Queasy Disquiet in the Media or a FAQ for Vir Sanghvi

Two fine posts, the first, a well-crafted crafted response to Vir Sanghvi’s mention of a mysterious Blogging Elite and the other, a gentle but firm rap on the media’s superiority complex represented again by Vir Sanghvi and Sagarika Ghose (whose choice of words in her tweet is quite heartwarming).

So here’s an FAQ of sorts that (hopefully) addresses Vir Sanghvi’s concerns. But before that, it helps to keep Offstumped’s words as a backgrounder.

There is a perceptible disquiet amongst the Delhi based media elite who have for long exercised a monopoly on opinion in the public debate. With their attempts at editorialising news with a psuedo-progressive slant now under severe challenge, they have taken to the good old leftist game of slander by label if not by libel.

1. What is a blog?

A: It started as an online personal journal/diary where you pretty much said anything about yourself and over the years, grew to become an informed and influential “alternate” media. You now have micro-specialized blogs on every conceivable topic.

2. Why did it become so popular or why did so many people adopt it so quickly?

A: As a medium of expression initially. The main reason it become widely popular was because it provided the “common” man an almost uninhibited and open way of expressing opinion and commentary. In the old days, media had a monopoly over not just news and opinion but even in its choice of publishing letters to the editor. Blogging simply made it possible to ignore that impenetrable fortress. More importantly, people who didn’t have any stake in some news event/happening/incident wrote what they felt. In other words, independent opinion/analysis was expressed by independent (yeah, sounds corny I know) people. Over time, these opinions began to prove far superior than established media warhorses and experts.

3. Why is the India media repeatedly upset with bloggers and Tweeple?

A: Several reasons. As Vir Sanghvi says, “At present, bloggers, visitors to websites and tweeters remain a curiosity for traditional media…I suspect old media may be making a huge mistake by being so blinkered.” And I agree. The reason for this is because the Internet was adopted much faster and more innovatively by the “common” man than the media. Till just two years ago, most Indian media heavyweights had extremely poor design, usability, and used outdated technology on their websites. The media picked up the blogging story like really late in the game. People usually read news items on news websites and turned to specific blogs for analysis and commentary. Till date, this hasn’t changed: you see a prominent story in a paper and you kind of predict what that paper’s editorial stance/comment will be on that story.

But the real reason is the fact that highly-respected bloggers are not scared to say it like it is. These highly-respected bloggers do rigorous homework and back their stuff up with sound reasoning. And they’ve repeatedly called the media’s bluff and don’t hesitate to dissect the said warhorses’ opinions. It’s no coincidence that this dissection happens at brutal regularity. This more than anything else has upset the traditional media.

4. Why are bloggers so “ferocious” about traditional media?

A: Honest answer: because the media is incredibly corrupt. Vir Sanghvi (and others) needs to admit this and begin honest introspection instead of trying to defend the indefensible:

Are many of those who blog and tweet (and I don’t just mean those sad losers who escape from their pathetic little lives by spending hours abusing other people on the net) beginning to believe that they constitute a secondary elite?

This kind of attitude will result in nothing positive. Rohit has already answered Sanghvi’s derogatory usage of “elite” but I’ll just add this: no blogger considers or claims himself/herself as belonging to some kind of an elite set. It exists in Sanghvi’s perception. It might surprise Sanghvi but most bloggers work independent of each other. In other words, blog posts aren’t orchestrated, or “planted.” And two, even if bloggers were “elitists” in a minority, why did it upset him so much that he took the trouble to write two entire posts dissing them? Why does he find it hard to ignore this insignificant “elite?” And neither is traditional media’s record clean: we’ve seen enough instances of mainstream media journos threatening bloggers with lawsuits, making talk shows showing bloggers in poor light, denigrating them as “Cyber Cinderellas,” and so on. This is, as Offstumped says, because the MSM’s near-monopoly over newsmaking is increasingly facing a serious challenge. If MSM demands freedom to question politicians, why doesn’t it want us to have the same freedom?

But let’s see why he makes this charge of elitism. To do that, we’ll take up the questions he himself asks in his piece.

5. When bloggers tell you that TV channels are only interested in TRPs, what are they saying? In effect, they are saying that TV channels are only interested in reaching as many people as possible.

