B.RAMAN
( To be read in continuation of the following articles of mine: (1) Article of January 12,2011, titled "PLA's Stealth Surprise to Gates: Was it A Surprise to HU Too?" at http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cpapers43%5Cpaper4273.html and (2) Article of January 21,2011, titled "A Stealth Aircraft with Peaceful Chinese Characteristics !!" at http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cpapers43%5Cpaper4288.html )
China has once again used its bloggers ----possibly belonging to the People's Liberation Army (PLA)--- to indicate to the world in general and to the US in particular that it successfully carried out the second test flight of its J-20 Stealth aircraft---still under development--- on April 17,2011, from the Chengdu military airport in the Sichuan province.
2. The Chinese authorities, who have not yet made an official announcement of the successful flight, used the same procedure as they did during its maiden flight in January to let the world know of their success---- they apparently alerted a group of bloggers around the Chengdu military airport about the impending flight and encouraged them to cover the flight through postings of their visual observations in their blogs.
3. A detailed report carried by the Party-controlled "Global Times" on April 19,2011, on the flight is annexed. According to the bloggers, who had timed the two flights of J-20, whereas the first flight in January lasted only 20 minutes, the second flight on April 17 lasted about 85 minutes. It took off at 4-25 PM and landed at 5-50 PM.
4. Why do the Chinese use the bloggers for announcing the flights instead of doing so officially? A convincing answer to this question is not available. One reason could be to maintain the deniability of any possible failures, but that is not a convincing answer. If they don't encourage any leaks of impending flights the deniability of failures would be even stronger.
5. Are the bloggers making the postings simultaneously with the flights or after the flights have successfully ended? Since in the latest case, the flight lasted about 85 minutes it should have been possible for Western intelligence agencies, which monitor Chinese blogs, to simultaneously track the flights or to determine whether the blog postings are being made after the flights are successfully over.
6. According to Western experts, the J-20 has a height of 5 metres ( 5.08 in the case of the US F-22 Raptor), weight 17600 kgs ( 19700), cruising speed 2100 kph (2500 plus) and estimated unit cost US $ 110 million ( US $ 130 million ). Some US experts suspect that the Chinese were able to develop the stealth technology from parts of an American F-117 Nighthawk that was shot down over Serbia in 1999 and parts of which they allegedly managed to acquire from the locals.
7.Is the J-20 still at the concept demonstration stage or is it a prototype moving towards production?Many believe after studying the two tests that the Chinese are past the concept demonstration stage and are now gradually moving towards production. ( 22-4-11)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presenhtly, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai, and Associate of the Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
ANNEXURE
( "Global Times" report of April 19,2011)
Mystery jet 'flies' again
An alleged J-20 prototype prepares to take off from the Chengdu Aircraft Design Institute's airfield in Sichuan Province on Sunday. Photo: Anonymous
By Xu Tianran and Huang Jingjing
Photos of China's J-20 stealth fighter prototype are all the rage on online military forums, after word emerged that another test flight was completed Sunday when officials in Beijing celebrated the 60th anniversary of the establishment of China's aviation industry.
Some of the online footage showed scores of military enthusiasts yelling when an aircraft flew over the Chengdu Aircraft Design Institute's airfield in Sichuan Province, but it was unclear whether the plane was the J-20 prototype.
"The J-20 made several passes and waggled its wings (rolling the plane first to one side then to the other) to salute the crowd near the airfield," a witness told the Global Times on condition of anonymity, adding that the plane took off at around 4:25 pm and landed at about 5:50 pm.
As of press time, Chinese authorities had not commented on the issue, but the Xinhua News Agency posted another clip of the flight uploaded by Internet users.
The J-20 prototype made its 18-minute debut flight in Chengdu on January 11, when US Defense Secretary Robert Gates visited Beijing. Since then, it has been touted as a potential challenger to the US Air Force's F-22 Raptor, the world's only fifth-generation fighter jet.
Xu Yongling, one of China's top test pilots, said that if Sunday's test flight proved true, it would be more or less the same as the first test, but Xu noted that every test is one step closer to mass production.
"The first 10 to 20 tests are meant to calibrate the entire aircraft, including its stability, handling qualities and performance. All of them are short in time, but the entire process will take years to complete," Xu told the Global Times on Monday.
The alleged test flight coincided with a celebration in the Great Hall of the People in Beijing on Sunday that marked the 60th anniversary of China's aviation industry.
Lin Zuoming, general manager of the Aviation Industry Corporation of China (AVIC), pledged at the ceremony to push forward the development of next-generation aircraft and to make breakthroughs in propulsion systems.
"By 2015, the research and design of all key models will be completed," Lin said, adding that inferior engine design has been a "bottleneck" for the advancement of China's aviation industry.
According to him, AVIC will invest 10 billion yuan ($1.52 billion) in engine development, which is equivalent to its net profit from 2010.
However, this amount of investment is unimpressive when compared with other major engine projects.
According to a press release from Pratt & Whitney, the company was awarded a contract valued at more than $4 billion in 2001 to develop its F135 engine for the US air force's F-35 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft.
Lin also urged speedup in transferring technology to civil aviation, saying China's aviation industry cannot rely solely on the military.
Wang Zhilin, general manager of the Commercial Aircraft Corporation of China, told CCTV on Sunday that, by 2020, China's C919 passenger jet will be equipped with engines designed by AVIC.
"By 2021, the Chinese aviation industry will be at the same level as major players in the world and have become the outstanding supplier of air defense equipment," Lin added.
Separately, another rumor circulated on the Internet recently involving the alleged J-18, China's first warplane with vertical/short takeoff and landing capabilities.
Earlier this month, citing a report by Japan's Asahi Shimbun newspaper, Phoenix Television said the J-18 had completed a test flight at a field base in the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region.
The report said the wings of the jet, similar to Russia's Su-33, a carrier-based multi-role fighter, could be folded, and suspected that it would be installed on China's future aircraft carrier.
The report came at the same time as foreign media speculated that China's first aircraft carrier, a modification of the Varyag bought from Ukraine, would take to the oceans in July. The Chinese military has denied such reports.
Ding Zhiyong, a spokesperson at the AVIC, told the Global Times on Monday that the Japanese report of the alleged J-18 was pure speculation and that the corporation had no information to reveal.
Li Daguang, a professor specializing in military strategy at the National Defense University, told the Global Times earlier that even if the rumored carrier were true, the vessel would only be used for training.
Liu Linlin contributed to this story
Thursday, April 21, 2011
THE PEOPLE'S DAILY OF CHENNAI---WHAT I WROTE ON MARCH 17,2008
B.RAMAN
In a sensational letter to his senior colleagues in "The Hindu" disseminated on April 20,2011, Shri N.Ravi, it Editor,has accused Shri N.Ram, its Editor-in-Chief and a close relative of his, of manipulating matters in the paper in order to take all the editorial directors into retirement with him with a scorched earth policy to ensure that no one in the family succeeds him. In his detailed letter on the sad state of affairs in the paper since Shri Ram took over as the Editor-in-Chief some years ago, Shri Ravi has, inter alia, accused Shri Ram of "a pronounced pro-China tilt and blacking out or downplaying any news that is less than complimentary to the Chinese Communist regime." I had drawn attention to "The Hindu" gradually coming under the influence of China in an article titled " The People's Daily of Chennai," in my blog on March 17, 2008. I am reproducing it below. The text of Shri Ravi's letter to Shri Ram is available at http://www.thehoot.org/web/home/story.php?storyid=5248&mod=1&pg=1§ionId=1&valid=true
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
THE PEOPLE'S DAILY OF CHENNAI ( My article of March 17,2008)
B.RAMAN
Tibet and Sichuan have seen some determined protests by the long-suppressed Tibetans since March 10. The protests were initially started by Tibetan monks, but subsequently a large number of students and other sections of the general population joined in. The Chinese Army, which was taken by surprise, is in the process of putting down the protests ruthlessly.
2. There is no doubt they will ultimately succeed in ruthlessly crushing the protests, arresting those who participated and sending them to their own Gulags.
3.There can be different views on what the Government of India's attitude to the protests should be---sympathise with it or disaprove of it or adopt an ambivalent attitude? A decision on this has to be taken by the Government after taking the national interests into consideration.
4. But there can be no different views on what should be the attitude of the media to the developments in Tibet and Sichuan, particularly of a newspaper which projects itself to be independent and objective, with no agenda of its own. It has to inform the public of the various versions of the developments----the Tibetan, the Chinese, the Western etc--- and leave it to the readers to decide which version to believe.
5. If it has any views as to which version is more credible, it can express those views in its editorial columns for the benefit of its readers.
6. But, when a newspaper censors the various versions, blacks out the Tibetan version and disseminates only the version as put out by the Government-owned Hsinhua news agency of China, one has reason to feel shocked----- and sad.
7. Read the report as carried by that newspaper on its front page on March 17,2008. At the bottom, its says "Hsinhua, PTI and Reuters" as if the entire report is based on the versions put out by these three agencies.
