Printable View
it's funny that so called bharatiya janata party thinks bharath is only theirs .. (they called others puppets while they themselves are puppets in the hands of RSS ) .. and they like to send everyone to Pakistan.. whoever opens their mouth they will pack them to Pakistan .. funny :)Quote:
Originally Posted by ajithfederer
Meanwhile, a prominent (Muslim) leader in India - Azam Khan, has outrageousy given tacit support to the Paris attackers:
http://zeenews.india.com/news/india/...s_1822445.html
The same dude had no problems visiting France/Europe and wining, dining and living 'the life'!
Another bleeding heart liberal Mani Shankar Aiyar has openly condemned the French for inviting the attacks!
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/i...w/45815928.cms
The French Ambassador to India has apparently expressed deep concern and regrets over these absolutely irresponsible remarks, while the entire world and the rest of India stands behind France..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsWI-IVJZ98
Quote:
Originally Posted by rajeshkrv
Even the most apolitical observer will note that - compared to the four plus decades of atrocious (non)governance of the Congress party, with criminals like Tytler, et al directly orchestrating not one, but several riots - killing 1000s - besides, the 100s of scams bankrupting the country, and continuously appeasing certain minority communities, etc - the one year old BJP, despite some obvious nut cases in its ranks, and a few stray incidents aside, have not done anything even 1/10th as bad as the Gandhi family's cronies have done..
I don't know how you think one kind of intolerance is worse than the other... And you are wrong - people have been killed in India over pig carcasses in front of mosques, cattle carcasses in front of temples, defaced statues, burnt holy books etc. I will have to say "Nice Try"!Quote:
Originally Posted by ajithfederer
We can deal with political parties & their vote banks later in a separate argument ..... But the least you can expect from "distinguished" award-winning Intellectuals is some basic intellectual honesty!Quote:
Originally Posted by ajithfederer
Correction. He did 30 rallies. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/e...w/49662699.cmsThe 2 times I've seen him opening his mouth were in election rallies and in foreign tours.
I, for the life of mine cannot remember a sitting PM being this involved in state election rallies. He did the same in Delhi campaign and now in Bihar.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rajeshkrv
Please quote me such instances. Please show me an instance where a mob went to an Muslim's house dragged and killed him over an allegation of eating beef before. I am surprised that you don't see this as intolerance. Statements like people who oppose modi should go to pakistan. People who eat beef should go to pakistan or arab countries haven't been heard until the present BJP Govt came to power. Who are these idiots to tell anyone in this country to go anywhere? :huh:
And yet you haven't answered me on a Karnataka BJP Leader giving a stmt like beheading a state cm. If you don't see this as intolerance i can't help.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lord_labakudoss
3500 Sikhs butchered in less than a month's time in New Delhi - after Indira Gandhi's assassination..
100s of Sikhs incarcerated culminating in the Golden Temple violation..
Under direct command from IG and co, the IPKF indulged in atrocities in Sri Lanka against Sri Lankan tamils..which further fueled the ethnic strife..and distanced/angered the militant groups..
Riots after riots in major cities like Ahmedabad, Surat, Hyderabad, Lucknow and other cities - all directly managed from the center..
Be it the Shah Bano case, where a Muslim woman was deliberately denied matrimonial justice - the culture of minority appeasement was turned into an ugly national habit - fracturing the Indian society along communal lines for good..
We are talking about 4-5 decades of gross abuse of power and total disregard for human rights..
All under the Congress rule - nobody is justifying the incidents that have happened last one year - but putting moral equivalency in perspective, all of that pales in comparison when one puts up the cumulative list of atrocities of the last 40-50 years..
and the funny part is BJP was part of BSP coaliton in UP and toppled the government after their term of CM'ship.. now they go on claiming RJD-JDU combination as opportunistic etc..
and why to deal with political parties later, when their arrogance and bad mouth blabbering keeps continuing .. are we in some barbarian era where people have to be forced to follow some stupid ideology.. and ironical statements like if you dont vote for us go to pakistan .. what kind of statements are these .. and who is this Amit shah .. all people who did favor the hitler in gujarat are the ones who speak and kindle such things ..
please let's not talk about non governance.. there are millions of such instances in so called BJP governed states as well..in past & present ..
Not just one or two but 100's atrocities by the so called "Indian PEACE keeping force" to protect the Tamils ? 100,000 troops to an island with population of around 18 million ? Seriously ? No Eezha Tamilain will ever forget this in their lives ! http://www.tchr.net/reports_commission_IPKF.htm :evil:Quote:
Originally Posted by irir123
In a spin over intolerance
By G. Sampath; The Hindu, November 19, 2015
The real issue is not ‘societal intolerance’ — society does not change wholesale in 18 months — but state tolerance
A lot of ink has been spilled over what has been described as a suffocating atmosphere of intolerance in India. The ‘intolerance’ bug has followed Prime Minister Narendra Modi all the way to the U.K., with 200 writers, including the likes of Ian McEwan and Salman Rushdie, writing an open letter to the British Prime Minister, David Cameron, urging him to raise the issue with Mr. Modi.
‘Intolerance’ in this context has come to serve as a shorthand for the unending series of, to borrow Mr. Modi’s words, “unfortunate incidents” — the murder of M.M. Kalburgi; of Mohammad Akhlaq; of a Toyota showroom employee, Yakub Shaikh; the repeated petrol bomb attacks on Kashmiri truck drivers; the burning of two Dalit children in Sunpedh. And this is just a partial enumeration of one kind of intolerant behaviour.
