Monday, April 29, 2024
Home Blog Page 6440

Brouhaha over nothing: Why security cover to Arnab is justified

RpG_89
-
0
Brouhaha over nothing: Why security cover to Arnab is justified

The news of Arnab Goswami, editor- in-chief of Times Now and popular anchor of the show The Newshour, getting threat based Y-security cover was received with much brouhaha on the internet; especially from the detractors of Arnab as shown in OpIndia’s article here.

One might feel the questioning to be justified. More so in this era of questioning VVIP treatment for eminent persons – a campaign Arnab himself has often spearheaded.

However, when the treatment comes on the heels of terrorism, every argument gets negated.

The Issue

Arnab Goswami’s show on Times Now has often taken a hawkish stand on Pakistan as opposed to their counterparts. For years media counterparts like NDTV and their journalists like Barkha Dutt have sung the tunes that has found resonance with the Pakistan’s establishment. So much so that Pakistan’s top terror head Hafeez Saeed had even openly endorsed her.

Following the Uri attacks by Pakistan and Surgical strikes by India in response, the nationalist stand of Arnab not only touched a chord with the audience – as reflected by the surge in his viewership – but also made him a target of the Pakistan backed groups. Arnab and his channel have exposed the atrocities in Balochistan by the Pakistani army too, making him a subject of hate.

It should be recalled that Times Now reporters have earlier been attacked in Kashmir, much before the current phase of violence erupted. Arnab is almost synonymous with Times Now, so such physical attacks on him can’t be ruled out.

On the above account, reports that Arnab has threat from Pak based terror outfits should come as no surprise.

On the particular issue of government providing security cover:

Logically speaking

Many would ask if the security cover is justified, and why Arnab himself could not pay for his own private security?

The logical explanation to that will be if a gun wielding terrorist does attack Arnab, a private security personnel with a single bore weapon would not by any means provide adequate protection. Moreover, the threat perception was as per IB inputs. It would be laughable to think  that IB could coordinate with private security over incoming intel. It’s a matter of national security and secrecy.

For this very reason, highly trained government security would be the right choice.

Legally speaking

Now those who’re still not convinced with the argument above, there’s a lesser known legal angle to this.

There exists many levels of security in our country, the highest being SPG (Special Protection Group). Along with the SPG, there are others including Z+, Z, Y etc in decreasing order of threat perception level.

While the SPG security is governed by the Special Protection Group Act, 1988, the rest of the security protocols are decided by the IB, MHA, SSC and the State gogovernments.

As can be seen in the case of Narendra Singh vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 28 June, 2016, the court stated the following:

In contra, the counsel for the State has submitted that no person can claim as a matter of right a security cover of specified category. Such protection or security cover is provided if the SSC on appraisal of current threat perception finds the person a protected person and makes recommendation. The committee after making such recommendation reviews the cases on periodical basis to analyze the justification for continuing with the security cover provided to the protected person and/or for increase or decrease of the security cover of the protected person.

This shows Arnab didn’t “opt” for security cover, but was assigned by the Government.

The judgment further adds:

Although the protected person is an individual /citizen but the office he holds or the social or political responsibilities he discharges is a relevant consideration in grant of Security Cover to the protected person at the cost of the State.

It has to be noted that there has to be a concrete intelligence – credible and serious – input for the IB to give Arnab this security. Moreover the government is obligated to do so based on Article 21 of our constitution as quoted by the Judgment in J.Jayalalithaa vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 9 June, 2008.

Article 21 in The Constitution Of India 1949:

Protection of life and personal liberty No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.

The court further added:

Therefore, the Security Review Committee ought to assess the grade and scale of security to be provided to a protectee considering the variable factors, as and when found necessary. The quantum and quality of security cannot remain stagnant or stale, and if they do, it cannot match the devilish designs of the disruptive forces, both from within the country and from alien shores. It is a highly disturbing trend worldwide that such evil forces are adept at using ingenious and innovative devices, to trigger large scale catastrophe and havoc, causing untold sorrow and terrible tragedies. In order to match such terrifying terrorism the nations of the world and their Governments have to upgrade their preparedness and firepower to forestall such events in future. No one can rest when such clandestine and cruel minds are at work to destroy peace, harmony and tranquility in our societies.

In tandem with the judgments and Article 21, the government is obligated to serve Arnab based on a concrete threat, and anyone is free to challenge it in court too.

On the point of paying through taxpayer’s money

There still remains the question of paying for additional security cover from the taxpayer’s money. While in earlier cases like that of Z+ security cover provided for Mukesh Ambani, Mr. Ambani paid from his pocket, it is yet to be known if Arnab does the same.

In conclusion

In the lieu of an existent threat, the security cover is justified. If the threat level rises or drops, who knows Arnab may get upgraded to Z security also or get demoted to Y category respectively as had happened in MS Dhoni’s case. Or it could be completely removed as threats are assessed and reviewed periodically on a regular basis.

(This article was written with inputs from @muglikar_ and @delhi_lawyer)

Goa Elections Part 1: Analysing BJP’s prospects

Gaurav
-
0
Goa Elections Part 1: Analysing BJP’s prospects

If you happen to visit Goa, and if you do not see a single poster saying “AAP winning Goa”, then your lifetime’s supply of beer is on me. Jokes and jokers apart, which way will Goa swing in the upcoming elections? A detailed analysis will hopefully give us a picture of the ground reality as it stands.

Lets start with the BJP, which is in power with it’s pre-poll alliance partner of 2012 Maharashtrawadi Gomantak Party (MGP). BJP has 21 MLAs giving it the absolute majority in a house of 40, while the MGP has 3 MLAs.

