Letter sent to the Deccan Herald on the 13th. It was not published.
Sir,
This is to remind us all that we owe our leaders a fervent apology or two! Saw the visuals of the happenings inside the Vidhana Soudha on the 11th? What a tremendous strain we are causing them by electing them to represent us! And how kind and graceful of them to reassure us even in the midst of the fight for survival that they want only to serve the people still better!
We know the adage about politicians as people roosting in their last resort. But we forget how taxing it is for them to live up to that adage. Hopping or allowing to be herded from resort to resort is not child’s play. Some cynically call it resort politics, as if it always is not! How naive! Being politicians, where else should they be?
The Chief Minister was visiting temples even in far flung places when the political crisis in the State was gathering into a storm. What else should he have done? For, is not the motto embossed on the façade of the Vidhana Soudha, “Government Work Is God’s Work”?
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Sunday, June 20, 2010
Race and group behavior
My response to a post by Mats in Psychohistory-Historical Motivations:
Racial differences as far as the physical features are concerned are not imaginary, but to what extent they determine culture or group behavior or whatever Mats wanted to connect with them is not as clear as he assumes. Mats seems to believe that group identities, rivalries and affinities begin and end exclusively along ethnic fault lines. There are innumerable other fault lines, including parenting practices, which crisscross or overlap ethnic identities. Mats could have at least acknowledged the influence of parenting practices on group formation, which is a matter of utmost importance to psychohistorians.
Raising an assumption as a question may not make it any clearer. E.g.; ‘people are so fixated on skin colour – why?’; ‘most parents in the world get upset if their daughter brings home a Negro as her latest boyfriend – why?’. The problem here basically is the lack of evidence, which Jerry has already pointed out. Assuming that in the instance of a parent objecting to the daughter bringing home a Negro is solely because of the skin colour is unwarranted. Skin colour is only one of the many components of a complex matrix of group prejudices. What Mats says may be valid in the case of some ethnic sub groups, but not all.
A good example to illustrate this is that of the caste groups of South Asia, perhaps the most virulent bonding – differentiating social system ever known. There is definitely a sub-stratum of ethnic differences webbing through the castes but they are interwoven so thoroughly that the racial features of almost all the castes are blurred. Yet, the exclusiveness of the castes, the bond within castes and the tensions within and between castes were, perhaps, more intense than any among or between the races.
What bonds a caste and differentiates it from other castes is an extra-ethnic identity bundle each caste carries with it. Those identities are supposed to be two or more millennia old, but, except in the case of a few core caste groups such as the brahmins, they are actually only two or three centuries old. The caste ‘system’ as is known today is largely a colonial construct, almost an invention of the English colonisers of south Asia. The contours of even that are changing fast. To understand the bonding of a group and the tensions between groups, therefore, one may have to look beyond races.
In this context, I would like to bring to the notice of the List a recent article published in Science, 11 June 2010: Vol. 328. no. 5984, pp. 1408 – 1411, DOI: 10.1126/science.1189047, for responses.
This is the abstract:
The Neuropeptide Oxytocin Regulates Parochial Altruism in Intergroup Conflict Among Humans; Carsten K. W. De Dreu,1,* Lindred L. Greer,1 Michel J. J. Handgraaf,1 Shaul Shalvi,1Gerben A. Van Kleef,1 Matthijs Baas,1 Femke S. Ten Velden,1 Eric Van Dijk,2 Sander W. W. Feith3
Humans regulate intergroup conflict through parochial altruism; they self-sacrifice to contribute to in-group welfare and to aggress against competing out-groups. Parochial altruism has distinct survival functions, and the brain may have evolved to sustain and promote in- group cohesion and effectiveness and to ward off threatening out- groups. Here, we have linked oxytocin, a neuropeptide produced in the hypothalamus, to the regulation of intergroup conflict. In three experiments using double-blind placebo-controlled designs, male participants self-administered oxytocin or placebo and made decisions with financial consequences to themselves, their in-group, and a competing out-group. Results showed that oxytocin drives a "tend and defend" response in that it promoted in-group trust and cooperation, and defensive, but not offensive, aggression toward competing out- groups.
1 Department of Psychology, University of Amsterdam, Roetersstraat 15, 1018 WB Amsterdam, Netherlands.
2 Department of Psychology, Leiden University, Postbox 9555, 2300 RB, Netherlands.
3 Stichting AllesKits, Cypruslaan 410, 3059 XA Rotterdam, Netherlands.
I may add, this need not diminish the importance of parenting practices in culture formation, or group behavior.
Link to abstract and full paper here (subscription needed for full paper):
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/328/5984/1408
Suzarin
Racial differences as far as the physical features are concerned are not imaginary, but to what extent they determine culture or group behavior or whatever Mats wanted to connect with them is not as clear as he assumes. Mats seems to believe that group identities, rivalries and affinities begin and end exclusively along ethnic fault lines. There are innumerable other fault lines, including parenting practices, which crisscross or overlap ethnic identities. Mats could have at least acknowledged the influence of parenting practices on group formation, which is a matter of utmost importance to psychohistorians.
Raising an assumption as a question may not make it any clearer. E.g.; ‘people are so fixated on skin colour – why?’; ‘most parents in the world get upset if their daughter brings home a Negro as her latest boyfriend – why?’. The problem here basically is the lack of evidence, which Jerry has already pointed out. Assuming that in the instance of a parent objecting to the daughter bringing home a Negro is solely because of the skin colour is unwarranted. Skin colour is only one of the many components of a complex matrix of group prejudices. What Mats says may be valid in the case of some ethnic sub groups, but not all.
A good example to illustrate this is that of the caste groups of South Asia, perhaps the most virulent bonding – differentiating social system ever known. There is definitely a sub-stratum of ethnic differences webbing through the castes but they are interwoven so thoroughly that the racial features of almost all the castes are blurred. Yet, the exclusiveness of the castes, the bond within castes and the tensions within and between castes were, perhaps, more intense than any among or between the races.
