Wednesday, 9 November 2011

Sack Sagarika


Dan Rather, an internationally acclaimed journalist, was the first to break the assassination of John F Kennedy. He also covered Watergate and many wars. In 2004 he ran a report about military records of George W Bush using documents which later turned out to be forged. Rather did the morally right thing, he quit CBS in 2006. His only fault was that he hadn’t fact-checked the story and the documents, although there is still no concrete evidence that the documents were unreliable. That was probably a rare mistake from Rather in career spanning over five decades. What does it say about journalists in India who continue to not only hold on to their jobs but continue to sermonise the nation as if their character were soaked in the purest of waters?

We first had Barkha Dutt, the Radiagate hero, stringing along a lobbyist and indulging in power-brokering who continues to moralise the nation. We now have Vir Sanghvi, another Radiagate hero, who now claims the tapes were doctored and he is innocent. This is the same brazenness with which politicians hang on to office despite being tainted with acts of corruption. If I have consistently maintained that a corrupt media is more dangerous to democracy than corrupt politicians then the media doesn’t stop providing more evidence to that belief.

Most Indian businesses are family-run and owned. But it is a common practice among many corporate entities to not employ two or more members from the same family, at least not in the same department. There is no particular reason behind this practice except for the belief that all the acts of the members may not be free from prejudice if they were from the same family. And what if your spouse also happens to be your boss in a news media enterprise? It then makes it all the more likely that sometimes even trash can be passed off as journalism. In all the posts on this site I have never once referred to Sagarika Ghose as the wife of Rajdeep Sardesai. I have always referred to her as the deputy editor. However, now I do believe the deputy editor must go. That any other Managing Editor in the seat of Rajdeep Sardesai would not tolerate the outright rubbish that Sagarika churns out so frequently. The latest one really has to be the last straw. That Rajdeep himself has a lot to answer for is another story.

Media is not a private body as the Editors Guild would have the Standing committee on Lokpal believe. The power to influence people, opinions and even elections is not in the private domain. There is a strange streak in Sagarika Ghose that leads her to believe that people are idiots and can be fooled all the time. That there are ordinary people and there are elites and she stands independently as an observer. Her boss should have repeatedly told her that she was part of the elite. On 9th November on her programme ‘Face the nation’ Sagarika ran the debate “Sri Sri on 4 day yatra in UP: should spiritual leaders take part in anti-corruption campaigns? FTN 10pm”. There were a few usual panellists along with Sri Sri Ravi Shankar. Except, SriSri wasn’t there!

First of all, the clear answer to SG’s question is anybody in this country is free to run a campaign against corruption at any place and at any time of his or her choice. Sagarika doesn’t have any moral business to question the rights of SriSri. This country’s values have been built on the spiritual cleanliness which outsiders find easier to recognise than people like Sagarika. The right question would now be: Does Sagarika have any moral right to continue as a journalist?

Sagarika Ghose conducted the debate as if SriSri were live on the programme and was responding to the comments made by other panellists. That wasn’t all, when panellists made a comment she even turned to SriSri to seek his response. What was being used was footage from a previously recorded interview with SriSri and suitably edited to make it appear as if he was responding live. This is nothing short of blatant mischief and fraud on the viewers. This is something CNN-IBN’s Cyrus Broacha does on his comedy show where the viewers are aware of the interviews being fake.

Some days back SG ran a debate on whether Justice Katju, the new PCI chairman, should apologise for calling journalists “uneducated”. I hope she now realises what exactly Katju was referring to. Not done with that, she frequently passes judgements on judges of High courts and Supreme Court some of which may actually be an act of contempt. In a recent article, ‘The Elite’s on trial, here is what she wrote:

The 2G trial too is one of India’s “million mutinies”. The overthrow of bail jurisprudence, the CBI’s failure to provide comprehensive evidence so far, the many weaknesses of the case beyond its rhetoric, have been highlighted by several legal experts. It is no longer even clear how much “loss” there was to the exchequer, with the CAG’s R1.76 lakh crore figure now being systematically questioned. Yet the 2G accused, before the trial, before proof of the money trail, appear to already have been declared guilty”. This not only reflects her terrible lack of understanding of the law but it also appears the article was written without a thorough scrutiny of the judgement by Judge O.P.Saini which denied bail to Kanimozhi and others. She probably implies that Indians simply want to hang the rich regardless of evidence or sense of justice.