The biggest news surrounding Goa BJP is that Goa is the first state where the RSS split ranks with BJP. The fact though is that only a section of the RSS split and has formed a party called Goa Surakhsa Manch (GSM), with only one stated objective of “protecting Indian languages namely Marathi and Konkani” and in the process hurting BJP as much as possible.

This rebellion itself is a mystery. Publicly the story is this: The erstwhile Congress regime gave Government grants to schools which had English as the Medium of Instruction (MOI), which led to a large number of schools switching over to English. This got the goat of the RSS and Indian language lovers, and they led an agitation back then, called the “Bharatiya Bhasha Suraksha Manch” (BBSM). This was backed by Parrikar, the then opposition leader, who promised to scrap this rule if he came to power.

He did come back to power, but instead of scrapping the rule, the BJP Government chose to “freeze” the situation, not allowing any more English medium schools to get grants. The rationale was that any U-Turn would be playing with the future of thousands of children if the policy was altered within just 2-3 years. While BBSM was not fully happy, they remained silent. In fact, the leader of GSM and former RSS chief Subhash Velingkar, who led the revolt, even defended the Government’s position back then. Then what changed in 2015 which lead to an acrimonious split in 2016?

Late 2014, Parrikar moved to the centre as India’s Defence Minister, thereby leaving his bastion Panaji open. Velingkar had hoped that his yes-man from within the RSS would be chosen as the BJP candidate for the by-elections. But BJP selected Parrikar’s protege, Siddharth Kunkolienkar a young engineer and Parrikar’s right hand man as the candidate. The snub, that too in favour of someone roughly half his age was too much for Velingkar’s ego to bear. And from then on the relations began souring, which have finally led to the current scenario. The bitter verbal fight in the open, with Velingkar firing personal barbs at Parrikar are further testament to the fact that this man’s ego has been hurt, and his “principled” pro-Indian languages stand, is a mere facade.

Cutting to the chase, the GSM may eat up a small portion of the BJP’s votes, but it is expected that the proportion would not be significant enough to damage BJP in most of the seats. One also cannot rule out any overt or covert patch-up between the two by the time the elections take place.

The BJP on its part adopted an interesting strategy on this MOI issue. It would have been very easy for them to fulfil their pre-election promise of scrapping the Congress’s policy. They would have appeased their support base, but instead they chose to take the more appropriate stance, given the situation. This stance is also in favour of the Christian population in Goa, who have supported the Congress’s move. One of the reasons for BJP alone getting an absolute majority in 2012 was the backing from the Church and the Christians, and this would seem to be BJP’s way of repaying their faith.

But things couldn’t have gone worse for BJP. The script clearly was to repose the faith of the Christian community which elected an unprecedented 6 Christian BJP MLAs in 2012: A Christian was made the deputy CM in 2012 bypassing current CM Parsekar; The pro-Christian MOI policy; Hosting of events such as the Portuguese version of the Commonwealth Games for Portuguese colonies; and many more such pro-Christian decisions. But today, BJP would be lucky to have even 5% of the Christian population backing them.

The reason is between 2012 and 2017, came a 16 May 2014. Then Goa CM Parrikar, was one of the first BJP leaders to openly back Modi for PM. Ever since, it has been a downfall for BJP’s popularity amongst the Christians. Modi’s demonisation by the media since 2002 is such that the minorities just cannot reconcile to him being the PM, and their wrath is incurred upon anyone seemingly close to Modi, in this case Parrikar and by association, BJP Goa. The intolerance drama and churches under attack false narrative only added to their apprehensions. Hence, come 2017, BJP may as well say goodbye to the Christian vote.

As far as Governance is concerned, BJP has done fairly well. Infrastructure has gotten a major boost with bridges and roads being in the focus. Many of the pre-poll promises such as VAT cut on petrol, Mediclaim scheme, doles to housewives and adult girls, were fulfilled. BJP came riding on the anti-Mining-scam sentiment and as soon as he assumed power, Parrikar banned mining for 6 months, in order to clean up the mess. But the 6 months got extended to almost 3 years as activists stepped in and the Supreme Court extended the ban. During this period, Goa’s economy slumped like never before, and it is to Parrikar’s credit that even in those tough times, the state’s developmental works and schemes functioned smoothly.

The resentment among people towards BJP can be mainly attributed to 2 issues: the culprits of the above mentioned Mining scam are yet to be brought to book and the off-shore Casinos which Congress had brought into river Mandovi, are still there, although BJP had promised to get rid of them. The mining scam is being investigated by the Lokayukta hence the delay, and the Casinos have now become a revenue source for the Government, which cant be axed overnight, but such reasons may not be palatable to the voters. Hence BJP may be hampered by these issues at least marginally in the upcoming elections. Also, a certain amount of anti-incumbency is bound to set in.

Another major drawback for BJP is naturally the loss of Parrikar to the centre. All said and done, he was a cut above all other politicians in Goa. The current CM Parsekar though competent, lacks the appeal and charisma which Parrikar had, which eventually landed him the 21 MLAs in 2012. Sadly for Parsekar, he is also saddled with the baggage of not having a very dashing personality, which often makes him an object of unfair ridicule. With his able performance, he has changed people’s perception about him to an extent, but he can never hope to reach heights of Parrikar’s popularity anytime soon.

BJP’s alliance partner MGP has a very dubious distinction: By the end of this term, the party will have been in power for over 10 years at a stretch in Goa. Till 2012 it was in alliance with the Congress and then once Congress lost, with the BJP. The party thus has established itself as a free-floater in Goan politics with no ideological problems with BJP or Congress. It is basically a fiefdom of the Dhavlikar brothers duo, but of late it has become the vehicle of choice for many MLAs aspiring to be in power. Congress and Independent MLAs who would have problems joining the BJP are eyeing MGP tickets.

