How The Hindu justified not publishing anything other than the Left agenda and chided a reader in the process

The following article was written for OpIndia. Pasting it here for reference.

Earlier, The Hindu’s Readers’ editor (RE) chided a reader for correcting the newspaper that Ladakh and J&K are two different entities. The Readers’ editor alluded that this is equivalent to government propaganda and insisted that Ladakh is still part of J&K! 

Now, another reader gets chided for asking him to ensure that The Hindu publishes the opinions from all sides and not restrict itself to “left-leaning commentators”. In doing so, the reader gave two examples – 1) Learn from the New York Times (!) which recently published a controversial article. 2) Look at the coverage of anti-CAA in The Hindu and think why pro-CAA didn’t get enough coverage. 

The RE recounts the whole NYT saga on how they ended up withdrawing the article they had published and used that as a proof to show why opinions from all sides should not be published. He very conveniently skips the anti-CAA coverage in the newspaper. We had shown in an article here, how for the first 25 days after the CAA was passed, The Hindu had published 33 Op-Ed that was anti-CAA and only 1 Op-Ed that was pro-CAA. In addition to Op-Ed pieces, there were myriad articles and pictures trying to downplay the violence and the illogical rants of “intellectuals”. Or even during the coverage of “tukde tukde” gang, it was recorded in detail here how The Hindu always showed only one side of the story. 

And what does the RE respond when a reader points out the blatant biased coverage of the paper? He gives the following gyan:

“No article should be published simply because it espouses an opposite viewpoint. Every article, irrespective of its political or ideological affinity, should pass some crucial editorial tests.”

Please note here that the suggestion by the reader was to not publish anything and everything. There is no dearth of good writers across the aisle. If The Hindu doesn’t want to find the writers who can write much better than their current lot of Op-Ed writers, why should the reader be chided for that? Let’s now take a look at the “editorial tests” that the RE thinks an article should pass? We are told that there are 4 questions that need to be answered.

‘Does the article normalise hate?’

What does “normalise hate” mean? Does publishing fake news on riot accused amount to normalize hate? How should we classify The Hindu’s editorial judgment that the massive verdict that Narendra Modi received in 2019 was merely an “electoral endorsement of Hindutva or Hindu nationalism”? Does classifying violence as “protest” equal normalizing hate?

Many such examples can be pulled out, but I think the point has been made. If The Hindu can so blatantly “normalize hate” then why does the RE think a pro-CAA article will “normalize hate”? 

‘Does it demonise the other?’

I think he means the article should not demonise the other side. An Op-ed analyzing the 2019 verdict tells us that “The Muslims have been told, once more, to remain stranded in their own islands of resentments and grievances.” Does this amount to “demonise the other”? 

You said that “The Delhi police did nothing when a gunman opened fire at anti-CAA protesters on January 30.”. This is in direct contrast to your own report that explained how the Delhi police nabbed the gunman almost immediately! So, in this case, are you demonizing the Delhi police? Do you remember this recent article where you demonized the Kashmir Pandits? Again, I can go on and on with many examples but I believe the point has been made. How is it that the RE cannot see the regular demonization of The Hindu of “the other”? 

‘Does it weaken the institutional mechanism of checks and balances?’

I am wondering how could the RE ask such a question about a newspaper that bungled up the whole Rafale story beyond belief! The same RE who carried out a sham “forensic investigation” to justify the cropping of a document by N.Ram to further his agenda, is now asking us this question?! What institutional checks and balances failed when you published an article in 2017 suggesting “bold economic steps” to be taken, conveniently forgetting that those exact steps were already taken by PM Modi? 

Many such examples can be cited but I think the point is made. Mysteriously, the loaded propaganda pieces day in and day out in The Hindu pass “the institutional mechanism of checks and balances” but The Hindu cannot even find a few articles that espouse the argument of the “other side”? Readers are tired of reading editorials on free speech but the same is not practised in the Op-Ed columns. How can this contradiction elude the Readers’ Editor? How can he not see the irony of publishing lies and half-truths yet claim that all these “pass the mechanism of checks and balances?”

‘Is it based on facts?’

Where so we start countering this question? It also strikes to me that the questions are mostly repetitive in nature. I mean, if it is not based on facts that it should automatically weaken the institutional mechanism of checks and balances. So, I don’t understand this urge to ask the same question by using different words. 

There is no problem if the newspaper chooses to be biased. The problem occurs when the newspaper lectures about free speech and objective journalism and practices the exact opposite of what it preaches. A well-meaning suggestion to include two sides of a story is also shot down citing frivolous reasons without any proofs.