A: This is among the worst generalizations I’ve seen. It’s like saying all Biharis are bad people because Lalu/Shahbuddin hails from the land. Why does he ignore the fact that most bloggers criticize MSM not because of its TRP thirst but mostly because MSM offers zero value in terms of insight and opinion. Take any random edit page/column of any newspaper. With very rare exception, the “substance” is generally on these lines: socialist policies are good, capitalism is ugly, subsides should be permanent, Indian secularism is in danger, minorityism is the way to go, and BJP/Hindu organizations are evil. By his own admission, Sanghvi claims to have scoured the Web over the past year and it’s quite surprising that he didn’t find ONE blogger critiquing this vacuum in the content that MSM churns out.

And it’s not just the content vacuum. Does Sanghvi admit that almost every mediahouse today publishes paid news? (Open Question to Readers: Does Hindustan Times accept paid news?) There are tons of blogs that’ve discussed this openly unethical practice. Couldn’t Sanghvi find even ONE blog that talks about it? And why is he silent about the Slimes’ strong-arm tactic that forced Pradyuman Maheshwari to shut down his excellent blog? These are serious issues that bloggers talk about, and they’re unrelated to TRPs or circulation figures. And wasn’t it Sanghvi’s own paper, Hindustan Times, which ran a campaign of sorts a few years ago (I think it was called “Just say no” or something. Not sure.) against the Slimes, which had just announced the vile Medianet concept? I do remember a lot of bloggers (including me) had signed up to support this cause. Your response to this, Mr.Sanghvi?

6. And why is this a bad thing? Surely the people the TV channels will reach will be just like the bloggers, ordinary people with an interest in some aspect of the news. Why should it be a form of abuse within a medium that is supposed to empower ordinary people to attack traditional media for trying to reach more ordinary people? Or, look at it another way. If a programme gets high TRPs, then this means that lots of ordinary people have liked it. The ordinary people may be right or wrong to have liked it – I pass no value judgements here – but the fact that they liked it is a reflection on them, not on the TV channel. So, why blame the channel? Why not blame the viewers?

A: This is even nicer. Notice the repeated usage of the word “ordinary people” to hammer home the distinction that bloggers aren’t “ordinary people.” And you got to be really naive to believe that “ordinary people” aren’t aware of the corruption in the media. And this is another, classic, characteristic trait of the MSM: assuming that “ordinary people” are ignorant and stupid and the all-knowing media must show them the way: “ordinary people may be right or wrong to have liked it.” Here’s the thing: stuff like TV programmes usually don’t hold up to any objective evaluation: people may like something today for some reason and hate the same thing tomorrow for the same or different reason. Bloggers don’t talk about “tastes of the ordinary man” and such like. Mr. Sanghvi, look at blogs like this, this, this, this, this, and this. These are serious blogs, very focussed and will beat the beauty-parloured news anchors by lightyears in terms of analysis, insight, research, opinion, and value. It might surprise you, Mr. Sanghvi, but most of these bloggers aren’t really big fans of watching TV. They do the work that the MSM no longer does. If MSM had done its job properly, it wouldn’t come to such a pathetic pass. I know this is undigestable but it is a fact.

7. The answer is obvious. Some of the more opinionated bloggers and tweeters believe that they are part of an elite. They distance themselves from the tastes of ordinary people and have contempt for the kind of programming that gets TRPs (i.e. is preferred by ordinary people).

A: This is so beautiful. Impute stupidity/ignorance to “ordinary people” first, and call in their support when convenient! But we wonder on what exact basis did Sanghvi conclude that “opinionated bloggers and tweeters believe that they are part of an elite?” But it’s true. Not just “ordinary people,” but millions of Indians feel worse than contempt for the kind of stuff that gets shown on TV. Here’s a sample of features drawn from various “genres” that get high TRPs:

  • Orchestrated “reality” shows involving small children dancing to obscene lyrics and making vulgar moves
  • Celebrity trash chat shows of people living in strange houses with their only full time activity being bitching & plotting against others
  • Staged talk shows with political leaders with anchors giving cues for the “appropriate response”
  • Showing live footage of terror attacks, which only helps terrorists
  • Acting like mouthpieces of a certain secular party
  • Cutting opposing/critical views in midsentence in a serious debate

What makes Sanghvi assume that because these millions don’t blog, they aren’t outraged by such charades? And why are bloggers supposed to feel compellled to share the tastes of “ordinary people.” Notice again that Vir Sanghvi has set up the artificial distinction as “elite bloggers” and “ordinary people.” And are bloggers supposed to feel thrilled/elevated by such shows? And hypocritically, ironically Vir Sanghvi indulges in the same thing he accuses these “elite bloggers” of: speaking on behalf of “ordinary people.” Notice “programming …[that] is preferred by ordinary people.”

