If Modi is The Hindu Jinnah, R Jagannathan is Barkha

Oh dear! Of all things, I hadn’t expected someone like R Jagannathan to mount an out-and-out personal attack against Narendra Modi. Going by his past record, I’ve always regarded him as a sensible and grounded writer but what to do? Humans are frail beings and intellect, reason, and balance depart on occasion from even the best minds. And so we are treated to an unpalatable meal like the one served by FirstPost. The foul-smelling ingredient in the meal appalls the nose right in the article’s title itself: As the Hindu Jinnah, Modi is not a viable PM for 2014.

Now before we get into the specifics, it’s pretty clear that yesterday’s Supreme Court verdict has rattled the bones in the regular closets. TV divas and devas, sometimes separately, and sometimes both as husband and wife went on an overdrive trying to mollify the Congress make it sound as if everything was still ok with the Gujarat Cottage Industry.

And so when R Jagannathan (RJ) says stuff like

However, the big questions being raised on TV shows were not about how the case would proceed, but whether Modi had won in the Supreme Court and whether it would now aid his prime ministerial ambitions. Modi himself did not contribute to clarity when he tweeted “God is great,” and his party claimed the Supreme Court’s decision as a “vindication” of Modi, proof of his innocence.

AND exclaims “whoa slow down,” AND further says

It’s simply too early to jump to these conclusions, for Modi still has to win many political and court battles, several hurdles to cross.

we simply smile indulgently and ask him: who is saying what? Let’s examine this later. But first, RJ’s article rests on the following false assumptions:

  • India is a secular country
  • The public is always suspicious of BJP because of its “crime” of having the Hindutva ideology
  • Modi presents a divisive image because of 2002
  • No discourse on Modi can proceed without a reference to 2002
  • His image is permanently dented
  • Investigations and allegations are proof that his image is permanently dented
  • RJ has inside information into the minds of voters

This is pretty much the gist of RJ’s ad hominem attack masquerading as an op-ed or analysis or whatever.

One, it doesn’t take a genius or R Jagannathan to tell us that the SC order simply moves the Gulberg case to a local Gujarat court. It’s the guys in the Gujarat Cottage Industry who’re continuously hollering that “it’s not a clean chit to Modi” and variations thereof.

Now the real question, indeed the central theme of this sorry excuse for an analysis is Narendra Modi’s prime ministerial ambitions. Really Mr. Jagannathan? Who exactly told you that Modi has prime pinisterial ambitions? The man himself? Any BJP spokesperson? Exactly who? Speculation in the media doesn’t count as proof of said ambition. Indeed, RJ’s piece itself is a longish exercise in uncalled for speculation. Oh and by the way, have you seen this statement by Modi himself? It was published today. Show us exactly one line where he expresses his desire to become the Prime Minister.

Once you embark on wild speculation, it’s only limited by your imagination, which can, and has in this case, run amok. For instance:

If the lower court allows the SIT to charge-sheet him, Modi’s image will take a knock and he will be fighting like any other common criminal.

If I was the editor of FirstPost, I wouldn’t have even dreamt of writing, let alone publishing this piece. If I was RJ’s friend, I’d have given him sane advice that speculation often wipes out one’s wealth. Dear RJ, please let the SIT do its job. Why do you get worked up and use verbiage like “common criminal?” Words are fun things. You see, for instance I can call your piece as “wordy filth.” That’s bad form no? Oh but you also say:

If it does not, that still leaves him with his current dented image.

How? What’s the evidence of his “current dented image?” Dented in whose eyes? What’s the standard to declare that someone’s image is dented? Allegations? Insinuations? Trial by media? I don’t for instance, think that Modi’s image is dented and I’m sure there are millions who don’t think so. In your view, don’t our perceptions of Modi matter at all? Oh wait, we’re foul-mouthed, violent Hindutva guys, right? That kinda explains everything.

After more speculation, I mean look at his wish list, it’s as if RJ wants these things to happen to Modi:

  • defeat in 2012 elections,
  • corruption cases “unveiled” by the Lokayukta
  • a major terror strike in Gujarat

Oops! Did I just insinuate that RJ wants those things to happen? See, Mr. RJ? It’s a double-edged sword.

So, after more speculation, RJ gives us this gem:

To retain his prime ministerial ambitions, he will not only have to win the assembly elections, but win it big. If he merely hangs on by the skin of his teeth, even the BJP will opt for a different candidate.

Like every true Indian journalist, RJ also indulges in mind-reading and fortune-telling “…even the BJP will opt for a different candidate.” Let’s examine the bit about winning “big.” How “big” has Mr. Manmohan “Appointed Prime Minister” Singh won any election so far? What are the average victory margins of an average candidate in the last 2-3 elections? And why does RJ have one standard for the BJP/Modi and one for the rest? He answers that himself:

…the public will always hold the BJP to a higher standard of secularism than any other party because of its ideological moorings in Hindutva. For the same crime, other parties will not face the same kind of demonisation by the media and rival political formations.

