It is interesting as to why Agnivesh is coming up as an admirable anti-corruption or professional-rebel-with-a-golden-heart icon on this thread :
Swami Agnivesh: “Well, Barkhaji, let me put it to you this way. Supposing there is an accusation of corruption on some mediaperson who is an anchor of a very famous TV channel, and if that person is initiating debate after debate on corruption and such [a] person is asked, first get yourself cleared of all these allegations and then only you will have a moral right to start or initiate a debate on corruption, should that person step down? What would be your answer?”
Well if anyone thinks this is media-savvy and deft logic, I would request to think again. Firedress is not denying the logic put forward by the anchor, he is not even putting any argument against the demand for prior clean-chit for an activist. He is simply saying that such ethical considerations come secondary in importance to the "cause" of the activist. Thus for him ethics is "relative" and "cause" or objective is supreme. Nothing wrong in such an attitude per se - but it does matter where "corruption" is concerned. For by his own logic, if any org/gov/body/group can claim that they are engaged in a "higher objective", [the INC led gov can very well say so - in fact I expect them to use this very argument to delegetimize the anti-corruption movement as a detractor to derail all the "developmental programmes" undertaken by them], they can ignore or should legitimately ignore any demand that removes key personnel from functioing.
Secondarily, he is trying to induce fear in the anchor herself - obviously trying to indirectly hint at ahem ahem allegations of corruption close to source of the questioner - so that such questions are not raised in the future on media. Trying to "intimidate" the media? Well who are the people who think of both using and intimidating the press - typically, authoritarians, not democrats. Such authoritarians could be fasci-commie-centrists, but the mental inclinations are common.
Does he really know the gaps between the plausible, the possible, the ideal, the fantastic, and the ludicrous? Democracy is actually all about that, including systemic change? Never knew that all those were the exclusive possessions of "democracy" onlee - some new political science being created right here on the forum!
Anyway about "gaps..." etc,
http://ibnlive.in.com/news/maoists-want ... ml?from=tn
"The Maoists are very keen. They have expressed their desire to come on table to discuss peace," Agnivesh said.
[...]
"No, no. As a matter of fact they have put up their demands which means they want to talk. One of the demands out of the three is to continue with the peace process," he replied when asked about the killing of abducted Bihar policeman Lokus Tete by the rebels.
[...]
The Maoists have demanded that the government halt Operation Green Hunt immediately, release their comrades from jails, end police atrocities and initiate peace talks.
He
(1) thinks Maoists really want "peace" and "want to continue the peace process" - example of his superb grasp of the concept of "plausible"
(2) he wants to negotiate on the demand of the Maoists and thinks the government will give in showing he superbly understands the gap between the "plausible" and the "possible",
(3) he has agreed to negotiate with the Maoists and the government, which implies he must hav efound one or more of the demands by the Maoists legitimate. He has not indicated which one of those demands he favours if not all. By his insistence that Maoists want "peace" he shows that he is convinced of the sincerity of that demand already. Here he shows his superb grasp of the gaps between the the "ideal", the "fantastic", and the "ludicrous", because he seesm to find no gaps at all between the three in this context.
His commitment towards admirable causes for many years that some seem to have noticed, who also think that these were not fashionable during the same time - is actually neither unique nor a pioneering one. Only complete non-aquaintance with the history of work in this area by various individuals and orgs involved in work against "bonded labour" (in a wider context, including various forms of "slavery") could yield such a callous statement. OT here.
Agnivesh supposedly holds DS the first icon, which is disingenuous and dishonest, if not completely against ideological integrity. DS was keen on, in fact motivated by and openly stated so, about "return of the prodigals" - those "converted" out of "Hinduism". OT here, but Agnivesh's theoretical position on this is well-known. Then, anyone who tries to synthesize "DS"'s views or Arya Samaji doctrine with Marx must be showing superb grasp of logical faculties. Anyone with some rudimentary understanding of Marx's arguments about dialectical foundations of historical materialism will immediately see the glaring contradictions.
Some people think he is a new "liberation theologian" - this time the "theology" being "Hinduism". Unfortunately this comes out of lack of knowledge about "liberation theology" in other faiths - in each of those cases, the arguments were sourced firmly from the "theology" and also combined the aim of prosleytization. Agnivesh is however not basing his arguments entirely on "Hinduism" but mixes Marxian themes and he never ever uses it to "increase" the number of Hindus - which is found in other "liberation theologians" form other faiths. He has never been known to criticize significantly, any of Christian or Islamist contributions to social injustice. Heck he never seems to growl against Maoist/Marxist "injustice" either.
I guess - the only good "Hindu saint" is one who supports Maoists/Marxists and one who is not overtly against Islamists/EJ-ists, who highlights "social ills" of "Hinduism" onlee, thereby providing the ideal role model that all Hindu activists must follow according to the demands of p-secs. All others are good onlee if they are dead.
) - he refused...
I am bound by mutually accepted agreement not to respond to certain posts. We only respond to "ideas" or "claims". 