8. I do not dispute that bloggers have a right to regard themselves as an elite. My point is more limited. Such is the arrogance of the blogging elite these days that even when it attacks journos, it is effectively dissing the vast majority of media readership and viewership.

A: The underlined sentence in #8 above is perhaps the most brilliant display of arrogance I’ve ever seen. Vir Sanghvi provides a textbook illustration of McCarthyism: if you don’t join my whimsical Communist/bloggers witchhunt, you’re a traitor/wrong. Sanghvi makes “attacks journos” sound like bloggers are coming after them with Uzis. This is beyond comment and only serves to show Vir Sanghvi as a haughty mediaman.

9. But the next time I see attacks on journalists from pseudonymous bloggers who complain that the journos are only trying to get TRPs (i.e. reach a mass audience)…

A: Grand assumptions and leaps of reasoning. Not all bloggers are pseudonymous. You wrote this on your own (gasp!) blog Mr.Sanghvi, under your own name just like I write mine under my own name. And just like hundreds of other bloggers. I’m sure you could’ve done better, given your Internet-scouting over the past year. Like Rohit said, you have the backing of a large mediahouse while we work alone. Besides, what’s your focus, Mr. Sanghvi–the pseudonymn or the content that the pseudonymous blogger writes? By that token, we need to dismiss people like Mark Twain.

10: I will wonder: just who do you guys represent? Are you speaking on behalf of viewers and readers? Or are you just another anonymous elite that feels emboldened to pass judgement on the rest of the world from the darkness of your rooms?

A: We’re not the media, Mr.Sanghvi, to represent anybody. We belong to your favourite category of society: “working class.” We have a vested interest to see India as a strong, proud, and self-respecting nation, which it currently isn’t. That is who we represent. In the same vein, we speak on nobody’s behalf, and half the problem is usually solved when you know the correct questions to ask. And the correct question to ask is not on whose behalf we speak but what we speak. Policies. National interest. Security. Freedom. Media (yes). Your questions will sound intelligent if they’re centered around these themes. Again: themes, not people and/or groups. Our rooms are sometimes dark thanks largely to secular economic policies but our minds are far better-lit than the fancy lights in Television studios.

Oh, and Mr. Sanghvi, you wrote this piece on your (gasp!) blog!


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

36 comments for “Queasy Disquiet in the Media or a FAQ for Vir Sanghvi

  1. Malavika
    November 19, 2010 at 8:40 AM

    Perhaps this is why Vir and his ilk hate Internet. This is a damning indictment of the corruption in Media.


    There is similar tape of Burka talking to Nira ( a corporate lobbyist). Nira is atleast a lobbyist, but Burkha is supposed to be journalist. NDTV in its response to the open magazine article said:

    “At every stage effective journalism involves engagement with a multitude of characters in the process of gathering news and information. To call this process “lobbying” is a serious and defamatory distortion of journalistic practices.”

    means that Burkha Dutt had conversations with Nira Radia which could not be denied. Let the readers/viewers listen and form their own opinion based on the conversation. Personally, the conversation did not sound like a information gathering session, it is more like a middle man using his/her proximity to power. Another word for it is lobbying.

    It is interesting to see NDTV talking about Journalistic ethics, which are non existent at their own place. What ever happened to ethics when they were shilling for Congress and acting as PR for the Dynasty!


    Read more at: http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/ndtv-on-defamatory-remarks-against-barkha-dutt-67210?cp

  2. cricfan
    November 18, 2010 at 8:03 AM
  3. cricfan
    November 18, 2010 at 5:14 AM

    I also note another article by Vir asking “Why AM Raja defies the PM”.

    Very conveniently forgets to mention that the supreme court has asked the PM why he has been SILENT on this for 16 Months and makes it appear as if the DMK is solely to blame. The most powerful man in India – A prime minister who condones brazen and large scale corruption and do this repeatedly, just so he can hold on to power is even more corrupt and must resign.

    Apparently, Vir Sanghvi chooses to write about
    – anything he wants, provided it is not too anti-congress and especially not anti-nehru dyansty
    – is anti-Hindu at the slightest and every opportunity.

    In the last 3-4 years, the Indian ELM writers have gone past pseudo-secularism and now are simply and openly anti-Hindu, just like also anti-Semitic commentators in the middle east and the west.