The current RE, A.S. Panneerselvan is the third person to hold this post. The Hindu calls the RE as the Ombudsman. The first RE often discussed readers concerns. The second RE occasionally discussed readers concerns.  The third and the current RE, rarely discusses readers concerns and often ends up taking the side of the newspaper. It is time to ask the question – is the RE an Ombudsman or a Pamphleteer of the newspaper? 

Sonia Gandhi’s article on MNREGA inadvertently ends up in praising Prime Minister Modi

The following article was written for MyInd Makers. Posting it here for reference

Sonia Gandhi is on a writing spree. She wrote a letter to the Prime Minister giving five suggestions on how to manage the COVID crisis. These suggestions were generic, naive and reeked of incompetent thought process (For example, her first thought was to ban advertisements in the media!).

On June 8, 2020 she wrote an article in The Indian Express. The muted response that this article received isn’t surprising at all given how bereft of any meaningful content it was. Her article was titled “use MNREGA to help the people of India”. It stuck to me as odd given how MNREGA is already being used to help the people of India, whoever is eligible! So, I started reading the article to understand what are the specifics she is suggesting that will “help the people of India” beyond what MNREGA is already doing.

Somewhere after the rhetoric of how great the idea of MNREGA is, she tells us that “Millions have been saved from hunger and worse in the 15 years since its inception (2005)”. 6 out of these 15 years are under the Modi government, so is she already accepting that the MNREGA was successfully used by the Modi government in his 6 years at the helm? If she is indeed happy, then what is the point of writing an article advising “use MNREGA to help the people of India” when it is already being done!

Her point is that the Prime Minister is diluting this program by, hold your breath, “by integrating it with the prime minister’s pet programs like Swachh Bharat and Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana”. MNREGA is an employment guarantee program. Awas Yojana is a house construction program. Both are government programs. If employment is being provided so that houses can be constructed, how exactly is that a bad thing? How exactly does that amount to diluting the program? If employment is being provided to keep the country clean (Swachh Bharat), then how does that amount to any deception? Isn’t it really efficient if MNREGA is used to speed up the various infrastructure projects of the country? It still beats me how a person who ruled the country for 10 full years thinks providing employment to finish infrastructure projects amounts to “diluting the program”!

She then tells us that “Faced with unprecedented hardship and an economy already in slowdown…”, the government has given a “belated increase in the overall allocation of the program to more than Rs 1 lakh crore”. Am again back to scratching my head to understand what exactly is the problem? A whopping 1 lakh crore that has been allotted to the program (Sonia Gandhi allotted ~40,000 crores in her last year of power) so what exactly is she trying to convey in her article?

Surely, there must be some concrete suggestion somewhere in the article by now right? After spending ~750 words telling us how the Modi government actually did a good job with MNREGA, Sonia Gandhi tells us that “One immediate step must be to issue them job cards in the program.” Oh sure, let’s introduce one more card for our bureaucracy to have fun with! Jokes aside, do you see the quality of this suggestion amidst this unprecedented situation that we are seeing today?

No article by anyone from the Congress party is complete without any reference to Rajiv Gandhi. Sonia Gandhi again shows the way by telling us that “The panchayats, empowered by Rajiv Gandhi’s path-breaking initiatives, must be brought centre-stage as the MGNREGA is not a centralized program.” Ah, so the issue is that the funds are distributed at a district level than at a panchayat level. Come to think of it, wouldn’t this ensure a more equitable distribution of works and infrastructure rather than an unequal model across Panchayats?  

Amidst this unprecedented crisis, the Modi government has so far transferred more than INR 50,000 crores to the bank accounts of the people of India. With this background, what else does Sonia Gandhi have to suggest? “The government must put money directly in the hands of the people … and being flexible about modes of payment to the workers to cut delays” Ah, the meat of the suggestion is to be “flexible about modes of payment”. What exactly does she mean by this? Is she advocating cash payments directly? If so, does she want to re-open the path-breaking “85 paise – 15 paise” model of Rajiv Gandhi? What more flexibility is possible outside of depositing money directly into their bank accounts? Instead of being more specific, all Sonia Gandhi does is give peripheral ideas which have no meaning at all!

Her ending paragraph starts with the following line - “The Modi government has grudgingly come around to the significance of the program.” After reading the whole article, it looks like Sonia Gandhi is grudgingly accepting that the Modi government is doing a fantastic job with handling MNREGA program. Indian Express might have as well changed their headline accordingly..

Who are these enemies of progress in Jammu and Kashmir?

The following article was written for MyInd Makers. Pasting it for reference!

The editor of Kashmir Times wrote an Op-Ed, titled “Jammu, the pawn on the Kashmir chessboard”  in The Hindu today (June 2, 2020). The discussions around J&K have again gained prominence because the new domicile rules have been notified. Sunanda Vashisht has given an excellent explainer of the rules and how they have finally ensured that J&K is now open for the rest of the country.

