India Media role in contempt and derision about India

member_29172 · Post by **member_29172** » 24 Jan 2016 07:27

it's a christian saying, given their prophet was born that many years ago. looks like the brown a$$ lickers dont mind.

Arjun · Post by **Arjun** » 24 Jan 2016 07:47

arshyam wrote:Here's another of those 'elite' phrases, oh-so-gora-sahib in its pronunciation:
"nattering nabobs of negativism”

Spiro Agnews? Not a bad turn of phrase actually, if one uses 'nabobs' in a particular context...

The 'prattling pundits of positivism' are always around to take on the nay-sayers.

member_29325 · Post by **member_29325** » 24 Jan 2016 08:22

Tunku Vardarajan on how his brother was about to be garlanded with slippers in Allahabad

Not a supporter of thuggery in general, but I am willing to make an exception in the case of pompous tool siddarth varadarajan -- if anyone richly deserves the traditional garland of slippers, it is he. The contempt shown to the public and public interest by the likes of him needs to be paid back liberally.

Agnimitra · Post by **Agnimitra** » 30 Mar 2016 22:17

X-post from Out-of-India thread:

Wendy Doniger to speak in Hyderabad

The timing of the visit is interesting. Univ. of Hyderabad is still burning. They've brought in Kanhaiyya and co.

Added: The organizers are leveraging one varsity with another. A section of Hyderabadi Muslims is stepping in. Useful to follow such events to see the formations.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 29 Apr 2016 01:41

New York Times again giving a platform for Hinduphobia

Published on Apr 28, 2016
By Eric Maskin & Amartya Sen
How Majority Rule Might Have Stopped Donald Trump

American primaries are not the only recent elections to produce winners lacking the support of a majority of voters. In India, the Bharatiya Janata Party received only 31 percent of the vote in the last general election, but got a majority of parliamentary seats. (Even including political allies, their vote share was no more than 39 percent.) The B.J.P., a right-wing party with a Hindu ideology for which only a minority of Hindus voted, has been running the government since, which is fair enough, given the electoral system. But it has also been persecuting political dissent as “anti-national.” Even majority support doesn’t give leaders in a democracy a right to stifle dissent. Invoking the battle cry “anti-national” in the name of the entire nation seems especially pernicious from a government without majority support.

As with the Republicans and Mr. Trump’s flirtations with fear and violence, India now suffers the ill effects of a serious confusion when a plurality win is marketed as a majority victory.

member_28397 · Post by **member_28397** » 29 Apr 2016 01:59

RajeshA wrote:New York Times again giving a platform for Hinduphobia

Published on Apr 28, 2016
By Eric Maskin & Amartya Sen
How Majority Rule Might Have Stopped Donald Trump

American primaries are not the only recent elections to produce winners lacking the support of a majority of voters. In India, the Bharatiya Janata Party received only 31 percent of the vote in the last general election, but got a majority of parliamentary seats. (Even including political allies, their vote share was no more than 39 percent.) The B.J.P., a right-wing party with a Hindu ideology for which only a minority of Hindus voted, has been running the government since, which is fair enough, given the electoral system. But it has also been persecuting political dissent as “anti-national.” Even majority support doesn’t give leaders in a democracy a right to stifle dissent. Invoking the battle cry “anti-national” in the name of the entire nation seems especially pernicious from a government without majority support.

As with the Republicans and Mr. Trump’s flirtations with fear and violence, India now suffers the ill effects of a serious confusion when a plurality win is marketed as a majority victory.

house nigga in play

Pulikeshi · Post by **Pulikeshi** » 29 Apr 2016 09:59

MaharathiArjun wrote:
RajeshA wrote:New York Times again giving a platform for Hinduphobia

Published on Apr 28, 2016
By Eric Maskin & Amartya Sen
How Majority Rule Might Have Stopped Donald Trump

house nigga in play

Takes two Nobel geniuses to compare a superpower with another!