What bonds a caste and differentiates it from other castes is an extra-ethnic identity bundle each caste carries with it. Those identities are supposed to be two or more millennia old, but, except in the case of a few core caste groups such as the brahmins, they are actually only two or three centuries old. The caste ‘system’ as is known today is largely a colonial construct, almost an invention of the English colonisers of south Asia. The contours of even that are changing fast. To understand the bonding of a group and the tensions between groups, therefore, one may have to look beyond races.
In this context, I would like to bring to the notice of the List a recent article published in Science, 11 June 2010: Vol. 328. no. 5984, pp. 1408 – 1411, DOI: 10.1126/science.1189047, for responses.
This is the abstract:
The Neuropeptide Oxytocin Regulates Parochial Altruism in Intergroup Conflict Among Humans; Carsten K. W. De Dreu,1,* Lindred L. Greer,1 Michel J. J. Handgraaf,1 Shaul Shalvi,1Gerben A. Van Kleef,1 Matthijs Baas,1 Femke S. Ten Velden,1 Eric Van Dijk,2 Sander W. W. Feith3
Humans regulate intergroup conflict through parochial altruism; they self-sacrifice to contribute to in-group welfare and to aggress against competing out-groups. Parochial altruism has distinct survival functions, and the brain may have evolved to sustain and promote in- group cohesion and effectiveness and to ward off threatening out- groups. Here, we have linked oxytocin, a neuropeptide produced in the hypothalamus, to the regulation of intergroup conflict. In three experiments using double-blind placebo-controlled designs, male participants self-administered oxytocin or placebo and made decisions with financial consequences to themselves, their in-group, and a competing out-group. Results showed that oxytocin drives a "tend and defend" response in that it promoted in-group trust and cooperation, and defensive, but not offensive, aggression toward competing out- groups.
1 Department of Psychology, University of Amsterdam, Roetersstraat 15, 1018 WB Amsterdam, Netherlands.
2 Department of Psychology, Leiden University, Postbox 9555, 2300 RB, Netherlands.
3 Stichting AllesKits, Cypruslaan 410, 3059 XA Rotterdam, Netherlands.
I may add, this need not diminish the importance of parenting practices in culture formation, or group behavior.
Link to abstract and full paper here (subscription needed for full paper):
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/328/5984/1408
Suzarin
Saturday, June 12, 2010
The Hindu has egg on its face
The Hindu published the following news today, June 12, perhaps in a bid to please its newfound favourite – the BJP. The latest news from Bihar today is that Nitish Kumar has distanced himself from Narendra Modi. He has threatened to sue whoever that has brought out an advertisement showing Nitish Kumar and Narendra Modi holding each other’s raised hand. Did The Hindu go to town this time without cross checking Neena Vyas’ input? Has The Hindu gone overboard in its bid to forge a BJP-JD(U)-CPI(M) front?
Bihar no longer out of bounds to Modi
Neena Vyas
BJP will signal that it is not just a junior partner in Nitish enterprise
Patna conclave will target Congress also for RJD “misrule”
PATNA: The big show of strength planned by the Bharatiya Janata Party here on Sunday evening will carry a double message: it will mark the start of its all-out election campaign, and signal that the party is not just a “junior” partner in Chief Minister Nitish Kumar's Bihar enterprise.
It may also turn out to be the ‘coming out in Bihar' party for Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi, who has so far been virtually kept out of the election campaign in the State in due deference to the alliance partner, the Janata Dal (United).
The other significant aim of the rally on the historic Gandhi maidan is to send out a clear message that the Congress was equally responsible for the disastrous years of the Rashtriya Janata Dal rule as it was a partner in the coalition government in the last five years before the RJD was swept away.
The BJP seems wary of the sudden upswing in Congress electoral fortunes in Uttar Pradesh on the back of a ‘swing' of Muslim and “upper caste” votes towards it, and hopes to prevent that here by blaming the party equally for the RJD “misrule.”
“The 15 years of RJD rule was propped up by the Congress. It was RJD plus Congress raj,” Deputy Chief Minister Sushil Modi said here on Friday, a day before the start of the BJP's two-day national executive committee meeting, which will end with the rally.
Development is the ‘mantra' the party has adopted and the speakers lined up for the public meetings have apparently been told not to stray from this line. Significantly, Mr. Narendra Modi has been chosen to showcase “development” in Bihar. “Party president Nitin Gadkari, senior leader L.K. Advani and Mr. Narendra Modi will certainly be key speakers at the rally,” Mr. Sushil Modi said. Mr. Kumar had never directly or indirectly interfered in the BJP's internal affairs and the two decades-old alliance was a “model” for coalition governments, he added.
A senior BJP leader said the Gujarat Chief Minister was the “most qualified” as he himself had shown the road to development in his State. Over the last couple of days full-page advertisements have appeared in some local newspapers here on the better status of Muslims in Gujarat than in some regions — the statistics were sourced to the Sachar Committee report.
There would be nothing exceptional in the decision to field Mr. Narendra Modi except that for some days now senior party leaders had hinted that the Gujarat Chief Minister would not be a speaker. For, “normally Chief Ministers of States, other than those where the party conclave takes place, do not address the public meetings.”
A party leader here said the BJP wanted to send out a message to the JD(U) that it was its own master and would take its own decisions. It wants to dispel the impression that in each election the BJP decides to keep Mr. Narendra Modi out of the Bihar campaign for fear of annoying the JD(U).
Mr. Narendra Modi is also to be fielded as the key speaker on the third resolution — on the alleged step-motherly treatment meted out to non-UPA States by the Manmohan Singh government — that the party conclave is expected to adopt.
© Copyright 2000 - 2009 The Hindu
Bihar no longer out of bounds to Modi
Neena Vyas
BJP will signal that it is not just a junior partner in Nitish enterprise
Patna conclave will target Congress also for RJD “misrule”
PATNA: The big show of strength planned by the Bharatiya Janata Party here on Sunday evening will carry a double message: it will mark the start of its all-out election campaign, and signal that the party is not just a “junior” partner in Chief Minister Nitish Kumar's Bihar enterprise.