  4. Malavika
    November 17, 2010 at 4:19 PM

    cricfan said:
    “This did not get posted. I hope it appears soon, else it would be disappointing.”
    You are expecting too much fom this Sonia Durbari. He nor ilk never mentioned anything about Sonia Mata and Rahul’s credentials. It was the internet Hindus who and others who publicized the facts about India’s First family.

    He did write a positve article about IA, but where was he when AFSPA was under assault by his Congress Govt? Where was his patriotism when the entire Army was tarred with Hindutva Terror? Who needs such fair weather friends?

  5. cricfan
    November 17, 2010 at 6:33 AM

    Call me a nitwit, but i do like many things that what Vir writes – his positive articles about the Indian army, against the paki/islamist agents disguised as kashmiri freedom leaders, the CWG fiasco, or even the bitter fact that you can get thrown out hotels if u wear sandals instead of shoes.

    As far as Sudarshan’s statements (i dont know what he said), but if what Vir said he said is true, then Vir (like any ordinary indian citizen) has a right to after him like he does here:

    But for some reason, Vir doesn’t like pro-Hindu comments on the net and chooses this event to drive his pet knife in ” … At one level, Sudarshan’s statements are not that surprising. If you trawl the Internet or go through Twitter, you will come across lunatics and cranks who will offer such conspiracy theories and direct the most vicious abuse and slander at anyone who is perceived to be an enemy of militant Hindutva … ”

    Sure the internet is full of all types of cranks, so what’s his point? We know the answer to that. A very, very polite comment i posted to put things in perspective:
    – most “internet hindus” shun violence in action or word, i.e. favor a healthy debate
    – that he should maintain a proportional degree of criticism if somebody from a pro-congress group says similar stuff.
    – The power than Sonia Gandhi has over the congress is 1000 times more than what Sudarshan has over the BJP.

    This did not get posted. I hope it appears soon, else it would be disappointing.

  6. seadog4227
    March 16, 2010 at 1:39 PM

    Journalists and their lot:
    1)How can the entire bunch of journalists have such biased anti-Hindu views?
    2)How can they blank out all news regarding one political party in the last election?
    3) How can all of them vouch for the Congress (which has ruined the country for at least 50 years)? 4) How can they showcase the likes of Mulayam, Laloo and Mayawati not too mention the pathetic Sonia and the toothless Manmohan? (5)How can consistently perverse, anti-national, anti-Hindu attitudes in the Slimes and the Chindu be explained? A million more points can be written without effort.GI. Gurdjieff writes in his works that “the worst scoundrels, scumbags, layabouts and good-for-nothings” of his time became these so called “journalists”. These people have assumed enormous power today. Blogs have arisen to combat them and this terrible state of affairs.

  7. Preeti
    March 15, 2010 at 4:58 AM

    Let us all unite and spread the light
    someone has to take the initiative
    but He/She must be a learned one…we need kautilya…someone who is smarter than the rest…knows his opponent well…and a team builder….we need a modern Gandhiji
    we need alternate education systems where students can learn about and from our rich heritage
    with internet this is possible..culturally conscious Indians will definitely be very happy if their Children can learn Sanskars…..yes its time…someone has to be brave and come forward.

  8. Charu
    March 6, 2010 at 12:37 AM

    Mr. Sanghvi’s whine could be subtitled “The Empire Strikes Back”. For him to call bloggers who dissent with him and his brethren in the mainstream media as “elites” is the height of sanctimonious hypocrisy; characteristic of these media whores. Unfortunately for them, the internet provides an opportunity for people outside their “guild” to rebut them and call them out. This must be exceedingly disquieting to the likes of Mr. Sanghvi who were used to pontificating from their ivory towers and having the unwashed masses uncritically absorb Big Brother’s doublespeak. Correction; Mr. Sanghvi couldn’t care less for the opinions of the masses. It is the minds of the “elite” English-speaking consumers that he and his ilk are striving to capture, and they now sense that they are losing the battle for controlling and shaping these minds. The Orwellian media machinery is showing its age and the sheeple are beginning to see through their lies and distortions.

  9. Rajiv Chandran
    February 3, 2010 at 10:28 AM

    Since independence ideas like secularism, religion etc were understood to be universal categories and hence solutions based on that understanding have been hitherto adopted. Prof Balagangadhara & de Roover contextualize these as politico-social responses to europe’s own unique historical events. This automatically raises pertinent issues like relevance and applicability of the current social and academic ‘consensus’ on studies of not only India but many other peoples – in fact all non-european people.
    Expand this to other categories like nationhood, ethnicity, castes, tribes etc and we realize the scale of how much we truly don’t understand. We also see how flawed discourse can be – not necessarily due to biases of academicians or institutions – but because of built in etymological, lexical, methodological and contextual biases within the discourse itself. Indians and particularly Hindus have (in however small measure) begun the process of extracting ourselves from a euro-centric understanding about ourselves.