Recall what I noted about RJ’s assumptions—that India is a secular country. Here’s the thing Mr. RJ: if India was a truly secular nation since 1947, the Hindu revival movement of the 1990s wouldn’t have happened.  This exactly is why the Indian media is what it is: out of touch with reality, lazy, incompetent, and intellectually dishonest. As a test, why doesn’t RJ walk into a random slum or village and ask the dwellers what they understand by secularism. Or go out and observe how and on what planks our leaders campaign in the villages. I won’t make it easy for him by stating my findings but trust me, it’s very revealing. And if RJ has done all these things, and still writes like this, I’d hate to comment on his intellectual honesty. And so based on available data, I can say that it’s a testimony of sorts to RJ’s analysis that he seriously thinks that the Indian public actually makes its voting choices based on things like secularism. What public are you talking about, Mr. RJ? The same public who got 190 seats for the BJP? or the same public, which has voted the BJP into office in 7 states? The same public that’s moved on from the 2002 riots, something that the Riots Cottage Industry wants to keep alive? Oh, and of course, Hindutva is a crime because…well, because RJ says so, and I’m sure he has innumerable backers for this statement.

And now we get to perhaps the worst ever characterization of Modi.

Secondly, the real truth probably is that Modi is a Hindu Jinnah: secular to the core, but not above using the communal card for the sake of political power.

How can “real truth” be a probability? It’s like saying “the real truth probably is that 3+6 is 9.” Also, Mr. RJ needs to define what communal is. The OED defines communal as “shared by all members of a community; for common use.” If Modi is indeed using this communal card, why do you object to it? If you however, mean the other definition of communal, which is “(of conflict) between different communities, especially those having different religions or ethnic origins,” then the onus is on you, Mr. RJ, to prove how he has used it.

And your characterization of Modi as a “Hindu Jinnah (sic)” based merely on an unsubstantiated observation is vilification, character-assassination of the lowest order. Do you even realize what a loaded phrase like “Hindu Jinnah” implies? Jinnah takes the major chunk of credit for partitioning India. I trust at least now, you realize what the complete implication of “Hindu Jinnah” is. But no, nothing stops you for you also say,

the secular mafia wants to see him as communal. This is why Modi gets no credit for running Gujarat without any communal incidents over the last decade (after 2002) while the Left Front’s attack on Muslims in Nandigram and Bihar’s pathetic treatment of Muslims under Lalu Prasad earn them no opprobrium.

Really? Why don’t you quote instances of people who’ve written glowingly about the same “for running Gujarat without any communal incidents over the last decade?” Here’s a good example. And here’s another, a more telling one. Check out the very first sentence.

SO MANY things work properly in Gujarat that it hardly feels like India.

Both are from the Economist, a magazine not particularly friendly to or knowledgeable about India. Oh and why do you forget to mention what happened to the Left and Lalu at the polls? But wait, it gets only more interesting.

In recent years, he had made a shift from macho Hindutva (which brought him to power) to becoming a development messiah. This may be important, but Modi’s reinvention cannot happen without a direct reference to 2002. His reinvention has to relate to the events of that year because Gujarat is now the reference point for all discussions on communalism.

Right. But here are a few questions:

  • What is “macho Hindutva?” Words have meanings, Mr. RJ. Would you kindly define “macho Hindutva” for us?
  • Who is making the said direct reference to 2002? It’s only the saints of the Gujarat Cottage Industry.
  • Who isn’t allowing people to forget the past wounds and move on? The BJP? Modi?
  • Who is scuttling the investigations and court hearings of the riots cases by filing petitions after petitions in the courts?
  • Who is dishing out “new evidence” in the form of fake sting ops and tainted cops?
  • Why is Godhra overlooked or glossed over in all of these “discussions” on communalism?
  • Why is the fact that 200+ Hindus were killed in the riots studiously ignored? Especially when the numbers killed in the riots have already been presented in Parliament?

Any discussion on communalism where Gujarat riots are mentioned must also include answers to the aforementioned questions. Don’t you agree that it’s fair? But now that RJ is all charged up, he says:

Godhra happened during the BJP’s watch, not Congress’. Hence, it is doubly foolish for Modi to presume it can be wished away by playing the development card.

Mind-reading redux. How does RJ know what Modi presumes or will presume in future? But he gives his game away here:

To be a vote-merchant, Modi has to win a disproportionate share of the Hindu vote – which anyway does not exist outside Gujarat – to counter the potential consolidation of the Muslim and minority votes against him. This is not just improbable, but totally undesirable, given the obvious danger it can pose to national unity and community relationships.

Okay, let’s assume a large share of Hindu vote doesn’t exist outside Gujarat. But what’s the evidence to back that up? RJ’s words. And then in more interesting territory, even if a Hindu vote consolidation happens, that would spell “obvious danger” to “national unity.” Why? Heheheh! Naughty! Haven’t you heard of the dreaded Hindu Rashtra? See? Only a Hindu vote consolidation will pose a threat to national unity. Minorities’ first right to resources, Hajj subsidies, mass conversion campaigns, abuse of Hindu Gods and institutions….those are displays of secularism.

And just when you’re tearing your hair out at this almost endless piece of personal abuse, RJ outdoes himself.

…even if the court cases against him fail to nail him, Modi is not a credible candidate for the prime ministership in 2014. Unless, two other things happen.