I have said often that it’s not possible to hide in the tech-age. Faster than she could say SriSri people on Twitter quickly pointed out the recorded interview of SriSri being misused by Sagarika on her programme. She later tweeted that it was a bug and that FTN will carry a full apology to the viewers and to SriSri. I believe one can apologise for a mistake or an error. This was neither a mistake nor an error but wilful deception. The apology can pass but if Rajdeep Sardesai has any moral decency left in him he has to let his deputy editor go. Willingly perpetrating a fraud on the viewers is not a mistake that can be covered up by an apology. It is far too serious a crime. It is time for Rajdeep, the Managing Editor, to sack Sagarika

PS: Those who missed the episode on CNN-IBN can watch it here on YOUTUBE

Monday, 7 November 2011

Vir Sanghvi - In Defense Of The Corrupt


By Ram Valmiki

It’s very important to know the personal opinions of journalists as that is what influences how they report events or news.  There are many in Indian MSM who are incapable of reporting without their personal biases. Vir Sanghvi is just one of them. It is not a big secret, at least among netizens or as they put it “Internet Hindus” that VS is biased towards Congress and Government. In his recent posts on his blog titled “Don’t blame media, Mr. Kejriwal” and “How the govt lost its way, and its face” he so openly defends the corrupt government and tries to peddle the lie that it’s actually the government that brought out the scams into public. The title chosen for his second post is very misleading.

I am prepared to agree with Kejriwal when he says that the Shanti Bhushan CD was part of a conspiracy. We know now that the CD was faked and the refusal of the Delhi Police to recognise that it was a cut-and-paste job suggests a certain level of official complicity even if the CD itself was made by non-governmental sources

Yes Mr VS, it does suggest government conspiracy but how many from your MSM has really taken on government about this issue. The very idea that there exists possibility that a government can conspire against the citizens is disturbing. VS and MSM should have concentrated on this area rather than going behind the Team Anna. Just because CD was made by non-governmental sources does not in any way lessen the sin if those sources were prompted to do so by government?

Unless Arvind Kejriwal can somehow convince us that the government hypnotised Kiran Bedi into filing fake reimbursement claims, it is hard to see how this is part of an official conspiracy. The most he can suggest is that official agencies helped in unearthing the evidence. But if this is proof of a government conspiracy then surely he is also a co-conspirator with the government when he makes statements based on reports issued by such government bodies as the CAG. Just because the government digs up accurate information – as the CAG did in the telecom scam – and this information is used by the media and concerned citizens it does not follow that there is any conspiracy

I could have never imagined an experienced editor and journalist would be able to dole out crap logic ever if I had not come across these posts. It’s really amazing that though “official agencies helped in unearthing the evidence”, what is more surprising is these “official agencies”  one fine day had a dream and then went on to dig stuff of selected people who happen to be criticizing the government.  I am not aware of any complaint against Bedi that led to “official agencies” to investigate and dig up the mess of Bedi. If VS is aware of any such complaint, I would like to know because it’s really frightening to know that “official agencies” can unearth evidences just to please the political masters.  In lay man’s language that would be termed “witch hunting”.

CAG providing his report is NOT similar to “official agencies unearthing evidence” in case of Bedi. It’s the duty of the CAG to audit and provide report of government expenditure. CAG did his routine job and fortunately for India, CAG is a very honest and upright gentleman unlike MMS. Comparing CAG’s job with “official agencies” is totally out of context. As per the law “official agencies” require governmental permission or formal complaint or court order to “unearth evidences”. In Bedi’s case media has not reported any complaint or court order that prompted “unearthing” exercise and hence we have no choice but to believe the government conspired.  CAG does not take orders from executive branch of the government (ministers) where as “official agencies” do.