The lobby, however, is understandably upset. And today they have used a new weapon – Jammu! For all these years and even for the 10 months since Articles 370 and 35A have been removed from the constitution, the lobby has never spoken about Jammu and the aspirations of its people. Today, we suddenly get to hear from the editor of “Kashmir Times” on how Hindutva is damaging Jammu! Right from the beginning, the author’s drivel makes for some nauseating reading.

In her own words - “Injected with highly potent doses of ultra-nationalism and integrationist politics, Jammu has lived for years under the illusion….”

While the bombastic language is very hard to miss, what caught my attention was “integrationist politics”? What does such a term even mean? For example, does it mean that people of Jammu wanted to integrate their region with the rest of India? Or does it mean that people of Jammu wanted people of Kashmir to integrate into being peaceful and boost the livelihood of the region? In this article, the author is using a good word like integration as if it is a sin to be thinking on those lines! Does the spewing of poison end there? No, because this is literally just the beginning of her article!

“In the last seven decades, it has willingly trampled on its own aspirations to perpetuate an agenda of nationalism.”

So Jammu “willingly trampled on its own aspirations” for a whopping “seven decades” and these people have all along been telling us that Article 370 is what made J&K the most awesome place it is today? How can the lobby not see through their own chicanery? How convenient for them to blame the people for their own woes?

After telling us that Jammu has “willing trampled” itself the author almost immediately tells us though that “In the last few months, Jammuites have felt let down.” I mean, can we please atleast get some clarity if Jammuites are feeling bad only about the last few months or for the last 7 decades, because as much as the lobby wouldn’t us to believe, there is a lot of difference between a “few months” and 7 decades!

After the cursory reference to the lockdown in J&K after August 5th and to the recent COVID related lockdowns, the author moves on to the hot topic of new rules of domicile. Even here a lot of words are wasted talking about Jammu’s “Hindu nationalism” and “being let down by an ideological party” that have no relevance to the new rules. And then the authors thunders – “Jammu’s youth are worried that they may lose their jobs and educational seats to the new ‘domiciles’.”

Now, you may now assume that the author will spend the rest of article explaining to us how the youth may lose their jobs. Instead she tells us this – “the doors have been opened for all Indian citizens triggering worries of the entry of real estate sharks and investments by companies with deep pockets, thereby upsetting the existing economy of Jammu and damaging the ecology.”

Whoa! I am simply bamboozled by the word play. The bombast in just the one sentence above is equivalent to a thousand worthless debates on our TV channels. Let’s try to connect her arguments – Jammu’s youth are worried they may lose their jobs because new rules trigger worries of investments. In which universe would more investments be equal to lesser jobs? In which universe do editors like this live in, where they scaremonger people that they will lose jobs because somebody wants to come and give them jobs! And just in case you failed to get the point while reading her statement, the author yet again reminds us that “investments from outside do not quite induce the confidence of employment or inclusiveness.”

It is these enemies of progress that we have to detest. It is these enemies of progress that have kept people of J&K away from the stark reality of a peaceful and prosperous India. It is these enemies of progress who use vulgar references such as “companies with deep pockets” to make them look like some demons out there to snatch away jobs of people.  

The author is not still not satisfied with her contradictions, so the rant continues – “While business investments from outside could boost employment, the existing units operating on a temporary lease basis do not instill confidence as they have offered limited jobs for locals, most often on contractual basis” So because existing units aren’t functioning well, no further investments are to be made? No further risks have to be taken so that people of Jammu may find a better avenue just because the lobby thinks so.

The confusion prevailing in the mind of the author and the editorial board of The Hindu is best visible in this Op-Ed today. In the same article we are told that “Jammu’s business has flourished in the last seven decades” and “In the last seven decades, it has willingly trampled on its own aspirations”.

In the same article (in fact, in the same para) we are told that “Politically, Jammu is unlikely to gain” and “At best, more constituencies and a Hindu Chief Minister could make it a symbolic victory for Jammu.”

In the same article we are told that despite a “brush with Hindutva politics” and that there is a “fear of Dogra culture facing extinction.” I mean, why would a Hindu culture face extinction because of a brush with Hindutva politics?!

We are told that “Jammu has long suffered in terms of a political vacuum” and not a single reference has been made the famed Abdullah and Mufti families. It is as Jammu was an entirely different entity on its own for seven decades and those who were at the helm had no role whatsoever in the “trampling of aspirations”. The author so very conveniently put that blame on Jammuites themselves.

Why are they obsessed with their need to have a stranglehold on this region and not allow both the people and the region to prosper? What exactly do these enemies of progress gain by impeding development? Each time you think the lobby can’t stoop any lower, they are adamant to prove you wrong. The arrogance with which she makes such amusing statements in this article should put any serious student of journalism to shame. But these enemies of progress will move on. Logic be damned.  