The MGP which won a mere 3 seats out of 40 in the last elections, now dreams of winning 8-9 seats, making the party the “king-maker” of Goa. In fact, the party’s leader has even gone on record saying he could be the next CM. The party’s relationship with the BJP is slightly strained as of now, since MGP is looking to expand at the cost of BJP in some seats. BJP has been firm on continuing its alliance with the MGP. Although MGP is playing hard to get right now, one expects BJP and MGP to patch up as elections come closer.

The major reason for this would be to avoid a split of the Hindu votes, which both BJP and MGP need. There is already the GSM which will take a small portion of these Hindu votes, and if BJP and MGP split, then it would be catastrophic for both the parties.

Speaking in terms of general sentiment or “wave”, by and large, the majority Hindu population cant be said to be under any sort of wave, either pro-BJP or anti-BJP. Things are quite different among the minorities though and there is a strong anti-BJP wave among them, unlike in 2012 when a substantial chunk went with BJP.

The 2012 Goa election results were quite similar to the performance BJP managed in the 2014 Lok Sabha elections. And the situation BJP Goa is in the upcoming 2017 elections, might as well be what BJP may face nationally in 2019: Many core demands unfulfilled, Congress scamsters roaming free, but a decent development track record. In such a case, its important to see the strength of the opposition, which we will look at in the second part of this analysis.

Trolls and journalists make light of terror threat to Arnab Goswami

OpIndia Staff
-
0
Trolls and journalists make light of terror threat to Arnab Goswami

After news broke of Arnab Goswami being provided a threat based Y-category security by the government, many eminent trolls and journalists united to oppose the security cover provided to him while not sparing any thought about the threat Arnab faces from Pakistani terrorists for his reporting against them and their mother country.

The level of hatred for the editor-in-chief of Times Now was so apparent from their tweets that it almost sounded that they wished some terrorist had actually killed Arnab. Some of them tried to trend #TommyGetsSecurity on Twitter, which was disappointing as Lutyens crowd is expected to think of a more sophisticated dog name.

Here are some tweets by trolls and journalists mocking Arnab Goswam’s security concerns:


//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Perhaps speaking from own experience where journalism is all about rewards for loyalty to a political group?


Maybe with security, the journalist can work more fearlessly if he doesn’t have to fear for his life? Maybe?


Own soil means on Twitter? Twitter does have a fine feature called block. Also, apparently this is not “whataboutery”.


Because why let facts come in the way of a good propaganda?


Calling Pakistan a “terrorist state” is now bigotry for trolls.

For the records, government has always provided security to non-political personalities. Tehelka journalist Anirudh Behel was provided security by the Congress government only a couple of years back. So according to the logic of these trolls and journalists, was he being rewarded for planting fake stories against Narendra Modi and Amit Shah?

Bollywood, Patriotism, and ‘BTW, Bharat Mata Ki Jai’

Vivek Agnihotri
-
0
Bollywood, Patriotism, and ‘BTW, Bharat Mata Ki Jai’

Scene 1

I finish my morning run and sit on a bench to catch some breath. As I close my eyes and try to meditate, my phone vibrates. Again. And again.

This is Manish, a young student of Allahabad University. Few months back when I had gone to give a lecture at Allahabad University, Manish was my local guide. Manish is a Bollywood zealot. He just can’t hear anything bad about Bollywood. Period.

Once his classmates made fun of a movie he liked, and he singlehandedly fought with them using classroom chairs, and broke his arm. He loves Bollywood. He breathes Bollywood. And he is not alone.

I am a small town man having roots in Uttar Pradesh so for me it’s very easy to understand such young men. They live in difficult conditions, struggling for everything in life and with little hope of a different future. Their lives revolve around Bollywood, cricket and politics. They fantasize films, find pride in cricket, and use politics to vent all negativity. These are the people who help filmmakers and film stars buy Ferraris. They are the consumers. They are the audience.

I was surprised to see Manish calling me at 10 AM on a Sunday morning. I took his call.

“Why is Anurag Bhaiya saying all this? Is this all true?” his voice starts to choke and then comes a long pause. “Which Anurag Bhaiya?” I try to pacify him and take the conversation forward.

He explains to me that Anurag Kashyap of Gangs Of Wasseypur fame has tweeted that Modi should apologize for meeting Nawaz Sharif in Lahore. In a series of tweets he blames Modi for the boycott of Karan Johar’s upcoming movie ADHM by a regional Single Screen Exhibitor’s Association.

I knew about all these as I’m active on Twitter, but I decided to let him speak and relieve his feelings.

“Bhaiya, what is B… T… W…?” he asks me.

“It means ‘by the way’. It is short form of writing on internet,” I explain him the new written language that is yet to penetrate the hinterland fully. There is a long pause again. “Why do you ask me?” I try to break the silence.

“Bhaiya, itni beizatti to hamari kabhi nahin hui… (I was never humiliated like this before)” he says and then he reads out Anurag’s final tweet in the series ‘Btw Bharat Mata ki Jai Sir @narendramodi’.

“By the way? Ab Bharat Mata ki Jai, by the way ho gaya?” he asks me emphatically, and in the same breath he adds, “Bhaiya, kya aap logon ko koi paise de raha hai ye sab bolne ke liye (is someone giving you guys money to say all this rubbish)?”

He chokes and disconnects.