VS continues his new found CAG argument in his next post as well. We will look into that but before that, let’s just LOL at the statement by him: “On the other hand, you could argue that in the UPA’s second term, the scandals that have emerged have all been uncovered only as a result of the government’s own efforts.” Either VS thinks all his readers have no IQ or VS thinks by vomiting such crap will make him an intellectual journalist.  I mean, how in the holy god of secularism’s name he concludes that a government involved in scandals will uncover its own corruption. On second thoughts, has govt promised him Padma Bhushan next year?

Let’s take 2G. The scandal only broke as a result of a report by the CAG. You may or may not agree with the CAG’s computation of the loss caused to the exchequer (and it is now clear that even within the CAG’s office, there were disagreements), but you cannot dispute that if there had been no CAG report, there would be no 2G scandal.” This is such a blatant lie that VS is trying to sell here. The scandal was in public even before the CAG report. PILs were filed and Subramanian Swamy moved SC long before the CAG report was tabled. If anything, the CAG report only confirmed the monstrous size of the scandal.  Here is the list of events and timeline as per Wikipedia. Yes Wikipedia is authentic reference, as it constructs the time line based on media reports.

May 4, 2009: An NGO Telecom Watchdog files complaint to the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) on the illegalities in the spectrum allocation to Loop Telecom.
….May 19, 2009: Another complaint was filed to the CVC by Arun Agarwal, highlighting grant of spectrum to Swan Telecom at throwaway prices.
….May, 2010: NGO Centre for Public Interest litigation moves the Delhi High Court seeking investigation into the scam by SIT or CBI.
….Sept 13, 2010: SC asks government, Raja to reply within 10 days to three petitions filed by CPIL and others alleging there was a Rs 70,000 crore scam in the grant of telecom licences in 2008
….Sept 24, 2010: Swamy moves SC seeking direction to the PM to sanction prosecution of Raja.

The SC has numerous times pulled up CBI for shoddy investigation. If not for active role of SC and petitioners like Swamy, the scandal would have been easily buried by the government. Saying government uncovered the scandals is nothing but a joke. “The current CAG, an honest and upright bureaucrat called Vinod Rai, got the job because the UPA Cabinet chose him. His candidacy was strongly pushed by the former Finance Minister P. Chidambaram who knew Rai from his career in the finance ministry.” Justice Santosh Hegde was appointed by the government headed by Yedurappa. This is similar to Vinod Rai being appointed by the UPA government. Fortunately both of them have done justice to their assigned duties. This in no means absolves the governments of their sins. How would have VS responded if BJP claimed that it was their government that uncovered mining scam? It cannot get funnier than that. “So it is with the arrests. Who would have thought it possible that Spectrum King A. Raja would spend so many months in jail. Who would have imagined that the CBI would have the guts to arrest the daughter of M. Karunanidhi, an important Congress ally at a time when the government depended on the DMK’s support for its survival?”

CBI had no choice after being pulled up by SC. With various petitions that Swamy filed with documents he possessed, CBI had to act. Let us ask counter question. If Swamy did not really have possession of documents he claims he has, is he insane to move SC to seek permission to prosecute Chidambaram and also showing intention of even inducting MMS? “In the end, all of the uncovering of the scandal, all of the investigating and all of the arresting has been done by branches of the government. And yet, nobody believes that this government has any interest in uncovering the truth or in fighting corruption. The credit is given to the courts (who can only act once the CBI brings cases to them), to the media and to the opposition. The government itself gets no credit at all.” I don’t understand why VS is so hell bent on using illogical arguments in proving government is anti-corrupt. Is not this the most corrupt government yet? A government that indulges in corruption can no way uncover its own corruption. VS is either acting innocent or its time he took sanyas. I would prefer second option for him for his own good as well as the country.

 So here’s what the truth is. No, this is not the most corrupt government is history. It is headed by a decent and honest man. And his government has uncovered most of the corruption cases we read about. But this is a government without a visible leader. The Prime Minister has made the mistake of sitting back and watching while his allies have made money. And now, while he should be associating himself with the clean-up, he cowers silently at Race Course Road.

