The silence

The attacks in Mumbai the last week have been unprecedented and stunning. I got an email forward from a friend with the statement purportedly sent by those responsible ("Deccan Mujahideen") which talked about justice for Indian Muslims. I think the best explanation of this nonsensical idea is conveyed by John Oliver on The Daily Show (video below).

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Mumbai Tragedy

Barack Obama Interview
John McCain Interview

Sarah Palin Video
Funny Election Video

The irony is that a sensible perspective comes from a comedy show in a distant land. Of course, Jon Stewart is an anomaly even in the US, a fact that he indirectly refers to in the beginning of this video.

Of course, I was one of the millions who watched the news channels and felt sick about the senselessness of the attacks and the people they killed. But I also had incredible trouble watching the news channels, for not only the gore that they showed but also for the narrow mindedness and stupidity of the news media. What kind of idiot will show the positions of the commandos on live television? It was outrageous! Do these guys have any braincells? Or they just so pumped up on adrenalin and are such parasites that they will do _anything_ for getting something unique aka exclusive. At that point, I turned off the TV, though I did sporadically turn it on to be up to date on the happenings.

I was also disgusted at the amount of time spent on the missing journalist. Nearly 200 people are dead but they spend so much time on this one person just because she is a journalist? Where the fuck is the 'humility' that is supposed to be 'Indian Culture'?

I just read a very sensible perspective written by Gnani Sankaran here. But people like him seem to be quite scarce. He even questions the logic behind three top cops traveling together in the same vehicle. I would actually go further and say that people like the head of the ATS should not have been moving around with terrorists on the loose. I thought it was really stupid of Mr Hemant Karkare. Brave perhaps but stupid, nonetheless.

In the midst of all this, we had Mr Advani talking about the need for stricter laws to control terrorism. If that is his solution, I wonder in which India he lives in. Stricter laws have never been a deterrent for crime anywhere in the world and least of all in India. If that were the case, dowry deaths would be non-existent by this time. Untouchability would have been a thing of the past. His unimaginative and primitive mind can only think of draconian laws that will inevitably be used to harass the minorities and the powerless. As John Oliver says in the above video, "when you're a bankrupt ideology pursuing a bankrupt strategy, the only move you've got is the dick one."

The violence is finally over but the consequences of their actions and the possibilities scare me.

Shatru Buddhi Vinashaya

I am not sure how to react to this ad but I was speechless when I saw it. Can one call it racism? Perhaps not but apart from the difference in the colour of the skin (or race, in genetic terms), everything else is the same. If the depiction of the african tribes in Pirates of the Caribbean was racist, then what do we call the depiction of tribals in Indian cinema and advertisements?



India shining, indeed...

Honesty?

The last few days, an opinion page from CNN-IBN is making the rounds. People have expressed such opinions as nauseating and disgusting.
Shivam calls it "quite extraordinary and laudatory for a yuppie to admit his distance from the political rise of the 'low-class, neo-literate, village-bred, government school-raised, middle aged'".
I was surprised by this article. Not because it expressed something new or unknown, but because it said it like it was. It bared the soul of the writer who speaks for the 'non vote-bank' and their disgust over 'unsophisticated' Mayawatis and Mulayams who 'do not speak his (and his group's) language'. The great disconnect between the Youth of India who ostensibly stand for Equality and those they do not consider to be their equals has never been expressed in more clearer terms than this statement - "I am aware that were a Lalu or a Mayawati were ever to become PM, I would have to choose to leave the country". He wants his leader (whoever that may be, maybe Rahul 'foot-in-mouth-syndrome' Gandhi?) to lead the country and mould it in his vision because somehow his sophisticated 'education' that enables him to love 'british poetry' is more important.
The opinion that the article expresses is disgusting, elitist, stupid and absolutely undemocratic but more Youth would agree with it than see the crass classism and inequality it exhibits and they will yet, in their delusion, assert that they stand for equality. I believe the country would be better off without them. I call for them to leave the country and go after those opportunites abroad. Bugger off and leave us in peace.

Does God exist?

The original:


The description of this video is self-explanatory!


And the responses:




And we have an article in Slate that argues that most of us peel the banana the wrong way! Wait till I tell my pet monkey that he was right all along...

You make your own decision!

Link thanks to: Feministe

The things that are going on in this country..

Kissing is a controversy now

Pay someone else to serve your time!

Rahul baba opens his big mouth and shoots himself in the foot

Sindhis are the new Taliban

Sometimes, I wonder why I even bother reading the news

Media as the judge

A couple of days ago, the CJI issued a statement that "trial by media is destructive to society". Needless to say, this comes as a response to the reporting of high profile cases like the Jessica Lall and the Mattoo ones.

The media has been playing truant for a long time. Calls itself impartial and reports with an agenda that does not include the fairness and justice in mind. The news coverage is usually sensational, which cannot be done without being biased. Being impartial and explaining the grey areas is too boring. So, they create dramatic recreations with the culprit already established, even when the courts havn't pronounced the sentence.

Do I need to say that passing judgements on issues that are still in court and where the "culprit" is someone the police have identified. The important thing to note is that the police are not the ones who decide whom to punish but for the judge to adjudicate, by looking at all the evidence gathered, whether the person on trial is guilty or not. Judge not media or "public opinion".