Option One is for Modi to build a direct relationship with Gujarat’s Muslims by apologising for what happened in 2002 and taking constructive blame for it.

Correct. So the RJ School of Logic works thus: Y casts a wild allegation against X. The matter goes to the cops and courts and the rest. Investigations are in progress. Cases are heard. All along, Y drums up a powerful lobby which hollers every single day that X is guilty. Investigations are still in progress. Nothing emerges against X. Y’s lobby forgets that a court’s decision has to be respected. It continues to yell that X is guilty. After about 10 years, nothing still emerges against X. Now Y and his lobby want X to apologize to Y for a crime that the courts hold that X hasn’t committed. This, Mr. RJ is the exact nature of the Gujarat riots discourse from Day 1. And it’s pretty sad and shocking that you regurgitate it uncritically. “Taking constructive blame” for something that hasn’t been proven yet?

If you thought this was bad, wait till you read further:

Even assuming he did not, as IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt alleges, ask the police to turn a blind eye to the killing of Muslims post-Godhra, no one will believe him since he “benefited” from the Hindu vote consolidation after the riots and continued to gain from it even in 2007.

This is a classic demonstration of sleight of hand. Slip in an insinuation, “…Sanjiv Bhatt alleges…” Note that it’s merely alleges. And Sanjiv Bhatt is just an “IPS officer,” without a single mention of the fact that his testimony was rejected and the fact that his reputation is shady. And another snake oil trick in the same sentence. Here:

Even assuming he did not…ask the police to turn a blind eye to the killing of Muslims post-Godhra, no one will believe him since he “benefited” from the Hindu vote

Excellent. “No one will believe him.” So, Mr. RJ, who is “no one?” Let’s look at this another way. Had the Congress party won in 2007, what would you have written? That Modi’s defeat was “deserved” and that the Gujarat people “justifiably rejected a leader who campaigned on a communal plank.” Right? Now that Modi has delivered on the economic front, you write about how the “taint of 2002 won’t ever go away” and that “he must apologize.”  Therein lies the crux: after yesterday’s verdict, the secular drumbeat has changed from “Modi is guilty!” to “get Modi to apologize.” A nice strategy to try to put him on the defensive. Now that Modi hasn’t apologized, RJ calls him “unrepentant.” Mr. RJ, how about we play a game: let’s say I’ve taken severe offence to this enlightening piece of yours. However, you’ve written it in perfectly good conscience. But no, I ask you to “repent” and “apologize” for it. I don’t offer any proof as to why I feel offended. I get 5000 people who share my offended sensibilities. Would you then feel that you must take constructive blame for writing it? Would you apologize?  How does that sound? Nice game, no?

His next “option” is as unreasonable as it is dangerous. I mean, who even thinks of stuff like this in an analysis? Check it out:

The only other way an unrepentant Modi can gain is if there is a huge catastrophe of the 9/11 kind just before the next election. In such a scenario – god forbid – there is a chance that people will look for a strong leader, and Modi automatically fits the bill.

Offered without comment. But then RJ moves back to Option One, so let’s follow him there.

Option One is clearly the only viable one for Modi. But here’s the dilemma: if he apologises in advance of a court victory, it will seem like he is admitting to his failures and strengthen the cases against him. If he does not apologise, he will continue to be vilified and face an even more intractable public image among minorities by 2014.

Now this sounds comical even cute, except that it is neither: “apologize,” “take constructive blame,” “repent…” Seriously, an open appeal to Modi would sound more honest. This only sounds desperate. Which it is, and it neatly fits in with the hysterical behaviour we saw in the media throughout yesterday after the SC verdict.

If as RJ says, the SC verdict was only an order to do the trial in a Gujarat court, why should he pen such a pompous piece about something that Modi himself hasn’t said anything about? The answer again is desperation, which shows throughout the piece starting with the toxic title. Would R Jagannathan have written this piece if the SC hadn’t delivered its order yesterday? Would he have written the same piece if yesterday’s verdict had gone against Modi? Yes? No? Maybe? Mr. RJ? See? Even I’m trying to do some mind-reading here.

In the end, it’s pretty interesting how certain events help unravel the biases of people who we think are pretty objective and balanced. R Jagannathan, who had authored some good stuff in the past has unraveled his biases with this one piece. It’s not so much about his personal attack against Modi that’s disconcerting but the fact that he has based his piece on questionable assumptions and relied on the Gujarat Cottage Industry allegations. And thus, just as it’s enough for one black dot to sully the entire white canvas, RJ’s “Hindu Jinnah” piece has made sure that he’ll never be taken seriously again. At least by me.

If Narendra Modi is a Hindu Jinnah, R Jagannathan is FirstPost’s own Barkha Dutt. Oh! and if you ask me how I derived this conclusion, I’ll say I followed the analytical method used by R Jagannathan in this piece.

556 comments for “If Modi is The Hindu Jinnah, R Jagannathan is Barkha

  1. Anand
    October 4, 2011 at 12:24 PM

    Comrade L-Ranger,

    I ask for simple proofs, and all you have in response is “believe her! believe her!”. What is she? The reincarnation of Mahatma Gandhi?

    I suspect that back in 1940’s there must have been some guys in Germany who must have flung Goebbels at unsuspecting people, and demanded to know what should be done in the light of the “facts”. They would be proud of you.