Well yeah you are right VS. Seriously, if PM was silent when his allies made money, he is as much responsible. That only means for him more than national interests, saving government was important. It’s not surprising though. We are already aware that to save itself, congress can indulge in horse trading. It is an art it has mastered. Cash for votes scam is another hot topic now.

With the title of his second post he misleads the reader to believe he is criticizing the government whereas all he does is mindlessly defend the government. Then he ends with questioning leadership of the government. It is clear where he is heading with his arguments. With Clown Prince rumoured to be made party president and Diggy already announcing in public that it’s high time sycophants like him are ruled by Clown Prince, it’s an attempt to create grounds for MMS to exit and Clown to claim Gaddi. After all, it’s not surprising if Congress realizes that they may not return to power in 2014 and Clown prince would have to wait god knows how many more years to sit on gaddi.

Saturday, 5 November 2011

Defamation: ITC V Suhel Seth


Defamation, Slander, Libel are serious issues. However, most cases that are filed in courts are the frivolous ones while the really serious instances of wilful defamation and slander are ignored. Usually, politicians and tall celebrities ignore slander and defamation for the simple reason that the public doesn’t believe what is being said about them. That really is the key to defamation: People must generally believe what is said, it must affect someone’s reputation negatively, it must result in some kind of verifiable damage or loss. That is usually not the case when people or entities are sued.

Some recent instances one can cite is the frequency with which Digvijay Singh has called Baba Ramdev a ‘thug’ alleging the Yoga guru sells spurious medicines. That is a clear case of slander which Ramdev has not acted upon. The most vicious case of slander and defamation in recent times has to be Vir Sanghvi calling Narendra Modi a “mass murderer”. This was repeated by Rajdeep Sardesai in an HT summit in 2007. Both could have been in very serious trouble had Modi chosen to sue but he let it pass. In yet another instance, tainted cop Sanjiv Bhatt slandered Modi by calling him a “common criminal” on TV. This again is a case of slander. And yet again, Modi has chosen to let it pass. But the extraordinary case of defamation filed by ITC against marketing and advertising guru Suhel Seth surely falls into the category of absurd. Read the full report in the Economic Times titled  ITC sues Suhel Seth for Rs 200 crore overTweets”. Yes, tweets are also a form of publishing and subject to the same defamation laws applicable to any other media. We’ll come to this case in a while. But before that let’s look at the most bizarre case of defamation – one that concerns Larry Flynt, founder of the porn magazine Hustler and religious leader Jerry Falwell. In a parody of Campari ads about the “…first time”, Hustler carried a parody about Falwell.

While Hustler magazine has always been known for its explicit pictures of nude women and for what many consider crude humour, the Protestant minister Jerry Falwell objected to the parody ad the magazine printed in 1983 targeted at him, in which Falwell related having an incestuous encounter….. The real ads were tongue-in-cheek interviews with celebrities talking about their "first time". The ads, which played off the double entendre in the headline (“X talks about his first time”), initially appeared to discuss the star’s first sexual experience before revealing that the discussion actually concerned the subject's first time drinking Campari. Falwell sued Hustler and Larry Flynt but the US Supreme court finally dismissed the case under First Amendment rights and the fact that the public would have known it’s a parody and wouldn’t have believed the satire was true and therefore Falwell didn’t really suffer any damage. It’s true the US free speech law is more or less absolute unlike Indian laws.

So how exactly has Suhel defamed ITC? Here are some tweets that the news report states ITC has claimed as defamatory:

"YC Deveshwar of ITC has had a sterling track-record of avoiding retirement at all costs...he could also be offered to the Maosits (sic) but then...." Okay, so that is a snide remark by an ex-Advertising consultant to ITC, which Suhel Seth is. Is Deveshwar avoiding retirement? In the opinion of Suhel probably and that’s his opinion. “He could also be offered to the Maoists…” Really? Now what sane person would mistake this sarcastic remark as being one that is really intended and meant by Suhel? Would people seriously believe that is what Suhel desires? Hardly so!