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 29 Apr 2016 13:40

^^I've submitted this comment... Let's see how it goes.
__________________________________________
This is the simpering whine of the unelected and unelectable but credentialled ideologue, anticipating a dilution in the privileges of unquestioned prestige, as the public vote for someone who to them is unpalatable. The playing field has been agreed upon, it is level for all candidates, and on that field you seem to be losing. But wait you ignoble Nobel laureates, it is yet the third quarter, media cheerleaders are scratching the bottom of the integrity barrel to oppose the very same candidates you opposed (in India) and you are opposing (in America). You may still win. Then what will you do? Complain about the system, or about the majority who actually want to elect someone you don't like into power? Fine democrats you lot are!!!

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 29 Apr 2016 14:03

JE Menon wrote:This is the simpering whine of the unelected and unelectable but credentialled ideologue, anticipating a dilution in the privileges of unquestioned prestige, as the public vote for someone who to them is unpalatable. The playing field has been agreed upon, it is level for all candidates, and on that field you seem to be losing. But wait you ignoble Nobel laureates, it is yet the third quarter, media cheerleaders are scratching the bottom of the integrity barrel to oppose the very same candidates you opposed (in India) and you are opposing (in America). You may still win. Then what will you do? Complain about the system, or about the majority who actually want to elect someone you don't like into power? Fine democrats you lot are!!!

Often we have "intellectuals" saying that BJP only got 31% of the vote. What they actually want to say is that Hindutva has only 31% support in India, a minority support, and yet the party representing Hindutva forms the government of India. These intellectuals want to say that the majority on the other hand are just like them and against Hindutva. They want to say, they in fact, represent the majority view in India, whereas GoI represents only a minority view.

What these intellectuals omit, is that 31% who voted for BJP are those who feel comfortable voting for soft Hindutva of BJP in regions where BJP is a viable alternative. BJP is not strong everywhere organizationally. It is not like a two-party system where both parties are strong everywhere.

Hindu votes could go to a number of different parties and the voters may have voted on a large number of issues, not just Hindutva. And as such one can't interpret the 69% that didn't go to BJP as necessarily anti-Hindutva.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 29 Apr 2016 14:06

More importantly, why did they not complain in the past when the vote percentage was much less?

Only now did Amartya Sen feel the need to raise this issue, in his drooling years? Jackass. Totally lost respect for this fellow. Questionable integrity, both personal and professional. If he was not aware about the situation regarding Nalanda University, for instance, considering as I said that he is now in his drooling years, then he should have recused himself from the position.

His book the Argumentative Indian is still worth reading.

prahaar · Post by **prahaar** » 29 Apr 2016 14:27

It is a sad commentary on Amartya Sen, who did not mind accepting positions from a super-minority sarkar of UPA1. Congress received a few seats more than BJP in 2004.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 29 Apr 2016 18:39

They published it...

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 29 Apr 2016 19:29

This 69% of people not voting for Modi has been busted many times before, by many. Yes 69% did not vote for Modi. However, more than 80% did not want Congress to be in power. And if one considers the vote share of other parties, nearly 95% of population did not want them to be in power. So Indians, playing by the rule, elected the BEST party to come to power.

Lilo · Post by **Lilo** » 05 Nov 2016 16:46

Newslaundry deliberately misquotes PM Modi’s speech into “anti-dalit” joke
ByOpIndia Staff Posted on November 4, 2016

This is one of the most ironic situations one can possibly have. Newslaundry claims to be “a media critique, news and current affairs portal” and as such was expected to be a place where “sabki dhulai” would take place, for their wrong or erroneous reporting. Instead, Newslaundry has now become the hub of such wrong, and biased reporting.

Take for example their coverage of the Ramnath Goenka Excellence in Journalism Awards, held in New Delhi. They tried to cover it by giving importance to a small speech by Indian Express Chief Editor, Raj Kamal Jha (who happens to be Congress sycophant Sanjay Jha’s cousin). It is entirely their prerogative on which speech they focus, but in their article, which was designed to put down PM Modi, they slipped in a piece of utter lies, which later if given the correct spin by successful media houses, can be used to show PM Modi as anti-dalit. This is what Newslaundry reported:

“……and enjoyed some thunderous applause when he made a bizarre and offensive comment about crimes against Dalits. Listening to the laughter from sections of the audience to Modi smiling and saying, “How would the BMW driver know if the one he’s running over is a Dalit?” was distressing. It underscored the need for criticism of the political establishment that Modi himself had encouraged earlier in his speech. Of course, he followed that sentiment up with a directive that the media should behave responsibly and not “divide” the nation, but that’s a separate problem.”

