Home Blog Page 6405

Sexual harassment – Legal position versus Cynicism

Swarupama Chaturvedi
-
0
Sexual harassment – Legal position versus Cynicism

The office of the Chief Justice of India was sought to be hit by a ‘construct’, crafted by use of classical ‘tempered language’ whereby the author played with the emotive quotient of the readers by showing how the victim was all ‘taken in’ by seemingly normal gestures of a person for most part of the narrative, until realization dawned in hindsight that all such gestures were actually a camouflage over the person’s vile intents and then, with one stroke, such person was sought to be nailed down.

Such narrative, on the strength of the craft deployed, appears to ride on an ‘uncanny’ and ‘unusual’ ability of the portrayed victim to not only remember but also describe innumerable dates, times, contexts, surroundings, backdrops, sequences etc, of ‘events’ from distant past, with clarity of ‘tutored’ proportions.

However, it is the audacity of the ‘construct’ that is worthy of serious attention than its crafty contents. The unhindered and unrestrained flow of the audacious ‘construct’, and the pugnacious reactions thereto, have thrown up a far important question that seeks immediate attention and decisive intervention of the powers-to-be.

The question revolves around the vulnerabilities and armour of the Office of The Chief Justice of India, as part of not only the edifice of Indian Judiciary but also as the Constitutional Head of the Supreme Court of India. In this context, a look at the Constitutional scheme would show that Supreme Court of India ITS ESTABLISHMENT & CONSTITUTION (Art 124) is envisioned under Part titled ‘UNION JUDICIARY’, as consisting of ‘a Chief Justice of India’ and ‘thirty’ other Judges, with a clear implication that ‘the Chief Justice of India’ would form a distinct class, even though generically speaking, he would be one of the Judges, as in Chief Justice, of the Supreme Court of India [as per Form of Oath IV, Third Schedule].

The functional primacy of the ‘Chief Justice of India’ would also reflect in matters connected with core administrative powers of Supreme Court of India, including in matters pertaining to Courts & establishments etc of other Judges [Seat of Supreme Court-Art. 130, Officers & Servants of the Supreme Court Art. 146 (1 & 2) and Expenses of the Supreme Court Art. 146 (3)]. Such primacy of the office of the Chief Justice of India, as the master of the roster, has also come to be established in matters connected with Listing of Cases, formation of Benches etc in the Supreme Court of India.

That apart, the role of the office & Secretariat of the Chief Justice of India in administering the appointments & transfers of Judges & Chief Justice of the High Courts as well as appointments of Judges of the Supreme Court, through the in-house Collegium system, is of overriding importance to the Indian Judiciary. In fact, the appointment of an incumbent Chief Justice of India by the President of India rides on the recommendation of the sitting/outgoing Chief Justice of India.

Another aspect that needs prime focus is the functionality of Judges, and the Institutional necessity that such functionality be guarded zealously, and at all costs. This is more particularly true for Judges of Constitutional Courts, who have to shoulder the solemn responsibility of examining the functioning of the Constitutional scheme and implementation of each Constitutional assurance in every corner of their jurisdiction.

Needless to reiterate, the Judges of the Supreme Court are required to exercise a jurisdiction that spreads across the lengths and breadths of the country, even as their wisdom and words are ordained to be the letter of the law of the land. The attack on their ‘mindspace’ needs to be recognised as an attack on the Institution, and it is this aspect that needs to be further armoured.

In the aforesaid backdrop, and in light of the facts and circumstances that have emerged post the strategic feed of the aforesaid ‘construct’ to the media houses and residences of other Judges of the Supreme Court, it is the need of the hour to recognise this attack on the Institution, so that the office and Court of the Chief Justice of India be fortified further, with reference to such ‘constructs’ as may be invented and strategically steered to destabilize such office and Court by hitting at the mindspace of incumbent.

In this context, the Constitutional immunity as was sought to be built around the Judges of the Supreme Court of India can be gauged from Article 124 which, among others, laid down, firstly, the two grounds for their removal being proved misbehaviour & incapacity, and secondly, that only the Parliament would by law lay down procedure for investigation of any such alleged misbehaviour and incapacity, as well as the procedure for their removal by the President, if the ground(s) stood proved.

In terms of such Article, the Parliament enacted the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 with a view to regulate the procedure for investigation and proof of the misbehaviour or incapacity of a Judge (including Chief Justice) of Supreme Court [Section 2c], and for presentation of an address by the Parliament to the President, in that connection, though the provisions do not distinguish between a Judge of High Court or Supreme Court and the procedure is the same for all.

Clearly, the provisions aforesaid speak of a Constitutional mandate that the Judges, including the Chief Justice, of Supreme Court of India cannot be bothered by any issue(s) that would not pass the muster as laid down/prescribed by the Constitution / Parliament. It is also clear that no ‘investigation’ / ‘inquiry’ can be ordered / conducted against Judges/CJI, to even begin probing any alleged misbehaviour or incapacity, except by the Speaker of Lok Sabha or Chairman, Rajya Sabha or by them jointly, as the case may be, on their admitting a motion by prescribed minimum nos. of Members of their respective Houses, and thereafter by appointing a 3-member Committee as prescribed by the Act.