I kept sitting on the bench for a long time wondering why is he blaming me for someone else’s tweets? Why is he accusing me for being sold out against India? Am I answerable for Anurag Kashyap’s tweets?

People see Bollywood as one entity. They perceive it as one mindset. If one star says something, they tend to believe that everyone in the industry is of the same view. Exactly like when some irrelevant Sadhu or Sadhvi makes a stupid remark and the entire media starts blaming BJP and Modi.

In good times, all Bollywood stars and filmmakers talk about the fraternity as if it’s one big happy family. When everyone tweets exceptionally good things about one bad film or when everyone defends a sin of a member, any outsider would believe that everyone is united in good and bad times. The façade that Bollywood has created around it is taken for the reality.

If a Manish believes that I am answerable for Anurag’s personal tweets, he is not at fault, for the entire industry stood up to support Anurag when Udta Punjab was stuck with censors. Perhaps I was the first person from the industry to tweet in his support.

What Manish doesn’t understand that at that time it was about the freedom of expression – a principle – but this time it’s about India – a nation, an idea. It’s about a latent war that has been unleashed by the enemy. It’s about survival. It’s about morality. It’s about loyalty. And what he fails to understand is that everyone’s idea of morality or loyalty is different, and it evolves from his personal experience and agenda in life.

Therefore, I can’t speak on behalf of Anurag. But what hurts me is that we have collectively brought our morality to such level that a young boy from Allahabad – a Bollywood militant willing to give his life for Bollywood – is questioning our integrity.

For him, it’s impossible to fathom that in this moment of national crisis how can anyone not stand up for the nation’s interest, and instead try to defend Pakistani artists who refused to condemn Uri attack?

Like I said earlier, he loves Bollywood. He breathes Bollywood. For him any word from his heroes is the final word. This is the power of Bollywood.

It’s unfortunate that some heroes undervalue this power. Sometimes one selfish tweet can short-circuit this power. No one can help Bollywood when its own people damage it.

Let’s not forget that like every Ram needs a Hanuman to become Ram, Bollywood needs Manish. We need to understand his sentiments.

He wants his heroes to protect what is dear to him – his country. He wants to put pressure on Pakistan to stop this latent war, but he can’t see Bollywood willing to do that. When he sees us failing to do so, he deduces that we are sold out.

There are some symbols he respects, and in such times he would like his heroes to respect those symbols too. And ‘Bharat Mata’ is one such symbol. If we think Manish is being too sensitive, we can’t communicate to him by disrespecting the symbols he loves and respects, and make him even more sensitive.

I am sad to acknowledge that we have failed to respect Manish who helps us make our movies. And mansions. And cricket teams. He is Bharat.

Therefore, Anurag when you say “BTW, Bharat Mata Ki Jai”, you are insulting his symbols, you are insulting him. You are insulting your own audience.

Scene 2

Today is the election day for my housing society. Once in 5 years all residents chose a managing committee, followed by lunch. The general profile is that of frequent flyers, upward mobile, aware and rational people. The mood is relaxed, a lot of jokes are exchanged, politics is discussed and sumptuous lunch is devoured.

I am a little late. Almost everyone is there. As soon as I enter, everyone turns towards me as if I have committed a sin and entered a convent. “Sir, yeh sab kyon kar rahe ho aap log (why are you guys doing this)?” one of the most aware members asks me. “When the film industry has boycotted the film why are you blaming the PM?” another member shoots.

I realize Anurag Kashyap is trending everywhere. If Manish is on one end of supposedly unaware India, these people are on the other end. But their sentiments about Bollywood are the same. At both ends of this spectrum, people doubt Bollywood’s integrity.

I live with these people. They should know that I am an outcast after making an anti-left film in ‘Buddha In A Traffic Jam’. They should know that when my film was boycotted at JNU, when I was attacked at Jadavpur University, when my film wasn’t getting a release, when critics were killing the film without even seeing it, when friends of Indie champions were conspiring to kill the film before its release, nobody from the industry stood up to support the film. Despite that, they blame me for Anurag’s tweets.

“Why are you guys defending Pakistani actors instead of supporting our soldiers? Why can’t you people say that you stand for India? Why can’t KJo ask his actors to condemn terrorism? Why are they dragging PM in it? Why are you asking Modi to apologize for Lahore visit? Do you have any idea about diplomacy? Foreign policy? Do you think soldiers are our servants? Can’t your industry give a simple statement in the respect of our soldiers? On one hand you guys say that artists have nothing to do with the politics and on the other hand you play dirty politics with these tweets? Is money everything? Will you stoop so low for money that you start hating India?”

All kind of questions flow from all directions. They are blinded by anger. And frustration. And disgust. For Bollywood’s lack of patriotism.

I try to to explain to them and cool the tempers down by saying that IMPAA has banned Pakistani artists for patriotic reasons. That Exhibitors association has refused to screen films with Pakistani artists for patriotic reasons.

“No, that’s not true!” a disgruntled member says, “Bollywood is not buckling under ‘patriotic’ pressure, but it’s pure business decision. They fear damage to their property from gunda elements of Raj Thackrey’s MNS.”

I see logic in his argument. It’s not just MNS, and it’ not just Mumbai. And it’s not just the risk of physical injury. It’s the power of economic boycott, which has been being used by a new breed of evocative young Indians of late. They have called for boycott of movies and brands earlier, and recently their call for boycott of Chinese goods has shown impact on markets.

Ironically, this power of boycott was shown by the same elite class that now looks down upon this new breed. Their own strategy has been copied, only that the style and subtlety is missing a bit. Just like a Literature Festival used to keep away from some authors in order to not anger ‘liberal’ authors, distributors are now keeping away from certain kinds of films in order to not anger this new breed?

