பாயும் வேகம் ஜெட் லீ தாண்டா
பன்ச் வெச்சா இட்லி தாண்டா
Rated PG - for Pseudo-DK, DMK, Liberals, Marxists....
ஊர்ல சொல்றது சொலவடை
உண்மையைச் சொல்றது இட்லிவடை

Wednesday, March 11, 2009

Mangalore vs Kolkata

Hi IV,
Off topic again.Here is an intersting analysis on our pseudo secular media by Sankrant Sanu. You can see the true colors of our Secular media. To all the followers of IV.


Mangalore vs Kolkata


The Mangalore incident was widely condemned while the attack on the Statesman was largely papered over in the media. Is an attack on the freedom of expression of a newspaper editor less significant than that of a woman going to a pub, asks SANKRANT SANU. Pix: Statesman building, Kolkata.
Religious zealots abused women sitting in a pub in Mangalore in Karnataka, India. Zealots from another religion violently protested against the publication of an article in the Statesman in West Bengal. While the government in Karnataka proceeded to arrest Hindu religious extremists, the government in West Bengal succumbed to their Islamic variants, arresting the editor instead. The first incident received widespread media-coverage and editorial condemnation and while the second, in comparison, was largely papered over. What lies at the heart of this difference in approach?

'The Statesman in Kolkatta reproduced an article titled 'Why should I respect these oppressive religions' written by Johann Hari that was first published in the Independent London. http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-why-should-i-respect-these-oppressive-religions-1517789.html . The article recommended that the right of free expression should not be curtailed by religious zealotry. It ended with promoting membership of the National Secular Society in UK for fighting for secularism and freedom of speech.

As a result of the article, a Muslim group of 4,000 people protested outside the papers office and demanded arrest of the Editor/Publisher. Some violence broke out. The Communist Party of India (Marxist) led government of West Bengal could not resist the pressure. The Editor & Publisher of The Statesman were arrested for publishing the article.

There are some interesting parallels and contrasts between this incident and what happened in Mangalore. A few weeks ago, a Hindu group beat-up some women in Mangalore who were frequenting a pub. Civil society was outraged and the Karnataka government took swift action, arresting the perpetrators and standing up for civil liberty.

Both these cases are fundamentally about free expression and speech. In Mangalore the issue was the freedom for women to visit pubs without intimidation by religious zealots. In Kolkata the issue was the right of a newspaper editor to publish a reasoned academic critique of religious fundamentalism (and a defense of free speech) without intimidation by a different set of religious zealots.

I will not argue about the relative merits of defending visits to pubs versus the right to a reasoned academic discussion and debate in a free democratic society. Far more interesting to me is the response of the Indian establishment, media and civil society.

1. While in both cases, a private group of religious zealots wanted to curtail free expression, in Karnataka the BJP-led government sided with free expression by arresting the Hindu religious zealots. In West Bengal, the communist-led government sided with the Muslim religious zealots by arresting Ravindra Kumar and Anand Sinha, the editor and publisher of the Kolkata-based English daily The Statesman.

2. While the violence by the religious zealots of the self-styled "Shri Ram Sena" received huge media coverage and condemnation by the national and coverage by international media the larger violence by a bigger mob of religious zealots in Kolkatta received hardly any coverage in relative terms. A preliminary analysis shows that the Mangalore incident received about hundred times the media coverage of the incident in Kolkatta.

3. While it was heartening to see civil society rally around in large numbers against the acts of a small group of private Hindu vigilantes in Mangalore—including starting a Facebook group which garnered over 50,000 members , the state did take quick action against the vigilantes; on the other hand, the draconian actions of the state itself against free expression in Kolkotta—a case which really requires civil society to be more vigilant—hardly evoked a response. Even more surprising is the apathy of the Indian media to rally to the defense of the editor of the Statesman--one of their kind. The Indian media downplayed the incidence, and with the notable exception of Vir Sanghvi of the Hindustan Times, there were few editorial condemnations.

The Mangalore pub violence and that of the mob in Kolkatta are both outrageous strikes against civil liberty. However if our goal is primarily civil liberty rather than the advocacy of particular political or religious agendas, it behooves us to understand the mechanics of this differential response by the state, media and civil society. In order to do so, here are some preliminary questions.

1. Is an attack on the freedom of expression of a newspaper editor less significant than that of a woman going to a pub?

2. How much of the frenzy about the Mangalore pub incident was media-orchestrated? Why would the media choose to orchestrate it?

3. Does the Indian media, on the average, have a political or religious bias? Is this bias institutionalized or decentralized? Where does this stem from?

4. Vir Sanghvi, in his article on this topic writes: "It is now clear that the liberal society has been suckered into relaxing its standards for free speech by militant Islamists." Is this true? What are the consequences of this?

5. Is the response by the state in Kolkata due to "political compulsions"? Why is the communist government of West Bengal under political compulsion from Islamic zealots while the BJP-ruled state of Karnataka not under similar political compulsion from Hindu zealots?

6. It is interesting to note that Johann Hari, who wrote the original article in The Independent, is known for his advocacy of secularism. Yet few Indian secularists stood up for him. Has Indian secularism essentially turned into apologia for Islamic religious zealotry? What will this mean in terms of long-term consequences for Indian civil society?