"YC Deveshwar of ITC has just been nominated CHAIRMAN ETERNUS (sic)...forget Emeritus..." Hahahha! I hadn’t read this before because I don’t follow Suhel Seth on twitter, but I do find it humourous. Eternus? And that is defamatory? The report says Suhel has even deleted some of his tweets but I can’t see how this play of words is defamatory. Suhel has also stated that his account was hacked but that is a defence that is unlikely to be accepted by courts. However, I don’t believe that argument is even needed.

'Yogi Devesh will teach the insider trading course at Tihar School of Business'. LOL! As Suhel mentions this particular tweet neither mentions Deveshwar (ITC chairman) nor has any reference to ITC. So the mere self-righteous assumption that this tweet refers to the petitioner is a long shot. Even if it did, Tihar is now so much in the news for all the wrong reasons that there is hardly regular user of twitter who hasn’t cracked a joke or two about it.

It is quite possible that Suhel Seth is quite peeved as a businessman in losing the large account of a company like ITC and maybe making some statements in anger. However, I feel ITC should have just sent him a polite letter to refrain rather than filing a suit straightaway. If this were to be the practice all cartoonists and satirists would be facing defamatory cases almost everyday.

The most important thing in defamation is the question whether people or public would believe the statements being made against a person to be real. Have people stopped associating with Deveshwar or ITC because of Suhel's tweets? Have the share prices of ITC dropped because of these tweets? In this case it doesn’t appear to be so and one hopes the case will be mutually settled instead of a court trial. What ITC must also realise is that by filing the suit they have made even more people aware of the tweets of Suhel, which is far worse because many, including me, hadn’t heard about these before the legal action came about.  

A previous case of Barkha Dutt legally handling an unknown blogger made him and his post all the more famous and widely read. Criticism, mild insults, ridicule and sarcasm should be taken in one’s stride or at best responded to in kind. Why bring courts into it… especially for a whopping amount of 200 Crores? Where’s our sense of humour? Locked up in Tihar?

Friday, 4 November 2011

Sagarika Really Thinks The Law Is An Ass

The phrase “Law is an ass” may have originated in a 17thcentury play by one George Chapman. But the phrase is more prominently credited to Charles Dickens’ ‘Oliver Twist’. When Mr. Bumble, the unhappy spouse of a domineering wife, is told in court that "...the law supposes that your wife acts under your direction", the poor Bumble replies: "If the law supposes that, the law is an ass - an idiot". Well, judges have taken that kindly in their stride ever since but even in this century there are some who think the same, these are modern literary assholes who sometimes masquerade as journalists! Whether it’s an ass or not, I’m not so sure anyone will find the law very sexy or expect it to guarantee an orgasm. Well, I guess no one, unless you are Sagarika Ghose (SG).

2G case is symbol of national catharsis on graft, courts feel pressured by public baying for blood, evidence (or lack of it), is out of window”. That’s a tweet from none other than SG on November 3. That was in response to rejection of bail to DMK MP Kanimozhi by a CBI court in Delhi. That surely wasn’t the first stupid tweet SG has ever sent out. If there ever were a compilation of stupid tweets, most of SG’s messages would find their way in there. Evidently, journalistic bimbos seem to believe that the law is nothing but like the artful porn that they often keep peddling. This is not the first time SG has demonstrated stupidity where law is concerned. On September 12 when the SC referred the petition against Narendra Modi back to the lower courts the same SG was anguished and desired that the SC should have at least past ‘moral strictures’ against Modi. Not all done, a bit earlier the Allahabad High Court verdict on Ayodhya last year was referred to as ‘Panchayati justice’ by many media celebs. For SG that was just another stupid case about some ‘Divine encroacher’. So when a law man comes along and says ‘behave’ it naturally rattles the entire media clan or, to use Rajdeep Sardesai’s term, he turns off the steam in the media ‘Hammam’. Of all the media dealers who seem upset with the arrival and statements of Justice Markandeya Katju (MK) CNN-IBN seems to be the most rattled.