I am further forced to see the hypocrisy and opportunism of Bollywood. When big multiplex chains refuse to screen small films (which is as good as a boycott or ban) why isn’t there such hullabaloo? Because they fear the ‘Gangs of Bollywood’.

Do they love cinema or just ‘their’ cinema? The gang has systematically crushed talent and promoted mediocrity. What is the reason that some of our best directors and writers are sitting at home with no work? Is it possible in any other industry for such immense talent with amazing work record to remain unemployed? And then we are getting people from Pakistan.

The gang has systematically eliminated Indian talent from Indian cinema. The gang has killed the common man from the common man’s medium. The gang has corrupted the industry beyond words and siphoned off the monies by creating coteries and writing RIP on many studios and individual producer’s graves.

Everyone fears their unreasonable might. Everyone wants to please them. Either by remaining silent or by tweeting in the gang’s interest – in their film’s praise. They have their own brand of politics. For them to say that artists should be kept away from politics is like a pickpocket saying that he should be kept away from wallets.

The reason the gang doesn’t stand in support of India is that it doesn’t know what is India. It doesn’t know who are these ‘so called’ Indians. What they want? What they feel? Manish is an alien to them. A troll to them.

But whenever a gang has reached this point of limbo, the doom is certain. Boycott, either by an association or the audience, is just the beginning of a certain end.

Scene 3

I sit alone in a dark room, all alone, wondering if I ever wanted to belong to an industry which says ‘BTW, Bharat Mata Ki Jai’.

An old song of Rajesh Khanna plays in the background ‘Yeh public hai, yeh sab janti hai.’

***

(Vivek Agnihotri is a filmmaker, columnist, and a motivational speaker. He tweets @vivekagnihotri)

Anurag Kashyap gets slammed for furthering false anti-Modi narrative on social media

OpIndia Staff
-
0
Anurag Kashyap gets slammed for furthering false anti-Modi narrative on social media

“Don’t blame it on the sunshine. Don’t blame it on the moonlight. Don’t blame it on the good times. Blame it on the boogie“, goes the classic song by The Jacksons from the 70s. To make this song relevant in today’s world, we just have to replace the word “boogie” with “Modi”.

There has been a lot of debate recently on media and social media, about India’s engagement levels with Pakistan. Pakistan sponsored terrorists have been constantly attacking India in the past few weeks. The Uri attack which saw 18 of our soldiers martyred was the start, and ever since, multiple attempts have been made by terrorists to cause more damage, but our armed forces have foiled such attacks.

In the backdrop of this, calls have come from many sections of society to completely isolate Pakistan. The Government of India has acted on the Military, Political and Diplomatic fronts, since it is completely within the purview of the state. The cultural angle is where there has been some debate. One side feels Pakistani artistes should be isolated, not only because they are Pakistani, but also because they refused to condemn the Uri attacks. The rest feel artistes are a separate class of people beyond such issues. There is also the argument that Pakistan should be hit economically as well, which is why many people have started movements such as #BoycottChineseGoods, and even movies which indirectly benefit Pakistani citizens.

Even as the above debate was going on,  the Cinema Owners and Exhibitors Association (COEA) announced that it has requested its members to no longer screen films starring Pakistani artistes, including actors and music directors. This will hit Karan Johar’s upcoming film Ae Dil Hai Mushkil, starring Fawad Khan among others.

The Government on its part has not issued any order against Pakistani artistes or movies featuring them. The Home Ministry in fact has said categorically that the Government has no problem giving VISAs to Pakistani artistes. “Modi-chamcha” Pahlaj Nihalani attacked COEA for their decision, and “Modi-controlled” Censor Board cleared Ae Dil Hai Mushkil. But inspite of all of this, Director Anurag Kashyap chose twitter to vent out his frustrations at PM Modi:


Social media users found these messages highly stupid and idiotic. Many said that how would addressing the PM help if a Bollywood Industry body had taken the step. Many also highlighted how Kashyap had lost the plot by recalling a peace-time friendly gesture, but not acknowledging the most recent surgical strikes authorised by India on Pakistan:


If Kashyap feels so strongly about this ban, he should probably take the COEA to court. Its time the on-screen maverick displays some real life bravado against his own fraternity, instead of dragging unrelated people to score political points.

One also wonders why so much outrage over the “request” of an association of single screen cinema owners to their members to stop playing movies involving Pakistanis. Firstly, its only a “request” which many may flout and secondly Ae Dil Hai Mushkil doesnt seem like a movie for the single screen crowd. Is this another publicity stunt, as this person pointed out?

Any new movie of @anuragkashyap72 coming out now? Poor chap seems to have run out of marketing budget. https://t.co/NHaqzZ9p0R

— Arnold’s Soundness (@brakoo) October 16, 2016

Only time will tell if this move by Kashyap may hurt prospects of ADHM even more, since Modi fans may choose to boycott this movie too, as Kashyap has made this issue needlessly political.

Man thrown out by Arnab was a radical ex-ACP accused of sheltering rioters

OpIndia Staff
-
0
Man thrown out by Arnab was a radical ex-ACP accused of sheltering rioters

Shamsher Khan Pathan has now been etched in Social Media folklore as the guy who was thrown out by Arnab Goswami for having a loud and aggressive attitude against women and his condescending and radical remarks. More specifically, he was thrown out of Arnab’s show because of his suggestion that the female muslim panelists should try issuing a triple-talaq to their husbands and see what happens.