It may also turn out to be the ‘coming out in Bihar' party for Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi, who has so far been virtually kept out of the election campaign in the State in due deference to the alliance partner, the Janata Dal (United).
The other significant aim of the rally on the historic Gandhi maidan is to send out a clear message that the Congress was equally responsible for the disastrous years of the Rashtriya Janata Dal rule as it was a partner in the coalition government in the last five years before the RJD was swept away.
The BJP seems wary of the sudden upswing in Congress electoral fortunes in Uttar Pradesh on the back of a ‘swing' of Muslim and “upper caste” votes towards it, and hopes to prevent that here by blaming the party equally for the RJD “misrule.”
“The 15 years of RJD rule was propped up by the Congress. It was RJD plus Congress raj,” Deputy Chief Minister Sushil Modi said here on Friday, a day before the start of the BJP's two-day national executive committee meeting, which will end with the rally.
Development is the ‘mantra' the party has adopted and the speakers lined up for the public meetings have apparently been told not to stray from this line. Significantly, Mr. Narendra Modi has been chosen to showcase “development” in Bihar. “Party president Nitin Gadkari, senior leader L.K. Advani and Mr. Narendra Modi will certainly be key speakers at the rally,” Mr. Sushil Modi said. Mr. Kumar had never directly or indirectly interfered in the BJP's internal affairs and the two decades-old alliance was a “model” for coalition governments, he added.
A senior BJP leader said the Gujarat Chief Minister was the “most qualified” as he himself had shown the road to development in his State. Over the last couple of days full-page advertisements have appeared in some local newspapers here on the better status of Muslims in Gujarat than in some regions — the statistics were sourced to the Sachar Committee report.
There would be nothing exceptional in the decision to field Mr. Narendra Modi except that for some days now senior party leaders had hinted that the Gujarat Chief Minister would not be a speaker. For, “normally Chief Ministers of States, other than those where the party conclave takes place, do not address the public meetings.”
A party leader here said the BJP wanted to send out a message to the JD(U) that it was its own master and would take its own decisions. It wants to dispel the impression that in each election the BJP decides to keep Mr. Narendra Modi out of the Bihar campaign for fear of annoying the JD(U).
Mr. Narendra Modi is also to be fielded as the key speaker on the third resolution — on the alleged step-motherly treatment meted out to non-UPA States by the Manmohan Singh government — that the party conclave is expected to adopt.
© Copyright 2000 - 2009 The Hindu
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
This is regarding the editorial The Hindu carried on May 25.
It is a jumbo editorial written with a pre-set mind and possessing near zero noteworthiness.
Its first paragraph attempts to create space to say what it had decided beforehand: that the UPA II government is a “failure”. This it expands later on mentioning mainly two “defining” failures, namely, controlling the spiraling of prices of essential commodities, above all food items, and managing law and order.
That the prices have gone up is an indisputable fact, and the Government cannot hide behind any excuses, at least morally, for its failure. But whether it was entirely due to the government’s “lethargy” or “indecisiveness” or “complacency” or “corruption” is not that undisputable. That is OK and there is no need to repeat the truism that while facts are sacred, opinions are free!
But what it says further, at least the following, is a little baffling.
It says that the UPA II government seems to have spent its first 12 months “in a do-little state bred by political complacency and neo-liberal conservatism”.
I sent the following letter to The Hindu:
Sir,
This is regarding the editorial (May 25). It says that the UPA II government seems to have spent its first 12 months “in a do-little state bred by political complacency and neo-liberal conservatism”. ‘
As a diligent reader of The Hindu, I was curious to know what is neo-liberal conservatism and whether there is any other government in the world that is also Neo-liberal conservative, and I googled, but drew a blank. I understand ‘liberal conservatism’ itself is an oxymoron, in which case, ‘neo-liberal conservatism’ may only worsen the ambiguity.
Was it a Freudian slip? Was The Hindu, perhaps, thinking about a future coalition government of the (neo-conservative) BJP and the (neo-liberal) Left parties while writing the edit?
A Post Script to this response could be:
The Hindu seems to have achieved what it had been working for during the last two years, specifically, ever since the Left withdrew its support to UPA I and the government moved a confidence motion in the Parliament in July 2008. The BJP and the Left, as opposed to a common enemy, worked in unison to oust the UPA from power. They attacked the government almost on identical points and voted together on the same side. That it failed was only of incidental importance. The real significance of this coming together of the neo-conservative BJP and the neo-liberal Left was a new phenomenon in Indian politics – something almost everybody following the Indian political developments would have thought was impossible till a few years back. The Hindu with its inherent streak of Hindu orthodoxy (what else does the choice of its name ‘Hindu’ signify?) and the acquired leaning towards Left liberalism (a baggage its present Editor in Chief carried from his JNU days and the All India Vice Presidentship of the SFI) was eminently qualified to work towards this. Therefore, the use of ‘neo-liberal conservatism’ need not be an innocent slip; it could very well be a Freudian slip - making the impossible possible!
It is a jumbo editorial written with a pre-set mind and possessing near zero noteworthiness.
Its first paragraph attempts to create space to say what it had decided beforehand: that the UPA II government is a “failure”. This it expands later on mentioning mainly two “defining” failures, namely, controlling the spiraling of prices of essential commodities, above all food items, and managing law and order.
That the prices have gone up is an indisputable fact, and the Government cannot hide behind any excuses, at least morally, for its failure. But whether it was entirely due to the government’s “lethargy” or “indecisiveness” or “complacency” or “corruption” is not that undisputable. That is OK and there is no need to repeat the truism that while facts are sacred, opinions are free!
But what it says further, at least the following, is a little baffling.
It says that the UPA II government seems to have spent its first 12 months “in a do-little state bred by political complacency and neo-liberal conservatism”.