It is one thing to be snide and hateful to a person you hate, and it is quite another thing, to be blatantly untruthful, hiding the tone, tenor and context of a statement, just to make a point. The full quote and context of PM Modi is captured in the following video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42bKQKo4HNE
A transcript of this portion:

Media should criticise the Government as much as possible, I do not have any problem with this. Don’t report this wrongly. BUT, India is a country full of diversity and special identities. The unity of the country…., For you it is a story, and as soon as you publish it, you go after another story, but, sometimes it creates such deep wounds…..Earlier, whenever an accident would take place the news would be: ” in so-and-so village an accident took place in which a truck and a cycle rider, got injured, expired…”; Slowly, things changed, “in so-and-so village, in the day, due to rash driving, drunk driver, crushed an innocent person, “crushed“.” Slowly, reporting changed and became: “BMW car, crushes one Dalit“. Sir forgive me, but the person in the BMW car didn’t know that the victim was a Dalit. But we set fire to such matters. An accident should be reported, if worth making a headline, it should be made as an headline….
The intention of the entire statement of the PM was clear, he wanted the media to stop sensationalism, to stop bringing up caste, religion, creed and such divisive things, into news items where they had no relevance. We at OpIndia.com too have raised this issue umpteen number of times. Earlier this year, a Times of India journalist and Newslaundry co-founder were caught on social media fanning caste-hatred, by making an incident into an upper caste vs lower caste issue, when actually some of the perpetrators themselves were Dalits.

So it was the second stage of irony now, that when the PM was urging the media to stop sensationalism and stop bringing up “anti-dalit” narratives where none existed, Newslaundry chose to bring the “anti-dalit” angle. Clearly, the agenda driven “neutral” reporting of Newslaundry is exposed here.

P.S. They managed to put up a full transcript of the Indian Express’ Editor’s speech, but couldn’t put up the transcript of a small anecdote of the PM, which they had chosen to spin into an anti-dalit statement.

Tags: ANTI DALIT, JOKE, MEDIA LIES LIST, NEWSLAUNDRY, PM MOIDI, RAMNTAH GOENKA AWARDS, THE INDIAN EXPRESS

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 16 Jan 2017 20:15

DARKA BUTT OUT OF UNDIE TV

Barkha Dutt Hints At Starting Her New Venture After Resigning From NDTV {More direct baksheesh?}
She took to Twitter & Facebook to announce her resignation.

Agnimitra · Post by **Agnimitra** » 02 Mar 2017 22:10

World Economic Forum releases survey - rates Indian media as the 2nd most untrusted institution in the world

Suraj · Post by **Suraj** » 03 Mar 2017 05:08

The whole "31% of voters voted for BJP onlee" whine is an interesting one. It presupposes that others have earned a popular mandate. The reality is this: No political party in India has EVER won a popular mandate.
Not Nehru in 1951
Not Indira in 1971
Not the JD after emergency in 1977
Not even Rajiv in 1984 in his historic landslide

Coalitions have combined to add up to >50%, but only once - the JD coalition in 1977. But then, NDA as a coalition is not mentioned; it's only BJP's own vote share that's quoted as 31.x% . The entire NDA together adds up to close to 40% of the popular vote.

Absolutely no main winning party has ever won a majority of the popular vote. Ever. The closest was in 1984, with 49% . That's right, when Rajiv Gandhi won 404 of 533 LS seats then, 51% of Indians did not want him as PM. No one ever runs around yapping that, though.

gashish · Post by **gashish** » 03 Mar 2017 06:11

This whine about only 31.x% votes is disingenuous argument at best from this famous but bitter argumentative Indian. He knows it, and he knows we know it too.
These are the rules of the game called first-past-the-post ballot system. The rules of this game favored vote-bank pandering parties thus far. It is not working anymore, hence this whine.

If we had runoff system with only two candidates or parties on the ballot in 2nd/nth round, I am sure NDA/Modi would have had run away voteshare.