In addition stands the In-House Procedure that came to be established by “the Supreme Court of India, vide Full Court Resolution dated December 15, 1999, wherein and whereby a Report of a Committee of Judges on ‘In-House Procedure’ dated 31st October, 1997 was unanimously adopted, with a few modifications.

The In-house procedure was brought in with a view to devise such procedure for taking suitable remedial action against Judges who, by their acts or omission or commission, do not follow universally accepted values of Judicial life, including those stated in the Restatement of Values of Judicial Life, and it was further claimed that such procedure would serve dual-purpose firstly, the allegations would be examined by his peers and not by an outside agency and thereby the independence of Judiciary would be maintained, and secondly, the awareness that there exists a machinery for examination of Complaints against a Judge would preserve the faith of people in the Independence and impartiality of the Judicial process.

The In-house procedure prescribes three different stages to notice the allegations against High Court Judges, Chief Justice of High Court and Judges of Supreme Court of India respectively and also gives functional primacy to the Chief Justice of India therein, in taking decisions connected with such procedures. The appointment of a three-member Committee of Judges to carry out an enquiry is the third stage to which the present enquiry was straightway carried at the request of the incumbent CJI. The Inquiry in the In-house Procedure is meant to be in the nature of a fact-finding inquiry wherein the Judge concerned would be entitled to appear and have his say, but it would not be a formal judicial inquiry, involving the examination and cross-examination of witnesses and representation by lawyers etc.

Further, on the outcome of the Inquiry, if the Committee finds substance in the allegations contained in the complaint and the misconduct disclosed in such allegations is such that it calls for initiation of proceedings for removal of the Judge, the Chief Justice of India again has been entrusted to advise the concerned Judge to resign his office or seek voluntary retirement, and if such Judge expresses unwillingness to do either, the Chief Justice of the High Court would be advised by the Chief Justice of India not to allocate any judicial work to the Judge concerned, and the President & PM would be intimated about such decision as well as the reasons behind such decision, and a copy of the Inquiry Report would be forwarded to them.

In the aforesaid backdrop, sufficient safeguards and procedural immunities may appear to be available for Judges against complaints / allegations which turn out to be false / baseless/ unsubstantiated etc, however such safeguards appear to work only in case of long-drawn inquiry through the due process.

The present scenario has thrown up a new challenge where, without following due process, the office and Court of the Chief Justice of India is sought to be vilified and tarnished overnight by the ‘construct’ roaming around in public domain through media, as well as by a clear and motivated campaign riding on it. It is this attack on the peace and tranquility of the institutional mindspace that invites serious attention.

Let there be no abruptness in our conclusions, an enquiry as contemplated in law within the four corners of the prescribed procedure is at work. Give the system a chance to work and belt out. Judges, because of the very nature of their duties, constantly earn the ire and scorn of majority of stakeholders like litigants/lawyers/lawyer associations etc at any given point of time. The job is made more difficult by the fact that Supreme Court is the Court of last resort, and the stakes are infinitely high, which drive extreme emotions amongst those stakeholders and their networks. Added to that are the complex responsibilities of the Chief Justice of India on the administrative side, and the Institutional functions discharged by and/or in the name of the Chief Justice of India.

Such and other realities, including the aforesaid institutional requirement to zealously protect the mind space of Judges, need to be looked into urgently, and the processes and safeguards reworked so that the offices of the Chief Justice of India and Judges are better protected, and the Supreme Court of India regains its glory in the public discourse and is not shackled and pulled down from its high pedestal.

The Institution needs to ensure that the trust of the millions may not be dislodged nor assailed by such ‘constructs’ of a few.

Digvijaya Singh’s rants against Sadhavi Pragya reveals Congress’ misogyny and anti-Hindu proclivities

Jinit Jain
-
0
Digvijaya Singh’s rants against Sadhavi Pragya reveals Congress’ misogyny and anti-Hindu proclivities

Senior Congress leader Digvijaya Singh in a public meeting yesterday had made an inherently misogynistic remark about Sadhavi Pragya who is going to contest against him from the Bhopal Lok Sabha constituency. Digvijaya claimed that Sadhavi Pragya is a ‘mute doll’ for the RSS.

Speaking on the ban imposed by the Election Commission on Sadhavi Pragya, Digvijaya Singh insinuated that the EC’s ban on Pragya was in conformity with the RSS demand which wanted to keep Sadhavi Pragya silent. Attributing his views to RSS, Singh added that the Sangh wants a ‘mute doll’ whose movements can be regulated by their masters.

Such comments reveal the latent misogynistic mindset of Congress leaders who cannot put up with nonconformist women who don’t flinch from speaking their minds out and who do not seek validation from men before expressing themselves freely. Though the comments were deceptively ascribed to the RSS, it, in fact, exposes Congress mentality and their dim view of the growing role of women like Sadhavi Pragya, who refuse to be subservient to the male wisdom of their counterparts and are willing to take the risk of charting a new territory in the Indian political arena.

Sadhavi Pragya was hailed by many as a crusader of Hindu revivalism. Many were inspired by her conduct and her commitment to the cause of Hinduism. This didn’t sit well with the Congress party. So Congress concocted ‘Hindu Terror’ and made Sadhavi Pragya its face by nationally vilifying her for her supposed role in Samjhauta Blasts which is yet to be proved in the court of law and in fact, the NIA gave Sadhvi a clean chit in the case too.