As it turns out, this was not his first brush with controversy. Shamsher Khan Pathan had floated the Avam Vikas Party which was one of the outfits present at the infamous protest at Azad Maidan Mumbai back in 2012. This protest culminating with 2 people losing their lives, 55 people including 45 police officers getting injured and the Amar Jyoti Javan Memorial present there getting desecrated.

The shocking part is, Mr Pathan is himself Former Assistant Commissioner of Police. Comsidering he has seen the police force inside out, one would have imagined that the group he leads would not have resorted to attacking cops. We can only wonder as to what Mr Pathan felt about the injury and loss of property of his ex-colleagues.

Worse, Mr Pathan was asked by the Mumbai police to vacate his Government owned house for sheltering the Azad Maidan rioters. The Dongri Police report stated that right from the day of his retirement, the retired cop was conducting political activities from the house, which belongs to the government. Further, on August 11, the day of the riots, more than a dozen rioters had visited Pathan’s house and stayed there for a few hours

Not just that, in another case Mr Shamsher and his supporters were booked for rioting and obstructing a public servant in duty. They were supposedly protesting that Mr Shamsher’s medically unfit goats which were to be sacrificed for Bakri-Id weren’t being given proper care.

Had this been a small time activist or neta, no one would have batted an eyelid but this man served in the police force and rose as high up as the Assistant Commissioner of Police. When you assume such a high office, your opinion and actions matters and you are able to take and influence key decisions. With such radical religious opinions and misogynistic outlook one wonders as to would he have been able to take sound unbiased critical decisions which would have influenced the lives of both women and people whose religious views are in conflict with Mr Shamsher’s.

The Hindu blames Hindu groups only for a conference stopped by various groups

OpIndia Staff
-
0
The Hindu blames Hindu groups only for a conference stopped by various groups

A conference of atheists was supposed to take place in Vrindavan yesterday, but the conference had to be called off after there were protests by local residents belonging to various groups.

The two day conference titled “Aeinwein Masti With Nastik Friends” was being organized by a person named Swami Balendu, but it attracted opposition and protests after Balendu’s views on religions were published in local newspapers on the day the event was supposed to be flagged off.

Local newspapers quoted Balendu as saying that public places of worship were in reality personal places of indulgence of religious leaders. He reportedly said that all holy books like the Bible, the Quran, the Vedas, or Guru Granth Sahib were tools to spread superstition and people should keep away from them. He further termed these books as work of fiction and source of entertainment.

Reports suggest that once these views were published in newspapers, many local leaders declared their opposition to the event and vowed to stop it.

Speaking to Amar Ujala newspaper, Imam of Mathura Darwaza Jama Masjid Mohammad Umar Qadri claimed that Balendu had lost his mental balance and that his statement could spread frenzy in the country. Manager of local Gurudwara was also quoted as condemning Balendu’s statement. Muslim groups too submitted an ultimatum to the local administration against the planned event, according to Nai Duniya.

On Friday, a crowd made of up members of various organizations assembled and demanded cancellation of the event. They burnt the effigy of Balendu and shouted slogans against him.

Amar Ujala and Nai Duniya reported that the crowd comprised of local Congress leader, BJP leader, Rashtriya Lok Dal leader, Samajwadi party leaders, Hindu leaders, and some Muslim leaders who confronted the organizers of the event. According to Dainik Jagran, this crowd was joined by some estranged relatives of Balendu too, who accused Balendu’s brother of harassing his wife.

With tensions rising, local administration asked Balendu to cancel the event and issue an apology to the aggrieved parties. As per Amar Ujala, Balendu did as suggested by the administration and police, but a watered down version of the event still took place on Friday night.

So this is how it happened:

  1. A rather unknown atheist event came into the knowledge of locals after media coverage
  2. Locals belonging to various religious and political groups opposed the event
  3. The event was cancelled, but a small gathering of atheists still took place

And this is how The Hindu reported it:

White-washing by The Hindu
The left-leaning newspaper blames the entire fiasco on Hindutva while making no mention of other political and religious groups involved in protests.

Nowhere in the report by the left-leaning newspaper it is mentioned that those opposing the meeting/conference were also from non-Hindu religious groups or non-Hindutva political groups. That is The Hindu for you.

At the same time, these so-called Hindutva groups should chill a bit about “atheism”.

Talk about Dalits, reach out to Modi haters, use Media – Pakistan’s new Kashmir policy

Ashutosh Muglikar
-
0
Talk about Dalits, reach out to Modi haters, use Media – Pakistan’s new Kashmir policy

In wake of Modi government’s diplomatic onslaught against Pakistan coupled with surgical strikes by the army, Pakistan is working out a new strategy to counter India. A committee consisting of members of the Pakistani senate has come out with a report that has some tactical suggestions for the government of Pakistan.

OpIndia.com has in its possession the aforementioned report i.e. the policy document adopted by the committee constituted to guide Pakistan Government on “policy guidelines in view of the latest situation developing between India and Pakistan.” A detailed analysis of this document (pdf link) throws some interesting insights.

Background of the Committee

The Senate of Pakistan is like an “Upper House” which gives equal representation to all federation units of the state and is constituted by elected Members. Members represent Pakistani people and are expected to “defend and promote national interests.” On 22nd July 2016 this legislating body had passed a unanimous resolution condemning the killing of Burhan Wani and atrocities by Indian Army.

The 13 member Committee was formed vide a resolution dated 26th September 2016 i.e. after the Uri Attack. On 29th September 2016 the Committee was briefed by none less than Khawaja Muhammad Asif, Minister for Defense along with Secretary Defense and Sartaj Aziz, Advisor Foreign Affairs. On 4th October the Committee adopted the policy document unanimously.