In 2002 French election, Jacques Chirac had only ~19% vote share in the first round, while the runner up was close at ~16%. In 2nd round, Chirac just beat the hell out of Le penn with ~82% to his opponent's 18%

KLNMurthy · Post by **KLNMurthy** » 03 Mar 2017 07:39

Suraj wrote:The whole "31% of voters voted for BJP onlee" whine is an interesting one. It presupposes that others have earned a popular mandate. The reality is this: No political party in India has EVER won a popular mandate.
Not Nehru in 1951
Not Indira in 1971
Not the JD after emergency in 1977
Not even Rajiv in 1984 in his historic landslide

Coalitions have combined to add up to >50%, but only once - the JD coalition in 1977. But then, NDA as a coalition is not mentioned; it's only BJP's own vote share that's quoted as 31.x% . The entire NDA together adds up to close to 40% of the popular vote.

Absolutely no main winning party has ever won a majority of the popular vote. Ever. The closest was in 1984, with 49% . That's right, when Rajiv Gandhi won 404 of 533 LS seats then, 51% of Indians did not want him as PM. No one ever runs around yapping that, though.

I think, even engaging with the absurd argument about "only 31%" is to allow these scoundrels to control the debate. There is no reason at all to bother to cite other cases where the preferred parties of Amartya Sen et al have gotten elected with less than 51% of the vote. There was never any requirement that the winning party has to have >= 51% of the votes. End of story.

The focus of any response should be on the fact that these people are nothing more or less than corrupt, unruly and lawless feudals who, when they fail to win a game by the rules to which they have all agreed in the first place, cry that they have been cheated and the game itself is unfair. No one who has won the game every single time before this without any complaint, and quarrels with the rules of the game the first time he loses, is worthy of any consideration.

Suraj · Post by **Suraj** » 03 Mar 2017 20:13

Well yes I don't plan to get into a debate with them, but I'd like BRFites to know the above. In our multiparty system, not only is winning a popular mandate tough, but absolutely no one has done it as a single party - not even someone winning almost 80% of the LS seats. These 'intellectuals' utilize public lack of familiarity with the statistical constraints of a multiparty electoral process to delegitimize those who they desire to. The simple counter-argument is to strip them of their factual base such that their motivations are exposed fully.

KLNMurthy · Post by **KLNMurthy** » 03 Mar 2017 22:54

Suraj wrote:Well yes I don't plan to get into a debate with them, but I'd like BRFites to know the above. In our multiparty system, not only is winning a popular mandate tough, but absolutely no one has done it as a single party - not even someone winning almost 80% of the LS seats. These 'intellectuals' utilize public lack of familiarity with the statistical constraints of a multiparty electoral process to delegitimize those who they desire to. The simple counter-argument is to strip them of their factual base such that their motivations are exposed fully.

If Modi's enemies suddenly discover that, because Modi won, it means that the first-past-the-post system is all wrong, then there should be an alternate model.

Shortly after the 2014 elections, when there was all that noise about "only 31%", I got curious and did a comparative analysis of the existing (first-past-the-post), runoff, and proportional representation models for my own edification. There are some basic problems with doing such an analysis:

Generally, it is very hard to do an apples-to-apples comparison of these models, as they are based on totally different assumptions about what it means for people's will to be reflected in electing their representative. Also, I found that most of the publicly available research papers about any particular method don't take into account that if a party loses in one election cycle, they will get another chance in the next cycle--in other words, they assume one vote (in case of some versions of proportional representation it is multiple votes) per person, one time only, and that's the end.

A commonsensical definition of enfranchisement of people is that the policies of a government in power should reflect the will of the people; it is less important which party actually wins. Democratic policies are the ultimate goal of elections.

There were a small number of somewhat-conclusive results I was able to get to (from memory);

1. There is also some research to suggest that the party that wins a plurality in first-past-the-post would also win the runoff round if there is a second round, with a fairly high degree of probability, if we make some assumptions about how the votes that don't go to the top two parties are distributed in a runoff round.