    I asked for 10 independent corroborations which you are refusing to give. Ok, how about just 8? How do we know that that “innocent” “boy” did not rape or murder anyone? Or if not a killer, that he is at least a Maoist-sheltering crook like the other fellow we talked a lot about?

    Plus: Set aside Rajbala for a moment if you prefer to endorse what became of her. How about just giving a link to the article where Comrade Roy denounced the murders committed by Maoists and Kashmiri terrorists?

  2. Amit
    October 4, 2011 at 11:25 AM

    More darlings of the leftists who are/were dictators:
    – Nicolai Ceausescu of Romania
    – Kim Jong-Il of North Korea
    – Shining Path from Peru [From wiki: “The Shining Path believed that by imposing a dictatorship of the proletariat, inducing cultural revolution, and eventually sparking world revolution, they could arrive at pure communism.”]
    – Baader Meinhof gang/ Red Army Faction in Germany
    – Weather Underground in the US

    Oops, contrary to what it claims, the left has as many, if not more dictators than the right. Let’s just pretend that such “fascist” dictators didn’t exist in the left’s tent, or as is more fashionable, romanticize the hell out of them.


  3. Amit
    October 4, 2011 at 10:51 AM

    CC wrote:

    @Ranger, Btw, sorry I keep replying to the Mian. I have never come across someone so intellectually dishonest.

    CC, the best way is to not directly engage with this despicable person, but fact-check his assertions and comments, and find logical holes in his arguments. Of course, it would be even better if we didn’t respond to his comments at all, but, one step at a time.

  4. Loneranger
    October 4, 2011 at 10:46 AM

    Amit – All kinds of fascism is bad. Period.

  5. Loneranger
    October 4, 2011 at 10:45 AM

    CC – Mind what you type mister. I am no sycophant of anybody. No need to act smart here, we all know how judiciary in india functions. The way your modi is arm twisting the media, judges, lawyers etc,. has to be seen to be believed. Extremely sad the kind of allegations they are putting on a honest police officer. His only fault was listening to his conscience. The media says anything and people like you believe.

    It is one thing to be frustrated by the government for being lame duck and non-functioning. But that doesnt mean one will support fascism. Stop peddling lies that I abused anyone here or else show proof.

  6. Amit
    October 4, 2011 at 10:07 AM

    Oh, forgot about Chavez from Venezuela – another dictator who is the darling of leftists. And some of these idiots also proudly wear their t-shirts with the icon of another dictator-like person from Argentina. But the irony of accusing others of being dictators is clearly lost on such people. *headdesk*

  7. Amit
    October 4, 2011 at 10:00 AM

    Some facts for the JNU brainwashed, pea-brained ones who unthinkingly vomit the boogeyman of fascism and Hitler, while reveling in their ignorance and stupidity:

    1. Hitler was the leader of Nazi Party, byname of National Socialist German Workers’ Party).

    2. http://www.forbes.com/sites/billflax/2011/09/01/obama-hitler-and-exploding-the-biggest-lie-in-history/

    3. Some leftist heroes who outdid Hitler when it came to dictatorial tendencies and killing their own people: Joseph Stalin, & Mao. And Cuba’s grand old man is not far behind when it comes to repressing and killing his own people, writers and gays, and keeping rest of the population poor.

    So much for “fascism” and dictatorship. Now let’s come to India and examine its history.

    4. The only party in India to implement something that bears the slightest resemblance to Hitler’s Nazi Germany dictatorship was Congress Party when it declared Emergency in 1975, arrested opposition leaders and protesters, implemented forced sterilization (especially on the seculars’ favorite minority) and indulged in censorship.

    From wiki:
    5.a. “With the leaders of all opposition parties and other outspoken critics of her government arrested and behind bars, the entire country was in a state of shock. Shortly after the declaration of the Emergency, the Sikh leadership convened meetings in Amritsar where they resolved to oppose the “fascist tendency of the Congress“. (emphasis mine)

    5.b. “According to Amnesty International, 140,000 people had been arrested without trial during the twenty months of Indira Gandhi’s Emergency. Of them, 40,000 had come from India’s two percent Sikh minority.”

    Yeah, looks like the mantle of “fascism” fits nicely on the GOP (Grand Old Party) of India.
    And, you’re welcome. :-)

  8. CC
    October 4, 2011 at 9:44 AM

    @Ranger, Btw, sorry I keep replying to the Mian. I have never come across someone so intellectually dishonest.

  9. CC
    October 4, 2011 at 9:38 AM

    Who is supposed to be the Hitler, you or Modi? Were you talking about yourself just now Mian? You have proved yourself to be insane time and again so the future of democracy must seem bleak to you. Why don’t you spend your precious spy time and fake social work time in trying to prove Modi’s guilt in a court of law in India? Instead you waste your time repeating the same baseless allegations.

    Just because you like abusing women on this forum, making fun of physical traits, and being servile to Congress dynasty doesn’t mean it’s rosy and right to be like that.

    Even crown prince Rahul Gnadhi would be embarrassed to acknowledge your sycophancy and count you among his “fans”. How sad.