If that was not enough, Congress leaders like Digvijaya Singh, who is known for his brazen anti-Hindu remarks and despicable comments objectifying women, seeks to continue to belittle her with his blatantly misogynistic remarks. Congress leaders can’t abide by the site of a woman with strong Hindu credentials giving them a tough fight in the Lok Sabha elections.

Even though Congress had raised hollow slogans of ‘woman empowerment’, they have merely been lip service done to distract the media’s attention from the other embarrassments faced by the party. In his attempt to attack PM Modi, Congress president Rahul Gandhi had made a misogynistic remark against Defence Minister N Sitharaman saying that the PM is hiding behind a woman minister.

When a party’s president himself indulges in misogynistic conduct, other senior leaders are only encouraged to exhibit such behaviour. Union Minister Smriti Irani, who is competing for Amethi seat against the Congress president Rahul Gandhi, also has had to bear the sexist and vulgar obscenities hurled at her by the Congress leaders and supporters. No action was taken against the culprits while the matter was swept under the rugs by the Congress party.

Recently, former Congress spokesperson Priyanka Chaturvedi left Congress and joined Shiv Sena because the Congress goons who misbehaved with her were let off the hook and reinstated by the party.

Digvijaya Singh is an epitome of an archetypal Congressi who cannot see a woman, let alone one with strong Hindu roots assert herself in the field of politics, which is generally dominated by men. After bearing indescribable torture allegedly on the directions of Congress leaders, Sadhavi is squaring up against the Congress tyranny. If Digvijay Singh’s recent utterances are anything to go by, Sadhavi is winning Bhopal Lok Sabha constituency hands down.

First they mocked, then protested and now they say ‘me too me too’: PM Modi on Congress’ Surgical Strike claim

OpIndia Staff
-
0
First they mocked, then protested and now they say ‘me too me too’: PM Modi on Congress’ Surgical Strike claim

At his rally in Sikar, Rajasthan, Prime Minister Modi launched a scathing attack against the Congress party for its claim that it conducted Surgical Strikes during its rule as well. Narendra Modi said that the Congress party conducted such surgical strikes which no one had any clue about.


Modi said, “Congress now claims they carried out 6 surgical strikes. What strikes were these about which the terrorists did not get to know, Pakistan didn’t know, even Indians diknow.now. First, they mocked, then protested and now they say ‘me too me too.”

He claimed that the Congress first pretended that the Strikes weren’t a big deal and it was something that the Army did often. Then, he said, the Congress opposed it and finally, sensing the mood of the public which was overwhelmingly in his favour, they tried to grab a share of the pie by claiming that they did it too.

Prime Minister Modi further said that only the Congress party could sit inside air-conditioned rooms and claim to have conducted surgical strikes on paper. He added, “First they said that they did it thrice, yesterday they said it was 6 times. Now in a few days, they will say that they did surgical strike every day. After May 23, they will make claims of conducting it 600 times.”


In a significant announcement, Narendra Modi announced that during the next 5 years, his government will block Indian waters from going into Pakistan and redistribute it among farmers in India.


In 2014, Narendra Modi had swept the state and made a clean sweep winning all the 25 seats in Rajasthan. The Bharatiya Janata Party needs to win an overwhelming majority of the seats if it is to cross the magic 272 figure on its own this time.

Hours before Amit Shah rally in Jharkhand, Naxals blow up BJP office in Khunti

OpIndia Staff
-
0
Hours before Amit Shah rally in Jharkhand, Naxals blow up BJP office in Khunti

Despite strict preparedness of the Jharkhand police, the Naxal’s on Friday reportedly blew up the BJP party office in Kharsawan in Saraikela district. As per reports, the Naxals triggered cane bombs in the BJP office around 12:30 am.

Former Jharkhand chief minister and BJP leader Arjun Munda, who is contesting from Khunti in the Lok Sabha poll operates from this particular office. This blast comes hours before BJP President Amit Shah’ is scheduled to hold a rally here.

As per reports, four Maoists, clothed in plain clothes, reached the spot around 12 midnight. Four BJP Karyakarta’s were reportedly sleeping in the office at that hour. The Naxal’s asked them to vacate the premises before triggering the bombs. No casualties have been reported.

Shockingly, the incident was executed even though Jharkhand police have been continuously reviewing the security situation in these areas. In fact, even on Thursday several senior officials including IG Campaign Ashish Batra, CRPF IG Sanjay Anand Latkar, visited Saraikela-Kharsawan and reportedly took stock of the law and order situation in these election-bound areas.

Kharsawan falls under Khunti parliamentary constituency, one of 14 Lok Sabha seats in Jharkhand, which goes to poll on May 6.

Meanwhile, after receiving information about the incident, many BJP leaders and workers, including BJP candidate Arjun Munda, Ghatshila MLA Laxman Tudu, arrived at the spot and took stock of the situation. Terming it as a conspiracy, local BJP leaders said that the people of the Mahagathbandhan did not want BJP candidate Arjun Munda to win here.

When the police team led by SP Chandan Kumar Sinha reached the spot they recovered several Maoist pamphlets calling for a poll boycott in the region, lying at the blast site. Sinha said that IED and detonator have been used for the blast. The police investigating all aspects claimed that this incident will not affect the ongoing elections.