The Jessica Lall case is now quite famous. The culprit was aquited for lack of evidence but the case was reopened following public pressure. Now, is the person in question guilty or not? Quite frankly, all the information that I have about this case is from the media and people's statements. Can we form an opinion based on media's presentation of the case and the words of people that we read in the newspaper and television? Yes, we can but we need to realise that all these information are secondary and we are not in a position to pass a verdict on the supposed "culprit". Do I believe that the Manu Sharma is guilty of the crime? Yes, I do but that does not mean that I will protest a famous lawyer taking up his case. Because if he is guilty and there is overwhelming evidence, as the media points out, for his culpability, then the court will punish him. Of course, there are also concerns about witnesses turning hostile. That is a problem, agreed but I do not see how Ram Jethmalani is going to influence that, unless we accuse him of malpractices.

Besides, I just watched this interview of Jethmalani, which was telecast on CNN-IBN and I have to say that I am impressed with him. He really has a beef with the media and he lambasts them with such contempt that I cannot help but laugh at the poor girl who thinks she has some tough questions for him!

Watch it and laugh alongside.

The interview reveals many things.

1. Sagarika Ghose: But sir, aren’t you worried that you are going against the tide of public opinion?

The media thinks it represents the people or at least says it is. And that somehow gives them the right to be so self-righteous!

2. Sagarika Ghose: But as a criminal lawyer, don't you believe there is a lakshman rekha that even all criminal lawyers have to work under?

The press somehow believes that it can dictate where the so called "laxman rekhas" are. This is as sad as the moral policing conducted by some of our esteemed police constables!

3. Sagarika Ghose: The Press at the end of the day is only expressing the opinion of the Indian public.

The media is goddamn humble. "we are just the messengers". Sheesh! spare me the bullshit.

4. Sagarika Ghose: But what makes you so convinced about the innocence of Manu Sharma?

Ram Jethmalani: I don’t have to convince myself. I am only convinced that the man is entitled to a fair trial. He is entitled to the services of a good lawyer. Courts will decide and no Pressman, no editor or television will crew will decide.

I have nothing to add here.

5. Sagarika Ghose: But is this how you want to be known in the public eye?

ROFL. Is that veiled threat to a man who has already said "to hell with you"?

6. Sagarika Ghose: What is wrong with an activist Press—a Press that speaks for the underdog.

There is the trumpet again. Blowing it must give them long, happy moments from their stressful, activist lifestyle!

7. Sagarika Ghose: But you aren’t giving me an answer – why are you defending Manu Sharma.

Ram Jethmalani: Because he is my client. I am lawyer.

The press is really stupid, is it not? What kind of a sorry ass question is that?

8. Sagarika Ghose: So you have taken on the case because you are angry at the way the Press has been trying him by media.

Ram Jethmalani: Now that is very stupid and a big lie. I have never said it.

The press tries to put words into people's mouths. It has been doing it for a long time but Jethmalani is too old and wise for such tactics.

9. Sagarika Ghose: Where the high and mighty buy the process of justice, Press is the sounding board. It is the only recall.

Ram Jethmalani: You can give yourself all the tributes that you want. This is self-praise. By all means, adopt it, pocket it, publicise it, take credit it. But when you are doing something wrong, I will say you are doing wrong. I have the liberty in a democracy. People have the liberty to go wrong and you are going wrong.

...

10. And the final word...

Sagarika Ghose: You are the one who seems so angry at the Press.

Ram Jethmalani: It is because of what I hear from you. If you represent the real Press, then I think something is wrong.

This was one lovely interview. If you do look very carefully, you will realise the amazing way the press tries to manipulate the public opinion. declaring itself as the vassal of the public and asking stupid questions in an interview where they have already taken a side and questioning motives, etc, etc.

Hat tip: Kafila

, , , ,

NRIs are still Indians!

Read this story...

Vijai B. Pandey, 60, filed a lawsuit in Hampden Superior Court last month against friends who tried to arrange a marriage between his son Pranjul K. and their niece.

, , ,

Crossing tracks - the Indian way

...

The cartel and its members..

I learnt a new word today - cartellian. A collective for the libertarian bunch in the Indian blogosphere.

I read this pearl of wisdom from a member of this cartel.

I quote

I think Tejal should set an example for the rest of us in ‘depreviledging’ systems by opening access to her arsehole. Everyone from Thakurs to Dalits to whites to blacks to barnyard animals to illegal Bangladeshi immigrants should be able to enter it at will. I see no reason why everyone should be a have-not when it comes to anal sex with Tejal, especially when she herself has the ability to make everyone a have.

Besides being extremely offensive to women and ridiculing one of the most egregious crimes (violence against women) that exist today, do I even need to say what is wrong with this argument? He is comparing the argument for opening up _public_ institutes to that of access to something very private and personal to a person.

Now we all have rights over our private property and who gets access to it. Which is probably the reason why the cartel is the most insistent on privatisation... To shut off the access to the "undeserving".

Libertarianism and private property rights and privatisation. see how easily they all fit together.

But I am simplifying things, arn't I? And I do not get it, do I?

PS. Incredibly, this post went into draft mode!
I think I accidentally pressed the "save as draft" button when editing this post..

, , ,