  10. Loneranger
    October 4, 2011 at 9:21 AM

    CC – If the choice is between propping up another hitler or helping sustain democracy, people of sane mind will chose the latter. Go and ask people in pakistan about zia ul haq or ask people in libya about gaddafi, they will make you realise what life is about in dictatorship. For you, fascism seems rosy because you have never exprienced it but that doesnt mean it is indeed rosy.

  11. Loneranger
    October 4, 2011 at 9:18 AM

    Anand – I said earlier that instead of bringing in past issues, why cant you give me one straight answer? Whether her earlier assertions were correct or not is not relevant to this particular issue. Just because someone lied earlier doesnt mean she will lie always.

    See, as I mentioned you will ask counter question because you dont have any proper reply to my pertinent question. I am simply asking about this innocent boy and you bring in rajbala as a counter. Same old childish tactic. Just to correct you, I am Indian unlike you who is into segregating people into caste, colour and creed.

  12. Anand
    October 4, 2011 at 8:17 AM

    Comrade L-Ranger,

    You haven’t explained why propaganda needs to be believed. If you are producing facts though, just give 10 independent corroborations.

    Alright, since you are a Commie-Catholic who is handicapped in the dept of facts, I’ll give you a cocession: just give three independent corrobrations of the lunatic’s earlier claim that Jaffri’s daughter was raped.

    Speaking of harrassing innocents: what did the nut have to say on the raining of blows by Raul’s police on Rajbala? Please provide a link. I notice that one Catholic never speaks ill of another Catholic.

  13. CC
    October 4, 2011 at 1:59 AM

    Mian Loneranger, you have no compunction taking cheap personal shots at politicians’ physical appearance. You have a derisive nickname for every politician but NONE for the ruling Congress dynasty. You claim to be neither on the right or left but yet you openly display your reverence to the Sonia Gnadhi dynasty by fawning over prince Rahul. You can’t bring yourself to mock these people? What’s with the slavish mentality?

    >>So, mister CC even though the present govt should be kicked out, it wont come as no one wants them to go.

    Oh no, don’t impute your disgusting slavish mentality to everyone else. This Govt. will be kicked out when people like you shed your double standards and realise that slavery to the Congress dynastic rule must end.

  14. Loneranger
    October 3, 2011 at 11:36 PM

    Roy may be a big time liar as you say but I am only interested in this boy who has been branded as a maoist without any basis. Do you feel it is right ? Just say yes or not. Thanks.

  15. Loneranger
    October 3, 2011 at 11:35 PM

    Anand – There you go again on a merry go round to hide facts. Why is it impossible for you to give one straight answer on the charges listed in the article particularly against the police who booked a simple man as naxal ? Do you feel it is right and part of democratic process to harass an innocent?

  16. Anand
    October 3, 2011 at 7:26 PM

    Comrade L-Ranger,

    Pushing propaganda AGAIN, I see. Sigh. Doggie’s tail, methinks. Or perhaps propaganda is in your blood. I bet normal people strike you as weird.

    Outside of your NGO and Maoist circles, something called credibility is highly valued. Credibility often goes hand in hand with decency and honesty. Comrade Arundhati Roy lacks both. She once claimed that Hindu rioters carved Om symbol with knives on the foreheads of Muslim victims. She also claimed that Jaffri’s daughter was raped and killed. The murder part is a lie, because the woman is alive, and the rape part can be true only if the daughter is fearing honor killing, because she denied that she was raped. Incidentally, Comrade Roy claimed she gathered this ‘information’ from a guy who, it turned out, was booked for sexual harrassment. What a gang your pals are. Comrade Roy is a Catholic, just like you, and she grew up hating Hindus, just like you. The point of her Om fiction was to work up Islamists into a lather so that they would exact revenge by carving Muslim symbols with knives on Hindu foreheads. And do not forget, comrade, she hasn’t written her entire wretched life one single essay detailing and condemning the murders and rapes committed by the Maoists and Islamists she projects as representatives of the oppressed. Here you are merrily acting as the conduit for her propaganda. Decency will not bite you in the butt, comrade, because it doesn’t care whether you recognize it or not, and it is loath to have anything to do with you.

    A wiseacre said that opinions are like as*holes, everybody has one. I concede that Comrade Roy is entitled to hers, as much as you are to yours. What I’d comment on though, have to be facts. Given the mud-level credibility of Genocide Suzie, you have to produce TEN independent, apolitical corroborations for what she claims as facts. Kindly do not post excerpts from Mein Kampf here, and expecting to challenge me to weep buckets for Palestonians as you do.

  17. Loneranger
    October 3, 2011 at 11:04 AM

    CC – The answer is really simple. No one wants the govt to go now including your BJP people. They are not ready themselves. So, your question should be addressed to them.