8. It is not so. The portion regarding the disturbances in Tibet is totally the version of the Hsinhua with no clarifications or additions as to what the Tibetans have had to say. The Dalai Lama held a press conference on March 16,2008. Truncated versions of the press conference as disseminated by the Reuters and the PTI have been added on to the main Hsinhua version.
9. The Dalai Lama made two important points in his press conference. He accused the Chinese of cultural genocide in Tibet and asked for an international enquiry into it. At the same time, he made it clear that he did not want the Beijing Olympics to be disrupted. In its headline , the paper played up only what he said on the Olympics and remained silent on what he had to say about the alleged cultural genocide.
10. A few years ago, the paper came under a new leadership of the same family. Since then one could see a change in its editorial policy towards China and Tibet---- no publicity to the statements and activities of the Dalai Lama, no dissemination of his pictures, no publicity to the views and hardships of the Tibetans, no negative comments on China, only the positive to be highlighted and not the negative about China. Beijing to be projected as an angel in a world of villains.
11. More and more Hsinhua despatches started finding their way into the columns of this paper. The readers were told what a wonderful country China was, what a wonderful people the Chinese were, how there is nothing for India to fear from the Chinese.
12.Its Washington office was closed and shifted to Beijing indicating where its heart lay.
13. A Chinese interlocutor recently mentioned to me the names of two persons from this paper----one in its headquarters in Chennai and the other in its office in Beijing-- and remarked that if only all journalists were like these two, journalism must be the most beautiful profession in the world. I asked him why he thought so.
14. He replied that they write only positively about China. They never say anything negative.
15. All of us, who were born and brought up in Chennai, grew up on the mother's milk of this daily. Whatever little we achieved in our life and career was due to what we imbibed from its columns.
17. What a great family it was! What great names it had in its staff in its headquarters and in its field offices!
18. When we travelled abroad and mentioned that Chennai was our home town, people would immediately say " oh, the city of that famous newspaper". Chennai was known as the city of the Music Festival and this newspaper.
19. I am 71---- well on the way to making my peace with My Maker. How cruel to see this daily with which I grew up reduced to its present status!
20. Its founding fathers and the giants who served in it must be shedding tears in heavens over the way their child has been reduced to being the "People's Daily" of Chennai.
In a sensational letter to his senior colleagues in "The Hindu" disseminated on April 20,2011, Shri N.Ravi, it Editor,has accused Shri N.Ram, its Editor-in-Chief and a close relative of his, of manipulating matters in the paper in order to take all the editorial directors into retirement with him with a scorched earth policy to ensure that no one in the family succeeds him. In his detailed letter on the sad state of affairs in the paper since Shri Ram took over as the Editor-in-Chief some years ago, Shri Ravi has, inter alia, accused Shri Ram of "a pronounced pro-China tilt and blacking out or downplaying any news that is less than complimentary to the Chinese Communist regime." I had drawn attention to "The Hindu" gradually coming under the influence of China in an article titled " The People's Daily of Chennai," in my blog on March 17, 2008. I am reproducing it below. The text of Shri Ravi's letter to Shri Ram is available at http://www.thehoot.org/web/home/story.php?storyid=5248&mod=1&pg=1§ionId=1&valid=true
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
THE PEOPLE'S DAILY OF CHENNAI ( My article of March 17,2008)
B.RAMAN
Tibet and Sichuan have seen some determined protests by the long-suppressed Tibetans since March 10. The protests were initially started by Tibetan monks, but subsequently a large number of students and other sections of the general population joined in. The Chinese Army, which was taken by surprise, is in the process of putting down the protests ruthlessly.
2. There is no doubt they will ultimately succeed in ruthlessly crushing the protests, arresting those who participated and sending them to their own Gulags.
3.There can be different views on what the Government of India's attitude to the protests should be---sympathise with it or disaprove of it or adopt an ambivalent attitude? A decision on this has to be taken by the Government after taking the national interests into consideration.
4. But there can be no different views on what should be the attitude of the media to the developments in Tibet and Sichuan, particularly of a newspaper which projects itself to be independent and objective, with no agenda of its own. It has to inform the public of the various versions of the developments----the Tibetan, the Chinese, the Western etc--- and leave it to the readers to decide which version to believe.
5. If it has any views as to which version is more credible, it can express those views in its editorial columns for the benefit of its readers.
6. But, when a newspaper censors the various versions, blacks out the Tibetan version and disseminates only the version as put out by the Government-owned Hsinhua news agency of China, one has reason to feel shocked----- and sad.
7. Read the report as carried by that newspaper on its front page on March 17,2008. At the bottom, its says "Hsinhua, PTI and Reuters" as if the entire report is based on the versions put out by these three agencies.
8. It is not so. The portion regarding the disturbances in Tibet is totally the version of the Hsinhua with no clarifications or additions as to what the Tibetans have had to say. The Dalai Lama held a press conference on March 16,2008. Truncated versions of the press conference as disseminated by the Reuters and the PTI have been added on to the main Hsinhua version.
9. The Dalai Lama made two important points in his press conference. He accused the Chinese of cultural genocide in Tibet and asked for an international enquiry into it. At the same time, he made it clear that he did not want the Beijing Olympics to be disrupted. In its headline , the paper played up only what he said on the Olympics and remained silent on what he had to say about the alleged cultural genocide.
10. A few years ago, the paper came under a new leadership of the same family. Since then one could see a change in its editorial policy towards China and Tibet---- no publicity to the statements and activities of the Dalai Lama, no dissemination of his pictures, no publicity to the views and hardships of the Tibetans, no negative comments on China, only the positive to be highlighted and not the negative about China. Beijing to be projected as an angel in a world of villains.
11. More and more Hsinhua despatches started finding their way into the columns of this paper. The readers were told what a wonderful country China was, what a wonderful people the Chinese were, how there is nothing for India to fear from the Chinese.
12.Its Washington office was closed and shifted to Beijing indicating where its heart lay.
13. A Chinese interlocutor recently mentioned to me the names of two persons from this paper----one in its headquarters in Chennai and the other in its office in Beijing-- and remarked that if only all journalists were like these two, journalism must be the most beautiful profession in the world. I asked him why he thought so.
14. He replied that they write only positively about China. They never say anything negative.
15. All of us, who were born and brought up in Chennai, grew up on the mother's milk of this daily. Whatever little we achieved in our life and career was due to what we imbibed from its columns.
17. What a great family it was! What great names it had in its staff in its headquarters and in its field offices!
18. When we travelled abroad and mentioned that Chennai was our home town, people would immediately say " oh, the city of that famous newspaper". Chennai was known as the city of the Music Festival and this newspaper.
19. I am 71---- well on the way to making my peace with My Maker. How cruel to see this daily with which I grew up reduced to its present status!
20. Its founding fathers and the giants who served in it must be shedding tears in heavens over the way their child has been reduced to being the "People's Daily" of Chennai.
ARNAB GOSWAMI: THE DEAFENING SILENCE
B.RAMAN
( To be read in continuation of my article of November 26,2010, titled "Our Own MeCarthyism" available at http://ramanstrategicanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/11/our-own-mccarthyism.html )
While Shri Arnab Goswami, the highly-reputed Editor of the Times Now news channel, who often projects a sense of modesty about himself with expressions like "your channel", "your editor" etc, continues to wax eloquent over various issues bothering him which he feels ought to bother the public too, there is one development over which he does not wax eloquent, which does not seem to bother him and which he does not want the public to bother about.
2. The issue I am referring to is a document purporting to be the interrogation report of Ms. Niira Radia, the lobbyist, allegedly recorded by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) that has been circulating in the Internet for the last three or four days. Presuming that this report is authentic, I have carefully gone through its Internet version, which is available at http://daily.bhaskar.com/pdf/radia.pdf
3. The report is in two parts. The first part, recorded on 21-12-10, is about the personal and professional background of Ms.Radia as ascertained during her interrogation. The second part recorded on 25-1-11, relates to certain tapes which the CBI has apparently identified as of an incriminating nature having relevance to the scam case against Shri A.Raja, former Telecommunications Minister, under investigation by it.
4 What the CBI’s investigating officer seems to have done is to play these incriminating tapes one after the other to Ms.Radia and ask her to identify the persons talking with her in the tapes and summarise the conversations. Amongst the persons whose tapped telephone conversations with Ms.Radia were thus played back to her for establishing their authenticity through her words were the following journalists:
• Ms.Navika Kumar, described as the Senior Political Editor of the Times Now Channel.
• Shri T.K.Thomas of the “Hindu Businessline”
• Shri Satish Ohri, described as the Editor of a magazine called “Business At Zero Hour” and
• Shri Ganapati Subramanyam Ganu of ET and ET Now channel.