2. When I looked at the constituency sizes for very small states of India, it looked like slate-of-candidates proportional representation would disenfranchise small states by not giving them any representation at all--they will just get merged into a larger constituency that contains their state; for this reason alone, it might be imperative for India to keep the first-past-the-post system along with the rule of having a minimum one constituency for a state.

3. In a parliamentary system, it is meaningless to look at overall vote share of BJP and conclude anything from it because it is "only 31%" or whatever. We have to look at individual constituencies. I looked, and only a subset of constituencies would even have been subject to runoff in the 2014 elections as the BJP winner already had >=51% of the vote share.

4. On the whole, having guaranteed multiple election cycles levels out any "unfairness" in the results of the first-past-the-post model--parties routinely form coalitions or have electoral arrangements to correct for losing in the previous cycle.

5. Furthermore, using the "democratic policies" as a criterion, a party that wins only a narrow plurality in first-past-the-post will be forced to be careful in tailoring its policies towards the center, because it will be facing the same electorate (which only gave it a narrow plurality last time) next cycle and would like to survive in office or even increase its vote share. As I said above, all the critiques of first-past-the-post fail to take into account the fact that there will be an indefinite sequence of elections, guaranteed to take place, in a democracy like India.

I learned recently that just-deceased Nobel economist Kenneth Arrow also did some work to show that there is no perfect election model.

Anyway, all this to say that it is remarkable that Nobel-prize winning economists of the caliber of Amartya Sen apparently haven't bothered to think through comparative analysis of alternate election scenarios (which they would, I suppose, have been better equipped to do than me, an amateur in this field), or they did do the analysis, and didn't bother to share it with their readers, remaining content to spread FUD about "only 31%'. Either way, it reflects very poorly on their integrity and that should be the main response to their attacks, as you and I would agree.

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 03 Mar 2017 23:32

Jurnos responsible for Indian soldier suicide!! - BDUTT and coupta publication involved

https://twitter.com/RahulPatSpeaks/stat ... 1633372160

Suraj · Post by **Suraj** » 04 Mar 2017 00:37

KLNMurthy wrote:Anyway, all this to say that it is remarkable that Nobel-prize winning economists of the caliber of Amartya Sen apparently haven't bothered to think through comparative analysis of alternate election scenarios

I would not give him the credit of being merely ignorant. That would in fact be an insult to him. He has the intellectual faculty to grasp the dynamics of the FPTP nature of Indian multi-party electoral politics, but that doesn't stop him from lending his name to such a nonsensical claim about lack of a popular mandate. IOW I see his intentions are deliberately malevolent, not merely ignorant.

Atmavik · Post by **Atmavik** » 04 Mar 2017 01:29

Suraj wrote:Well yes I don't plan to get into a debate with them, but I'd like BRFites to know the above. In our multiparty system, not only is winning a popular mandate tough, but absolutely no one has done it as a single party - not even someone winning almost 80% of the LS seats. These 'intellectuals' utilize public lack of familiarity with the statistical constraints of a multiparty electoral process to delegitimize those who they desire to. The simple counter-argument is to strip them of their factual base such that their motivations are exposed fully.

we see such arguments time and again. crying foul in defeat and claim victory of people when the same system works in their favor.

kvraghav · Post by **kvraghav** » 04 Mar 2017 12:12

Not being insensitive but people trusting media for some minor gains will be doing so at their won risk and they should be responsible for whatever happens.

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 17 Dec 2019 18:48

Counting how long it takes b4 the dhimmies pick up this hit-job by BBC-Pakis

Note that there is **NOT EVEN AN ATTEMPT**** to justify the claim that what is propagated is "fake". Apparently BBC definition of "fake news" is
"what is not supportive of the Ummah/ISIB (Islamic State in Britain)".

No wonder British PM has started a crackdown.

Ashokk · Post by **Ashokk** » 26 Apr 2020 00:10

Code: Select all

https://theeasternlink.com/is-india-doomed-anyway

Is India doomed anyway!

schinnas · Post by **schinnas** » 26 Apr 2020 15:40

This fellow Laxminarayanan was exposed as a fraud. He was an economist running an NGO and giving impression of an epidemiologist, which he is not. Anti India media like BBC or NDTV give him coverage.