Reliving the memory of a personalized invite to attend Prime Minister Modi’s swearing-in-ceremony

The following article was written for MyInd Makers. Pasting it here for reference.

The day is still a maze. There was a hint on the morning of 29th May 2019 that there is a possibility of going to Rashtrapati Bhavan for the swearing-in on May 30th, 2019. All I was doing the whole day was to refresh the mailbox and constantly check all the folders! Was continuing to do the same at dinner with friends and they asked me what matter of universal importance is it that I am tracking. And at around 10:30pm when we were finishing up desserts and paying the bill, I received a call to come and collect the invite at 11am the next day morning in Delhi.

The Swearing-in events of PM and CM have always fascinated me. I have no explanation as to why, but I always liked the moment when the winner says “I, xxxxx,”. And it is even more enthralling when the leaders you admire and vote for, do it! I had always wondered why this is such a closed-door event, but I was told that the swearing-in of PM and CM are elite events and involves massive security detail too.

My first memory of reading about a public swearing-in ceremony was when NTR did it in the Lal Bahadur Shastri stadium in 1994. And then when Prime Minister Vajpayee did it in the forecourt of Rashtrapati Bhavan in 1998 and then again in 1999. It was gladdening to see leaders celebrate with the very people that put them up there. The elite nature of the event returned when Sonia Gandhi’s UPA came back to power in 2004 and 2009. And was gone in 2014 when Narendra Modi came to power and same thing in 2019.

After the 10:30pm call, made the flight bookings and reached Delhi to collect the invite. And that is when the second surprise lay in store. This surprise was much bigger than the phone call the previous night - They were giving out personalized printed invites! And at that precise overwhelming moment, you realise the worth of every single minute you put for that one man to be at the helm of India’s affairs. Infact, at that precise overwhelming moment, you forget all the hardship and remain in awe of the man who has made sure he will have his well-wishers be present to celebrate democracy along with him!

Walking with fellow volunteers into Rashtrapati Bhavan, soaking in the majesty of the building and occasion, meeting many social media friends (some for the first time!), the searing heat that made the water bottles so hot – while practically every minute is etched in the memory, we then encountered the third overwhelming moment – meeting the family members of the BJP karyakarthas who were killed merely because they campaigned for the party. One of the most under reported violence in the 2019 elections was the killing of BJP karyakarthas in states ruled by the Opposition. It was overwhelming to see that the party remembered the ultimate sacrifice and honoured the families by bringing them in to view the swearing-in ceremony. I strongly felt that it is gestures like these that define those at the helm of affairs.

The roar of the “Modi Modi” chant when Narendra Modi arrived had to be simply heard to be believed. And then the moment everyone was waiting for – “Mein, Narendra Damodardas Modi” – happened. It was as if the pinnacle has been achieved. It truly felt – “You are at the swearing-in of the Prime Minister of India on a personalized invite. What else is left to be done now?”! It was as if the job is now done and 2024 seemed a long way ahead!

But Prime Minister Narendra Modi, through his actions, told us that the job is not done. Party manifestos are often derided. We all often complain that some promises are simply made to gather votes. Many political parties still continue to do that, and break promises they make. Revoking of Article 370 has been on the Sangh’s agenda since the beginning. Narendra Modi’s single action of revoking of Article370 has honoured the fight of countless citizens of India. For me, all his other bold actions in the past year don’t matter as much as the revoking of Article 370 does.

Typically, at this time, everyone would want to analyse the performance of the government in the past year. But today, the only thing in my mind is how Modi has honoured 1000s of volunteers and karyakarthas on this day (And in 2014 as well for many). The only thing in my mind was that how fortunate I was to be one amongst those 1000s. The only thing I wanted to write was about how no reminder from “Facebook memories” is needed to relive May 30, 2019.

Modi’s overwhelming victories are because he listens to critics and well-wishers alike. And honours them at the right moment. Thank you, Prime Minister Modi, Thank you dear BJP for making May 30,2019 as special as May 16, 2014.

The Hindu’s ‘Readers Editor’ rebuffs a reader’s genuine concern because he interrupted the paper’s anti-India propaganda: Read how

The following article was written for OpIndia. Pasting it here for reference.

The Hindu has an office of Readers Editor. To summarize their long list of “terms of reference”, this office is responsible for publishing relevant corrections and clarifications and the Readers Editor (RE) will write a regular column “addressing one or several aspects of readers’ concerns, suggestions, and complaints, the content to be determined independently…”

The current Readers Editor writes a weekly column that seldom addresses the concerns of the readers. His articles are a bore and have no relevance to the “terms of reference”. I don’t even have to dig into older articles about him because he begins his latest article mentioning the same – “Some readers ask how my columns about the larger information ecology and about social media are linked to the journalism of this newspaper.”