5. The conversation between Ms.Navika Kumar and Ms.Radia relates to the alleged links of Shri Sharad Pawar, Union Agriculture Minister, with DB Realities, one of the companies reportedly under investigation by the CBI. The interrogation report quotes Ms. Radia as stating as follows while explaining her conversation with Ms.Navika Kumar: “As per general perceptions in Mumbai as well as outside, DB Realities directly or indirectly controlled by Sharad Pawar and his family members.”
6.The following questions arise from a study of this portion of the interrogation report of Ms.Radia recorded by the CBI:
• Since when was Ms.Kumar in contact with Ms.Radia?
• When did the telephone conversation described in the interrogation report take place?
• Who initiated the telephone call discussed in the interrogation report---Ms.Radia or Ms.Kumar?
• Who broached the subject of the alleged links of Shri Sharad Pawar and his family with DB Realities?
• Since Ms.Kumar was in possession of this explosive information, did she use it in her reporting? If not, why not?
• Did she convey this information to Shri Goswami? If so, what further action did he take on it?
• How come none of the incriminating tapes, which had a relevance to the 2 G scam, were not among those publicized by the two leading journals of Delhi which went to town with the Radia tapes?
7. The public has a right to know the answers to these questions. If Shri Goswami and Times Now continue to maintain their silence and avoid answers to these specific questions, a strong suspicion is likely to be created that there is more than meets the eye behind the intriguing silence. (21-4-11)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
( To be read in continuation of my article of November 26,2010, titled "Our Own MeCarthyism" available at http://ramanstrategicanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/11/our-own-mccarthyism.html )
While Shri Arnab Goswami, the highly-reputed Editor of the Times Now news channel, who often projects a sense of modesty about himself with expressions like "your channel", "your editor" etc, continues to wax eloquent over various issues bothering him which he feels ought to bother the public too, there is one development over which he does not wax eloquent, which does not seem to bother him and which he does not want the public to bother about.
2. The issue I am referring to is a document purporting to be the interrogation report of Ms. Niira Radia, the lobbyist, allegedly recorded by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) that has been circulating in the Internet for the last three or four days. Presuming that this report is authentic, I have carefully gone through its Internet version, which is available at http://daily.bhaskar.com/pdf/radia.pdf
3. The report is in two parts. The first part, recorded on 21-12-10, is about the personal and professional background of Ms.Radia as ascertained during her interrogation. The second part recorded on 25-1-11, relates to certain tapes which the CBI has apparently identified as of an incriminating nature having relevance to the scam case against Shri A.Raja, former Telecommunications Minister, under investigation by it.
4 What the CBI’s investigating officer seems to have done is to play these incriminating tapes one after the other to Ms.Radia and ask her to identify the persons talking with her in the tapes and summarise the conversations. Amongst the persons whose tapped telephone conversations with Ms.Radia were thus played back to her for establishing their authenticity through her words were the following journalists:
• Ms.Navika Kumar, described as the Senior Political Editor of the Times Now Channel.
• Shri T.K.Thomas of the “Hindu Businessline”
• Shri Satish Ohri, described as the Editor of a magazine called “Business At Zero Hour” and
• Shri Ganapati Subramanyam Ganu of ET and ET Now channel.
5. The conversation between Ms.Navika Kumar and Ms.Radia relates to the alleged links of Shri Sharad Pawar, Union Agriculture Minister, with DB Realities, one of the companies reportedly under investigation by the CBI. The interrogation report quotes Ms. Radia as stating as follows while explaining her conversation with Ms.Navika Kumar: “As per general perceptions in Mumbai as well as outside, DB Realities directly or indirectly controlled by Sharad Pawar and his family members.”
6.The following questions arise from a study of this portion of the interrogation report of Ms.Radia recorded by the CBI:
• Since when was Ms.Kumar in contact with Ms.Radia?
• When did the telephone conversation described in the interrogation report take place?
• Who initiated the telephone call discussed in the interrogation report---Ms.Radia or Ms.Kumar?
• Who broached the subject of the alleged links of Shri Sharad Pawar and his family with DB Realities?
• Since Ms.Kumar was in possession of this explosive information, did she use it in her reporting? If not, why not?
• Did she convey this information to Shri Goswami? If so, what further action did he take on it?
• How come none of the incriminating tapes, which had a relevance to the 2 G scam, were not among those publicized by the two leading journals of Delhi which went to town with the Radia tapes?
7. The public has a right to know the answers to these questions. If Shri Goswami and Times Now continue to maintain their silence and avoid answers to these specific questions, a strong suspicion is likely to be created that there is more than meets the eye behind the intriguing silence. (21-4-11)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
MY ARTICLE ON NARENDRA MODI: A DETAILED REJOINDER
( I am reproducing below a detailed rejoinder to my articles on Shri Narendra Modi, the Chief Minister of Gujarat, received by me from Shri Nilim Dutta,Executive Director, Strategic Research & Analysis Organisation. I have never met him, but have been interacting with him through the Internet on some of the issues on which I write in my blog. I have seen over a period of time that he is one of my well-wishers, who has been keeping track of my writings and views. He was one of the first to contact me and express politely his amazement and sense of disquiet over my article on Modi and particularly over my suggestion for the assertion of youth power in support of Modi. He felt that in the light of what had happened in Assam in the past, it was extremely unwise on my part to have made this suggestion. His objections to Modi as an individual, as an administrator and as an ideologue are based on ideological as well as what he perceives to be ethical grounds. While I do not agree with the conclusions advanced by him and while I see no reason to have any second thoughts on my two recent articles on Modi, I do feel that my readers have a right to know his arguments and conclusions and his sense of disquiet over my argumentation---B.Raman)
MODI-fication of India: Manufacturing consent by guile for NaMo
Nilim Dutta
It has been sometime since the enterprise to ‘anoint’ Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi as the Prime Minister in waiting had kicked off. The biggest hurdle on the way was of course the fact that owing to his complicity in the Gujarat 2002 massacre of Muslims, one of the worst pogroms this country has ever seen, Modi is a deeply reviled figure whom even BJPs coalition partners are weary to be seen with. Naturally, ways and means had to be found to make him ‘acceptable’. People had to be persuaded that at the most, what happened in 2002 were aberrations Modi wasn’t responsible for. That even the Muslims of Gujarat had moved on, grateful for the ‘development’ and ‘prosperity’ Modi has brought them. Hence, Gujarat is Vibrant and the rest of India is straining at the leash to partake in that prosperity.
Those who have assumed this onerous responsibility to lead us to eternal prosperity through Modi’s leadership, would have us believe that anybody who has any brains in this country and actually puts them to any use, has pronounced their judgement – Narendra Modi is God’s chosen one. Wait, one gentleman of erstwhile PMO fame, actually thinks he is God. (he even tweeted: God has a name. He is called NaMo).
Being a self-confessed ‘infidel’, ‘sinner’, ‘ignorant’, ‘bigot’ (in which ever order you prefer) or even a ‘secular’ (this indeed can be the worst of the epithets) for not having seen deliverance in such enlightenment, my usual response to these have been – C’est la vie !!! (Some of the believers have found my utter stupidity so bothersome that they have even resorted to spreading awareness in twitter not to get infected by the disease I am supposed to be suffering from)
But when someone as widely held in respect as Mr. B. Raman joins that chorus, I find it more than a little unsettling. (Mr. B. Raman retired as Additional Secretary, Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, after a long and distinguished career in the country’s intelligence service and is presently, Director, Institute for Topical Studies, Chennai, and Associate of the Chennai Centre for China Studies)
In his blogpost on April 15, 2011 titled “Assertion of Youth Power in Support of Narendra Modi” Mr. B. Raman contends that Narendra Modi is India’s only hope if we are to fulfill our aspiration to be a powerful and prosperous nation outstripping China, and it is patently unfair that the ‘so called secularists’ should prevent him from fulfilling our destiny just because of some insignificant lapses on the part of his government during the ‘initial hours’ of the Gujarat Riots of 2002 and it is the bounden duty of India’s youth to ensure that the ‘so called secularists’ don’t come in the way of Narendra Modi in his march to fulfill our destiny.
Mr. Raman is entitled to his opinion. He is not entitled, however, to bend the truth to suit his argument.
Mr. Raman wrote:
There has been a perception—not unjustified—that Modi did not, in the initial stages, deal with the explosive situation vigorously in order to protect the members of the Muslim community from brutal and beastly reprisal attacks by the Hindus. The fact that the Police subsequently took vigorous action to protect the Muslims —as evidenced by the large number of Hindus killed in police-firing— would not mitigate from the fact that in the initial hours after the news of the Godhra massacre spread across the State, the administration dragged its feet in protecting the Muslims, thereby wittingly or unwittingly giving a free run to frenzied Hindu mobs. It was a horrible episode of which all of us have to be ashamed. (emphasis in bold, mine)
Is it a mere ‘perception’ that Modi did not act to protect Muslims, Mr. Raman? And was his inaction just confined to the ‘initial stages’? When exactly did the Police subsequently take vigorous action?