His past scare mongering predictions have proved wrong by a mile. He shouldn't be allowed within any ambit of any decision makers.

Tanaji · Post by **Tanaji** » 26 Apr 2020 20:21

Ashokk wrote:

Code: Select all

https://theeasternlink.com/is-india-doomed-anyway

Is India doomed anyway!

I cant believe this passes off as journalism these days. Ashokk is right to put it under the code tag.... a thousand lashes on me for reading the stink pile of an article.

Vips · Post by **Vips** » 11 Jan 2022 20:09

A true representative of Khan Market and Lutyens journalism wants India to ignore its self-interest and attend SAARC summit in pakistan.

Look at what she is writing that India can have in exchange for agreeing to a SAARC summit in Pakistan:
"India can put together a slew of asks in response to agreeing to go to Pakistan to participate in the SAARC summit — an end to cross-border terrorism, shutting down infiltration and keeping the LoC quiet, and action on the 2008 Mumbai attacks"

India has been consistently asking pakistan for all this and what has Pakistan done? Zilch, Zero, Sifar, Shunya. Malhotra is absolutely aware of this and still trying to preach us to ignore our strategic interests.

The way this Pro Pakistan lifafa journalist is doing the advocacy for Porkistan is simply breath-taking. But then what else can you expect from Dupatta's The Print?

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 11 Jan 2022 21:18

MUST-WATCH Video on this topic.

The venerable Kanchan Gupta appearing on the Carvaka Podcast with Kushal Mehra.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 12 Jan 2022 01:07

Vips wrote: Look at what she is writing that India can have in exchange for agreeing to a SAARC summit in Pakistan:
"India can put together a slew of asks in response to agreeing to go to Pakistan to participate in the SAARC summit — an end to cross-border terrorism, shutting down infiltration and keeping the LoC quiet, and action on the 2008 Mumbai attacks"

India has been consistently asking pakistan for all this and what has Pakistan done? Zilch, Zero, Sifar, Shunya. Malhotra is absolutely aware of this and still trying to preach us to ignore our strategic interests.

The way this Pro Pakistan lifafa journalist is doing the advocacy for Porkistan is simply breath-taking. But then what else can you expect from Dupatta's The Print?

Jyoti Malhotra is part of a typical class of Lutyens elite who have a lot of friends and contacts amongst their Pakjabi counterparts and/or have a history of their own families migrating from there during partition. I remember Malhotra herself fondly telling Hamid Mir in some interview that her family is originally from Gujranwalla. These people are at the forefront of the aman ki asha WKK brigade. They want the GoI and the rest of the hoi-polloi in India to ignore Paki perfidy and terrorism and our dead soldiers and civilians so that there can be "peace" and the border can be "open" and elites like them can shuttle back and forth between Lahore and Delhi like they are Toronto and NYC and enjoy with their "bicchde hue bhai". That is what is behind their periodic exhortations of "India should extend the hand of peace! This time for sure the pak army wants peace as well. It will be different you will see!". This is usually followed by the pakis showing their true colors, carrying out yet another terrorist attack and these selfish turds having to shut up again but only for a while, upset not because their fellow Indians lost their lives but because they might have to postpone that trip to Lahore.

sum · Post by **sum** » 12 Jan 2022 19:11

Why does this happen only on 1 side of the border and not similar species on the other side ( cant remember any India loving elites/diplomats/decision makers in either China or TSP whereas we are chock-a-block with them)?

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 12 Jan 2022 23:26

They never allowed their education systems to be infiltrated, much less completely taken over, by the adherents of an inimical ideology that's fundamentally hostile towards native culture and civilization. (Assuming of course that one regards Islamism as, for all practical purposes, the "native" culture of TSP).