All this started with Karan Thapar’s interview of MK in which the former judge of Supreme Court lashed out at the media. What’s the response? Hmm! Sagarika asks if MK should apologise on her programme ‘Face the nation’ on November 2. An apology? Okay! Earlier, she wanted an apology from Narendra Modi because the law found nothing against him. Not sexy! So this apology business is getting too frequent. I wonder if SG ever thought about it but if there is someone who has to really apologise for the crap peddled to the nation it she herself. All her misplaced sanctimony could vapourise if she only looked in the mirror. On second thoughts, instead of looking in the mirror she should just listen to her voice, listen to herself and maybe read what she also sometimes writes. In the case of Kanimozhi, SG thinks the law is pressured by the public and acts without evidence or lack of it. I guess she’d prefer the courts acted like her silly shows.

SG has probably never looked at how she has made an absolute trash of the Aarushi murder case, along with many other media celebs. Her nonsense is recorded in this post “Aarushi Case:Flogging The Dead Girl” on February 11. Justice Katju was one who reprimanded the media severely for the way they handled the sensational murder case. To hell with the law and judges. What does the ass and assholes know anyway? And her modesty in her tweets can only be surpassed by a divine squatter on the internet. Sagarika’s tweets are discussed in case study by a post on Google site which I have reproduced. More recently, this star child of the media wrote (Shrillery of the shill): “In the media there is danger of a disconnect between readers and the imitative 'Sex and the City' type columns that pour out of glossy outlets. Academics, closeted in their ivory towers, are failing to engage with new realities and generate new ideas”. Oh really? Sex and the city type columns? Hahahaha! There you go, the SatiSavitri of the media reflecting on her clan. But what about her own article years ago in Outlook (now pulled off the internet by Outlook). That article is titled “Do Indian men owe their women an orgasm?”

Well, Outlook is as glossy a magazine as you can get but I don’t know if SG’s article can be classified under the sex and the city type columns she so deplores. But it can certainly qualify under sex and the law considering she does recommend in her legal treatise that: “Men not only owe women an orgasm but they should be legally bound to provide it”. LOL! Well, it seems that was the only time that SG ever had any admiration for the law. I guess SG never heard that the US courts say that the law can protect your right to “Pursuit of life, liberty and happiness” but the law does not guarantee happiness. Maybe the SC in India should tell her that the law can protect your right to sex but it cannot guarantee orgasm – that is not in the control of the law or the courts. It would be a cold day in May I guess when we get to see a petition in the SC seeking relief for not reaching an orgasm. That would be a great day for SG, of course.

Not so long ago SG ventured to interview the grand-daddy of law, Ram Jethmalani. That was all about Ram defending murder-accused Manu Sharma in the Jessica Lall case. She kept on insisting like a moron that it was morally wrong for RJ to have taken up that case. That was some years ago. SG hasn’t learnt from the spanking she got from RJ that the law doesn’t work on her ideas of morals. RJ tried his best explaining to her that every accused is entitled to a defence and lawyers are obliged to defend their clients. And that the decisions are made in the court and not in Sagarika’s TV studio. So even all those years ago Sagarika was under the grave impression that those who are convicted by the media have no right to defence in our courts. And looks like her understanding of law hasn’t changed too much.

Finally, some small advice for Sagarika: The law may be an ass, but don’t try to screw it so often. It can be painful if you are pulled up for contempt and end up in prison. And even in prison the law doesn’t guarantee orgasms, although the law doesn’t exclude the possibilities.

Wednesday, 2 November 2011

Jug Suraiya - Misunderstander Of Democracy

Jug Suraiya is a veteran journalist and an Associate Editor at Times of India. What sets him apart from other writers is the generous does of humour that he sprinkles his articles with. It seems, though, that the only area where he becomes ordinary and pedestrian like many other writers is when he talks about Islamic rule and democracy. I find it pitiable that after all these years of journalistic pursuits JS appears to have understood neither Islam nor Democracy. That might sound like a harsh comment on JS but that is what he demonstrates in his article titled ‘Cry Freedom’ in the TOI.