He gives some random explanation for this query and proceeds to cite two examples – “A few recent complaints regarding this newspaper’s reportage on renewed militancy in Kashmir and border skirmishes with China clearly fall into this category”.

What follows is pure poison. 

There was an “analysis” written by Ananth Krishnan in the newspaper on May 20, 2020. The Readers Editor informs us that those who read the article wrote back to him saying that since the erstwhile state of J&K has now been split into two union territories, the report should have mentioned Ladakh, especially given that the report was about “a changed dynamic along India-China border” and Ladakh infact borders China. 

The error seems inadvertent and the feedback seems very genuine right? Somehow this feedback riled up the Readers Editor. It riled him up so much inexplicably that he started an unbelievable rant questioning the very split of J&K. RE writes in response – “They (readers) failed to recognize that J&K includes not just Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh, but also a huge swathe of territory across the Line of Control.”

Really, “they failed to recognize” that J&K includes Ladakh? Where does this arrogance stem from? How does J&K include Ladakh now? The Parliament of India has decided that J&K and Ladakh will be two different UTs. The editor is free to propagate his lies and illusions on his own time without getting riled up at readers who took the pain the read the article and write back to him on an obvious glaring error. 

He also tells us that J&K includes “a huge swathe of territory across the Line of Control.”. We now come to his next shocking line – “The Indian state calls the region “Pakistan-occupied Kashmir”. Really? Here is the latest political map released by the government of India. Can the editor point out Pakistan-occupied Kashmir in this map? Can the editor point out which part of Jammu and Kashmir has borders with China? Can the editor point out how Ladakh is a part of J&K. The Indian state has often said that it doesn’t recognize PoK so where from does he get the gall to write a lie like this and blame the reader for being correct? It is still mind boggling how he thinks that Ladakh is still a part of J&K and the readers (who took the pain of reading) are wrong!

He doesn’t show any signs of ending – he drops his next bombshell. “A newspaper has to take a holistic view instead of shoehorning its analysis into the official narrative.” Holistic view? Official narrative? That J&K and Ladakh are two different entities now is an “official narrative”? Denying their existence in now called a “holistic view”? J&K has no border with China. That’s a plain simple fact. Insulting the people of Ladakh by claiming to take a “holistic view” is journalism? 

Instead of accepting an extremely well-meaning and legally correct clarification, the unwarranted rant by The Hindu’s Readers Editor is yet again exposes the poison that is groomed in the offices of The Hindu. Does he end there? No. He moves onto his next rant of not wanting to call soldiers killed in line of duty as “martyrs”. In May 2020, he quotes his own article on March 2019, in which he says “Ethical journalism will report the killing of a soldier as the killing of a soldier and refrain from using loaded propagandist words like martyr”.

This clear lack of respect for both the lives of the brave soldiers who made the supreme sacrifice and for simple acts that define our own country is really painful to read. By using heavy words in long sentences such as – “To be a megaphone for governmental propaganda and keeping people in the dark is the role of the fifth column.”–  these people may live under the illusion that they wrote something intelligent but simply fail to understand that these words merely expose their arrogance, ignorance and incompetence. 

Speaking of “propaganda”, The Readers Editor is supposed to be correcting the newspaper and taking the side of the readers. He is not supposed to be the propaganda mouthpiece of the newspaper. How he misses this irony while lecturing readers who are correct, is a big mystery! 

People like Rajdeep Sardesai – you are English media, not National media, stop blowing up your ego so much

The following article was written for OpIndia. Pasting it here for reference!

In the year 2012, there were riots in Assam. The then editor-in-chief of CNN-IBN, Rajdeep Sardesai, wrote a bizarre article explaining that it was “tyranny of distance” that didn’t allow him to cover the Assam riots with the same intensity as Gujarat riots of 2002. What was his defence? That “No national channel has an OB van in Guwahati.”

“National channel” or “National media” has continued to be such a misnomer ever since. Rajdeep Sardesai continues to live under the distinct impression that he represents “national media”.

Just two days back, he put out a bizarre tweet that he received a “message” from “a friend”. The alleged message from the friend says that ‘national channels’ have less time for east coast than they do for west. Isn’t his “friend” merely repeating what Rajdeep himself told way back in 2012? In the same tweet this controversial man also calls the AmPhan cyclone as “Bengal cyclone”, conveniently forgetting that the cyclone hit Odisha too – but we digress, because there continue to be people who think any news is fit for coverage only if “national media” covers it.

