was similar to the encroachment by treaty approach of the US government against Native Americans. They were first pushed into reservations. As and when needed, the only choice they gave the Native Americans was to give up their land, bit by bit. Or else.

Just like today, India is being asked to voluntarily give up Kashmir. Because we refuse to do so, we face terrorism. We get bullied by both right and left in the western world. The excuse? They say we don’t respect human rights. Painting the native people as savages is an age old tactic. It made it easy for them to justify imperialism, land grab and genocide. Now Communist China is getting into the act. We may even face military invasion.

In other words, the three great monopolies; Islam, Christianity and Communism against one native culture. Unlike them, we do not have a centralized structure, one god, one prophet or one book. They use this fact to argue that we have no right to exist.

When we organize and try to pushback, the so called Hindutva forces, we are defamed with comparisons to Nazis, Taliban, ISIS and the North Korean regime. Notice that these are in fact the worst excesses created by those three aforementioned monopolies. But instead of reflecting on them, they are used as damaging labels on us.

If there was true wokeness, it would see through this game. It would see our efforts to organize as a great democratic uprising. It would recognize the sustained aggression of the church against Indic faiths. And it would welcome our anti-conversion laws as community action to keep out the big monopoly. Individually, we cannot take on the missionary machine. Taken separately, we may each fall for a mix of inducement and coercion. Just like one worker has no bargaining power in front of a large corporation. That’s why we come together and push back for our collective good.

During his 1999 visit to India, the Pope pointed out that in the first millennium, Christianity took hold in Europe. In the second, it took hold in Africa and the Americas. Now, in the “third Christian millennium,” he announced his plans for a “harvest of faith” in Asia.

That is chilling. We are human beings; we are not to be harvested. That language is dehumanizing. That is the language of genocide and imperialism. Anyone can see that, especially the woke left.

But they don’t see. They side with the imperial project as it hits India with its massive resources. The only freedom they value is for Indians to be harvested, one by one. Ironically, they cast the imperial church as the underdog. Every robber baron knows that they must play underdog. Every robber baron knows they must negotiate with workers separately and that there should be no union. And if local people or the workers try to organize, you have to label them as thugs. This is what they do to Hindutva forces in India.

So why do the woke leftist forces act this way? Because, the woke leftist forces are just as much part of the imperial machine. Their job is to make people feel better after the act. Now that the Native Americans have been reduced to a powerless minority, the woke white leftists can feel good about apologizing to them. This way, they can absolve themselves of guilt and relish their triumph. Rest assured that the day there are only a few thousand Hindus left in India, the woke left will gather around us and give us platitudes. They will build a museum dedicated to our culture. After we are all gone, they will say nice things about us. The key word is after.

Central government merges four film units with NFDC, revises DTH guidelines

In a decision taken today to support the film sector, the Union cabinet has merged five film units to create one government entity to handle all issues related to movies. The union cabinet today decided to merge Films Division, Directorate of Film Festivals, National Film Archives of India and Children’s Fil Society with the National Film Development Corporation (NFDC).

Apart from the Children’s Film Society, the rest of the units are subordinate to the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. The government has expanded the Memorandum of Articles of Association of the NFDC, thus assigning the organisation the activities performed by the other four units. The merger of these units is expected to lead to convergence of activities and resources thereby ensuring better coordination, synergy and efficiency in achieving the mandate of each media unit.

Details about the merged media units

The Films Division was set up in 1948 with the objective of produce documentaries and news magazines for publicity of Government programmes and cinematic record of Indian history. The National Film Archives of India was established in 1964 for acquiring and preserving Indian cinematic heritage. The Directorate of Film Festivals formed in 1973 aimed at promoting Indian films and cultural exchange. And finally, the Children’s Film Society was established in 1955 under the Societies Act with the objective of providing children and young people value-based entertainment through the medium of films. This is an autonomous organisation.

The NFDC is a Central Public Sector Undertaking established in 1975 with the primary objective of planning and promoting an organised efficient and integrated development of the Indian Film Industry.

The Cabinet has given the nod for the appointment of a Transaction Advisor and Legal Advisor to advise on the transfer of assets and employees and to oversee all aspects of operationalisation of the merger. According to the government notification, no employees of any of the four units to be merged into NFDC will be retrenched as a result of the merger. The new entity aims to ensure balanced and focused development of Indian cinema in all its genres-feature films, including films/content for the OTT platforms, children’s content, animation, short films and documentaries.