It appears JS cannot make up is mind whether Islam is compatible with democracy or not. He also discovers that Islamism, like all other religious or fundamental ideologies, is undemocratic as democracy is generally understood. That is where the stupidity begins. First, let me make it absolutely clear: there is nothing like fundamental Islam and moderate Islam. There is Islam, period! Islam is not just a religion, it is also political guide and the Sharia is the justice system. Needless to mention, under the Islamic political system all non-muslims are secondary citizens or ‘Dhimmies’. Surprisingly, despite having a failed state like Pakistan, an Islamic republic, as a neighbour most of our intellectuals are unwilling to see the truth. And the truth is Islamic rule and democracy are NOT compatible.

Here’s how JS starts off: “But even as cheering crowds celebrate their liberation, how secure is their new-found freedom? What form of governance will replace dictatorship? Will the newly-planted seed of democracy flower or will it fall upon the barren soil of another form of repression?” If he were in a race, JS would be faulted for a wrong start. Freedom from a dictator is not the same as a desire for democracy as we understand it. What in the world makes such intellectuals believe there is a ‘newly-planted seed of democracy’? Any mullah in any corner of the world will tell you that they do not respect ‘man-made’ concepts like democracy. Therefore, an Islamic system which follows the word of God, is the only acceptable form of life and rule for Islamists.

Contrary to the claims of Islamophobes, Islam and democracy are perfectly compatible. For example, India's large Muslim community participates in the dance of democracy with as much enthusiasm as do its co-citizens of other faiths. That said, Libya's interim leader Mustafa Abdel Jalil, while emphasising that his newly-liberated country will be a 'moderate' Muslim state..”. What a load of rubbish! Here’s a challenge to JS: Conduct a referendum among all muslims in India and find out if they want India to be a democracy as it is or to be an Islamic republic. He will find the real answer. He is also blind to the reality that where muslims are in majority, like in Kashmir, they already want an Islamic system. It is no secret that within their own community muslims in India, despite democracy, practice their own set of codes and laws. That includes polygamy and Talaaq as he indicates will be practiced in Libya. Dance of democracy? This is another idiotic phrase coined by TOI. It almost sounds like the dance of cannibals before they feast on their hunted. Democracy is not a dance, it’s a serious process! And once again the misleading quote is about “moderate muslim state”.

The first sign of being moderate is the willingness to reform based on current realities. I wonder when intellectuals like JS will wake up and realise there is nothing moderate about a religion and its laws that are not subject to reform. Would killing of apostates be abolished in Islam? Hmmm! Killing a non-muslim in an Islamic state is not the same as killing a muslim. Homosexuals are punishable with death. Is that moderate and will that be reformed?

India’s muslims participate in the so called dance of democracy because there is no other choice. There is no way the majority Hindu community and other communities would have it any other way. If democracy survives in India it is primarily because of Hindus and Hindu tolerance and not for any other reason, despite many threats it has faced.

Islamism, like all other kinds of religious or ideological fundamentalism, is essentially undemocratic, as the term 'democracy' is generally understood. But what if an Islamist, or other fundamentalist, regime is democratically voted into power? Is that a travesty of democracy or a paradoxical affirmation?.....For instance, in Gujarat, chief minister Narendra Modi was voted back into office by popular mandate despite his alleged involvement in the post-Godhra riots, and the subsequent cover-up that his administration is said to have engineered. Modi's brand of pro-majority fundamentalism - which has earned the name of Moditva - claims legitimacy through the ballot box: electoral victory as the equivalent of a dip in the holy Ganga which washes away all supposed sins of omission and commission”. Ideologies that are undemocractic were basically created by ‘intolerant’ people. Christianity managed to reform itself to a very large extent. The freest civilisation of Hindus managed to reform many of their evil practices. Even the Supreme Court of India is on record stating only Hindu practices are reformed by the government. So, the stupid logic that the possibility of being elected can wash away sins coming from a veteran journalist is all the more baffling”.