NOT EVEN AFTER 72 HOURS OF NON STOP GRUESOME CARNAGE OF MUSLIMS !!!!
The violence continued for weeks.
I reproduce below excerpts from what the National Human Rights Commission had to say in respect to the ‘situation’ in Gujarat, even as early as May 31, 2002 in its proceedings on this matter:
(paragraph 9) In its Preliminary Comments of 1 April 2002 the Commission had observed that the first question that arises is whether the State has discharged its primary and inescapable responsibility to protect the rights to life, liberty, equality and dignity of all of those who constitute it. Given the history of communal violence in Gujarat, a history vividly recalled in the report dated 28 March 2002 of the State Government itself, the Commission had raised the question whether the principle of ‘res ipsa loquitur’ (‘the affair speaking for itself’) should not apply in this case in assessing the degree of State responsibility in the failure to protect the rights of the people of Gujarat. It observed that the responsibility of the State extended not only to the acts of its own agents, but also to those of non-State players within its jurisdiction and to any action that may cause or facilitate the violation of human rights. The Commission added that, unless rebutted by the State Government, the adverse inference arising against it would render it accountable. The burden of proof was therefore on the State Government to rebut this presumption.
(paragraph 10) Nothing in the reports received in response to the Proceedings of 1 April 2002 rebuts the presumption. The violence in the State, which was initially claimed to have been brought under control in seventy two hours, persisted in varying degree for over two months, the toll in death and destruction rising with the passage of time. Despite the measures reportedly taken by the State Government, which are recounted in its report of 12 April 2002, that report itself testifies to the increasing numbers who died or were injured or deprived of their liberty and compelled to seek shelter in relief camps. That report also testifies to the assault on the dignity and worth of the human person, particularly of women and children, through acts of rape and other humiliating crimes of violence and cruelty. The report further makes clear that many were deprived of their livelihood and capacity to sustain themselves with dignity. The facts, thus, speak for themselves, even as recounted in the 12 April 2002 report of the State Government itself. The Commission has therefore reached the definite conclusion that the principle of ‘res ipsa loquitur’ applies in this case and that there was a comprehensive failure of the State to protect the Constitutional rights of the people of Gujarat, starting with the tragedy in Godhra on 27 February 2002 and continuing with the violence that ensued in the weeks that followed.
There is a mass of evidence, but this would suffice to illustrate that what Mr. Raman presents us as facts aren’t exactly so.
Mr. Raman also wrote:
After the frenzy of the initial hours, the State Administration did move in vigorously to bring the situation under control. The fact that no effective action was taken in the initial hours has left a scar in the minds and hearts of Muslims. This scar is likely to take a long time to heal. The cases registered in connection with the brutal attacks on the Muslim community are under investigation or prosecution. The investigation made so far has not produced any evidence of complicity by Modi. (emphasis in bold, mine)
Really Mr. Raman?
Far from moving in vigorously to control the situation, the State Administration did everything to prevent upright police officers from intervening or swiftly penalized those who did intervene, refusing to toe the ‘silent spectator’ role Modi dictated them to adopt.
It is true that the cases registered in connection with the brutal attacks on the Muslim community are under investigation or prosecution. But does Mr. Raman explain to us what took so long for this to happen?
In his hurry to get us onto the Modi bandwagon, Mr. Raman forgets to inform us that the investigation and prosecution of even the worst cases during the carnage could come about only after tortuous legal battles and intervention of the Supreme Court of India, which ‘innocent’ Mr. Modi sought to obstruct or subvert by every possible means.
In light of what I have stated above, would Mr. Raman care to explain which investigation has so far not produced any evidence of complicity by Mr. Modi?
Isn’t it telling enough that the Supreme Court had to entertain a Special Leave Petition and finding the prima facie evidence compelling enough, constituted a Special Investigation Team (SIT) and supervised its investigations just to ascertain Mr. Modi’s complicity? The last I heard, neither the investigation nor the Supreme Court has exonerated Mr. Modi.
Wouldn’t it have been closer to truth if Mr. Raman had said that Mr. Modi remains under grave suspicion and yet to be exonerated for his complicity? That of course wouldn’t have sounded so good, would it have?
Let us look at just one instance.
105 defenceless men, women and children were butchered and burnt to death (many of the women raped) in the locality of Naroda Patia just Kilometers away from the Ahmedabad Police HQ in a carnage that lasted for several hours on February 28, 2002. When the National Human Rights Commission team led by Chairperson Justice J. S. Verma visited Gujarat from March 19-22, 2002, they also visited the Shah-e-Alam Relief Camp where many of the Naroda Patia survivors were in refuge, each having a horrible tale of suffering to narrate. Victims specifically named the perpetrators of the mayhem, like then Naroda MLA Dr. Mayaben Kodnani and VHP leader Dr. Jayadev Patil. These were on record in the NHRC report. Yet, when the Gujarat Police finally filed chargesheets, none of them even figured and even the charges were diluted against many who couldn’t be left out. This was one of the 9 horrific riot cases the Supreme Court of India ordered to re-investigate in March 2008, 6 years after the riot and massacre and after a protracted legal battle by the victims and activists.
As a result, Dr. Mayaben Kodnani, whose name figured not only in the FIRs but the report of the NHRC, but against whom Gujarat Police didn’t find any evidence at all, was finally arrested and put behind bars in 2009. The evidences, particularly records of her cell-phone usage which clearly showed her presence in Naroda Patia during the carnage and constant contact with senior police officials, were damning. It must also be noted that these cell-phone records were handed over to the Gujarat Police Crime Branch by then DCP (Control Room) Rahul Sharma in 2002 which then curiously disappeared. It was just fortunate that the upright officer retained copies and handed them over to the SIT.
Refusing her anticipatory bail and quashing one granted to her illegally by a lower court, Justice DH Waghela of Gujarat HC said,
“If in the name of religion, people are killed, that is absolutely a slur and blot on society…religious fanatics really do not belong to any religion. They are no better than terrorists, who kill innocent people for no rhyme or reason…”.
How did Modi reward Dr. Mayaben Kodnani for her role in the riot ? By making her a minister. During the riots in 2002, Dr. Mayaben Kodnani was only an MLA. By the time she was arrested and charged with mass murder 7 years later, she was a Minister-of-State in the Narendra Modi cabinet. Ironically, the portfolio she held was that of Women’s Development and Child Welfare.
And how did Narendra Modi reward IPS officer Rahul Sharma for assisting the SIT by handing over crucial evidence? By immediately issuing him a showcause notice for doing so.
Would Mr. Raman care to explain why is Narendra Modi so afraid to be investigated if there wasn’t any complicity?
But Mr. Raman does clarify,
I have been a strong critic of Modi the Hindutva ideologue and a strong supporter of Modi, the administrator.
What kind of an administration does Narendra Modi run where vital evidences such as wireless records of the Police Control Room during the riots are destroyed when he himself holds the Cabinet portfolio for Home which gives direct control of the Gujarat Police?
What kind of an administration, in which his hand picked police officers in collusion with his Minister-of-State for Home runs a criminal empire of extortion and murder? That they have to land in jail on being investigated and charged by CBI on directions from the Supreme Court of India?
Would Mr. Raman care to explain?
And this is the man Mr. Raman wants us to reward with a “National Role”? (What that “National Role” could be leaves little to imagination)
Have we become so morally depraved as a nation?
Have we become so impotent that we hope not to find leaders of character and ability among men to lead the nation who would deserve our respect as well as trust?
On February 27, 1947, Sardar Patel, who chaired the Advisory Committee of the Constituent Assembly on Fundamental Rights, Minorities and Tribals and Excluded Areas, reacting to malicious claims that the minorities in India wouldn’t find justice at the hands of the majority community, boldly asserted:
“It is for us to prove that it is a bogus claim, a false claim, and that nobody can be more interested than us, in India, in the protection of our minorities. Our mission is to satisfy every one of them…..Let us prove (that) we can rule ourselves and we have no ambition to rule others.”
So it is that the Constitution of India guarantees Fundamental Rights of all who dwell in this country, on a non-discriminatory basis, regardless of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth.
It was this very basis of our rights that Narendra Modi violated and continues to do so by standing in the way of justice.
His wisdom and long service to the nation notwithstanding, Mr. Raman seems to have somehow forgotten that a great nation cannot be built on the foundation of injustice, violating the very basis the nation draws its inspiration and strength from. It gives me no pleasure, however, to remind him so.
MODI-fication of India: Manufacturing consent by guile for NaMo
Nilim Dutta
It has been sometime since the enterprise to ‘anoint’ Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi as the Prime Minister in waiting had kicked off. The biggest hurdle on the way was of course the fact that owing to his complicity in the Gujarat 2002 massacre of Muslims, one of the worst pogroms this country has ever seen, Modi is a deeply reviled figure whom even BJPs coalition partners are weary to be seen with. Naturally, ways and means had to be found to make him ‘acceptable’. People had to be persuaded that at the most, what happened in 2002 were aberrations Modi wasn’t responsible for. That even the Muslims of Gujarat had moved on, grateful for the ‘development’ and ‘prosperity’ Modi has brought them. Hence, Gujarat is Vibrant and the rest of India is straining at the leash to partake in that prosperity.