Government revises DTH guidelines for obtaining license in India

In another decision taken today, the union government has approved the proposal for the revision of the guidelines for obtaining licenses for providing Direct-To-Home (DTH) broadcasting service in India. The revised guidelines include the following:

  • The period for which license will be issued has been increased from 10 years to 20 years renewable by 10 years at a time.
  • The license has also been revised from 10% of Gross Revenue (GR) to 8% of Adjusted Gross Revenue (AGR). The AGR will be calculated by deducting GST from the GR.
  • The license fee will be collected quarterly instead of annually.
  • DTH operators will be allowed to operate to a maximum of 5% of its total channel carrying capacity as permitted platform channels. This means, if a DTH operator carries 400 channels, it can’t broadcast more than 20 platform channels.
  • A one-time non-refundable registration fee of Rs 10,000 per PS channel will be charged from the DTH operator.
  • DTH operators willing to share DTH platform and transport stream of TV channels will be allowed to do so. Distributors of TV channels will be permitted to share the common hardware for their Subscriber Management System (SMS) and Conditional Access System (CAS) applications.
  • The cap of 49% FDI in the existing DTH guidelines will be aligned with the extant Government (DPIIT’s) policy on FDI as amended from time to time. This means, 100% FDI will be allowed in the sector.

According to the government notification, the proposed reduction is aimed at aligning the license fee regime applicable to the Telecom sector will be applied prospectively. The difference is expected to enable DTH service providers to invest for more coverage leading to increased operations and higher growth and thus enhanced and regular license fee payment by them. The registration fee for Platform Services is likely to generate revenue of around Rs 12 lakhs. Sharing of infrastructure by DTH operators will ensure more efficient use of limited satellite resources and will reduce costs borne by consumers. The extant FDI policy is expected to attract more foreign investment.

The DTH, which is operable on pan-India basis, is a highly employment-intensive sector. The sector directly employs DTH operators as well as those in call centres. It indirectly employs a large number of installers at the ground level. The revised guidelines are expected to ensure better stability and new investments in DTH sector along with employment opportunities.

‘Rahul Gandhi won’t know whether potatoes grow above or below soil’: BJP leader Narottam Mishra slams Congress for misleading farmers on farm laws

Blaming the Congress and the ‘Tukde Tukde Gang’ of misleading and instigating farmers against the new agricultural bills, Madhya Pradesh Home Minister Narottam Mishra took a dig at the Gandhi scion saying that Rahul Gandhi would not even know if potatoes grow under or above the soil. He mocked Rahul Gandhi for driving a tractor earlier with a cushioned sofa installed in it and said that the Congress party should stop their drama over farmers.

Addressing media in Bhopal, Narottan Mishra came down heavily on the Congress party, taking potshots at former party president Rahul Gandhi and Madhya Pradesh ex-chief minister Kamal Nath: “Congress leader Kamal Nath ji, who never visited farms of a farmer in 15 months, will ride a tractor. Rahul Gandhi, who drove ‘sofa-cum-tractor’ do not even know if potatoes grow above or below the ground”.

Rahul Gandhi and his tractor rally on cushioned, custom-made sofas

For the unversed, Rahul Gandhi had become a subject of mockery when images surfaced in October showing him sitting on what appeared to be cushioned, custom-made sofas on a tractor during a rally in Punjab to protest against the centre’s controversial farm laws. Gandhi had taken out a series of tractor rallies named ‘Kheti Bachao Yatra’ across the Congress-ruled northern state to protest against the three farm laws being seen as major reforms in the agriculture sector.

Moreover, Narottam Mishra accused the ‘tukde tukde gang’ of instigating the farmers against the new farm laws. He alleged that those who were behind the anti-CAA protest are once again busy spreading falsehood against the agricultural reforms brought in by the central government.

Tukde Tukde Gang came to be a colloquial term used to refer to those who have often stood with elements who want to see India break up, or those who have actively worked towards it. One recalls the JNU event that was meant to commemorate terrorist Afzal Guru where ‘Bharat tere tukde honge, Inshallah Inshallah’ slogans were raised. Those ‘tukde tukde’ slogans came to be the identity of the ‘tukde tukde gang’.

Asking what is ‘black’ in these farm laws, Madhya Pradesh Home Minister questioned why so far no one could explain the ‘black laws’. “I could not understand what is ‘black’ in these farm laws. This ‘tukde-tukde gang’ is the one instigating and misleading the farmers. So far, no one could explain the ‘black laws’,” he said.