    I fully agree to everyone who says this government has been floundering and will perhaps do so even more in the coming days to come. But, where is the alternative? The communists are in deep slumber and the so called main opposition party is more disunited than congress is. Its top leaders are in a feverish hurry to get the top job that each one is cultivating the media like there is no tomorrow. A few selected journalists are called and given some tidbit as off the record and presented with wine or whisky bottles as per their tastes. The lady who proclaimed she will shave her head is so desperate to have the top job that she is spreading rumors of the so called mister development’s marriage, his autocratic style etc,. In turn, development messiah snubs the party by not attending the executive meeting. Then, there is the fittest politican who is still 20 years old at heart, whose family is pushing him, who has made numerous trips to nagpur to convince the bosses, who feels he is the best bet for the allies. The big bosses would rather prefer the man who has undergone a weight reduction surgery recently but is that man capable enough to run a government, is he even a mass leader, will be acceptable to the party and allies? In this huge mess, there are two more leaders from regional parties whose ambition touches the sky. The cape lady whose astrologers are predicting her time has finally come now to go to the national scene. The man who says he has changed the bihar landscape feels given his honesty and integrity plus his development agenda he has the brightest chance if the coalition gets a majority.

    So, mister CC even though the present govt should be kicked out, it wont come as no one wants them to go.

  18. CC
    October 3, 2011 at 10:33 AM

    Mian, since you’re constantly praising the sincerity of heir to throne Rahul Gnadhi, read this article and provide a straight answer why this UPA govt must not be kicked out immediately. Without asking counter questions or making excuses for being a slave of the dynasty


  19. CC
    October 3, 2011 at 10:31 AM

    Mian Loneranger, the straight answers are already staring you in the face but you can never see them until you take your prejudiced blinkers off.

  20. Loneranger
    October 3, 2011 at 10:06 AM


    Anand – Since you have all the answers for whatever the police does in naxal districts, can you please provide me a straight answer to the article without asking counter questions for a change ?

  21. NASH
    October 2, 2011 at 7:14 PM


    what @moonclan ,no comments?

  22. Jooske
    October 2, 2011 at 2:21 PM

    Hindu Jinnah went to Pakistan not to Gujarat

    Why is Indian government not complaining about the money and arms give to Pakistan by USA and China?

    Call Pakistan the enemy by Christopher Hitchens


  23. bbc
    October 2, 2011 at 12:28 PM

    An earlier post pointed to the possibility of Nilekani as PM candidate. Maybe this will add more light to it:


    And regarding the status of women debate:



  24. Anand
    October 2, 2011 at 11:54 AM


    >>he’s not concerned with CURRENT threats – his interest lies in the problems of the PAST and imaginary ones from the FUTURE

    That’s an interesting and accurate insight.

    Basically, the dude is a hardened fanatic. He is not here to debate his articles of faith, which are beyond logic and reason anyway, but just to assert them and bombard you with them ad nauseum so that they become ‘respectable’ enough to be acknowledged, to begin with. Persistence and perseverance are key elements of propaganda.

  25. Amit
    October 1, 2011 at 7:05 PM

    Anand wrote:
    “Comrade LoneJalParkRanger’s Pakis strike again … this time against an adolescent girl:


    Anand, he’s not concerned with CURRENT threats – his interest lies in the problems of the PAST and imaginary ones from the FUTURE. :-)
    Challenging the problems of the present is too dangerous – might end up with one’s hand getting chopped off, or worse.

  26. NASH
    October 1, 2011 at 6:34 PM

    to SS

    there is a observation backing in what you have said.in the real world
    democracy would be an ideal test.in the independent countries where the muslims(majority) have democracy and dissociate from the sharia ,yes there you can say the muslims are liberal.since democracy by definition
    should accommodate all shades of thought and its practice.(again in the
    defined limits)
    otherwise the liberal and all that concoctions are for the gullible.
    what to make of, when you do not see in the real world the above condition not being met is the concern.the concern translates to saying liberal and islam
    cannot go together.
    a hindu jinnah by the same narrative has to distance all that is alien
    to hinduism.which has not happened in the history and in present.
    that being,we can say oh yeah it is an eye catching title.

  27. Ranger
    October 1, 2011 at 6:23 PM

    Okay people – let us agree to totally ignore Loneranger. Nobody talks to him.

  28. S S
    October 1, 2011 at 4:23 PM

    Yes, ‘Hindu Jinnah’ is as absard as ‘liberal Islamist/ Muslim’. V S Naipaul had rightly said that liberal Muslim kind of phrases are used by those who want some govt awards etc. Similarly, Hindu Jinnah is also a phrase some people use to denigrade some leaders, organisations no matter what. Hence such concoctions.

    OK! Genuine liberals among Muslims should not feel offended. Because if they are liberals, they do not qualify being concious Muslims. It ie underlined and emphasised by all kind of authentic Ulema over ages. (Like really liberal Marxists was called ‘revisionists’ and names by all powerful Lenins, Stalins and Maos) Now, don’t argue that them ulema-are-mistaken-about-Islam and you represent true Islam. When chips are down you were and would be nowhere to affect even a tiny proportion of momins. Therefore, take the proposition in the right spirit. If you are liberal and democrat, you CANNOT be a Muslim. The doctrine of Islam itself syas as much.

  29. October 1, 2011 at 1:58 PM

    H*ndu Jinnah is an absurd title, I don’t even want to think about it.

    You are very right to point out that these two are mere assumptions:

    •No discourse on Modi can proceed without a reference to 2002
    •His image is permanently dented

    I think only people who envy him for his charisma, strength and intellect, mention these things – such people are living back in time. But I wonder why I find such people only on the internet because in my real life all my friends and colleagues only appreciate Mr. Modi for his strong and developmment minded approach.