    The various Hindu movements (hindutva?) form the only viable indigenous voice against the pervasive eurocentricism. Hence efforts by euro-americans to label, contextualize, demonize, and localize it with a view to ultimately marginalizing it . Therefore there is a need to reach out to other marginalized worldviews and help them in their own rediscovery. The Hindu awakening will remain ancillary so long as it limits itself to the contexts set by eurocentricists – by sharing this gradual awakening with other cultures and encouraging them to rediscover their own heritage Hindus would be providing a signal service to maintaining and nurturing diversity of human traditions – and their civilization identity and dignity. Additionally it is perilous to form opinions about ancient cultures based on euro-centric studies – because the inbuilt biases – alternately sensationalizes, demonizes and dehumanizes these civilizations and their traditions. This has so far been the case with western academic studies of Hindus and India – there is no reason to suppose that it is otherwise with other people.

    The more we learn about ancient indian civilization the more we realize that it finds no parallels to any ancient civilization – either in geographical scale or depth of achievements. We realize that ancient India might have been the original metropolis of the ancient world from where the largest number of fundamental cultural, scientific and conceptual outflows happened. Such notions were laughable a decade or so ago – but no more. Recent developments also suggests that contemporary image of Greece (but probably not – Rome) itself is hugely inflated with very little basis in actual history (or ancient Greek testimony itself – which is actually very sparse). Hence Greece may not have been that great a civilization that it is made out to be – being a net beneficiary of Egyptian and Persian (consequently Indian) achievements in very many areas.

  10. larissa
    February 2, 2010 at 5:17 AM

    “India and other indigenous traditions of Americas, Africa, Australia and rest of Asia. …”
    Please someone explain to me how Hinduism is the same as the “indigneous” traditions of Africa and the Americas? Where is the great philosophy and metaphysics in the religions of Africa and America? Not trying to belittle them, but one cannot just destroy qualitative differences amongst cultures. People who try to draw such similarities are foolish as those whose views they criticize. If anything, HIndu high culture is comparable to that of Greece, Rome and ancient China and ancient Persia. Just because there are people living in the stone age in India does not mean that HInduism is equivalent to stone age or hunting gathering cultures elsewhere. This is what “multiculturalism” leads to—any culture is the same as any other.

  11. Incognito
    February 2, 2010 at 4:57 AM

    >>>“the current model of secularism followed is the European model of secularism. This cannot be applied to religions which have different characteristics altogether” – Shaz

    In the pdf document available at http://www.infinityfoundation.com/indic_colloq/persons/person_sharma_arvind.htm , Prof Arvind Sharma discusses the inadequacy and inappropriateness of the word ‘religion’ when it is applied to dharmic traditions of India and other indigenous traditions of Americas, Africa, Australia and rest of Asia.

    The word ‘religion’ is western in origin and concept. Due to its exclusionary, separative nature, it cannot be used to describe the non-exclusionary, non-separative traditions across the world.

    The exclusionary, separative strictures that characterize religions of western origin enable exercise of control over a large group of people by a small group of elites. This privileging of a small group of elites over the larger humanity is also characteristic of other ideologies of western origin such as Communism, Capitalism, Nazism, Fascism, Secularism etc.

    This position is in contradiction to bharatiya darshanas where each person is considered capable of realizing supreme reality by himself without having to subordinate himself before any Pope/Mullah/Imam/Rabbi/Prophet/Messiah/Saint.

  12. prachetas
    February 2, 2010 at 2:03 AM

    Dr.Balagangadhara, the academic guide of jakob de roover has good understanding of European History, the values that came from it and how dangerous it is apply those to a very different framework like India. But Jakob shouldn’t have rued about retired profs turning into amateurs on Indian history and challenging Euro-centric narrative. As usual, he is underestimating the power of amateurs. Actually, unlike fundamental sciences, social sciences which are still very young and developing cant afford to distinguish between amateurs and experts (paraphrasing Richard Feynman ). In social sciences there are no through universal laws, models etc to define cause & effect scenarios and hence there is no point ruing and ranting over amateurs diluting and spoiling the taste of the soup. And no amount of ruing, ranting will stop the amateurs because man is essentially a social being.