The Jharkhand police had earlier categorised 13 districts including Seraikela-Kharsawan, Khunti, as “most sensitive” during the elections. Before the Lok Sabha elections commenced, Jharkhand police had planned to deploy around 600 companies of paramilitary and state auxiliary forces to keep the law and order situation in control.

Meanwhile, prior to the fourth phase of the Lok Sabha elections, a similar blast was reported in an election office of the BJP at Hariharganj area of Palamu district last week. There too several Maoist pamphlets, calling for a poll boycott in the region, were found lying.

Recently, in a ghastly IED (Improvised Explosive Device) blast carried out by Naxals on Kurkheda-Korchi road in Gadchiroli district of Maharashtra on May 1, around 16 security personnel and a driver had lost their lives in the attack. The landmine blast blew up two vehicles carrying a team of the C-60 commandoes, an anti-Naxal unit, who were patrolling the area.

Reuters photojournalist Siddiqui Ahamad Danish arrested by Sri Lankan police for forcibly entering school premises

OpIndia Staff
-
0
Reuters photojournalist Siddiqui Ahamad Danish arrested by Sri Lankan police for forcibly entering school premises

A New Delhi based photojournalist, Siddiqui Ahamad Danish, working for Reuters News Agency, was arrested by the Sri Lankan police for allegedly attempting to forcibly enter the premises of Maris Stella College in Katana in Negombo city, Sri Lanka. Danish is the chief photographer of Reuters in India and winner of the Pulitzer Prize.

He was arrested on the charges of trespassing and was later remanded till May 15 after being produced in the Meegamuwa magistrate court.

The journalist was temporarily in Sri Lanka to cover the aftermath of Easter Sunday bombings, which killed over 250 people and left 500 critically injured. According to local media, Danish had attempted to enter the school premises to gather information about the student who was killed in the bombing of St Sebastian’s Church.

The student’s parents who were present in the school at the time when the photojournalist attempted to force his way into the premises informed the police.

Siddiqui Ahamad Danish had won the Pulitzer Prize in photography last year for a series on Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar. He is an alumnus of Jamia Millia Islamia and his father was a professor at the institution.

Earlier, two Reuters reporters, Wa Lone (32), and Kyaw Soe Oo (28) were sentenced to seven years in jail in Myanmar, on charges of breaking the Official Secrets Act.

Meanwhile, the dastardly Sri Lankan blast, which was one of the worst attacks masterminded by the ISIS, left several killed and critically injured. The misguided notions of Sri Lankan authorities, thinking that India’s intel on suicide attacks was a ‘bogey’ to create a rift between Sri Lanka and Pakistan, cost them a heavy price and resulted in the terrorists successfully executing the attack.

However, after the Sri Lankan PM Ranil Wickremesinghe admitted that the blast was the result of the ‘failure’ of the Sri Lankan Government to act on the warning received, strict actions are being taken thereafter by the authorities.

Days after the Easter Sunday bomb attack in Sri Lanka, the cable operators of the island country have blocked radical Islamic preacher Zakir Naik’s Peace TV. Earlier, Sri Lanka had also passed an order to ban all forms of face covering including the Islamic Burqa.

Why did India Today drop the video interview of Rahul Gandhi that it was apparently about to telecast?

OpIndia Staff
-
0
Why did India Today drop the video interview of Rahul Gandhi that it was apparently about to telecast?

Congress President Rahul Gandhi gave a comprehensive “tell-all” interview to India Today that was published today. In the interview, Rahul Gandhi admitted that his only aim was to tarnish PM Modi’s ‘incorruptible’ image, and the interviewer sat there, without countering the lies and peddling further lies.

While India Today published the litany of lies by Rahul Gandhi, it was curious that a channel like India Today chose to conduct a text interview with Rahul Gandhi instead of a video interview.

A rumour gained wind on Social Media that India Today had indeed conducted a video interview with Rahul Gandhi, but the interview was so bad (some said worse that the blabbering mess the interview with Arnab Goswami was back in 2014), that India Today chose to scrap the video interview and publish a text interview instead.

This Whatsapp message doing the rounds, that was also shared by many on Twitter, said that Rahul Gandhi appealed to India Today not to air the video interview because it was a disaster. The rumour also was that Congress functionaries grabbed the cassettes and agreed to let them publish a text version of the interview. The forward also questioned whether this was fair journalism.

While Social Media is often the hotbed of misinformation and rumours, this particular rumour does seem to have some credibility and it certainly does appear that India Today conducted a video interview of Rahul Gandhi that was later not aired. The evidence to support this theory is mounting and damning.

Evidence 1: Why the lapel mic?

The Director of India Today and Aaj Tak anchor, Rahul Kanwal tweeted a gif of Rahul Gandhi while plugging the “hard-hitting and combative” interview of Rahul Gandhi.


If one looks at the gif carefully, one sees a lapel mic that has been plugged on Rahul Gandhi kurta collar.

A still from the interview shows the lapel mic too.

 

If this indeed was just a text interview from the word go, one must wonder why Rahul Gandhi was wearing a lapel mic at all?

Evidence 2: The India Today ticker

OpIndia accessed the India Today screen that displayed a ticker that asked its viewers to ‘WATCH’ Mega Exclusive Rahul Gandhi interview on India Today at 6:30 PM.