Recommended policy to counter India

The policy paper starts with repeating usual rhetoric about Indian excesses in Kashmir, but it appears to be conceding that Pakistan has been cornered and isolated by India in recent weeks.

The paper declares that the stand taken by the current Indian government has been the most aggressive by any government since 1971, when both the countries went to war over independence of Bangladesh. It also expresses concern over the fact that Bangladesh, Bhutan, Afghanistan and Sri Lanka decided not to attend the SAARC summit, and expectedly, blames India for it.

But most interesting aspect is the kind of steps it suggests the government of Pakistan to take to counter India’s efforts of pressurizing and isolating Pakistan.

These are some of those recommended steps:

  1. The policy calls for a Media Coordination Committee with select Journalists as members to “counter Indian propaganda” and specifically promote a media strategy.
  2. It calls for periodical briefings of foreign media and optimal use of social media.
  3. It calls for setting up a “soft power office” (Aman ki Asha?) to highlight cultural and economic outputs.
  4. The policy stresses on the need to hire International lobbyists and strategic communication firms to “change global narrative”.
  5. The Policy document calls for highlighting the “fault-lines” in the Indian society. They specifically mention Muslims, Sikhs, Christians and Dalits as “alienated” sections about whom narrative should be built.
  6. The Policy also calls to target Modi and RSS ideology, and suggests reaching out to those in India who are “opposed to Modi’s extremism”. Policy specifically talks about reaching out to people in Political parties, Media, and Civil Society.

There are total of 22 points that further repeats old policies like building a Kashmir narrative where extremism is entirely blamed on India marginalizing the Kashmiri youth, and to tell USA that Pakistan won’t be able to help in US “war on terror” if India continues to engage it along its eastern borders.

However, the 5th and 6th points in this article show that what was once a covert strategy to create “fault-lines” within India is now an overt and open state policy of the Pakistan government, where they are seeking help from elements of the Indian society.

Sign of things to come

It seems Pakistan won’t need to try too hard as some sections in the Indian society are already doing what the policy would want them to do.

For example, the mainstream media ran a series of “attack on church” stories, most of which turned out to be fake or exaggerated, but it highlighted a “fault line” as desired by policy document. Similarly, the editorial policy of many Indian newspapers to mention castes of victim or perpetrator even if the crime is not caste related, is doing what the Pakistan’s policy documents suggests.

The Kashmir narrative where a youth is just frustrated by lack of jobs and government apathy is also a popular narrative being peddled by many in the Indian media. Such journalists sidestep the issue of Islamic radicalization that is being trigged by Pakistan’s agencies and other global events.

And instead of Pakistan reaching out to Modi haters, politicians like Manishankar Aiyar themselves have reached out to Pakistani and said “remove Modi and bring us”. Recently Arvind Kejriwal too got support from Pakistan over his comments on surgical strikes.

It almost appears that Pakistani senate came up with the policy after observing the conduct of Indian media and some politicians. Or maybe that was the “beta testing” of the policy before the document was made public?

Nonetheless, implementation of these strategies is now a public stated policy which will be backed by steps like hiring international lobbyists, as the policy document declares. This means that a lot of money is also on offer for those who are willing to help Pakistan in implementing this policy i.e. any more Ghulam Nabi Fais will be created.

So next time you are exposed to a narrative that sounds aligned to what Pakistan considers a part of its strategy to counter India, do make a little effort to find out if the journalist/activist/organization was chasing the “truth” or chasing the lobbying money.

This is why bodies like Muslim Personal Law Board oppose Uniform Civil Code

Rahul Roushan
-
0
This is why bodies like Muslim Personal Law Board oppose Uniform Civil Code

One of the oft-repeated arguments put forward against Uniform Civil Code (UCC) is that this is against the fundamental right to practice one’s religion. It is argued that the act of the state to legislate in matters, which ought to be governed through religious texts, is an attack on religious freedom.

Outwardly it might appear so, but in practice, UCC doesn’t take away any religious freedom. Yes, it takes away the rights of religious bodies to control a group – and that’s why those who fancy themselves as representatives or leaders of a religion are opposing it – but it doesn’t strip an individual his freedom to follow certain religious practices or rules.

Let’s first understand the issues involved in layman language to understand this important difference.

The laws of a nation can be broadly divided into two types – criminal laws and civil laws.

Criminal laws, as the name suggests, deal with issues related to crime e.g. theft, murder, violence, economic fraud, harassment, etc. while civil laws deal with issues such as marriage, inheritance, adoption, maintenance, divorce, etc. there are some issues that are covered under both e.g. defamation and domestic violence.

An act of crime is often seen not just as an offense against an individual, but as an offense against the society as a whole – as it disturbs public order – which is why the criminal law is common for everyone.

However, a civil wrong is often seen as a matter between two individuals or groups. Yes, such wrongs can also be seen as a wrong against the society e.g. a matter of divorce could be seen as a matter pertaining to the larger issue of status of women in a society, but in legal terms, civil wrongs are treated differently than criminal offenses.

Another crucial difference is – a civil wrong is legally actionable only when an aggrieved party seeks a remedy, while a criminal offense is deemed to be committed the moment such an act is carried out by someone, whether or not there is any complainant.

For example, if there is a murder in the neighborhood and nobody knows the victim, the state will still investigate it and try to deliver justice, but if a son has voluntarily given up share in his dad’s property, the state won’t intervene and ensure a ‘fair’ inheritance.