  13. Shaz
    February 1, 2010 at 11:55 PM

    Well I think one should go and see the youtube videos of Jakob de roover posted above. He brings about a very interesting point in the talks, saying that the principles of secularism cannot be applied to a nation like ours. Basically he says the current model of secularism followed is the European model of secularism. This cannot be applied to religions which have different characteristics altogether, meaning while the Abrahamic religions (Islam and Christianity) which stress the fact that their’s is the only true religion and the rest of the beliefs are false and the Dharmic religons (Hindu, Jain and Buddhist) preach that all beliefs are equally important, and tampering with the traditions is wrong. Now he goes on to say that if the state which says all religions are equal it leads to a conflict of interest between the 2 belief systems and thereby saying secularism itself is promoting communal hatred.

  14. Sudarshan
    February 1, 2010 at 10:22 PM

    @ SID

    Call it whatever, all that they are looking for is a reason to bash the Hindus.

  15. Niki
    February 1, 2010 at 9:54 AM



  16. Rashmi
    February 1, 2010 at 9:46 AM

    I too think think now a days from where should i get authentic news, proper analysis of all problems.We commomn Indians ( hindu’s) at large are facing.When I heard of Godhara i had subscibed The times of India at that time i did not know what is the truth behind it, Then came Orissa- Kandhamaal Violence , then i started searching eyewitness accounts what is wrong there, finally i found it out from a personal Blog of retired air force pilot who happenned to be i christian.We common man are lost in the struggle of two meals, giving good education to our kids which is rising every day.Infact I as a retired Naval officer am worried about the country.All best schools are christians, colleges are christian.For a hindu to get in these colleges how much i have to pay for kids, we are clueless of ground issues.People around me are self absorbed, i have awakened myself becoz of Practice of Yoga , reading/researching Indias past on net through A tribute to Hinduism, Personally visited Indian Institute of Scientific Heritage at Thrissur.When I travelled to south and saw with my own eyes i understood the threat of appeasement, loss of peace due to conversion, churches standing opposite to almost all beautiful and ancient temples of India Be it Rameswaram,Madurai etc..Now i am seeing everything with my eyes , analysing with my mind which is not political.Day before i visited Golden Temple /Sri Lakhi Narayani Temple at sripuram in vellore, a maginificent piece of architecture by Amma, worth seeing , really superb, then i thought i should see Old fort of Vellore, The Fort was looted by muslim looter Adadil Shah now maintained by ASI, every name is muslim there haider mahal, There was a Jalastapa temple inside as the custom of worshiopping Divine, it was dessecrated by aadil shah, In compettition came Mosque, then a church what to say it saddened me to the core of Heart.I saw all hindus there no clue of knowledge about glorious history of India, what happenned with our ancestors, the forcible conversions to islam and cunning/shrewd conversions to christanity. Sincerely it pains me whenever i think of This country, the selfish politicians, the biased and misleading media/intellectuals.The only oasis in this desrt for me are these Great Yogis of India Swami samarat, Swami Nityananda of ganeshpuri, Gajanan maharaj,Vivekananda , The classic book Autobiography of Yogi – paramhansa yogananda and my own Guru.
    Nityanada of Ganeshpuri a siddha yogi(in the book The Divine One) said much of suffering is left for india though it has achieved independence, selfish people with self intreset will follow british legacy, india will be divided into smaller states.How true it was.
    One thing i always think how to awaken and unite Hindus? The answer to this question is still illusive to me,

  17. prachetas
    February 1, 2010 at 9:42 AM

    I thik Jakob de roover is a research fellow at Belgium’s Ghent university’s comparative religious studies. His guide is one Dr.Balagangadhara and I once watched them on youtube channel.


  18. Sid
    February 1, 2010 at 12:57 AM

    I went through the article. Who is the writer?
    “…..Shocked by the western representation of ‘Hinduism’, they think they can now replace this with a ‘Hindu’ representation. They do not realise that it takes more than intelligence and professional success to develop an alternative to five centuries of Orientalism. After retirement, some of these professionals take up the hobby of writing stories about India that no intellectual will ever take seriously…..”
    Looks like Mike Witzel’s web page or Romila Thapar’s rant against NRI Hindus.
    But then….
    “….For instance, American evangelical organisations join forces with scholarly critics of caste to promote the idea that India should become ‘post-Hindu’, as in the case of Kancha Ilaiah and the Dalit Freedom Network…”
    What is his point here? Academic freedom?