Those who have assumed this onerous responsibility to lead us to eternal prosperity through Modi’s leadership, would have us believe that anybody who has any brains in this country and actually puts them to any use, has pronounced their judgement – Narendra Modi is God’s chosen one. Wait, one gentleman of erstwhile PMO fame, actually thinks he is God. (he even tweeted: God has a name. He is called NaMo).
Being a self-confessed ‘infidel’, ‘sinner’, ‘ignorant’, ‘bigot’ (in which ever order you prefer) or even a ‘secular’ (this indeed can be the worst of the epithets) for not having seen deliverance in such enlightenment, my usual response to these have been – C’est la vie !!! (Some of the believers have found my utter stupidity so bothersome that they have even resorted to spreading awareness in twitter not to get infected by the disease I am supposed to be suffering from)
But when someone as widely held in respect as Mr. B. Raman joins that chorus, I find it more than a little unsettling. (Mr. B. Raman retired as Additional Secretary, Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, after a long and distinguished career in the country’s intelligence service and is presently, Director, Institute for Topical Studies, Chennai, and Associate of the Chennai Centre for China Studies)
In his blogpost on April 15, 2011 titled “Assertion of Youth Power in Support of Narendra Modi” Mr. B. Raman contends that Narendra Modi is India’s only hope if we are to fulfill our aspiration to be a powerful and prosperous nation outstripping China, and it is patently unfair that the ‘so called secularists’ should prevent him from fulfilling our destiny just because of some insignificant lapses on the part of his government during the ‘initial hours’ of the Gujarat Riots of 2002 and it is the bounden duty of India’s youth to ensure that the ‘so called secularists’ don’t come in the way of Narendra Modi in his march to fulfill our destiny.
Mr. Raman is entitled to his opinion. He is not entitled, however, to bend the truth to suit his argument.
Mr. Raman wrote:
There has been a perception—not unjustified—that Modi did not, in the initial stages, deal with the explosive situation vigorously in order to protect the members of the Muslim community from brutal and beastly reprisal attacks by the Hindus. The fact that the Police subsequently took vigorous action to protect the Muslims —as evidenced by the large number of Hindus killed in police-firing— would not mitigate from the fact that in the initial hours after the news of the Godhra massacre spread across the State, the administration dragged its feet in protecting the Muslims, thereby wittingly or unwittingly giving a free run to frenzied Hindu mobs. It was a horrible episode of which all of us have to be ashamed. (emphasis in bold, mine)
Is it a mere ‘perception’ that Modi did not act to protect Muslims, Mr. Raman? And was his inaction just confined to the ‘initial stages’? When exactly did the Police subsequently take vigorous action?
NOT EVEN AFTER 72 HOURS OF NON STOP GRUESOME CARNAGE OF MUSLIMS !!!!
The violence continued for weeks.
I reproduce below excerpts from what the National Human Rights Commission had to say in respect to the ‘situation’ in Gujarat, even as early as May 31, 2002 in its proceedings on this matter:
(paragraph 9) In its Preliminary Comments of 1 April 2002 the Commission had observed that the first question that arises is whether the State has discharged its primary and inescapable responsibility to protect the rights to life, liberty, equality and dignity of all of those who constitute it. Given the history of communal violence in Gujarat, a history vividly recalled in the report dated 28 March 2002 of the State Government itself, the Commission had raised the question whether the principle of ‘res ipsa loquitur’ (‘the affair speaking for itself’) should not apply in this case in assessing the degree of State responsibility in the failure to protect the rights of the people of Gujarat. It observed that the responsibility of the State extended not only to the acts of its own agents, but also to those of non-State players within its jurisdiction and to any action that may cause or facilitate the violation of human rights. The Commission added that, unless rebutted by the State Government, the adverse inference arising against it would render it accountable. The burden of proof was therefore on the State Government to rebut this presumption.
(paragraph 10) Nothing in the reports received in response to the Proceedings of 1 April 2002 rebuts the presumption. The violence in the State, which was initially claimed to have been brought under control in seventy two hours, persisted in varying degree for over two months, the toll in death and destruction rising with the passage of time. Despite the measures reportedly taken by the State Government, which are recounted in its report of 12 April 2002, that report itself testifies to the increasing numbers who died or were injured or deprived of their liberty and compelled to seek shelter in relief camps. That report also testifies to the assault on the dignity and worth of the human person, particularly of women and children, through acts of rape and other humiliating crimes of violence and cruelty. The report further makes clear that many were deprived of their livelihood and capacity to sustain themselves with dignity. The facts, thus, speak for themselves, even as recounted in the 12 April 2002 report of the State Government itself. The Commission has therefore reached the definite conclusion that the principle of ‘res ipsa loquitur’ applies in this case and that there was a comprehensive failure of the State to protect the Constitutional rights of the people of Gujarat, starting with the tragedy in Godhra on 27 February 2002 and continuing with the violence that ensued in the weeks that followed.
There is a mass of evidence, but this would suffice to illustrate that what Mr. Raman presents us as facts aren’t exactly so.
Mr. Raman also wrote:
After the frenzy of the initial hours, the State Administration did move in vigorously to bring the situation under control. The fact that no effective action was taken in the initial hours has left a scar in the minds and hearts of Muslims. This scar is likely to take a long time to heal. The cases registered in connection with the brutal attacks on the Muslim community are under investigation or prosecution. The investigation made so far has not produced any evidence of complicity by Modi. (emphasis in bold, mine)
Really Mr. Raman?
Far from moving in vigorously to control the situation, the State Administration did everything to prevent upright police officers from intervening or swiftly penalized those who did intervene, refusing to toe the ‘silent spectator’ role Modi dictated them to adopt.
It is true that the cases registered in connection with the brutal attacks on the Muslim community are under investigation or prosecution. But does Mr. Raman explain to us what took so long for this to happen?
In his hurry to get us onto the Modi bandwagon, Mr. Raman forgets to inform us that the investigation and prosecution of even the worst cases during the carnage could come about only after tortuous legal battles and intervention of the Supreme Court of India, which ‘innocent’ Mr. Modi sought to obstruct or subvert by every possible means.
In light of what I have stated above, would Mr. Raman care to explain which investigation has so far not produced any evidence of complicity by Mr. Modi?
Isn’t it telling enough that the Supreme Court had to entertain a Special Leave Petition and finding the prima facie evidence compelling enough, constituted a Special Investigation Team (SIT) and supervised its investigations just to ascertain Mr. Modi’s complicity? The last I heard, neither the investigation nor the Supreme Court has exonerated Mr. Modi.
Wouldn’t it have been closer to truth if Mr. Raman had said that Mr. Modi remains under grave suspicion and yet to be exonerated for his complicity? That of course wouldn’t have sounded so good, would it have?
Let us look at just one instance.
105 defenceless men, women and children were butchered and burnt to death (many of the women raped) in the locality of Naroda Patia just Kilometers away from the Ahmedabad Police HQ in a carnage that lasted for several hours on February 28, 2002. When the National Human Rights Commission team led by Chairperson Justice J. S. Verma visited Gujarat from March 19-22, 2002, they also visited the Shah-e-Alam Relief Camp where many of the Naroda Patia survivors were in refuge, each having a horrible tale of suffering to narrate. Victims specifically named the perpetrators of the mayhem, like then Naroda MLA Dr. Mayaben Kodnani and VHP leader Dr. Jayadev Patil. These were on record in the NHRC report. Yet, when the Gujarat Police finally filed chargesheets, none of them even figured and even the charges were diluted against many who couldn’t be left out. This was one of the 9 horrific riot cases the Supreme Court of India ordered to re-investigate in March 2008, 6 years after the riot and massacre and after a protracted legal battle by the victims and activists.
As a result, Dr. Mayaben Kodnani, whose name figured not only in the FIRs but the report of the NHRC, but against whom Gujarat Police didn’t find any evidence at all, was finally arrested and put behind bars in 2009. The evidences, particularly records of her cell-phone usage which clearly showed her presence in Naroda Patia during the carnage and constant contact with senior police officials, were damning. It must also be noted that these cell-phone records were handed over to the Gujarat Police Crime Branch by then DCP (Control Room) Rahul Sharma in 2002 which then curiously disappeared. It was just fortunate that the upright officer retained copies and handed them over to the SIT.
Refusing her anticipatory bail and quashing one granted to her illegally by a lower court, Justice DH Waghela of Gujarat HC said,
“If in the name of religion, people are killed, that is absolutely a slur and blot on society…religious fanatics really do not belong to any religion. They are no better than terrorists, who kill innocent people for no rhyme or reason…”.