Short of killing those you disagree with, there exists a range of strategies for making intolerance the new normal. We have, for instance, an entire pantheon of Parivar-accredited rabble-rousers — many of them are office-bearers of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party — who seem to follow a roster system for coming up with hate speech. Another strategy is to erect a new regime of intolerance by packing state-funded cultural institutions with pro-Hindutva mono-culturists, often at the expense of qualification for the post in question. Then there are the seemingly random incidents that are, in part, an outcome of the message of impunity sent out by the state’s extreme tolerance of majoritarian intolerance: disruptions of book launches, ghar wapsi, love jihad, and so on.
Pattern of excessive tolerance
All these taken together reveal a pattern not of intolerance but of too much tolerance — of hate speech, of sectarian violence, of violation of freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution. It was this toleration of the intolerant that prompted writers, academics, students, and scientists to protest in whichever ways they could: by returning state awards, writing open letters, and so on.
Unfortunately, defining the current crisis as one of ‘intolerance’ has made it easier for the government — by making it seem like a culture war rather than one of life and death, which is what it really is.
At first, therefore, the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) could brush off the wave of protests as ‘manufactured rebellion’. Then it attempted to discredit the protestors as proxies of the Congress. But Moody’s Analytics could not be dismissed as a Congress supporter, nor could the American press or the Reserve Bank of India Governor, or, for that matter, Arun Shourie, who has branded the NDA regime as “Congress plus cow”.
As evidence of the state’s divisive tolerance mounted, the BJP fell back on its strategy of last resort: make it all about Mr. Modi, the victim.
In a recent Facebook post that received extensive media coverage, Finance Minister Arun Jaitley launched a sharp counter-attack, asserting that “since 2002, the Prime Minister himself has been the worst victim of ideological intolerance”. This was such a surreal spin on reality, and on the very idea of intolerance, that even his opponents were left dumbstruck by its sheer audacity.
Indeed, its rhetorical cunning needs some unpacking.
First, Mr. Jaitley contorts the meaning of the term ‘intolerance’ to imply criticism, but it is much more than that — it is the curtailment of another’s right to political and social equality, and a violation of their freedom of belief and expression.
In other words, only those who wield power, such as the state, or those who enjoy the support of the state’s coercive apparatus, can exercise intolerance in a society governed by a state. Mr. Jaitley’s notion of “ideological intolerance”, therefore, makes no sense in this context. Or it makes as much sense as the slave’s intolerance of his master’s ideology.
In the present scenario, the real issue is not ‘societal intolerance’ — society does not change wholesale in 18 months — but state tolerance. It is not about ideology, but about this simple thing known as law and order, whose custodian is the state. In a functional state, intolerant, non-state actors cannot get away with perpetrating unlawful violence. It is only when the state tacitly empowers them by tolerating, and perhaps encouraging, them that they are able to exercise their intolerance to lethal effect.
Second, what also gives the lie to Mr. Jaitley’s assertion that the Prime Minister has been a victim is that he seems to have done rather well for a victim. A lot of people would love to be similarly victimised if only it would fetch them the most powerful post in the country.
Third, even if we take Mr. Jaitley’s claim literally, what exactly is the nature of the “ideological intolerance” that Mr. Modi has faced? To answer that question, we need to first state what his ideology is. It is now a truth universally acknowledged that Mr. Modi’s real ideology is, and always has been, development. Nothing but development. Is Mr. Jaitley suggesting that writers, filmmakers, and a visa-denying United States have all along been intolerant of Mr. Modi’s pro-development ideology? Well, yes, no, maybe.
This is why his mention of 2002 is a masterstroke. At one level, it’s just a number, denoting the year of commencement of Mr. Modi’s supposed victimisation. But at another level, it’s a dog-whistle aimed at those who admire him for whatever he did or did not do in 2002. The irony is that even as the Prime Minister’s supporters have wanted the nation to ‘move on’ from 2002, it is not a Teesta Setalvad or a Romila Thapar but supposedly the most liberal-minded minister of Mr. Modi’s Cabinet who is reminding us in 2015 of 2002.
For all we know, Mr. Jaitley’s ingenious claim about Mr. Modi being a victim of intolerance could well end up as a self-fulfilling prophecy, though not in the sense he intended. It is not the intolerance of his ideological opponents but that of his own party members and Parivar affiliates that could victimise Mr. Modi’s political future. The drubbing that the BJP received in the Bihar assembly polls is an unmistakable warning. The alienation of every entity that refuses to play ball with the Parivar’s agenda is bound to diminish, if not victimise, the office of the prime minister.
Protesting the protestors
Apart from the Modi-as-victim card, the other strategy to counter the protestors has been to paint them as a bunch of elitists who are crying wolf because they’ve been evicted from their cosy club of pelf and influence in Lutyens’ Delhi. Even if this is true, it does not detract from the fact that the illiberal brigade feeling emboldened under NDA rule is authentic and in earnest.
In fact, the real victims in all this are the Prime Minister’s media managers and their amplifiers in the press, who have struggled to provide answers to some straight questions: Is our Prime Minister a strong leader or a weak leader? Is he in control or is he not in control? Is he still for development or is he no longer for development?
If he is a strong leader who is in control and is for development, then he should be able to take a public stand against the Parivar elements sabotaging his development agenda with their divisive one. But if, as has been the case so far, he cannot open his mouth against them, then he is a weak leader who is not in control and doesn’t care for development. So which one is it? As Aristotle pointed out a long time ago, A cannot be ‘A’ and ‘not A’ at the same time. Clearly the Prime Minister’s spin doctors have tough times ahead.
http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-e...?homepage=true