  19. Sudarshan
    January 31, 2010 at 11:24 PM
  20. January 31, 2010 at 10:16 PM

    Jai ho Blogger.com ki !!!

  21. A
    January 31, 2010 at 7:42 PM

    Different topic – – – Just what the Pink-Chaddi crowd wants:
    Eight-peg ‘beautician’ runs over cop & biker

  22. S
    January 31, 2010 at 12:09 PM

    If I am not mistaken, was Vir Sanghvi earlier wrote under the moniker of Vir Singhvi ?

  23. Shaz
    January 31, 2010 at 9:48 AM

    It probably is a little off topic but today’s New Indian Express carries this article by Vir Sanghvi.
    After reading the first question I wanted to ask is who are you and and what have you done with the real Vir Sanghvi. Of course if the the same idea is expressed by an any person representing the RSS he would be labeled as hindu fanatic

  24. January 30, 2010 at 11:23 PM

    Did someone direct Mr. Vir Sanghvi to this? This will surely help answer all his questions. However, the problem is MSM doesn’t know its own problems. Their mentality is designed such that they don’t realize what they talk and/or write. So, even if you talk logic to them, they won’t be convinced. That’s the tragedy.

    Good job Shri Sandeep.

  25. ramkumaran
    January 30, 2010 at 6:21 AM

    We belong to your favourite category of society: “working class.” We have a vested interest to see India as a strong, proud, and self-respecting nation, which it currently isn’t. That is who we represent.

    nice words sandeep, excellant work

  26. January 30, 2010 at 3:50 AM

    Bravo Sandeep.

    Even in the US the MSM (they now call it Lamestream Media) woke up to the web revolution 5 years too late. Also as I have written in my own article, I have said that the Indian MSM is dying a painful death after a battle it has already lost.

    With 3G wireless being unveiled in India soon any one with a INR 10,000 cellphone will be able to watch youtube, read international news, read blogs etc in the palm of his/her hands and will no longer have to rely on the MSM even for the inane balderdash they charade as 24×7 news. In fact right wing bloggers can start webcam analysis/debates and upload it to youtube (bloggerheads) and completely remove the need of TV channels.

    Advertising revenues are falling everywhere – its no wonder once the pockets started to get pinched, the news papers started selling their column space to political parties and family feud business magnates.

    I guess the press in india is underestimating the power of the Internet and especially mobile broadband internet that is soon to sweep the nation. Also India is 70% filled with young people and they will pick up new technology in a flash! So long JNU Commie suckers

  27. Sid
    January 30, 2010 at 12:04 AM


    I do not know who you are, but awesome is the word I can say about your post.

  28. mindsense
    January 29, 2010 at 8:46 PM

    one more example “how not to focus on a real issue” from the media house of this great nation,,i just happened to watch TIMES NOW..mr.gujrath modi,calls on media’s holy cow sonia gandhi on price rise debate and offers her to write about it in italian since congress is turning a blind eye to the regular informals. well well ..now for the media the debate is not about price rise its more serious than that sonia gandhi(single hope of a billion nation,count me out) being touched by who ..uncivilised ,barbarian,communal ..modi!media comes to a conclusion that modi uses price rise issue to bring out sonias foreign origin.can you beat that? when you have a serious issue of price rise and a chiefminister is talking about it in a way it should be largely because of the frustration & the inactive govt of india is sleeping on several such issues.and the media comes up with this? so now what do we make of such a spineless media which cant come to a logical conclusion about the debate and denigrate a chief minister using a useless ranter of a spokesperson ? manish tiwari(congress partys official ranter)comes out and says modi to be uncivilised.preposterous.media is quick to cover it up thanks to manish tiwari,verdict is modi has lost it!case closed,,well no ways ..i mean how can a cyper , make a senseless comment on a chief minister of a state which is an example when it comes to development? a chiefminister in whom many of indians see a future prime minister a leader,such a dispirited comment? we all know congress cant stand development its totally against it. but this is like going one step too far.

  29. B Shantanu
    January 29, 2010 at 2:34 PM

    Good riposte Sandeep…and thanks for linking back to the blog.

    Jai Hind, Jai Bharat!
    Shantanu @ http://Satyameva-Jayate.org/
    On Twitter @ http://twitter.com/SatyamevaJayate
    On Facebook http://www.facebook.com/SatyamevaJayate.FanPage

  30. January 29, 2010 at 1:17 PM

    The internet (www) for me and crores of others is a wonderful tool to dig for the real facts behind anything thats happening in the world and more especially in India.