How did Modi reward Dr. Mayaben Kodnani for her role in the riot ? By making her a minister. During the riots in 2002, Dr. Mayaben Kodnani was only an MLA. By the time she was arrested and charged with mass murder 7 years later, she was a Minister-of-State in the Narendra Modi cabinet. Ironically, the portfolio she held was that of Women’s Development and Child Welfare.
And how did Narendra Modi reward IPS officer Rahul Sharma for assisting the SIT by handing over crucial evidence? By immediately issuing him a showcause notice for doing so.
Would Mr. Raman care to explain why is Narendra Modi so afraid to be investigated if there wasn’t any complicity?
But Mr. Raman does clarify,
I have been a strong critic of Modi the Hindutva ideologue and a strong supporter of Modi, the administrator.
What kind of an administration does Narendra Modi run where vital evidences such as wireless records of the Police Control Room during the riots are destroyed when he himself holds the Cabinet portfolio for Home which gives direct control of the Gujarat Police?
What kind of an administration, in which his hand picked police officers in collusion with his Minister-of-State for Home runs a criminal empire of extortion and murder? That they have to land in jail on being investigated and charged by CBI on directions from the Supreme Court of India?
Would Mr. Raman care to explain?
And this is the man Mr. Raman wants us to reward with a “National Role”? (What that “National Role” could be leaves little to imagination)
Have we become so morally depraved as a nation?
Have we become so impotent that we hope not to find leaders of character and ability among men to lead the nation who would deserve our respect as well as trust?
On February 27, 1947, Sardar Patel, who chaired the Advisory Committee of the Constituent Assembly on Fundamental Rights, Minorities and Tribals and Excluded Areas, reacting to malicious claims that the minorities in India wouldn’t find justice at the hands of the majority community, boldly asserted:
“It is for us to prove that it is a bogus claim, a false claim, and that nobody can be more interested than us, in India, in the protection of our minorities. Our mission is to satisfy every one of them…..Let us prove (that) we can rule ourselves and we have no ambition to rule others.”
So it is that the Constitution of India guarantees Fundamental Rights of all who dwell in this country, on a non-discriminatory basis, regardless of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth.
It was this very basis of our rights that Narendra Modi violated and continues to do so by standing in the way of justice.
His wisdom and long service to the nation notwithstanding, Mr. Raman seems to have somehow forgotten that a great nation cannot be built on the foundation of injustice, violating the very basis the nation draws its inspiration and strength from. It gives me no pleasure, however, to remind him so.
MY DEFENCE OF BARKHA: ANOTHER REJOINDER
I have received the following E-mail from another reader:
I hope this letter finds you in good health.
I have been closely observing and reading your blog
posts regarding your support to Barkha Dutt and I have
a few observations.
1. Whether one likes it or not, people like Barkha Dutt
are popular (their twitter following is an indication)
and are in a position to influence the popular discourse
in the country through their prime time shows.
2. The more criticism of her from the right wing sometimes
to the point of abuse, the more people like her move to
the other extreme of ideological spectrum and more bias
becomes the public discourse. I believe there should be a
healthy mix of left and right opinions in the media. In India,
I find left opinions dominate the print and electronic media.
I see this imbalance as a problem.
3. I see your support to her from this angle. By lending
your support to her, you may have knowingly or unknowingly
stopped her slid towards the other end of the ideological
spectrum and hence may have stopped a problem (point 2)
from becoming worse.
As I said these are my observations and I am not
passing any judgement here. You are free to ignore this.
Before I end, I must say I am a long time reader of your
articles and I hope you keep writing for a long long time.
I hope this letter finds you in good health.
I have been closely observing and reading your blog
posts regarding your support to Barkha Dutt and I have
a few observations.
1. Whether one likes it or not, people like Barkha Dutt
are popular (their twitter following is an indication)
and are in a position to influence the popular discourse
in the country through their prime time shows.
2. The more criticism of her from the right wing sometimes
to the point of abuse, the more people like her move to
the other extreme of ideological spectrum and more bias
becomes the public discourse. I believe there should be a
healthy mix of left and right opinions in the media. In India,
I find left opinions dominate the print and electronic media.
I see this imbalance as a problem.
3. I see your support to her from this angle. By lending
your support to her, you may have knowingly or unknowingly
stopped her slid towards the other end of the ideological
spectrum and hence may have stopped a problem (point 2)
from becoming worse.
As I said these are my observations and I am not
passing any judgement here. You are free to ignore this.
Before I end, I must say I am a long time reader of your
articles and I hope you keep writing for a long long time.
MY DEFENCE OF BARKHA: A REJOINDER
I am reproducing below an E-mail received by me from an overseas Indian on my defence of Barkha Dutt, the TV personality--B.RAMAN:
Am an avid reader of your blog and have learnt a lot from your objective and balanced analysis of events and news in different spheres of life. I am inspired by your fight against your medical condition and wish you a long and happy life. I try to be balanced and objective in all my analysis, a trait which your writing has taught me. However, I do have some points which you may want to consider regarding your support of Barkha Dutt and some suggestions.
1. I totally understand your vocal support for her. You truly believe she is innocent and in these difficult times, your conscience orders you to support her in her time of need. I respect you for that resolve. I notice that despite several intimidations and abuses, you have steadfastly maintained your support to her through twitter and your blog. But, I must also request you not to ignore the judgment and thinking ability of the ordinary man/woman on the street, many of whom feel that journalists and editors often make themselves available as “pawns” in a game of political chess. While I respect your decision to support Barkha, I come out with the impression that you have trivialized and disregarded the feedback you received from many of your readers. Some of the feedback deserves to be treated with contempt for the sheer lack of sensitivity and objectivity, but surely not all feedback is worthy of ignorance.
2. The events which come to light as a result of the Radia leaks (allow me to call it that) have raised some serious issues regarding integrity and independence of media houses. While this may not be anything new, the extent to which media houses allow themselves to be used in the process of political vilification and lobbying by commercial interests have reached a nadir. One example of it is the recent instances of members of India Against Corruption, including Anna Hazare’s, reputation being held questionable by many media houses. The motives behind this are clear to some, but either willingly or unwillingly many media houses have allowed themselves to be used as an instrument of political strategy. In the process, they have lost credibility in the eyes of the viewer/reader (certainly myself).
3. Most news articles one reads in newspapers or on television are short on objective and dispassionate analysis of events. This could be a result of the intense competition among media houses for bringing the news first to the reader. I would submit that this “we brought it first” syndrome is effecting a serious compromise in the process of news collection, editing, analysis and publishing. Media Houses need to introspect regarding the “speed v/s quality v/s objective analysis” factors in news publishing/broadcasting. Adding to this is the scarcity of talent (maybe perceived) in journalism, people who have a mind of their own and are able to analyze the information received/fed/discovered by them and communicate that without any prejudices.
4. Finally regarding Barkha Dutt, I feel she could be a victim of circumstances of point no 2&3 above. Having made a bonafide mistake in judgment through her conduct with Radia, I think the best repentance would be through her actions. No amount of support from you or anyone else, is likely to absolve her or any of her colleagues implicated in the leaks of the mistake they committed. The only way to resurrect her reputation is to again work her way up with unbiased reporting and analysis of events. In that pursuit she has to dig into her own conscience and dispassionately and critically evaluate and weed out her biases (which come out strongly on some issues) and demonstrate her ability all over again. Building a reputation takes several years, but ruining that takes only a small error of judgment. My own view is that we should allow a mistake made by Barkha (we all make small and big mistakes) and accept her explanation and apology at face value. But I sincerely hope she sheds her biases which clouds her thinking when she evaluates events or people, particularly in the political space.
Again, I wish you a very long life and please continue to write. We are all eagerly awaiting your next blog.
Am an avid reader of your blog and have learnt a lot from your objective and balanced analysis of events and news in different spheres of life. I am inspired by your fight against your medical condition and wish you a long and happy life. I try to be balanced and objective in all my analysis, a trait which your writing has taught me. However, I do have some points which you may want to consider regarding your support of Barkha Dutt and some suggestions.
1. I totally understand your vocal support for her. You truly believe she is innocent and in these difficult times, your conscience orders you to support her in her time of need. I respect you for that resolve. I notice that despite several intimidations and abuses, you have steadfastly maintained your support to her through twitter and your blog. But, I must also request you not to ignore the judgment and thinking ability of the ordinary man/woman on the street, many of whom feel that journalists and editors often make themselves available as “pawns” in a game of political chess. While I respect your decision to support Barkha, I come out with the impression that you have trivialized and disregarded the feedback you received from many of your readers. Some of the feedback deserves to be treated with contempt for the sheer lack of sensitivity and objectivity, but surely not all feedback is worthy of ignorance.