I sent the following letter to The Hindu:
Sir,
This is regarding the editorial (May 25). It says that the UPA II government seems to have spent its first 12 months “in a do-little state bred by political complacency and neo-liberal conservatism”. ‘
As a diligent reader of The Hindu, I was curious to know what is neo-liberal conservatism and whether there is any other government in the world that is also Neo-liberal conservative, and I googled, but drew a blank. I understand ‘liberal conservatism’ itself is an oxymoron, in which case, ‘neo-liberal conservatism’ may only worsen the ambiguity.
Was it a Freudian slip? Was The Hindu, perhaps, thinking about a future coalition government of the (neo-conservative) BJP and the (neo-liberal) Left parties while writing the edit?
A Post Script to this response could be:
The Hindu seems to have achieved what it had been working for during the last two years, specifically, ever since the Left withdrew its support to UPA I and the government moved a confidence motion in the Parliament in July 2008. The BJP and the Left, as opposed to a common enemy, worked in unison to oust the UPA from power. They attacked the government almost on identical points and voted together on the same side. That it failed was only of incidental importance. The real significance of this coming together of the neo-conservative BJP and the neo-liberal Left was a new phenomenon in Indian politics – something almost everybody following the Indian political developments would have thought was impossible till a few years back. The Hindu with its inherent streak of Hindu orthodoxy (what else does the choice of its name ‘Hindu’ signify?) and the acquired leaning towards Left liberalism (a baggage its present Editor in Chief carried from his JNU days and the All India Vice Presidentship of the SFI) was eminently qualified to work towards this. Therefore, the use of ‘neo-liberal conservatism’ need not be an innocent slip; it could very well be a Freudian slip - making the impossible possible!
Under the the title, Traders' leader shot dead in Sopore, The Hindu carried a report on 24 May 2010 on the killing of Ghulam Nabi Khan, President of the Traders' Federation of Sopore, by Kashmiri militants. That was passe. What was extraordinary was the picture accompaying the report. Here is the relevant part of the report:
The Hindu, Date:24/05/2010 URL: http://www.thehindu.com/2010/05/24/stories/2010052454721400.htm
Front Page
Traders' leader shot dead in Sopore
Shujaat Bukhari
SRINAGAR: Militants on Sunday shot dead a prominent businessman in the north Kashmir town of Sopore. The Traders' Federation has called a protest strike against the killing on Monday.
Police sources told The Hindu that Federation's Sopore president Ghulam Nabi Khan was shot point blank while travelling in a horse-cart in the main chowk.
Mr. Khan was taken to a hospital, but declared dead on arrival. The militants, the sources said, managed to escape.
The killing resulted in panic in the town and the markets soon closed. Police rushed to the spot and cordoned off the area.
Thousands of people gathered at Mr. Khan's home as his body was taken there. Mr. Khan was a popular businessman in the town and his murder has enraged the traders, who have called for a strike to protest the “senseless murder.” Mr. Khan was buried later.
© Copyright 2000 - 2009 The Hindu
And here is the letter I sent to The Hindu on the 24th:
Sir,
The picture accompanying the report, ‘Traders' leader shot dead in Sopore’ (May 24), has captured a strange spectacle. The caption of the picture says, the body of the slain trader was being “carried”. With the bearers at the ends of the bier appearing to face opposite sides, to which side could it have been carried? Convention is for the head-side to lead. But one cannot make out from the picture which was the head-side and which the feet-side as the kalma on the mantle over the bier is not clear. That the cortege in this instance would have reached the khabaristan is in no doubt, but the picture, interestingly, has symbolised the true state of Kashmiri politics. With so many conflicting interests pulling it in all directions, it may not reach anywhere.
The Hindu, Date:24/05/2010 URL: http://www.thehindu.com/2010/05/24/stories/2010052454721400.htm
Front Page
Traders' leader shot dead in Sopore
Shujaat Bukhari
SRINAGAR: Militants on Sunday shot dead a prominent businessman in the north Kashmir town of Sopore. The Traders' Federation has called a protest strike against the killing on Monday.
Police sources told The Hindu that Federation's Sopore president Ghulam Nabi Khan was shot point blank while travelling in a horse-cart in the main chowk.
Mr. Khan was taken to a hospital, but declared dead on arrival. The militants, the sources said, managed to escape.
The killing resulted in panic in the town and the markets soon closed. Police rushed to the spot and cordoned off the area.
Thousands of people gathered at Mr. Khan's home as his body was taken there. Mr. Khan was a popular businessman in the town and his murder has enraged the traders, who have called for a strike to protest the “senseless murder.” Mr. Khan was buried later.
© Copyright 2000 - 2009 The Hindu
And here is the letter I sent to The Hindu on the 24th:
Sir,
The picture accompanying the report, ‘Traders' leader shot dead in Sopore’ (May 24), has captured a strange spectacle. The caption of the picture says, the body of the slain trader was being “carried”. With the bearers at the ends of the bier appearing to face opposite sides, to which side could it have been carried? Convention is for the head-side to lead. But one cannot make out from the picture which was the head-side and which the feet-side as the kalma on the mantle over the bier is not clear. That the cortege in this instance would have reached the khabaristan is in no doubt, but the picture, interestingly, has symbolised the true state of Kashmiri politics. With so many conflicting interests pulling it in all directions, it may not reach anywhere.
Thursday, April 29, 2010
The Hindu going out of the way to please Narendra Modi?
Sir,
The Hindu, among all other major Indian newspapers, has voluntarily decided to explain to its readers where ever it finds necessary, what it prints and why, which is what you do through your column. Hence this letter.
Under the title, ‘Report on comment attributed to Narendra Modi denied’, The Hindu published on 29.4.2010 a long, 789 words, denial statement with the following endorsement: “Gujarat government spokespersons Jaynarayan Vyas and Saurabh Patel, both State Ministers, have issued the following statement in Gandhinagar on Wednesday. This statement is in the context of a report published by Gujarat Samachar that falsely attributed to Chief Minister Narendra Modi a comment on Dalits”.