Understanding it in the context of Uniform Civil Code, let’s assume that there is a civil law (part of UCC, which by the way could be a series of amendments or legislation, instead of being one single act) which states that retired parents have the right to get minimum 5% of the monthly salary from their grown up children as maintenance for their old age.

There is a person X who feels that he has enough retirement funds and he doesn’t need such maintenance from his son or daughter. The state, or a third party, can’t force X or his children in this case to execute the provisions of the law.

Now assume that there is a religion Y that says that it’s a sin for a person to take money from his or her children. Technically, the civil law (UCC) has given X the right to commit this sin – and thus the custodians of religion Y will call the civil law “anti-Y” and an attack on their faith – but in practice, it doesn’t force the followers of Y to commit the sin.

If the person X is religious, he will not exercise his right to get money from his children even if his retirement funds deplete. He will not see himself as an aggrieved party due to his religious beliefs. Thus despite the civil law that contravenes his faith, he will have all the freedom to follow his faith.

Now for whatever reasons – whether X is a bit less religious or he is in dire need of money – if X decides to exercise his right, and commits a sin in the eyes of religious leaders of Y, he can’t be stopped or punished from committing this sin.

And this is where Uniform Civil Code takes away the rights of a religious body. When personal laws exist, X can be stopped or punished under such laws whose interpretation and implementation are often controlled by these bodies. This power of controlling lives of people is taken away from such bodies if UCC come into effect replacing personal laws.

Yes, it all depends upon how the Uniform Civil Code is drafted, but the default position in most civil cases is a third party or the state not having the locus standi to intervene on behalf of the aggrieved party. In essence, UCC doesn’t take away the individual rights to practice one’s religion, even when the code may appear to be in conflict with the religious beliefs, as is explained in the example above.

It gives the citizens some ‘secular rights’, which they may or may not exercise depending upon their religious beliefs or their religiousness. If a religious body is not comfortable with the idea of allowing varying levels of religiosity to adherents of the religion, it will feel threatened, and which is why they are the most vocal in opposing UCC, terming it a “war” on religious rights.

The problem with ‘reforms must come from within among minorities’ argument

Rahul Roushan
-
0
The problem with ‘reforms must come from within among minorities’ argument

Last week, the government took a stand in the Supreme Court against triple talaq, arguing that such practices were regressive and needed reconsideration. Around the same time, the Law Commission of India issued an appeal (pdf link) seeking public consultation on the issue of Uniform Civil Code (UCC).

This has once again opened up the debate on religious rights of minority groups, especially Muslims, versus overall reform and progression in the society. The All India Muslim Personal Law Board has declared that the entire debate was “fraud” and that UCC was not good for the country, while some Muslim clerics have claimed that the government’s stand on triple talaq was “anti-Islamic”.

On the other hand, some activists and organizations like Bharatiya Muslim Mahila Andolan have welcomed the government’s stand on triple talaq, though not all of them have explicitly supported the idea of implementing UCC.

The debate is going on and political parties too have jumped into it, but one set of people who are keeping safe is the group that is pretty active on other occasions when some activism can be taken up – the self-proclaimed liberals.

The soliciting of public view on UCC by the law commission would have been a perfect opportunity to show one’s activism, but unfortunately that zeal missing. OpIndia.com contributor Ashutosh Muglikar was among those few ones who tried to make people aware of this appeal by law commission. He created an online friendly form to help people send in their views to the commission.

When explicitly asked about their views on UCC, most of these liberal-secular people would have the following argument to offer – I support reforms, and I agree that some of these regressive religious practices should go, but we should be careful not to impose our views on the minorities. The reform should come from within.

For example, look at this response by Malini Parthasarathy, former Editor of the left-leaning newspaper The Hindu:

Now at first sight, this appears a compassionate, balanced and ‘secular’ response, but this argument – let reforms come from within – has inherent flaws and risks.

First of all, it reduces the question of reform and rights e.g. women rights to “us versus them” issue. The same set of people claim to be fighting against this reductionism on other occasions, but on the question of UCC, suddenly they are part of “us the majority”? In fact, this is a form of communalism, where you suddenly start feeling yourself as part of the majority Hindu crowd when asked to comment on UCC!

Secondly, it gives out a message as if legislation in India is decided by some majoritarian brute force. It’s true that law making is a function of being in majority, but there are enough checks and balances in our constitution and legal system to ensure that this doesn’t turn into majoritarianism. Expressing an opinion on UCC doesn’t mean that the popular opinion becomes the law tomorrow. You were just asked about your opinion, not asked to vote in a referendum! So why is this fear of expressing an opinion without adding a caveat?

And thirdly, and perhaps the most sinister risk, is that when you say that reforms must come from within a group, you are encouraging that particular group to draw strict boundaries to define who is “within”. So the moment someone asks for reforms that are unpopular within the group, he or she is declared an outsider and pushed out of the boundary. Voila! Now that voice is no longer from within.

We have seen how Muslim clerics declare someone a non-believer for not agreeing with their strict interpretations. Commentators like Taslima Nasreen or Tarek Fatah, who insist that Shariat is not good even for the Muslim society, are often branded kaafirs or even Sanghis. This insistence that ‘reforms must come from within’ will only encourage the communities to closely guard what’s within and throw out those asking for change.

It’s time to throw away this political correctness out of window and not hide behind ‘reforms must come from within’ argument.

1...6,4396,4406,441...6,523Page 6,440 of 6,523

Connect with us

255,564FansLike
665,518FollowersFollow
41,900SubscribersSubscribe

Contact: [email protected]

About us

News and opinion website that brings you reports and narrative from a perspective often ignored or suppressed by the mainstream media of India.

Follow us

© OpIndia.com