Let’s do a count. In India many leaders have been unseated by law or public movements or even by journalists. JS discounts this important fact. No less than a dictator like Indira Gandhi was unseated by a court and then by the people. A.R. Antulay was unseated by scams exposed by Arun Shourie. Chimanbhai Patel (Gujarat CM) was unseated by the Navnirman movement in 1974. B.S Yedyurappa has been unseated by a Lokayukta and there are many more such instances. Who claims that electoral victories wash away sins? Most recently it was J. Jayalalitha and later it was Manmohan Singh who claimed that the sins of Cash4votes was washed by the electoral victory of 2009. Why bring Modi alone into the argument? Simple, for the liberatti it is fashionable to denounce his twin electoral victories as victory of a fundamentalist. The electorate is not as stupid as JS would like us to believe, else Indira wouldn’t have lost the 1977 elections. These were all peaceful movements unlike the ones of the Arab Spring which have seen violence as the tool for change. That’s the difference between democracies and fundamentalist populations.

But democracy is more than just the winning of elections. Democracy is not majoritarianism, the rule of the majority at the expense of the minority. A true democracy guarantees minority rights, with the individual citizen being the ultimate minority. But what if that individual elects to surrender her democratic rights not to wear a burqa, to get a job, to give her daughter an education?” Absolutely! An individual can surrender his democratic rights, the right to wear burqa and the right to remain in a closet forever. Howard Hughes lived his last years as a total recluse in the US, he didn't bother anyone. But deny a daughter education? This is where JS fails miserably to recognise that the daughter is an ‘individual’ too and she cannot be forced to give up her democratic rights till she attains an age when she can make a considered and informed decision. A daughter is not cattle for her parents to impose their closet beliefs. That’s life, Mr. JS!

What if an individual democratically chooses to embrace an undemocratic ideology or way of life? Is such an individual an affirmation of democracy or a denial of it? Does democracy include your right democratically to renounce your democratic rights?  Sure, that individual that JS so reveres can do so as long as it does not impede or intrude others’ lives or their rights or beliefs. Yes, democracy includes your right to renounce your rights. Democracy is not an ideology that asks you to exercise your rights every step of the way BUT it does expect that you will fulfil your obligations to society because it is made up of many individuals.

Famous American satirist and comic Bill Maher in his mockumentary Religulous on relgions had this to say in the concluding part of the movie:

The hour is getting very late to be able to indulge in having in key decisions made by religious people. By irrationalists, by those who would steer the ship of state not by a compass, but by the equivalent of reading the entrails of a chicken…..Faith means making a virtue out of not thinking. It's nothing to brag about. And those who preach faith, and enable and elevate it are intellectual slaveholders, keeping mankind in a bondage to fantasy and nonsense that has spawned and justified so much lunacy and destruction. Religion is dangerous because it allows human beings who don't have all the answers to think that they do. Most people would think it's wonderful when someone says, "I'm willing, Lord! I'll do whatever you want me to do!" Except that since there are no gods actually talking to us, that void is filled in by people with their own corruptions and limitations and agendas. And anyone who tells you they know, they just know what happens when you die, I promise you, you don't. How can I be so sure? Because I don't know, and you do not possess mental powers that I do not. The only appropriate attitude for man to have about the big questions is not the arrogant certitude that is the hallmark of religion, but doubt. Doubt is humble, and that's what man needs to be, considering that human history is just a litany of getting shit dead wrong. This is why rational people, anti-religionists, must end their timidity and come out of the closet and assert themselves. And those who consider themselves only moderately religious really need to look in the mirror and realize that the solace and comfort that religion brings you actually comes at a terrible price. If you belonged to a political party or a social club that was tied to as much bigotry, misogyny, homophobia, violence, and sheer ignorance as religion is, you'd resign in protest. To do otherwise is to be an enabler, a mafia wife……That's it. Grow up or die!”

There you are Mr.JS. In his movie, Maher discusses Christians, Jews, Muslims and even Mormons. Believe me, he has nothing to say about Hindus or Hinduism. Why? Because there is really nothing to say. So save the crap about muslims dancing in democracy in India. Given the opportunity that can change very quickly – ask an Owaisi or an Imam Bukhari. If democracy survives in India it is merely because it’s the Hindu way of life. JS is not just a misunderstander of Islam, he sounds like he’s also a misunderstander of Democracy!