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3eJDWPxCo0]

If the plan was to do a text interview from the word go, why did India Today display this ticker? Why did India Today ask its viewers to WATCH the interview at 6:30 PM? An interview, that was then never aired?

Evidence 3: Tweet asking people to ‘WATCH’ the interview

India Today had also tweeted about the Rahul Gandhi interview and the tweet itself indicates that there is enough proof that initially, a video interview was to be aired but was later scrapped.

The Tweet from 2nd May 2019 asks people to ‘WATCH’ the most in-depth interview of Rahul Gandhi this election season on ‘India Today TV’. Then, it gives an update to the live blog.


If the interview was supposed to be published as a text interview from the beginning, why would the word ‘Watch’ be there in the tweet and why would India Today ask its viewers to watch the interview on India Today TV?

Also, if it indeed was meant to be a text interview, why would India Today plug the link of a live blog? Once the article is live, no media house would tweet its excerpts from an article on to a live blog. A live blog would be used to tweet text updates of a video interview while it was being aired so people who can’t watch it live could read the updates.

It is highly probable that India Today had indeed taken a video interview of Rahul Gandhi and that interview was scrapped and a text interview was published instead. The real question is, why was it scrapped? Was the interview that bad? And if the interview was really that bad, is it the media’s job to shield a politician who cannot give a proper, live interview even though it must have been planned? What does it say about the Media and India Today in particular? Most importantly, what does it say about Rahul Gandhi?

Update: India Today has issued a clarification that there was meant to be no video interview but only a print interview. It also says that Congress has a video recording of the interview that is not available to the channel. The explanation, however, still doesn’t answer some crucial questions. You can read the full explanation here. 

Adivasi women respond with ‘Modi Zindabad’ to ‘Chowkidar Chor Hai’ slogan at Rahul Gandhi’s rally

OpIndia Staff
-
0
Adivasi women respond with ‘Modi Zindabad’ to ‘Chowkidar Chor Hai’ slogan at Rahul Gandhi’s rally

Rahul Gandhi’s ‘Chowkidar Chor Hai’ slogan hasn’t been resonating with people on the ground. Numerous journalists, sympathetic to the Congress party, have expressed their frustration with the fact that the Congress party has chosen to go hammer and tongs with the slogan even though the public does not appear inclined to believe that Prime Minister Narendra Modi is a corrupt politician.

Further evidence of that came from the Congress President’s rally in Jharkhand. As per reports, at a rally in Simdega yesterday, where Rahul Gandhi was campaigning for the Congress candidate from Khunti Lok Sabha constituency, Congress workers raised his usual ‘Chowkidar Chor Hai’ slogan but Adivasi women present were reportedly having none of it. They responded with chants of ‘Modi Zindabad’ of their own.

Reporters present at the scene asked the women the reason for their support towards Narendra Modi. They said that they were supporting the Prime Minister because they had received toilets, gas connections, houses and electricity during his tenure.

Apart from causing him embarrassment, the slogan has also gotten Rahul Gandhi into legal troubles. Recently, he was forced to apologize before the Supreme Court for attributing the slogan to a verdict delivered by the highest court of the country. The Court wasn’t satisfied with mere ‘regret’ and demanded that the Congress President issue a complete apology in the matter.

Dharmayuddha is not Jihad: What Sitaram Yechury gets wrong

K Bhattacharjee
-
0
Dharmayuddha is not Jihad: What Sitaram Yechury gets wrong

CPI(M) General Secretary Sitaram Yechury has triggered a massive controversy with his recent comments on the Mahabharata and the Ramayana. At an event in Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, Yechury said, “Ramayana and Mahabharata are also filled with instances of violence and battles. Being a pracharak (RSS functionaries), you narrate the epics but still claim Hindus can’t be violent? What is the logic behind saying that there’s a religion which engages in violence and we Hindus don’t.”


First things first, to reduce the vast complexity of the Mahabharata and the Ramayana to a mere exhibition of violence is only a reflection of the extremely myopic understanding of the texts the Communist appears to have. Secondly, to view the violence in the epics in isolation is to miss the point of it all entirely.

The Ramayana, in stark contrast to the Mahabharata, is a simple story of Good versus Evil. On one hand, we have Shri Rama, the embodiment of morality, Maryada Purushottam, and on the other, we have Ravana, the embodiment of evil. Rama’s beloved Sita was taken away from him and he embarked upon a Dharmayuddha to be reunited with her. Of course, there are numerous other facets to the story and Ravana had various motivations for his actions, however, it is not the place to go further into the intricacies of the matter. The gist of the matter, however, is the fact Rama did not embark upon a war of his own making. His hand was forced and he did what an ideal husband, an ideal son and an ideal King is meant to do. However, one thing was certain, even if Sita Mata was not kidnapped by Ravana, Rama would still go to war against the Rakshasas. For the protection of his Kingdom and its people and to ensure the victory of Dharma over Adharma.

The Mahabharata, on the other hand, is a lot more complicated. The characters in the Epic, as virtuous as they may be, pale in comparison to Rama, apart from Shri Krishna of course and Yudhishtira to a certain extent. While the principal characters in the Ramayana were the embodiment of virtue, those in the Mahabharata were far away from it, again with the notable exception of Prabhu Krishna. Thus, the epic provides valuable insight into human nature itself.