As far as I know, The Hindu had not published the news item that appeared in the Gujarat Samachar and had provoked this rebuttal. What was then the context for The Hindu to publish it?
The statement is a diatribe against the Congress, which it mentions by name 23 times. It is the business of the BJP to do.
There is also a photo of Mr. Modi accompanying the mews, to print which, of late, The Hindu seldom misses a chance.
I was wondering whether it was necessary for The Hindu, an ‘independent’ English newspaper, to join issue with Gujarat Samachar, a regional vernacular newspaper, in which it had apparently no stakes and to do which it had apparently no obligations.
More serious than that, was it necessary for The Hindu to endorse the denial statement by calling the Samachar report ‘false’?
If The Hindu had carried a misinformation earlier, journalistic ethics required it to issue a correction for the sake of its readers. The Hindu here was not trying to dispel a misunderstanding it had caused to its readers. The rebuttal was, therefore, published for some other reason.
We are hearing a lot about paid news these days. The Hindu had been in the forefront of the campaign against the scourge of paid news. But nobody ever discusses other genres of news. All that is not paid news is not clean news. For that matter, news is never clean. There are sponsored news, subsidised news, favored news and captive news, to mention a few.
Just as there is no unbiased news, there is no unbiased newspaper also. The problem for a professedly ‘independent’ newspaper, however, is when the interest becomes patent.
There are newspapers, which are mouthpieces of political parties and corporate interests. Nobody expects them to be unbiased. They are self-admitted captive news media. What they publish is, strictly speaking, paid news. The only difference is that they do not ‘sell’ the print space to outsiders as they are ‘owned’ by their publishers and print only what the boss permits.
In between the ‘owned’ and the ‘sold’, fall all other kinds of news, such as, the ‘sponsored’, the ‘favored’ and the ‘subsidised’. They are definitely contaminated. Incidentally, of all the different kinds, they are the most dangerous. If the reader knows what dish to expect, he may prepare himself to take it with less or more salt as the case is. In the case of interested news camouflaged as ‘independent’, the reader becomes a victim of duplicity.
My fervent question to you is, in which category will a report like the rebuttal statement in respect of Mr. Narendra Modi fall?
P.P.Sudhakaran,
(Retired Professor of History)
301, East Mansion,
No.2, Hutchins Road,
Cooke Town,
Bangalore 5.
Ph. 080 25467483.
The Hindu, among all other major Indian newspapers, has voluntarily decided to explain to its readers where ever it finds necessary, what it prints and why, which is what you do through your column. Hence this letter.
Under the title, ‘Report on comment attributed to Narendra Modi denied’, The Hindu published on 29.4.2010 a long, 789 words, denial statement with the following endorsement: “Gujarat government spokespersons Jaynarayan Vyas and Saurabh Patel, both State Ministers, have issued the following statement in Gandhinagar on Wednesday. This statement is in the context of a report published by Gujarat Samachar that falsely attributed to Chief Minister Narendra Modi a comment on Dalits”.
As far as I know, The Hindu had not published the news item that appeared in the Gujarat Samachar and had provoked this rebuttal. What was then the context for The Hindu to publish it?
The statement is a diatribe against the Congress, which it mentions by name 23 times. It is the business of the BJP to do.
There is also a photo of Mr. Modi accompanying the mews, to print which, of late, The Hindu seldom misses a chance.
I was wondering whether it was necessary for The Hindu, an ‘independent’ English newspaper, to join issue with Gujarat Samachar, a regional vernacular newspaper, in which it had apparently no stakes and to do which it had apparently no obligations.
More serious than that, was it necessary for The Hindu to endorse the denial statement by calling the Samachar report ‘false’?
If The Hindu had carried a misinformation earlier, journalistic ethics required it to issue a correction for the sake of its readers. The Hindu here was not trying to dispel a misunderstanding it had caused to its readers. The rebuttal was, therefore, published for some other reason.
We are hearing a lot about paid news these days. The Hindu had been in the forefront of the campaign against the scourge of paid news. But nobody ever discusses other genres of news. All that is not paid news is not clean news. For that matter, news is never clean. There are sponsored news, subsidised news, favored news and captive news, to mention a few.
Just as there is no unbiased news, there is no unbiased newspaper also. The problem for a professedly ‘independent’ newspaper, however, is when the interest becomes patent.
There are newspapers, which are mouthpieces of political parties and corporate interests. Nobody expects them to be unbiased. They are self-admitted captive news media. What they publish is, strictly speaking, paid news. The only difference is that they do not ‘sell’ the print space to outsiders as they are ‘owned’ by their publishers and print only what the boss permits.
In between the ‘owned’ and the ‘sold’, fall all other kinds of news, such as, the ‘sponsored’, the ‘favored’ and the ‘subsidised’. They are definitely contaminated. Incidentally, of all the different kinds, they are the most dangerous. If the reader knows what dish to expect, he may prepare himself to take it with less or more salt as the case is. In the case of interested news camouflaged as ‘independent’, the reader becomes a victim of duplicity.
My fervent question to you is, in which category will a report like the rebuttal statement in respect of Mr. Narendra Modi fall?
P.P.Sudhakaran,
(Retired Professor of History)
301, East Mansion,
No.2, Hutchins Road,
Cooke Town,
Bangalore 5.
Ph. 080 25467483.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Reconciling the irreconcilable
IPL controversy and The Hindu.
Ever since the IPL controversy broke out, The Hindu had been reporting it prominently. It has already written two editorials about it. But, I am sorry to say that, over all, the impression it helped to create is that they were loaded against Shashi Tharoor and were supportive of Nalin Modi. It carried titles that were explicit about Tharoor’s guilt and suggestive of Modi’s innocence - like “BJP wants Shashi Tharoor sacked as IPL row hots up”, “Tharoor abused office, says BJP”, “Question mark over Kochi IPL owners: Modi”, and “Pawar backs Lalit Modi in IPL Kochi row”. The Hindu would be knowing that for many readers the title is the news, and there were enough of them to make the readers feel that Nalin Modi was not guilty of any wrong doing. But, it now turns out that Modi is being investigated for match fixing, tax evasion and many other serious wrong doings.