Sankrant Sanu is a writer, researcher and entrepreneur based in Seattle.


8 Comments:

M Arunachalam said...

1. Is an attack on the freedom of expression of a newspaper editor less significant than that of a woman going to a pub?

Yes. Only if the freedom is expressed to expose religions other than the Hindu religion.

2. How much of the frenzy about the Mangalore pub incident was media-orchestrated? Why would the media choose to orchestrate it?

99% of Mangalore incident is media-orchestrated. The reason is simple: the incident gives a handle for the "anti-Hindu" media to beat the BJP Govt. with.

3. Does the Indian media, on the average, have a political or religious bias? Is this bias institutionalized or decentralized? Where does this stem from?

Yes. Most of the "English" media - press & electronic - are "psudo-secular" and hence are under the influence of "commies". Commies believe in systematically brain-washing the citizens and they always institutionalise this by putting up people with "commy" ideology & if an Editor of a newspaper also happens to be a commie himself, what more you want.

4. Vir Sanghvi, in his article on this topic writes: "It is now clear that the liberal society has been suckered into relaxing its standards for free speech by militant Islamists." Is this true? What are the consequences of this?

It is militant Islamist now; it was militant Christian Missionaries earlier in Kandhamal in Orissa, whose killing of a Hindu religious person has been "ignored" by this same media. So, there is a clear pattern in all these things. these are NOT isolated incidents but are happening at the behest of vested/political interests to curtail Hindu activism which is slowly but surely started emerging in India.

5. Is the response by the state in Kolkata due to "political compulsions"? Why is the communist government of West Bengal under political compulsion from Islamic zealots while the BJP-ruled state of Karnataka not under similar political compulsion from Hindu zealots?

Of course it is politics, stupid. If it is not Commies, a Sonia Cong. stooge CM would have done it. Or a DMK or a similar anti-Hindu Govt. would have done it - after all who would want to displease minorities who vote as a single block? You can afford to antogonise a majority Hindus since they don't vote en-block. So, its all political calculations.

6. It is interesting to note that Johann Hari, who wrote the original article in The Independent, is known for his advocacy of secularism. Yet few Indian secularists stood up for him. Has Indian secularism essentially turned into apologia for Islamic religious zealotry? What will this mean in terms of long-term consequences for Indian civil society?

"Secularism", in Indian context, means being "anti-Hindu" - nothing more nothing less. Whatever may be its true meaning elsewhere. The only long-term consequence of such a practice of psudo-secularism is BIRTH OF ACTIVE HINDUISM, which is what is happening all over India now. That is why, we are hearing such Hindu activism in many places which have not witnessed any communal riots earlier.

Rajaraman said...

கம்முநிசம் என்ற செத்து புழுத்த மண்ணாகிப்போன ஒரு தத்துவத்தை? கடைபிடித்து கீழ்நிலை மக்களுக்காக பாடுபடுவதாக கூறிக்கொண்டு பிழைப்பு ஓட்டும் இடது பன்னாடைகளை இந்தியாவிலிருந்து விரட்டியடித்தால் இந்தியாவின் 99.99 சதவீத பிரச்சனைகள் தீர்ந்துவிடும். அந்நாள் என்னாளோ அதுவே இந்தியாவிற்கு பொன்னாள்.

Anonymous said...

I totally agree his views on the bias manifested by the media.It's really unfortuante.


But the author is unmasked when he askes the very first question.


"1. Is an attack on the freedom of expression of a newspaper editor less significant than that of a woman going to a pub?"

The question should have been a comparison between attack on freedom of expression and attack on the women.

But, the author intelligently tries to compare this as an attck on freedom of expression and the women going to pub.

He himself is biased and not square enough as the one he tries to criticize.

Anonymous said...

I agree with everything the article
says and fully support the views of
Mr M Arunachalam. Yes, if Hindus do anything, it is magnified millionfold and broadcast extensively in print and electronic media which are at the
worst cowards (afraid of Islamist
attacks) or at best hypocrites to prove to the
West and their masters their secular credentials. But if the
editor of The Statesman is arrested at the instigation of
7000 strong Muslim protestors, the
same secular press and electronic
media will suddenly go completely
silent and black out the news.
This culture of anti Hinduism has
been so assiduously cultivated over
the last several decades that the
youth of the present day have all been completely brainwashed into believing that Hindus are an intolerant lot in India. Not to
speak of The Hindu about which all
know as the torch bearer of this
secular (read anti Hindu) brigade,
even moderates like Kalki magazine
toe the same line. Tolerance is
different from submission and oppression. The latter is being practised on Hindus by the media
in our country. This charade needs to be opposed. The ensuing
elections afford an opportunity
for the discerning voters to throw
out these pseudo secularists from
the seats of power, if not wipe them out from the political scene.

Anonymous said...

written here http://shrekslair.blogspot.com/2009/02/freedom-of-speech_24.html

Anonymous said...

http://shrekslair.blogspot.com/2009/02/freedom-of-speech_24.html

Anonymous said...

All our Medias are owned by the Evangelists and Jehadis, who use an Indian commie camouflage for the time being. They are absoulte anti-Nationals. Full stop.

Anonymous said...

மொழி பெயர்த்துப் போடுங்கள் ஐயா.