It is still unclear as to when the Delhi based English TV media that covers news only from a few cities (with excessive focus on Delhi) started to assume that they are “national media”. How does one summon the consciousness to call oneself has “national media” when you have zero presence in capital cities of more than half the states in India? Leave the capital cities, how does one summon the courage to call oneself “national” when they find it difficult to even cover areas that are closer to their glitzy studios in New Delhi?A twitter search of “national media” and “sardesairajdeep” reveals how periodically this man sermonizes on “national media” didn’t do this, didn’t cover that, should have covered this etc! The irony is never lost out on him – he considers himself as “national media” and then sermonizes to himself and yet makes zero attempts to correct himself.

Today’s discussions on the English TV media are more often than not a cacophony of voices vying to win the coveted prize of the best shouter! National media should imply that they have equal amount of coverage from each state of the country. National media should imply that they have panelists from all across India, every single day to discuss about the events happening all across India. National media should imply that they don’t come up with bizarre “Tyranny of distance” articles to justify their limited reach in the country.

Even in terms of sheer numbers, the reach of other language media such as Hindi, Telugu, Tamil, Kannada etc is much higher than the English media. The Indian Readership survey 2019 is proof. The BARC viewership numbers are proof. The regional language media (TV and Print) has footprint in almost every mandal of their respective states. The editorials of the regional media are more widely read, their classifieds are more widely popular, and their discussions are more widely watched. In fact, I think the district editions of some of the regional language newspapers are perhaps more widely read than these self-proclaimed “national media”!

Some of these news channels run 30-minute programs to cover news from South India. And then I always wonder why they don’t have a similar section for say North India, East India etc. It’s not like there is massive coverage on their channels for Jharkhand, Sikkim, Odisha, Himachal Pradesh, Chattisgarh, Punjab (I can go on and on!).  For example, www.ndtv.com/south exists. And you get a “Oops, there was a problem” error when you try to find www.ndtv.com/east. Go check the “North” page of https://www.indiatoday.in/india/north – all you get is “Here is your horoscope” stories but “South” page of https://www.indiatoday.in/india/south at least exists with some old stories.

It is therefore no wonder that readers/viewers from various cities are riled up when the English TV media conveniently choses to gloss over tragedies in many parts of the country – including in those where they have “OB vans”. The question of hypocrisy came up because these self-obsessed anchors began these strange claims that they represent “national media” and somehow are more superior to these lowly beings in the regional media.

Yet, English TV media is powerful. What gives them this disproportionate power? The only reason I can think of is that they sit very close to the power centres in New Delhi. Their immediate access to the multiple echelons of the Central government is what made them think they are invincible and yield this massive influence on policy.  Their editors occupy the position of President of Editors Guild (take a look at their past Presidents and see for yourself the disproportionate control of English media).

Their arrogance stems from the fact that Sonia’s UPA had given them so much access to so much insider information and even control over cabinet formation! In the words of Rahul Roshan, this is the “establishment” they conquered during its formative years itself. The advent of social media is when the dismantling of their halo had begun. Today, some of the once-most-powerful channels are reduced to merely trolling social media users. While the battle to dismantle this halo continues, it is important to yet again highlight the simple fact to the likes of Rajdeep Sardesai – you are English media, not National media. Stop blowing up your ego so much.  

Gibberish Arguments pertaining to Economic Stimulus Package don “The Hindu” newspaper

The following article was written for MyInd Makers. Pasting it here for reference:

A trio and a duo shared many enlightening thoughts over the past two days in “India’s National newspaper”, The Hindu.  The trio- Jayati Ghosh (from JNU), Prabhat Patnaik(from JNU) along with Harsh Mander (who was a member of Sonia Gandhi’s NAC) have penned “A plan to revive a broken economy” in The Hindu. The NAC was the super-cabinet during the UPA’s rule. All policies were credited to “suggestions” from the NAC. Two days after the massive announcement of a 20 lakh crore package by the Prime Minister of India, the trio write in The Hindu and tells us that “….but this includes already allocated money of Rs. 6-lakh crore and monetary policy directives to banks and non-banking financial companies”

The Prime Minister was very explicit in his announcement. The 20-lakh crore package to revive the economy includes amounts from the announcements already made by FM & RBI and will include the new announcements by the Finance Minister. Why does the trio find the need to write an obnoxious sentence like “but this includes”?  “But this includes” clearly implies that this 6-lakh crore is not of any use to help the economy. Do they make that argument in his article? No. Instead what is it that he proposes?

“Food and cash transfers first”. They propose transfer of INR 7000 per month for three months per household and 10kgs of free grains for 6 months. I have always wondered why Sonia Gandhi, her family, her party and her NAC have this love towards direct transfer of money? And the only plausible explanation that comes to mind is that this is one of the ways to perpetrate a scam and fill the coffers.