The latest editorial, ‘Behind and beyond Tharoor’, while squarely condemning Tharoor for his “egregious acts of ministerial misconduct” and demanding a CBI enquiry, saw only an indiscretion on the part of Modi, of only doing “enough to provoke the Income Tax department to carry out a survey on the IPL's funding”. But it now turns out that it is not a survey but an all out investigation of the murky dealings of the IPL during the last three years it was running the 20/20 show, during which time Modi was its Chairman and Commissioner. As Tharoor has already admitted his role in sponsoring Ms.Pushkar, a CBI investigation is needed more in the case of Modi who has not admitted a single wrongdoing.
As a side thought, it occurred to me that The Hindu might have found in Tharoor a perfect punching bag as he had become a common target of both the BJP and the Left Parties. Being able to concur two irreconcilable political outfits is not a mean achievement. Congratulations.
Ever since the IPL controversy broke out, The Hindu had been reporting it prominently. It has already written two editorials about it. But, I am sorry to say that, over all, the impression it helped to create is that they were loaded against Shashi Tharoor and were supportive of Nalin Modi. It carried titles that were explicit about Tharoor’s guilt and suggestive of Modi’s innocence - like “BJP wants Shashi Tharoor sacked as IPL row hots up”, “Tharoor abused office, says BJP”, “Question mark over Kochi IPL owners: Modi”, and “Pawar backs Lalit Modi in IPL Kochi row”. The Hindu would be knowing that for many readers the title is the news, and there were enough of them to make the readers feel that Nalin Modi was not guilty of any wrong doing. But, it now turns out that Modi is being investigated for match fixing, tax evasion and many other serious wrong doings.
The latest editorial, ‘Behind and beyond Tharoor’, while squarely condemning Tharoor for his “egregious acts of ministerial misconduct” and demanding a CBI enquiry, saw only an indiscretion on the part of Modi, of only doing “enough to provoke the Income Tax department to carry out a survey on the IPL's funding”. But it now turns out that it is not a survey but an all out investigation of the murky dealings of the IPL during the last three years it was running the 20/20 show, during which time Modi was its Chairman and Commissioner. As Tharoor has already admitted his role in sponsoring Ms.Pushkar, a CBI investigation is needed more in the case of Modi who has not admitted a single wrongdoing.
As a side thought, it occurred to me that The Hindu might have found in Tharoor a perfect punching bag as he had become a common target of both the BJP and the Left Parties. Being able to concur two irreconcilable political outfits is not a mean achievement. Congratulations.
Saturday, March 20, 2010
One of the best editorials in my recent memory
This is the The Hindu editorial of 20.3.2010:
Behind the plea bargain of Headley
Date:20/03/2010 URL: http://www.thehindu.com/2010/03/20/stories/2010032056461200.htm
Opinion - Editorials
Behind Headley's plea bargain
Five years after he began the surveillance operation that finally guided a ten-man death squad through the streets of Mumbai in November, 2008, Pakistani-American jihadist David Headley has entered into a plea bargain with U.S. prosecutors. In India, the deal has provoked media outrage but careful study of the Plea Agreement (accessible under Resources at beta.thehindu.com) shows that claims that Headley has got off lightly are misplaced. Plea bargains in the United States work around a complex points system set up by the United States Sentencing Commission. In return for pleading guilty to all the 12 terrorism-related charges, and for meeting specified obligations for cooperation with investigators, prosecutors will recommend a reduction in sentence. In essence, Headley will avoid facing the death penalty and will not be extradited to India, Pakistan, or Denmark. However, the judge hearing the case is not bound by the sentencing recommendations — and if they are rejected, Headley will not be able to withdraw his guilty plea. Nor, unlike an approver in an Indian criminal trial, will he be granted a pardon in return for giving state's evidence. Some commentators have speculated that the Plea Agreement means Headley was a secret U.S. agent. The truth is that the U.S. repeatedly passed on substantial intelligence to India of the looming threat to Mumbai in the months before 26/11. Had Headley been the source of those warnings, he would be in the process of receiving a medal — not life in prison.
Just what has Headley — who made a similar plea bargain earlier in his troubled life, in connection with a narcotics-trafficking prosecution — promised in return for his life? Paragraph 12 of the Plea Agreement states that he will, when directed to do so by the U.S. Attorney's office, “fully and truthfully participate in any debriefings for the purpose of gathering intelligence or national security information.” In addition, he will “fully and truthfully testify in foreign judicial proceedings held in the United States, videoconferencing or letters rogatory.” This means he will have no choice but to testify in the ongoing trial of Mumbai attack suspects if called on to do so by Maharashtra prosecutors. He must also cooperate in any future criminal proceedings initiated by the National Investigations Agency on the Lashkar-e-Taiba's plot to attack the National Defence College in New Delhi. Further, Headley has agreed to “the postponement of his sentencing until after the conclusion of his cooperation.” Paragraph 8 of the Plea Agreement reveals that he has already “provided substantial assistance to the criminal investigation, and also has provided information of significant intelligence value.” This cooperation should strengthen the case against his co-accused, Tahawwur Rana, as well as key Lashkar operatives in Pakistan. Barring death-penalty enthusiasts, no one has any reason to bemoan the Plea Agreement. India's investigators and justice system must move quickly to capitalise on Headley's intelligence and testimony.
© Copyright 2000 - 2009 The Hindu.
In appreciation, I sent the following to The Hindu's Letters Editor on 21.3.2010:
Sir,
The editorial, Behind Headley's plea bargain (20 March), must have made The Hindu’s committed readers happy about their commitment. When most of the English media, print as well as TV, were wildly speculating about a secret deal between the US prosecution and Headley, and were dubbing the plea agreement as a ruse, beside other things, to prevent his interrogation by India, The Hindu showed extreme restraint and circumspection. Actually, the prospect of not giving Headley death penalty should help the Indian cause as he would now live and be available to answer under oath India’s questions.