    You are also right to say, “Speculation in the media doesn’t count as proof..”

    I don’t think Mr. Modi’s current image is anyway dented. People of India see the cases against him as a design. And even I think that India is not truly a secular country because we use tax-payers money to send some people to foreign nations for pilgrimage, and fund their religious buildings and also build churches.

  30. Anand
    October 1, 2011 at 11:35 AM

    Comrade LoneJalParkRanger’s Pakis strike again … this time against an adolescent girl:


  31. sat
    October 1, 2011 at 9:27 AM

    someone is saying “I am saying all along status of women in islam textstt or hindu texts is same. “. OH really … Having 3 teeth in thali (which several Hindu dont wear these days) is same as covering head to toe with a black robe like a tent and coyly eating by removing one viel on one hand and feeding the mouth in other… If people cannot see the difference between the two, I rest my case. Reading such comments only riles me up and ruins my day. By the way, yes, in hindu custom bride is given away by the father, likewise in xtian customs…watch some hollywood movies.

  32. Amit
    October 1, 2011 at 7:15 AM


    “”Is there no end to your nonsense?””

    Nope. He is here for the sole purpose of speaking nonsense. And I am sick of watching this blog being hijacked.

    I second that. I don’t mind engaging with someone who has different views than I do, but when someone is so intellectually dishonest, doesn’t care for facts if they are inconvenient, talks out of both sides of his mouth and indulges in shifting the goalposts, it’s best to ignore such a despicable person. Clearly he has no idea about how to engage in a discussion, and is here only to spread his vileness and bitterness. Here’s a picture that explains the prerequisite for a discussion: https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-j4bVrE7-9zk/ToZvWuCeXrI/AAAAAAAADmo/JgheGjpuRHE/s512/DiscussionPrerequisite.jpg

  33. Amit
    October 1, 2011 at 3:18 AM

    bbc wrote:

    You still haven’t shown the equivalency of slave-wives, polygamy for men alone, female circumcision .


    You will have better luck requesting a poisonous snake to give up its venom, than to expect LR to display even a smidgen of honesty or decency. Remember, he feeds off on the misfortunes of the poor to inflate his ego and earn his livelihood.

  34. Amit
    October 1, 2011 at 3:14 AM

    cricfan wrote:
    i agree. he’s even lost what little entertainment value he had, so 100% ignore.

    Yup. Best to ignore ugly and dishonest trolls. More peace of mind, as there’s no point in banging one’s head on a stone.

  35. cricfan
    October 1, 2011 at 1:35 AM

    “Nope. He is here for the sole purpose of speaking nonsense. And I am sick of watching this blog being hijacked.”

    i agree. he’s even lost what little entertainment value he had, so 100% ignore.

    Here’s looking forward to some actually useful discussions with everybody else!!

  36. Loony'R'Anger
    October 1, 2011 at 1:11 AM

    Men and women are equal, and to prove that, I, Loony’R’Anger, declare that I will do the following:

    1. Sit down or squat to pee – it is grave injustice that women have to do that while men have the privilege to pee standing up. Ghor atyachaar hai yeh naari par.

    2. Start putting on lipstick, mascara and makeup. Why should only women do this? After all, men and women are equal.

    3. Once a month, I will cut myself and bleed, just to show solidarity with, and be equal to my women comrades.

    Jai ho equality ki!

  37. neelkanth
    October 1, 2011 at 1:04 AM

    “”Is there no end to your nonsense?””

    Nope. He is here for the sole purpose of speaking nonsense. And I am sick of watching this blog being hijacked.

  38. CC
    October 1, 2011 at 1:01 AM

    Mian Loneranger, if you don’t belong to any party affiliation then why are you spending so much time extolling the virtues of Rahul Gnadhi who belongs to Congress party? Of course you’re arrogant enough to believe that only you have the choice to pick the party you want at your convenience. But your slavish mentality towards the dynasty belies this notion.

    Please worry about Amar Singh and P Chi who will be latest entry into Tihar along with other best friends of your idol Rahul Gnadhi, instead of trying to understand powerplay at BJP HQ.

    You have self-appointed yourself as the sole person who can “explain” everything on every topic to people here. It’s a waste of time. Your time would be better utilized in explaining these things to Mr. Unfinished Product. He needs these lessons more than us.

    Why are you wasting your precious spy time quoting verses from some smriti. I fail to understand your obsession with this when clearly no one else here does.
    And then surely you will start yelling at us for commenting on off-topics. If you are so concerned about some smriti, then why don’t you spend your time asking your party that is in power currently and pretty boy Rahul to pass Uniform Civil Law? (Maybe because he needs muslims to stay backward or else they won’t be a vote-bank anymore? )

    Instead you waste your time making cheap personal attacks on female commenters on this forum. You are no better than the kayastha men from UP.

  39. G
    October 1, 2011 at 12:11 AM

    @LR: It has nothing to do with governance because no government can go into each household to tell the men how to treat their wives or daughters. It is the belief ingrained in a person which makes them indulge in such low level behaviour.

    How many households in India are run on the basis of Manusmriti? How many even have a copy of it? How many refer to it? Is there no end to your nonsense?