Congress manifesto for General elections 2019 promised abolition of APMC Act

It is pertinent to note here that while Rahul Gandhi emphatically expressed his support for the farmers and railed against the lack of MSP and APMC, the Congress manifesto from 2019 General Assembly elections reveals a diametrically opposite stand of the party when it went to polls last year.

The Congress Manifesto for the 2019 General elections stated that it would abolish the APMC Act altogether. “Congress will repeal the Agriculture Produce MArket Committees Act(APMC) and make agricultural produce—including exports and inter-state trade—free from all restrictions,” the manifesto read.

Congress promised for the complete abolition of the APMC Act in its manifesto while the Modi government has not repealed the APMC Act in its entirety. 

Rahul Gandhi and his theatrics over the farm bills to continue

Despite everything being out in the open, Congress party has shamelessly continued to exploit the agitation to gain political brownie points. According to reports, Rahul Gandhi is set to lead a demonstration on December 24 (Thursday) from Vijay Chowk to Rashtrapati Bhavan in ‘farmers’ support. He will start at 10:45 am from Vijay Chowk to Rashtrapati Bhavan with Congress MPs. After that, along with and other senior leaders, he will meet the President of India and submit a memorandum with signatures of 2 crore people, said Congress MP K Suresh.

“Childish”: Sanjay Jha attacks Congress for playing petty politics over his new book

Former Congress national spokesperson Sanjay Jha, who was ostracized from the Congress party for his damning indictment of the party’s leadership and accusations against the lack of internal democracy in the party, took to Twitter to chastise Congress party for playing petty politics over his new book ‘The Great Unravelling: India after 2014’.

Claiming that his book is not anti-Congress but only delves into the flaws of the party, he called Congress ‘childish’, for refusing to send a Spokesperson to a program which he was part of unless he was dropped from the program.

Sanjay Jha wrote: “The Congress refused to send a Spokesperson to a program I was part of unless I was dropped said a TV journalist to me. This is childish, churlish, I think. My book The Great Unravelling: India After 2014 is not anti-Congress but it does point out our flaws. This is one of them.

Sanjay Jha, who was recently shown cold-shoulder by the Congress leadership after he managed to irk his party’s high command by voicing his dissent, insinuated that his third book, ‘The Great Unravelling: India after 2014’ which is set to release in December, has miffed the Congress high command to such an extent that they have been compelled to exhibit such puerile behaviour. He used the opportunity to clear that his book is not anti-Congress, but it touches upon the drawbacks of the party and its leadership.

Speaking about his new book, Sanjay Jha had said earlier that he had started conceptualising the idea after the Lok Sabha rout of the Congress in May 2019. “But I began putting pen to paper only after Mr Modi announced that famous first Janata curfew in March 2020. So this book can be called a Lockdown Project”, said Jha.

Through his book, Jha said he has questioned BJP as well as the Congress party, which he believed is trapped in its own internecine issues. Calling Bihar elections an eye-opener for the Congress party, Jha through his book has expressed displeasure over the functioning of the Congress party leadership. He believes that Congress has become completely disconnected from the ground and needs to introspect and change as soon as possible if it wants to remain in the race.

BJP has a far greater social media presence than Congress: Sanjay Jha

Sanjay Jha, in his new book, has opined that Congress Party’s obliviousness towards social media has somehow proved detrimental for the party. He said that Rahul Gandhi had initially refused to join Twitter as he considered the microblogging site an “urban fad”. Speaking on how BJP prudently used the social media platform as a route to power, he criticised Congress for lacking a basic understanding of social media. “This was a race between a BMW and a bullock cart, said Sanjay Jha, author of, “The Great Unravelling: India After 2014.

Congress needs to reaffirm its core ideologies: Jha

Jha feels that Congress needs much more than membership drives.“There is need today for a reaffirmation of the party’s core ideologies: inclusiveness, secularism, tolerance, the democratic spirit and progressiveness,” Jha says adding, “Only a commitment to these values can override short-term electoral disappointments. If Congress MLAs and MPs happily jump ship when the BJP offers them a fat wad from the Operation Lotus treasury, the Congress is equally culpable. It is guilty of giving tickets to those who can mobilize muscle power and have the ability to fix underhand deals to recoup their original ‘investments’, political workers for whom ideology is like a third shoe. Over the years, questionable characters have come to dominate the Congress’s political structure and organization, leading to organizational fragility.”