You may want to ask me then – but this is Modi government so why would a scam happen. Here’s where the trio come up with a brilliant solution. They want, wait for it, the central government to borrow from the RBI and transfer the money to the state governments who will then decide whom to give the money to! Am not kidding, here are their own words – “The required cash and food have to be handed over to State governments to make the actual transfers”. Do you feel like standing up and do a slow-clap for this unparalleled brilliance? Do remember – the Congress is in power in considerable number of states.

And then they arrive at their favorite topic – the MNREGA program. They want the government to take away the limit of 100 days and make the program applicable to all through the year. So now they want governments to give 21,000 per family and also daily work for the whole of the next year? Not content with this idea, they moot another mind-boggling idea – “introduce an Urban Employment Guarantee Program”. How should this be done? “Urban local bodies must take charge of this program and would need to be revamped for this purpose.”

Oh! why not, that’s just so easy to do! Let’s wake up one day and “revamp urban local bodies”! I wonder why the government can’t think of such easy solutions like “revamp” of our urban local bodies. Why isn’t such sagely advice adhered to by the Modi government?

Who should be giving the jobs? Not just the government. They now want “work in the MSMEs” to also be included in this program. Don’t scratch your head to understand how this will even work. It will work because these eminences have said so. Otherwise the economy is doomed!

Not content with the ideas they have unleashed, they go full throttle, lose total control and bombard us with more mind-boggling ideas - print more money, increase public revenues (Oh, where would we be if they didn’t tell us this!), 2% tax on top 1% of population, and do something with IMF.

While these eminences focus on plan to revive economy after a large part of the plan is actually unveiled, we had two other eminences – Prashant Bhushan and Shyam Agarwal – tell us in another article that “Guidelines issued by the Centre to the States under the Disaster Management Act are unconstitutional”. What bothers me most is the utter lack of creativity amongst this elite batch of eminent intellectuals. Can’t they come up with more original thoughts than just “unconstitutional”? Just a couple of weeks back, Owaisi came up with this argument that was discussed here. And now since it doesn’t seem to have gained enough traction, other members of the group want to propagate it. They make no new argument so there is no need for us to write the same rebuttal again. Suffice it to say that the entire country has been witness to how the Prime Minister and the Chief Ministers have closely coordinated, interacted and helped the country fight an unprecedented crisis. While they were busy doing actual work, the eminences found space in The Hindu to vent out their ill-gotten ideas and ill-conceived musings.

Meanwhile, the fortnightly magazine, Frontline (from the family of The Hindu itself), has a cover story ready for print in their edition for May 22. The story is titled “Dystopian Pipe Dream”.

Their byline is extremely powerful – “The reluctance of the Narendra Modi regime to extend fiscal support to those in real need of help during a prolonged lockdown suggests that it is promoting further concentration of capital. Dire consequences await the economy and the polity.”

It is with profound sadness that we have to inform the editor of the Frontline that this article and the byline, though powerful, will now become extremely irrelevant when it goes to print on the 22nd of May. Since you folks anyways look for a way to blame Prime Minister Modi, you must now write an article blaming him for making your cover story irrelevant! 

Ansari and Owaisi peddle lies and politicize the lockdown

The following article was written for MyInd Makers. Pasting it here for reference:

Former Vice President Hamid Ansari wrote in The Hindu on “Rollback the distrust, remember the core values”. The headline and the content of the article are fully in-line with the lies and perception the English media ecosystem has been trying to create since the past 6 years. Hamid Ansari tries to keep the article generic but makes a minor slip that gives us a peek into his thoughts. He tells us that the situation “is alarming enough to induce a group of 100 of our most eminent former civil servants to appeal, recently, to State Chief Ministers”

What did these former civil servants write about? In their opinion the NPR and CAA are wasteful exercises. They propagate the same lie that Muslims will feel insecure because CAA excludes Muslims! They happily fail to tell us that CAA does not affect a single Indian citizen (irrespective of religion). They peddle a lie in January; the media amplifies it for a whole week; the former Vice President of India makes a reference to this letter in April! This begs a question – what is the agenda of the former Vice President of India here?

We are in the midst of a severe pandemic. Thousands of participants of the Tablighi Jamaat and their contacts were tested Corona positive. We have seen how health workers have been attacked (physically attacked and not mere social media trolling) when they went to help or save these people. The health workers again went back the next day to carry out tests. What more should be done to “rollback the distrust”, Mr. Hamid Ansari? On whom is the burden to “rollback the distrust”? On the attacker? Or on the victim? While writing so eloquently about citizenry, constitution, morality etc, couldn’t you really write one sentence condemning the violence on health workers by our own citizens? What stopped you from appealing to them to stop the violence?