2. The events which come to light as a result of the Radia leaks (allow me to call it that) have raised some serious issues regarding integrity and independence of media houses. While this may not be anything new, the extent to which media houses allow themselves to be used in the process of political vilification and lobbying by commercial interests have reached a nadir. One example of it is the recent instances of members of India Against Corruption, including Anna Hazare’s, reputation being held questionable by many media houses. The motives behind this are clear to some, but either willingly or unwillingly many media houses have allowed themselves to be used as an instrument of political strategy. In the process, they have lost credibility in the eyes of the viewer/reader (certainly myself).
3. Most news articles one reads in newspapers or on television are short on objective and dispassionate analysis of events. This could be a result of the intense competition among media houses for bringing the news first to the reader. I would submit that this “we brought it first” syndrome is effecting a serious compromise in the process of news collection, editing, analysis and publishing. Media Houses need to introspect regarding the “speed v/s quality v/s objective analysis” factors in news publishing/broadcasting. Adding to this is the scarcity of talent (maybe perceived) in journalism, people who have a mind of their own and are able to analyze the information received/fed/discovered by them and communicate that without any prejudices.
4. Finally regarding Barkha Dutt, I feel she could be a victim of circumstances of point no 2&3 above. Having made a bonafide mistake in judgment through her conduct with Radia, I think the best repentance would be through her actions. No amount of support from you or anyone else, is likely to absolve her or any of her colleagues implicated in the leaks of the mistake they committed. The only way to resurrect her reputation is to again work her way up with unbiased reporting and analysis of events. In that pursuit she has to dig into her own conscience and dispassionately and critically evaluate and weed out her biases (which come out strongly on some issues) and demonstrate her ability all over again. Building a reputation takes several years, but ruining that takes only a small error of judgment. My own view is that we should allow a mistake made by Barkha (we all make small and big mistakes) and accept her explanation and apology at face value. But I sincerely hope she sheds her biases which clouds her thinking when she evaluates events or people, particularly in the political space.
Again, I wish you a very long life and please continue to write. We are all eagerly awaiting your next blog.
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
BARKHA DUTT : VICTIM OF MEDIA McCARTHYISM ?
B.RAMAN
"I have been surprised by the pressure to which I have been subjected on the Barkha issue even by well-known people who do not have anything to do with the Hindutva elements. It is not because of the merits of the issue.
• One very senior Editor based in Delhi “warned” me in writing that he will not carry my writings on other subjects if I did not stop supporting Barkha.
• Another senior Editor expressed his “disappointment” in writing over my praising Barkha.
• Another person, writing on behalf of some NRIs in the US, cautioned me that they will stop reading my writings if I did not stop supporting Barkha.
" I have been in receipt of many more such messages warning me, cautioning me, rebuking me on the Barkha issue. These people should remember one thing: I have never succumbed to pressure in my life. I am not going to do so in the evening of my life." Extract from my blog post of March 25,2011
---------------------------------------------
Admirers and well-wishers of Barkha Dutt, the well-known TV personality, would have reasons to be gratified by reports circulating in the Internet that the investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) into the activities of Niira Radia, the lobbyist working for a number of corporate houses, has not brought out any evidence of any wrong-doing by Barkha. On the contrary, the investigation has allegedly directed the needle of suspicion at dubious contacts of senior journalists of some other media houses, including a leading TV channel, which has been in the forefront of a self-righteous campaign on the issue of corruption while covering up the alleged dubious contacts of one of its own senior journalists with Radia.
2. On the day Radia appeared before the Public Accounts Committee of the Parliament, this channel repeatedly showed visuals of Radia side by side with pictures from the archives of Barkha in order to create a mischievous impression in the minds of the viewers that Barkha was the villain of the piece.
3. In a post in my blog dated December 1,2010, under the title "Fixing Barkha Dutt" I had drawn attention to what I thought were attempts being made to have Barkha fixed by interested elements out of various motives. Extracts from this post are at Annexure A.
4.After I circulated this post, I was in receipt of a "warning" from a senior journalist not to support Barkha. In response to this, I wrote on December 6,2010, a post titled "It Is Dangerous To Defend Barkha Dutt" which is at Annexure B.
5. The campaign of abuses and threats against me for supporting Barkha did not stop. I drew attention to this in a post of March 25,2011, which has been cited above as a preamble to this article.
6. Whatever may be the ultimate outcome of the investigation and other enquiries into the Radia tapes, one has strong reasons to believe that this shameful episode represented "Media McCarthyism" of the worst kind in order to tarnish the reputation of Barkha and ridicule and intimidate those supporting her. One would be entitled to expect that the media houses and journalists, who allegedly played a role in fanning this "Media McCarthyism" against Barkha, would now have the grace to apologise to her in public. ( !9-4-11)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt.of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
ANNEXURE A
( Extracts From my post of December 1,2010, titled "Fixing Barkha Dutt" )
These conversations revealed the extent of her (Radia's) role in seeking to influence political and business-related decisions. It was reported that there were about 15 journalists among those contacted by her. Copies of these recordings would have been available at three places--- the Income-Tax Department, the Intelligence Agency which carried out the tapping and the mobile telephone company or companies whose subscriber Radia was. From one of these sources, the recorded conversations leaked out to two journals, which published the transcripts of about a hundred of them. It needs to be underlined that these tapes were not discovered by the two journals as a result of their journalistic enterprise. These were apparently given to them by an unidentified source for giving publicity to the contents.
What could have been the motive of the source in leaking the tapes? Either to discredit Radia and her business clients or to discredit her journalist contacts or both. Of the 15-odd journalists figuring in the conversations, two have received the maximum adverse attention ---- Barkha Dutt and Vir Sanghvi. Barkha is a highly successful TV journalist with a large circle of admirers and critics. Her contribution to making Indian TV journalism reach great heights has been immense. Despite this, she is disliked by many, who accuse her of being pro-Muslim, pro-Pakistan, anti-national, anti-Hindutva, anti-RSS and anti-Narendra Modi, the Chief Minister of Gujarat. In recent months, her ctitics have become even more virulent against her after her active role in highlighting the alleged involvement of some Hindus in acts of terrorism against the Muslims. Her stories on the so-called Hindu terror have added to the enemity against her.
It is intriguing that the leakage of her tapped conversations with Radia and the controversay that followed came in the wake of her stories on the alleged Hindu terror. People, who know Barkha well, say that she has some negative traits in her personality too. They allege that she is intimidating and cannot take criticism in her stride. There was one alleged instance of her forcing a blogger, who made a critical posting on her, to apologice in public and remove his posting. Her success as a journalist has also brought in the professional jealousy of some of her colleagues in the profession.
Her critics and detractors jumped at the opportunity provided by the tapes in an attempt to put her on the defensive, destroy her credibility and damage her professional reputation. Nobody has accused her of being complicit in any crime by being in touch with Radia. Nobody has accused her of trying to play down or cover up the allegations against A.Raja in her journalist reporting. She has been accused only of letting herself be used by a lobbyist in a manner, which is contrary to the ethics of journalism. Barkha's reply is that she did not let herself be used by Radia, but she was using her contacts with Radia to collect information about the DMK. Barkha has been asked by her critics as to why in that case she did not write about the use of Radia by the DMK to influence the Cabinet formation. This is an unkind question---- as unkind as asking N.Ram, the Editor-in-Chief of "The Hindu", as to why he allegedly let himself be used by the Tamil elements from Sri Lanka as an intermediary with Rajiv Gandhi when he was the Prime Minister in the 1980s? As unkind as asking N.Ram as to why he played down the stories of the mass anti-Chinese uprising in Tibet in 2008? As unkind as asking N.Ram as to why for many years till recently he blacked out references to His Holiness the Dalai Lama in the columns of his paper. As unkind as asking him as to why he used to give publicity in his paper to the despatches of the Xinhua, the news agency owned by the Chinese Government. Ram should be the last person to throw stones at Barkha.
Many journalists, who are throwing stones today at Barkha, had themselves acted as intermediaries to some one or the other and allowed their coverage to be influenced by extraneous considerations.
A person should be judged not by what he or she says in private, but by what he or she says or writes in public and does.There is nothing inappropriate or unethical in Barkha's writings, reportage and actions. As regards her private conversations with Radia over phone she has explained the background and context and denied any malafide or unethical intention. Her explanation should be accepted instead of trying to fix her through an inquisition. ( 1-12-10)
ANNEXURE B
(My post of December 6,2010)
IT'S DANGEROUS TO DEFEND BARKHA DUTT
B.RAMAN
It is dangerous to defend Barkha Dutt, the well-known TV anchor, on whom stones are being thrown from different directions following the publication of a set of carefully selected telephone intercepts of her conversations with Niira Radia, who was handling the public relations and government liaison work of two of the leading corporate houses of India. I have been subjected to considerable abuse.The critics of Barkha are shocked that I should be defending her instead of joining the hunting pack and going after her. A senior journalist, who had served in the Prime Minister's Office when Shri Atal Behari Vajpayee was the Prime Minister, subsequently went on a diplomatic assignment before reverting back to journalism, is reported to have described me as a tired old man .