This is the kind of editorials that will enhance the reputation of The Hindu as an independent, thoughtful and responsible newspaper.
Behind the plea bargain of Headley
Date:20/03/2010 URL: http://www.thehindu.com/2010/03/20/stories/2010032056461200.htm
Opinion - Editorials
Behind Headley's plea bargain
Five years after he began the surveillance operation that finally guided a ten-man death squad through the streets of Mumbai in November, 2008, Pakistani-American jihadist David Headley has entered into a plea bargain with U.S. prosecutors. In India, the deal has provoked media outrage but careful study of the Plea Agreement (accessible under Resources at beta.thehindu.com) shows that claims that Headley has got off lightly are misplaced. Plea bargains in the United States work around a complex points system set up by the United States Sentencing Commission. In return for pleading guilty to all the 12 terrorism-related charges, and for meeting specified obligations for cooperation with investigators, prosecutors will recommend a reduction in sentence. In essence, Headley will avoid facing the death penalty and will not be extradited to India, Pakistan, or Denmark. However, the judge hearing the case is not bound by the sentencing recommendations — and if they are rejected, Headley will not be able to withdraw his guilty plea. Nor, unlike an approver in an Indian criminal trial, will he be granted a pardon in return for giving state's evidence. Some commentators have speculated that the Plea Agreement means Headley was a secret U.S. agent. The truth is that the U.S. repeatedly passed on substantial intelligence to India of the looming threat to Mumbai in the months before 26/11. Had Headley been the source of those warnings, he would be in the process of receiving a medal — not life in prison.
Just what has Headley — who made a similar plea bargain earlier in his troubled life, in connection with a narcotics-trafficking prosecution — promised in return for his life? Paragraph 12 of the Plea Agreement states that he will, when directed to do so by the U.S. Attorney's office, “fully and truthfully participate in any debriefings for the purpose of gathering intelligence or national security information.” In addition, he will “fully and truthfully testify in foreign judicial proceedings held in the United States, videoconferencing or letters rogatory.” This means he will have no choice but to testify in the ongoing trial of Mumbai attack suspects if called on to do so by Maharashtra prosecutors. He must also cooperate in any future criminal proceedings initiated by the National Investigations Agency on the Lashkar-e-Taiba's plot to attack the National Defence College in New Delhi. Further, Headley has agreed to “the postponement of his sentencing until after the conclusion of his cooperation.” Paragraph 8 of the Plea Agreement reveals that he has already “provided substantial assistance to the criminal investigation, and also has provided information of significant intelligence value.” This cooperation should strengthen the case against his co-accused, Tahawwur Rana, as well as key Lashkar operatives in Pakistan. Barring death-penalty enthusiasts, no one has any reason to bemoan the Plea Agreement. India's investigators and justice system must move quickly to capitalise on Headley's intelligence and testimony.
© Copyright 2000 - 2009 The Hindu.
In appreciation, I sent the following to The Hindu's Letters Editor on 21.3.2010:
Sir,
The editorial, Behind Headley's plea bargain (20 March), must have made The Hindu’s committed readers happy about their commitment. When most of the English media, print as well as TV, were wildly speculating about a secret deal between the US prosecution and Headley, and were dubbing the plea agreement as a ruse, beside other things, to prevent his interrogation by India, The Hindu showed extreme restraint and circumspection. Actually, the prospect of not giving Headley death penalty should help the Indian cause as he would now live and be available to answer under oath India’s questions.
This is the kind of editorials that will enhance the reputation of The Hindu as an independent, thoughtful and responsible newspaper.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
The Hindu errs!
The following letter I sent to The Readers' Editor of The Hindu on 10th Mar. 2010:
The Hindu carried the article ‘UPA fails to pull through Women's Bill in Upper House’ by Gargi Parsai on Tuesday, Mar 09, 2010, which claimed that SP and RJD had withdrawn support to the UPA government. This is what it said:
“On a day of fast moving developments, the Samajwadi Party and the Rashtriya Janata Dal withdrew support to the government, and its leaders met Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and the Leader of the House, Pranab Mukherjee, while the Bill itself was deferred to Tuesday.”
The fact, as reported by other newspapers and news channels, was that on the 8th the two Yadavs had only decided to withdraw support, which is not the same as withdrawing support. To use The Hindu’s own terminology, they had only “threatened” to withdraw support.
But, instead of correcting the error next day, The Hindu carried the headline: “Lalu withdraws support”. The text of the news, however, was correct: “Rashtriya Janata Dal chief Lalu Prasad on Tuesday announced his decision to formally withdraw support to the government….
Samajwadi Party leader Mulayam Singh, who too had threatened to do so, however, was evasive on the issue. When journalists persisted with their questions, he said he would inform the media when he took a decision in this regard. Mr. Prasad said he would call on President Pratibha Patil and submit his letter to her on Wednesday”.
How on earth did this mixup occur?
The Hindu carried the article ‘UPA fails to pull through Women's Bill in Upper House’ by Gargi Parsai on Tuesday, Mar 09, 2010, which claimed that SP and RJD had withdrawn support to the UPA government. This is what it said:
“On a day of fast moving developments, the Samajwadi Party and the Rashtriya Janata Dal withdrew support to the government, and its leaders met Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and the Leader of the House, Pranab Mukherjee, while the Bill itself was deferred to Tuesday.”
The fact, as reported by other newspapers and news channels, was that on the 8th the two Yadavs had only decided to withdraw support, which is not the same as withdrawing support. To use The Hindu’s own terminology, they had only “threatened” to withdraw support.
But, instead of correcting the error next day, The Hindu carried the headline: “Lalu withdraws support”. The text of the news, however, was correct: “Rashtriya Janata Dal chief Lalu Prasad on Tuesday announced his decision to formally withdraw support to the government….