Or are you still stuck in a time-warp and want to exclusively focus on NPR and CAA? If so, as a former occupant of a constitutional position, isn’t it your responsibility to dispel the fears of the citizens of India? Isn’t it your responsibility to tell the citizens that the CAA will not snatch the citizenship of a single Indian? Isn’t it your responsibility to kill the fake news factory and come out with facts? Instead of amplifying the lies being spread, you could have chosen to write an article on NPR and CAA at least two months earlier and attempted to assuage the agitators.

It is sad that you chose to use the Corona pandemic to further refer to NPR and CAA. It is further distressing to note that you had no words of advice to all those citizens who were attacking the health workers carrying their duties. It was incumbent upon you to “rollback the distrust”. Instead you chose to simply pass it on to the hapless citizens!

On April 27th, we had the MIM Chief, Asaduddin Owaisi write strongly on “Unconstitutional nationwide lockdown”. Looks like “unconstitutional” is the buzz word in the WhatsApp group of the English media and their friends! Why does he call it unconstitutional? Because “So far, the Union government has not provided any factual basis for why Covid-19 was beyond the “coping capacity” of any area of the country.”

This makes me wonder - Does Owaisi live in the same world that we all live in? Does he really not know that if Corona explodes, India doesn’t have the “coping capacity” and the only way to get ready for that is a lockdown? I bet he does know, but if he accepts that, how can he still be a darling of the “intellectuals”?

Owaisi further lists out articles of the constitution and sections of different acts as a show-off. His rant includes amusing statements such as “The Union government is in no position to assess the specific context of a particular State, let alone the circumstances in which migrant workers are living or what is best for them”.

Owaisi conveniently avoided telling us that many states were already in lockdown when the Prime Minister announced a nation-wide lockdown. Not a single state government came out and said what the PM did was unconstitutional. MIM’s best friend, the TRS, has welcomed the announcement of the Prime Minister. Except for 1 or 2 states, all state governments have strongly recommended a further extension of the nationwide lockdown. If this was “unconstitutional”, why would all our state governments enforce this lockdown to the best of their capabilities? Why does this simple logic elude the intellectual brain of Asaduddin Owaisi?

Furthering his agenda Owaisi blatantly lies that India is spending 20,000 crores on Central Vista project in Delhi. This lie has been dissected in article here, so no need to dig further on it. While the first half of this article was focused on how the Union is doing nothing, Owaisi suddenly shifts tact and tells us that the Union government is “micromanaging”! Owaisi should have first decided what is it that he wanted to criticize – the central government is doing nothing, or the central government is doing everything! The article is confusing at so many levels that it makes us wonder why Owaisi couldn’t find a single meaningful criticism of either the state or the central government.

The only solution that Owaisi offers for the problem is creation of Inter-state council. That’s it – apparently that will solve all problems. PM has been in touch with all the CMs of the country on a regular basis to ensure the best implementation of the lockdown. But it is immaterial to him.

Both Hamid Ansari and Asaduddin Owaisi could have chosen to be more forthcoming on the real issues faced by the country in these turbulent times. Instead they chose to fall back on the same old trite that the English media is keen on promoting. Apparently, that doesn't resonate a bit with the citizens of India. I wonder how they would want to respond to this lost opportunity.

Lockdown and the English media in India

While the English media is busy peddling lies and their agenda- we lost sight of some remarkable success stories of how different state govts in India have effectively implemented the lock-down.This gang will continue to write that lock-down failed. Numbers wouldn't lie though

As of today (May 11th), nearly 33% of total cases in India are just from ONE state. Nearly 70% of cases are from the top 5 states - Mah, Guj, TN, Delhi and Rajasthan. Remarkable containment by the remaining 23 states. But we only hear of Kerala model and "Best CM".

They never told us why Karnataka had such remarkably low numbers. But today (May 11), they tell us that K'taka had the highest number so far -54. 54 cases in a day, nearly 50 days after lock-down. Why isn't this model being studied in the media?

Andhra Pradesh, despite the onslaught of "single source" cases, is consistently reporting 50-70 cases a day. For a population of >5 crores, why aren't we hearing more about how this containment was done?

For all the -ve press Haryana and Bihar get, their numbers have been remarkably low. What did they do right? Perhaps we will never get to know.

How does Odisha have such low numbers? What did they do right? How did the people and the government make this possible? We'll perhaps never know. Uttarakhand, Puducherry, the entire North-east - every single one of them did an awesome job with the lock-down and containment. Yet no stories about them.

The cynicism and agenda of the English media gang is simply very nauseating. We deserve a better media that disseminates the right information.

 https://twitter.com/ssudhirkumar/status/1259688524489478144