One thing that the Mahabharata does have in common with the Ramayana is that the war was not of the heroes’ making. It was a choice that was made for them when Draupadi’s honour was infringed upon. Every other folly of the Kauravas could be ignored but compromising the dignity of Draupadi was a step too far and there was no going back from there. Everything that happened afterwards was merely an inevitability from that moment onward. Shri Krishna did attempt, in what eventually turned out to be a futile endeavor, to prevent the war when he asked the Kauravas for five villages for the Pandavas. But it is difficult to assume how even that could have brokered lasting peace between the two factions as Duryodhana considered the sons of Pandava to be an existential threat.

Without delving deeper, we can safely say that in Mahabharata, just as in Ramayana, war ensued because principles of Dharma were violated and Adharma reigned supreme in the land. The most significant part of the Mahabharata, which critics of Hinduism consider to be its most problematic aspect and see as justification for violence, is the Bhagavad Gita where Shri Krishna urges Arjuna to go to war. In his discourse, of which Arjuna was the sole recipient, Krishna exhorts the Pandava to go to War as it was his Dharmic duty and Dharma demanded that he wage war against the very people he loved so dearly as they had chosen to side with the forces of Adharma. Of course, no one in the Epic apart from Shri Krishna was perfect but it fell upon them to ensure that Dharma prevailed upon the forces of Adharma.

Thus, the overarching narrative of the Mahabharata and the Ramayana is that when Dharma is threatened, war becomes imperative. Of course, then it becomes of paramount importance to understand what Dharma means and how it is different from ‘religious war’.

First and foremost, Dharma is not religion and therefore, Dharmayuddha is not a religious war. Dharma is not mere diktats of Gods, it is the eternal law of the universe under which the cosmos functions. It is the ‘Natural Law’. Therefore, Dharmayuddha, unlike religious war, is not waged over someone’s private beliefs but actions which are gross violations of basic morality and which go against the natural law of the cosmos themselves. It is important to remember that Rama did not go to war against Ravana because he disagreed with Ravana’s personal beliefs and the Pandavas did not go to war because the Kauravas’ actions were not consistent with that of the sons of Pandava. The wars occurred because the respective antagonists in the Epics violated the natural order of things.

Thus, while religious wars are fought over private religious beliefs on individuals, Dharmayuddha is waged over violations of the Natural Law. It is important to note that the Kauravas and the Pandavas shared the exact same religious beliefs and worshipped the same Gods. Ravana himself was a devotee of Bholenath. Shri Krishna urged Arjuna to crush the Kauravas knowing fully well that it will lead to innumerable deaths because Kauravas violated the Natural Law by denying the Pandavas their birthright and dishonouring Draupadi. It is completely different from religious wars where adherents are urged to wage war because a particular god is jealous that he is not the only one being worshipped.

As for whether violence is a solution, only the utterly naive and fools believe it is not. Our entire justice system is based on the premise of punishment and reformation which is again predicated on the use of force. Law and Order in any society are maintained by the threat of violence. And in our heart of hearts, all of us know that violence under certain circumstances is perfectly justified. That is why we have the Death Penalty as punishment for certain crimes. And the Police and the Army are authorized to engage in violence to ensure certain outcomes. More personally, an overwhelming majority of us would agree that rapists ought to be castrated and tortured and put to death without batting an eyelid. There are certain other violent crimes for which an overwhelming majority of us would agree that such violent punishment is perfectly justified.

For Yechury to equate Dharmayuddha with religious war only demonstrates the poor understanding of our Sacred Texts that Communists have. Of course, Hindus can be violent but that point can be made without dragging the Mahabharata and the Ramayana through the mud. That he chose to do so only exposes his ignorance and utter lack of respect for the Hindu Faith.

Racist, “liberal”, The Economist, its battle with Narendra Modi and how Indian media uses it to bash India’s own Prime Minister

Nupur J Sharma
-
0
Racist, “liberal”, The Economist, its battle with Narendra Modi and how Indian media uses it to bash India’s own Prime Minister

Foreign Media has not been kind to Narendra Modi. Neither has Indian media, but the deal with foreign media is entirely different. While Indian media is perhaps looking out for its bread and butter, considering under the Congress rule, it was fed well and fattened with its incompetency being rewarded, foreign media just hates the cultural identity assertion that Modi gave people the confidence for.

Who can forget the New York Times and its racist rants? In 2017, Indian automobile giant Mahindra and Mahindra opened its first car manufacturing facility in Detroit, the auto hub, a first in 25 years. The plant, which is set up at an investment of $230 million, will produce an off-highway vehicle which is being considered a game-changer already.

While most hailed this historic event, NYTimes, which seems to have a grouse with India, was it’s condescending best while reporting this development. NYTimes reported,

It has been years since Detroit, birthplace of the American auto industry, was a steady producer of the manufacturing jobs that defined it as the Motor City. But its comeback is entering a new phase.

The latest milestone came Monday, with the announcement of the area’s first new vehicle assembly plant in 25 years. And the automaker making it happen is from, of all places, India.