  40. bbc
    October 1, 2011 at 12:02 AM

    Ava’s problem (and mine) is mostly the issue of Manusmriti being referred to as a Hindu text. When it is actually a book of law.

    If you want certain rural sections of Hindus to stop ill-treatment of women then you should stop trying to convince people that the smriti is a Hindu text. We’ve been arguing with you all along to try and make you see that it’s not part of the Hindu school of thought. The more you try to quote smriti to make Hindus feel guilty, the more the uninformed Hindus will turn to the smriti thinking it is part of Hinduism.

  41. Loneranger
    September 30, 2011 at 11:56 PM

    Ava – I never said women in islamic countries are far better in terms of status. When did I dispute anyone on status of women in islamic countries? I am saying all along status of women in islam textstt or hindu texts is same. Whether you go to saudi or quetta or saharanpur or chappra, they are treated worse than cattle. It has nothing to do with governance because no government can go into each household to tell the men how to treat their wives or daughters. It is the belief ingrained in a person which makes them indulge in such low level behaviour.

  42. G
    September 30, 2011 at 11:44 PM

    @LR: How does one manusmriti invalidate all the instances I have cited? Come out of your fanatical hatred obstinate ignorance and blinding narrow-mindedness. The bottom-line is this that in Hinduism there is a range of possible positions and roles for women in society including matriarchy and outright dominance. Only if you prove the same thing about Islam can your equation of Hinduism with Islam, in their respective treatment of women, be considered valid. Unfortunately Islam is merely a little religion constricted by just one scripture and a single man’s barbaric time-bound customs. You are merely talking out of the dark little nether aparture of your leftism/pseudo-secularism constipated mind.

  43. bbc
    September 30, 2011 at 11:41 PM


    You don’t understand what a slave wife is acc to “extreme” Islam. During/After Holy war, Muslims are allowed to have women as their sex slaves after conquest (in addition to their existing wives). That is religiously sanctioned rape.

    Acc to your own quotations, a woman can procreate with someone other than the husband too (for a baby)- so the multiple sexual partner/polygamy view is held equally for men and women.

    And regarding the thali – I would like your explanation of pendants with 3 teeth and round pendants with no teeth too. Not just the 2 teeth analogy.

    I hope I did not sound rude at any point.

  44. ava
    September 30, 2011 at 11:34 PM

    “CC– I dont belong to any political affiliation like you.’
    yes you do, you are eagerly awaiting the crowning of the new member of the dynasty who you were ardently supporting, stop fibbing, I think people here have been more than charitable in allowing you to stay for this long…You are despicable, and change colors every second….now everyone has had enough of you, so shoo….

  45. Loneranger
    September 30, 2011 at 11:34 PM

    bbc – I will tell you about the thali in detail tomorrow with source. As far as your other queries go, 9/3 where it says women is kept under father , then under husband and as widow under son – Means she has not independence and is a slave.

    9/80 – It talks of a women who cant bear a child will be superseded – meaning the man is allowed to re-marry. If the woman bears only girl child for 11 years then the man is again allowed to re-marry – this is polygamy.

  46. ava
    September 30, 2011 at 11:21 PM

    One can take up similar verses from the Koran the central book of Islam to no end, not a peripheral book like Manu Smriti, I have no time to waste quoting the passages as it serves no purpose, and is for someone at your level of intellect. Indian law is not based on Manu Smriti but Islamic law in Islamic countries is based on the Koran. Muslims have not been able to be brought under a common civil code in India. Why? Thanks to Congress which survives on their votes. Even today, Muslims in India follow a different set of civil codes based on the Koran and there is no common law in India. Many women are oppressed in India because of poverty, not Hinduism, and Congress likes to keep it that way, as do JNU Marxists who feed off people’s misery like you, as you would be rendered jobless as you have no skills fit for any kind of constructive decent work, other than being on the payroll of an NGO,…Try going to Pakistan or the Middle East and try to lecture them about the rights of women there….
    There are a lot of poor women in India, they are poor because their poverty is engineered by the governance.

  47. bbc
    September 30, 2011 at 11:20 PM

    And just so we are clear (not refuting your argument that Manusmriti is followed in certain rural areas), just for the sake of further discussion:

    The smriti was a set of laws/rules laid out by Manu to rule the society he lived in (or the society he led/ruled). It by no means is a requirement in the Hindu school of thought. As far as I can remember Manu was not a prophet/incarnation of God/son of God.

  48. bbc
    September 30, 2011 at 11:03 PM

    And regarding the ‘thali’ claims you made – as I said my mom (and Iyengars) have the pendant with three legs/teeth. It’s just symbolic of the naamam we wear on the forehead (which signifies Vishnu & Laxmi) according to her and my relatives. So, if you would like to refine your ‘two teeth’ theory or cite a source it would be extremely helpful.

  49. bbc
    September 30, 2011 at 11:00 PM


    You still haven’t shown the equivalency of slave-wives, polygamy for men alone, female circumcision .

    To extend my argument and previous assertions that Manusmriti is definitely outdated, what percentage of Hindu population think following smriti is fine and what percentage of Muslim population think the views of Mohammed on women is right?

Leave a Comment