Indira jee literally created and nurtured these termites' nests of globalist-left ideology within India, giving them virtually unlimited power and access to shape the discourse, while ruthlessly silencing every source of an alternate perspective. The amazing thing is that India isn't broken already.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 13 Jan 2022 10:27

We can start putting news articles which are derisive about PM in Punjab flyover blockage here.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 13 Jan 2022 10:56

https://www.livemint.com/opinion/online ... 07235.html

SRajesh · Post by **SRajesh** » 13 Jan 2022 12:00

Nachiketji
Either its like 'Stockholm Syndrome' or what I call 'Pinjara Syndrome'(like the movie Pinjara}
There's a fair number of Punjabi Sikh/Hindu families who migrated sans daughters/daughter-in-laws/wifes Not killed but abducted by the Peacefuls
There's a groundswell of wanting to reconnect and communicate with their off-springs relatives and forget the past!!
Which the Napaks with the help of affected 'Khan Market' types are desperately trying to misuse.

kvraghav · Post by **kvraghav** » 13 Jan 2022 15:57

ramana wrote:https://www.livemint.com/opinion/online ... 07235.html

So the author is unhappy that PM did not step out of his Car?

Varoon Shekhar · Post by **Varoon Shekhar** » 13 Jan 2022 19:18

'They never allowed their education systems to be infiltrated, much less completely taken over, by the adherents of an inimical ideology that's fundamentally hostile towards native culture and civilization. (Assuming of course that one regards Islamism as, for all practical purposes, the "native" culture of TSP).

Indira jee literally created and nurtured these termites' nests of globalist-left ideology within India, giving them virtually unlimited power and access to shape the discourse, while ruthlessly silencing every source of an alternate perspective. The amazing thing is that India isn't broken already.'

Right! I've always wondered why it is we don't see that intense scrutiny and criticism of Indonesia, Philippines, South Korea, Nigeria, Brazil, Thailand, Italy... Where are the equivalents of Ramachandra Guha, Praful Bidwai, Shashi Tharoor, Rana Ayyub, T and S Varadarajan, Pankaj Mishra, Kapil Komireddy, Priyamvada Gopal, Arundhati Roy, Mihir Sharma et al? People who are willing to bad mouth their country or culture in international publications and TV networks? Where are the Wendy Donigers, Martha Nussbaums', Paul Brass', Perry Andersons and several more, attacking one or more feature or behaviour of those countries in both academia and media( and given publicity by those selfsame countries' media!)

There must be controversies in those countries as well, covering economics, politics, history, environment, science and technology, social conditions, et c. We don't hear of them, except in instances where a crisis erupts like when there was a huge public uprising against Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines. Even then, one remembers more comments and jokes about Imelda Marcos and her collection of shoes, than about real conditions covering different phases of life in the Philippines.

There are two explanations I can think of, right offhand. One, the international power brokers and elite, are generally quite happy with those countries economically, politically and culturally. They are relatively stable, economically agreeable and culturally compatible or fathomable. So there is no need to upset the apple cart. India is a very different case, it's more dynamic, economically and politically more independent, and culturally more different( this is the perception) than the Western countries, from where the scrutiny and criticism originates.

Another possibility is that there are indeed a few Guha-Varadarajan-Mishra types in those countries, but their voices are discouraged, if not suppressed, because of the instability that is feared, were they given, as you put it, unlimited power and access to shape the native discourse.

SRajesh · Post by **SRajesh** » 13 Jan 2022 20:54

Varoonji,
The simplest anwswer for the question : Right! I've always wondered why it is we don't see that intense scrutiny and criticism of Indonesia, Philippines, South Korea, Nigeria, Brazil, Thailand, Italy... Where are the equivalents of Ramachandra Guha, Praful Bidwai, Shashi Tharoor, Rana Ayyub, T and S Varadarajan, Pankaj Mishra, Kapil Komireddy, Priyamvada Gopal, Arundhati Roy, Mihir Sharma et al? People who are willing to bad mouth their country or culture in international publications and TV networks? Where are the Wendy Donigers, Martha Nussbaums', Paul Brass', Perry Andersons and several more, attacking one or more feature or behaviour of those countries in both academia and media( and given publicity by those selfsame countries' media!)
is Religion
There is no indigenous religion/sect that is dominant and out of kilt with the Rolers
Now having a decent demographics of Ropers in some of the above countries is already causing mayhem there : Boko Haram or in Philippines
Now in India that is not the case is it!
Now in that Varda/Komi/Dhothi group who knows how many of them are Crypto-Xtians or openly flaunt their new faith??