    I took on to the web on a serious note, when outrageous theories related to Gujarat 2002 spinned its way in Newspapers edits, articles, columns, magazines, basically anybody who would hold a glass of wine and wearing Pyajamas in party full of sick people.

    The truth about 2002 remains hidden carefully by the types of Vir Sanghvi who are content appearing on TV channels calling NaMo a sinister neanderthal.

    Vir Sanghvi also called anybody who criticized his stupid articles as Paid Agents of the BJP :) I am not sure to have received a single Naya Paisa from the BJP :(

    Vir would be happy to see us getting on with stupid chats, playing games etc wherein we dont encroach on his so called stupid and nonsensical empire.

    It is time that the People of India rise to this open challenge by one of them and show them what is real people’s power, the malaise of Paid News must be stopped and it must be exposed to the core.

  31. Vishwas
    January 29, 2010 at 11:49 AM

    I Loved this piece sir “Our rooms are sometimes dark thanks largely to secular economic policies but our minds are far better-lit than the fancy lights in Television studios.”

  32. mindsense
    January 29, 2010 at 11:31 AM

    iam an oirdinary man,i dont blog.
    vir sangvi is right u bloggers dont have it in you to call urself elite, u dont have a studio, u dont have makeup, u dont have (political) backing,you dont have padmashree awards.who are u? above all you dont have people commin to ur chat shows nodding to evry stale , lame reasoning & help you see in good light..hehe poor blogers vir is after you,, may be he should start a show in ndtv imagine hunt the bloggers ,hahaha..we all know how you guys work.we all see see how the news is made out of nothing.we all know how blank your media is.all for appeasements and awards.shame on you people.vir ur desperation is laughable…no more monopoly,,and yes freedom is not only for the elites its for all comman or ordinary people like me and poor bloggers.and is this the new caste ..hahha why dont you guys talk to ur govt and ask them for a provision for reservation and cut down the number of bloggers ..u can have the likes of u .i really dont know what im writing but vir likes such blogs,,

  33. Ram
    January 29, 2010 at 9:34 AM

    I am happy that there are some good people, who are there to protest against the anti-national media. Whether Vir Sanghvi will become Indian after reading this, I doubt very much.

  34. Chandra
    January 29, 2010 at 1:57 AM

    The Internet is the most wonderful thing to have happened to us in a long time. There is no one to control the flow of information. Already in some countries traditional media is dying a horrible death and it is trying to paw its way in with stupid proposals like “tiered Internet”, but the Internet has become too big to control and governments were too slow (with the exception of China) to take notice of this new means of communication and suppress it.

    I truly wish that there is more Internet penetration in India. We can finally do away with traditional media which is controlled by a few people in power.

  35. Niki
    January 29, 2010 at 1:33 AM

    My response to Vir Sanghvi which he may not publish

    Someone was bitching and moaning abt a posters English.

    My Response:
    I had no problems understanding what Sheetal was saying. But I am the ‘little people”. And most little people do not know English.
    But these are the little people you claim to represent. Obviously, you don’t speak the same language as we do. And therein lies the dichotomy.
    Infact, you don’t think as Indians do, have the same vision for India as Indians. You represent the vestiges of the colonial powers that ruled us. The same patronizing mindset, the same us vs. them. The same, judge and assess India through western eyes not Indian eyes.
    Infact that is what we bloggers and “little people” are fighting against. We need media that looks at us through our eyes not a western perspective of what India should be (which the current English speaking media in India represents). We need media that reflects an Indian reality not western concepts superimposed on India – communism, socialism, religionism.
    The english speaking Indian media does not represent Indian thought but influences it to morph it into a sham, shadow of a western perception of what India should be.
    This is our fight. That is why we are on the web, to defend our culture, our thought just the way our freedom fighters fought for the territory of India. Over 60 years, you cost us so much because we were not strong, could not speak the language and were barely making two meals a day. Now some of us can speak and it is getting uncomfortable for you.
    Well it is better than the approach a certain religion would have adopted had they been a majority, don’t you think?
    We use our keyboards, not words.
    Paradoxical, that you are encouraging those very sword forces through your choices in politics and the thoughts your propagate.

  36. January 28, 2010 at 11:29 PM

    Bravo, I bow to thy reasoning and arguments. These hypocrite MSM people don’t know how much are they hated by the ordinary citizens. Perfect sixer to a loose ball(by Vir Sanghvi).

Leave a Comment