NYT had an issue with Indian attire, the saree as well, calling it a tool for Nationalism. Then, it had lied blatantly about GST and demonetisation to pain Prime Minister Modi and India in poor light. NYT lied about the UAE giving Kerala Rs 700 crores even after it was summarily debunked. NYT also used childrens’ deaths to malign Yogi government’s crackdown on illegal slaughterhouses and drew flak for calling the saree a ‘tool of Hindu nationalist campaign’. It had also in the past used lies to insult victims of the Godhra carnage.

And lo behold, NYT had also peddled long debunked, false data on “violent cow protection” to vilify the Hindu population of India and brand them as violent, deviant, terrorists.

While NYT has long proven its credentials, The Economist is the new favourite of the “liberal” ecosystem in a last-ditch attempt to discredit Narendra Modi.

While I have personally always supported newspapers and media outlets openly declaring their bias for or against a leader, the use of lies, propaganda and racism to discredit a democratically elected leader by foreign media and that narrative being lapped up by Indian media is a cause for concern almost amounting to foreign interference in Indian elections.

In the 2014 elections, The Economist had shamelessly campaigned against Narendra Modi. That its nefarious plans failed, has not deterred them from peddling their nonsense yet again.

Before we delve into how The Economist demonised Narendra Modi, let’s take a look at just how elitist, racist and brazenly stupid The Economist truly is against Indians. Not just Modi supporters, not just Modi himself, but brown, unwashed, Indians.

This what The Economist had to say when India launched Mangalayan.

The elitist, racist Economist had a problem with Mangalayan because India is a “poor country” Whether their issue was with the fact that brown people like Indians launched a space program or that it was under the Prime Ministership of Modi that the mission was launched, is a mystery.

Important to note, that at the same time, NYT had also launched a tirade against India’s space program with a racist cartoon strip.

In 2014, racist, elitist, The Economist did not “support Narendra Modi”. In an article headlined “India’s one man band”, The Economist in 2015 said as much.

In 2019 too, The Economist’s stand hasn’t changed. The fake “religious strike” narrative peddled by The Economist stands unaltered.

The Economist, shamelessly, calls PM Modi “agent orange”. Firstly, the western fools must be colourblind as PM Modi, if anything, should be called “agent saffron”. Secondly, The Economist’s fear-mongering about PM Modi and the mythical “religious strife” is invariably connected the how Hindus are getting more confident to speak up and assert their cultural identity, while the Muslims feel threatened.

“Mr Modi has been neither as good for India as his cheerleaders foretold, nor as bad as his critics…imagined. But today the risks still outweigh the rewards”.

His “strongman” image for the airstrikes in Pakistan was “not so much an act of strength as recklessness that could have ended in disaster”, it adds.

“He has inflamed a separatist insurgency rather than quelling it”, The Economist says.

It is most severe on Modi’s “biggest fault” – his “relentless stoking of Hindu-Muslim tensions”.

It goes a step further. The paper says Congress is “hidebound and corrupt” but does “not set Indians at one another’s throats.” “It is a worthier recipient of Indians’ votes than the BJP”.

Essentially, The Economist has a problem with resurgent, assertive Hindus, development of a “poor country” under PM Modi and much prefers that India chooses the “corrupt” Congress party. Because, why should the unwashed, brown people dream of anything better?

And of course, the Indian media and its darbari journalists lapped this nonsense up.


Rajdeep Sardesai, who has been subservient to the Gandhi family since forever, called The Economist ‘venerable’ while peddling this nonsense. Of course, anything that comes from the white overlords becomes ‘venerable’. Italian or British.

The Print, led by Shekhar Gupta lapped it up too. Why an opinion by The Economist must be reported as “news” would generally be beyond comprehension, but the white syndrome is often high wish brown sahibs.

Other brown sahibs like Dhume rejoiced that The Economist, the racist, foreign media had called the democratically elected leader of India ‘despicable’.


And one wonders what the difference between these independant thinkers and illiterate politicians is, when Akhilesh Yadav, leader of Samajwadi party too ends up peddling the racist rant by The Economist by terming it “Indian Media”.


Of course, none of these brown sahibs or their masters like The Economist of NYT has ever questioned why Rahul Gandhi allied with Islamists or called himself a Janeu dhari shiv bhakt. Why he chose to contest from Wayanad and in a sting operation, why his leader was caught saying that Wayanad is a safe seat because it has a majority Muslim population. They have remained mum on Congress’ despicable Manifesto that demonises the Indian Army and also, remained silent about his numerous, uncountable lies.

These elections are rather unique. The ones who wore the mask of neutrality have become active players in the elections, perhaps, just as much as the candidates and political parties themselves. That they have to toe the line of racist foreign media to denigrate their own country and its Prime Minister, is a question they have to sort out with their own conscience. If they have one left, that it.

The dark side of the Internet: Sordid saga of the Gurugram mall woman

K Bhattacharjee
-
0
The dark side of the Internet: Sordid saga of the Gurugram mall woman

Social media has been abuzz recently after a sordid incident in Gurugram where a woman was caught in a video telling young girls that they ought to be raped for their short clothes. She apparently exhorted others to rape the girls as well.