Samajwadi Party leader Mulayam Singh, who too had threatened to do so, however, was evasive on the issue. When journalists persisted with their questions, he said he would inform the media when he took a decision in this regard. Mr. Prasad said he would call on President Pratibha Patil and submit his letter to her on Wednesday”.
How on earth did this mixup occur?
Friday, March 05, 2010
Ideology of the CPI (Maoists) and Arundhati Roy
The following letter I sent to The Hindu Letters to the Editor on 6.3.2010. The next letters day is on the 8th.
The news item in The Hindu was:
Ideology can't be wiped out by attacking tribals: Arundhati Roy
Manisha Jha
NEW DELHI: Dubbing the Centre's talk of ceasefire and talks with naxals “non-serious,” members of democratic and civil rights organisations on Friday demanded that the state stop the military offensive, Operation Greenhunt, “against its own people” and initiate back-channel talks with the CPI (Maoist).
Addressing a press conference here, writer and human rights activist Arundhati Roy said: “The government's use of the military to solve political problems is not new. The government has long since followed a policy of extermination against the Maoist movement. But each time the movement has come back stronger and better organised as it is not the people but an ideology under attack and this ideology cannot be wiped out by attacking tribals in the name of defeating Maoism. Moreover, considering the fact that no one has defined the word ‘Maoist', if the government talks of wiping them out, then it refers to a genocidal language where it could be dispensing with lakhs of people who are anyway fragile and on the brink of survival.”
Ms. Roy said: “We are in a situation wherein corporatisation of natural resources such as coal and iron ore has led to scandals galore and it is this money which can buy governments, elections, courts and media, making our democracy the best democracy that money can buy today. Despite a large number of farmer suicides and a majority of the population living below poverty line, we have the most expensive elections in the world and the money for the same comes from the iron ores of Karnataka and Chhattisgarh and bauxite in Orissa which is then is used to cleverly subvert democracy and wage war against its own people.”
Sumit Chakravartty, Editor, Mainstream magazine, said: “The Union government has undertaken the task of launching a full-scale war against the indigenous tribal population in the vast tribal heartlands. The most important thing for talks to be successful between the CPI (Maoist) and the government is that it has to be a mutual affair of cessation of hostilities. It cannot be one-sided. While asking the Maoists to abjure violence, the Centre should also do the same and initiate back-channel talks, but so far this seriousness and initiative on the part of the government has been lacking.”
Alluding to the treatment meted out to social activists working in naxal-affected areas in Chhattisgarh, he said: “The government's allegation that the Maoists are not allowing development works to take place is hollow because if that was true, then why would civil society and voluntary organisation representatives working for the uplift of the Maoists be targeted? Since the government is not interested in the development of tribals, a large number of them have joined the Maoists as it is a question of survival for them.”
© Copyright 2000 - 2009 The Hindu
Sir,
One cannot agree more with Arundhati Roy in her assessment of the present Indian democracy and the State. But her demand to stop the Operation Greenhunt against the CPI (Maoist) is baffling. Assuming that the ideology Roy refers to is a programme to install a people’s government after overthrowing the present State through a relentless and protracted armed struggle, one may wonder how it can ever propose a ceasefire except as part of a strategy. Is Roy a partisan to this strategy? Or is she romanticizing the Maoist violence as mere acts of ‘innocent savages’?
The news item in The Hindu was:
Ideology can't be wiped out by attacking tribals: Arundhati Roy
Manisha Jha
NEW DELHI: Dubbing the Centre's talk of ceasefire and talks with naxals “non-serious,” members of democratic and civil rights organisations on Friday demanded that the state stop the military offensive, Operation Greenhunt, “against its own people” and initiate back-channel talks with the CPI (Maoist).
Addressing a press conference here, writer and human rights activist Arundhati Roy said: “The government's use of the military to solve political problems is not new. The government has long since followed a policy of extermination against the Maoist movement. But each time the movement has come back stronger and better organised as it is not the people but an ideology under attack and this ideology cannot be wiped out by attacking tribals in the name of defeating Maoism. Moreover, considering the fact that no one has defined the word ‘Maoist', if the government talks of wiping them out, then it refers to a genocidal language where it could be dispensing with lakhs of people who are anyway fragile and on the brink of survival.”
Ms. Roy said: “We are in a situation wherein corporatisation of natural resources such as coal and iron ore has led to scandals galore and it is this money which can buy governments, elections, courts and media, making our democracy the best democracy that money can buy today. Despite a large number of farmer suicides and a majority of the population living below poverty line, we have the most expensive elections in the world and the money for the same comes from the iron ores of Karnataka and Chhattisgarh and bauxite in Orissa which is then is used to cleverly subvert democracy and wage war against its own people.”
Sumit Chakravartty, Editor, Mainstream magazine, said: “The Union government has undertaken the task of launching a full-scale war against the indigenous tribal population in the vast tribal heartlands. The most important thing for talks to be successful between the CPI (Maoist) and the government is that it has to be a mutual affair of cessation of hostilities. It cannot be one-sided. While asking the Maoists to abjure violence, the Centre should also do the same and initiate back-channel talks, but so far this seriousness and initiative on the part of the government has been lacking.”
Alluding to the treatment meted out to social activists working in naxal-affected areas in Chhattisgarh, he said: “The government's allegation that the Maoists are not allowing development works to take place is hollow because if that was true, then why would civil society and voluntary organisation representatives working for the uplift of the Maoists be targeted? Since the government is not interested in the development of tribals, a large number of them have joined the Maoists as it is a question of survival for them.”
© Copyright 2000 - 2009 The Hindu
Sir,
One cannot agree more with Arundhati Roy in her assessment of the present Indian democracy and the State. But her demand to stop the Operation Greenhunt against the CPI (Maoist) is baffling. Assuming that the ideology Roy refers to is a programme to install a people’s government after overthrowing the present State through a relentless and protracted armed struggle, one may wonder how it can ever propose a ceasefire except as part of a strategy. Is Roy a partisan to this strategy? Or is she romanticizing the Maoist violence as mere acts of ‘innocent savages’?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)