The woman, quite obviously, holds vile and obnoxious opinions that ought to be relegated to the dustbins of history. Personally, I wouldn’t want her anywhere near myself or my family and friends. Obviously, only a terribly sick person one wish the worst form of abuse on other women, that too, being a woman herself. Having said that, the outrage that has generated in social media has taken a turn that could only be described as extremely dangerous.

Social Media is littered with vile and abusive posts against the woman. The woman is being subjected to a great amount of hate and it has reached a territory where her own personal safety appears to be under threat. She has been shamed for being ‘fat and unattractive’ and people are actually calling upon others to make her life hell. That is indeed a grave turn of events.

Not merely abusive words but people have also called for her to be raped. In a post that has been going viral on social media, which appears to be from the woman herself, she has apologized for her remarks and expressed her regret. However, even in the post, she was showered with tons of abuses and rape threats as well.

Actions have consequences and the moment the video of her atrocious conduct went viral, it was only to be expected that it will have severe repercussions. However, it appears people opposing her hateful conduct seem to have disgraced the very notions of civility that they were supposed to be championing. The entire series of events does say a lot about human nature.

The initial reaction might have been motivated by legitimate concerns but by now, it has devolved into a monstrous cycle of cyber-bullying. What began with good intentions soon gave way to malice. And let us accept what is happening here. Most of the people who are currently taking the woman to the task aren’t doing it for some higher purpose or to achieve some greater objective but only for the satisfaction of their baser urges.

They are engaging in such conduct because hurting people and making them bend against their will, feels good. Cruelty, especially when directed towards someone we think is despicable and worthy of hatred, makes us feel powerful. It is an exhilarating high, it’s a rush of adrenaline and a heady mix of dopamine. It makes us feel good about ourselves. It is human nature and one of its darker aspects.

Further evidence that the whole thing has been hijacked by people with malicious intent and has gone far beyond than what it should have is the fact that people are now going after the husband’s family and her sons who had nothing to do with the woman’s conduct. For all we know, they are themselves embarrassed by how she behaved with the girls. Therefore, trying to ruin their lives does not make any sense whatsoever. As per some accounts, the husband has been removed from his job as well after some feminists made the demand. It’s completely unhinged at this point and is getting very dangerous.

Certain people are also using the woman to further their political agenda. Prime Minister Modi, the Bharatiya Janata Party, people like Anshul Saxena and even Reliance have been dragged into the matter as well, people who have absolutely nothing to do with any of this.


It only goes on to show that the circus that is currently underway has absolutely nothing to do with women’s rights, dignity or any such higher purpose. It is only a sad reflection of people’s baser urges.

There have been multiple unintended casualties as well. People who only share the name with the woman have been targeted as well and have been bombarded with offensive messages and hateful texts. They have been forced to issue statements on social media pleading for people to stop harassing them.

A lot of people have expressed their concerns over what is happening now and lots of others are troubled with recent developments in the matter. There appears to be a deep sense of great discomfort among everyone sensible enough to understand the devastating consequences that this could very well have. It’s a completely different matter altogether whether the individual concerned deserved her fate or not.

A certain Vibhuti Sharma commented something very meaningful in her apology post which I would like to reproduce here:

This has been taken too far. Whatever was said to the girls was wrong and it is their right to be angry, but the way people reacted to the video and sent her hate messages is nothing short of cyberbullying. How do people endorse feminism while body shaming at the same time? Why can’t we as a society be angry at the thoughts and opinions of the person alone, and not at the person itself? People started associated her with the very abstract of all the atrocities women have faced, which is far from real.  Her opinions are borrowed too, she was brought up that way. And no good will come out of sending her hate, body shaming her.  Why can’t we be an educated society which works towards changing the outlooks of people, rather than trying to kill the person itself? Hate the crime, not the criminal.

If the woman has been suffering the consequences for her disgraceful conduct, the girls who shared the video are at the receiving end of harsh criticism as well. If they thought they were going to emerge from this as heroes for everyone, they were obviously quite wrong. They are being accused of bullying the woman and engaging in body-shaming. Some say they purposely took things too far merely for the sake of attention. Some have questioned their true intentions by citing that no police complaint was filed by the girls in the matter yet. Whether these allegations are true or not is beside the point, the fact of the matter is, these girls will be dragged through the mud as well by the time all of this over.

The chain of events precisely demonstrate the darker aspects of social media. The video may very well have been shared with good intentions, although it can be very well argued that it was shared to exact revenge against the woman for her despicable conduct, which is again a completely justifiable sentiment, now it has degenerated into an orgy of cyber-bullying and online harassment.

It appears unlikely that the woman will ever recover from this. It can be safely said that her life has been completely ruined. Memes have been circulating shaming her, mocking her and ridiculing her, social media is littered with her pictures and unfortunately for her, the internet forgets nothing. It is completely a different debate about whether she deserves it or not. As it so happens, social media does not offer time for such debates.

Social media is quite a recent phenomenon and it’s quite obvious, we have not yet tamed it. Worse, it does tend to bring out the worst in us. How the story ends, we may never know. The woman may put all of this behind and make a fresh beginning. Or she may end up making a worse decision than she did when she decided to abuse those girls. We may never know. Today, it was her. Tomorrow, it will be someone else. Inevitably, there will be an innocent victim in all of this. If we do not learn to tame the beast, there will be devastating consequences.

1...6,4046,4056,406...7,605Page 6,405 of 7,605