I chose to defend Barkha because I strongly feel that her hard-earned reputation as a young, courageous and successful journalist, is sought to be besmirched----wittingly or unwittingly---- on the basis of an incomplete and motivated narrative. It is incomplete because only about three per cent of the total number of about 5800 intercepts has been made public. This clearly indicates that there has been a careful selection of the intercepts to be leaked to the press. Who made the selection? With what motive? Unless one has answers to these questions, there should be a big question mark over the narrative.
Telephone intercepts are double-edged swords. One can get valuable information regarding law-breaking from them. At the same time, they also lend themselves to be easily manipulated to damage innocent reputations.That is why many foreign Governments have carefully drafted dos and donts regarding telephone tapping ----like fixing the duration of the tapping just as one fixes the duration of police custody of a suspect, taking a fresh authorisation every time the duration expires, destroying intercepts which do not indicate any violation of law to prevent their misuse for character assassination etc.
The danger of misuse of intercepts to harm innocent persons is real. In the 1980s, when Rajiv Gandhi was the Prime Minister, a young officer, who was in charge of tapping, was sacked because he manipulated the process in order to create suspicions about some members of the Sikh community being Khalistani sympathisers. His manipulation of the process was detected in time before any damage was done to the reputation of those named by him.
Many circumstances relating to the tapping in the present case are not clear. On what specific grounds was the tapping authorised by the competent authority? Was the authorisation of limited duration? If so, was it renewed from time to time? Was a due judgement made at the time of each renewal that there were valid reasons to suspect criminal wrong-doing? Were the intercepts not indicating any criminal wrong-doing ordered to be destroyed to prevent their falling into wrong hands? Such questions need to be gone into thoroughly and a detailed directive issued on the use of tapping for the investigation of crime.
6.Tappings are meant to facilitate detection and prosecution of crime and not to damage the reputation of innocent persons.
"I have been surprised by the pressure to which I have been subjected on the Barkha issue even by well-known people who do not have anything to do with the Hindutva elements. It is not because of the merits of the issue.
• One very senior Editor based in Delhi “warned” me in writing that he will not carry my writings on other subjects if I did not stop supporting Barkha.
• Another senior Editor expressed his “disappointment” in writing over my praising Barkha.
• Another person, writing on behalf of some NRIs in the US, cautioned me that they will stop reading my writings if I did not stop supporting Barkha.
" I have been in receipt of many more such messages warning me, cautioning me, rebuking me on the Barkha issue. These people should remember one thing: I have never succumbed to pressure in my life. I am not going to do so in the evening of my life." Extract from my blog post of March 25,2011
---------------------------------------------
Admirers and well-wishers of Barkha Dutt, the well-known TV personality, would have reasons to be gratified by reports circulating in the Internet that the investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) into the activities of Niira Radia, the lobbyist working for a number of corporate houses, has not brought out any evidence of any wrong-doing by Barkha. On the contrary, the investigation has allegedly directed the needle of suspicion at dubious contacts of senior journalists of some other media houses, including a leading TV channel, which has been in the forefront of a self-righteous campaign on the issue of corruption while covering up the alleged dubious contacts of one of its own senior journalists with Radia.
2. On the day Radia appeared before the Public Accounts Committee of the Parliament, this channel repeatedly showed visuals of Radia side by side with pictures from the archives of Barkha in order to create a mischievous impression in the minds of the viewers that Barkha was the villain of the piece.
3. In a post in my blog dated December 1,2010, under the title "Fixing Barkha Dutt" I had drawn attention to what I thought were attempts being made to have Barkha fixed by interested elements out of various motives. Extracts from this post are at Annexure A.
4.After I circulated this post, I was in receipt of a "warning" from a senior journalist not to support Barkha. In response to this, I wrote on December 6,2010, a post titled "It Is Dangerous To Defend Barkha Dutt" which is at Annexure B.
5. The campaign of abuses and threats against me for supporting Barkha did not stop. I drew attention to this in a post of March 25,2011, which has been cited above as a preamble to this article.
6. Whatever may be the ultimate outcome of the investigation and other enquiries into the Radia tapes, one has strong reasons to believe that this shameful episode represented "Media McCarthyism" of the worst kind in order to tarnish the reputation of Barkha and ridicule and intimidate those supporting her. One would be entitled to expect that the media houses and journalists, who allegedly played a role in fanning this "Media McCarthyism" against Barkha, would now have the grace to apologise to her in public. ( !9-4-11)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt.of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
ANNEXURE A
( Extracts From my post of December 1,2010, titled "Fixing Barkha Dutt" )
These conversations revealed the extent of her (Radia's) role in seeking to influence political and business-related decisions. It was reported that there were about 15 journalists among those contacted by her. Copies of these recordings would have been available at three places--- the Income-Tax Department, the Intelligence Agency which carried out the tapping and the mobile telephone company or companies whose subscriber Radia was. From one of these sources, the recorded conversations leaked out to two journals, which published the transcripts of about a hundred of them. It needs to be underlined that these tapes were not discovered by the two journals as a result of their journalistic enterprise. These were apparently given to them by an unidentified source for giving publicity to the contents.
What could have been the motive of the source in leaking the tapes? Either to discredit Radia and her business clients or to discredit her journalist contacts or both. Of the 15-odd journalists figuring in the conversations, two have received the maximum adverse attention ---- Barkha Dutt and Vir Sanghvi. Barkha is a highly successful TV journalist with a large circle of admirers and critics. Her contribution to making Indian TV journalism reach great heights has been immense. Despite this, she is disliked by many, who accuse her of being pro-Muslim, pro-Pakistan, anti-national, anti-Hindutva, anti-RSS and anti-Narendra Modi, the Chief Minister of Gujarat. In recent months, her ctitics have become even more virulent against her after her active role in highlighting the alleged involvement of some Hindus in acts of terrorism against the Muslims. Her stories on the so-called Hindu terror have added to the enemity against her.
It is intriguing that the leakage of her tapped conversations with Radia and the controversay that followed came in the wake of her stories on the alleged Hindu terror. People, who know Barkha well, say that she has some negative traits in her personality too. They allege that she is intimidating and cannot take criticism in her stride. There was one alleged instance of her forcing a blogger, who made a critical posting on her, to apologice in public and remove his posting. Her success as a journalist has also brought in the professional jealousy of some of her colleagues in the profession.
Her critics and detractors jumped at the opportunity provided by the tapes in an attempt to put her on the defensive, destroy her credibility and damage her professional reputation. Nobody has accused her of being complicit in any crime by being in touch with Radia. Nobody has accused her of trying to play down or cover up the allegations against A.Raja in her journalist reporting. She has been accused only of letting herself be used by a lobbyist in a manner, which is contrary to the ethics of journalism. Barkha's reply is that she did not let herself be used by Radia, but she was using her contacts with Radia to collect information about the DMK. Barkha has been asked by her critics as to why in that case she did not write about the use of Radia by the DMK to influence the Cabinet formation. This is an unkind question---- as unkind as asking N.Ram, the Editor-in-Chief of "The Hindu", as to why he allegedly let himself be used by the Tamil elements from Sri Lanka as an intermediary with Rajiv Gandhi when he was the Prime Minister in the 1980s? As unkind as asking N.Ram as to why he played down the stories of the mass anti-Chinese uprising in Tibet in 2008? As unkind as asking N.Ram as to why for many years till recently he blacked out references to His Holiness the Dalai Lama in the columns of his paper. As unkind as asking him as to why he used to give publicity in his paper to the despatches of the Xinhua, the news agency owned by the Chinese Government. Ram should be the last person to throw stones at Barkha.
Many journalists, who are throwing stones today at Barkha, had themselves acted as intermediaries to some one or the other and allowed their coverage to be influenced by extraneous considerations.
A person should be judged not by what he or she says in private, but by what he or she says or writes in public and does.There is nothing inappropriate or unethical in Barkha's writings, reportage and actions. As regards her private conversations with Radia over phone she has explained the background and context and denied any malafide or unethical intention. Her explanation should be accepted instead of trying to fix her through an inquisition. ( 1-12-10)
ANNEXURE B
(My post of December 6,2010)
IT'S DANGEROUS TO DEFEND BARKHA DUTT
B.RAMAN
It is dangerous to defend Barkha Dutt, the well-known TV anchor, on whom stones are being thrown from different directions following the publication of a set of carefully selected telephone intercepts of her conversations with Niira Radia, who was handling the public relations and government liaison work of two of the leading corporate houses of India. I have been subjected to considerable abuse.The critics of Barkha are shocked that I should be defending her instead of joining the hunting pack and going after her. A senior journalist, who had served in the Prime Minister's Office when Shri Atal Behari Vajpayee was the Prime Minister, subsequently went on a diplomatic assignment before reverting back to journalism, is reported to have described me as a tired old man .
I chose to defend Barkha because I strongly feel that her hard-earned reputation as a young, courageous and successful journalist, is sought to be besmirched----wittingly or unwittingly---- on the basis of an incomplete and motivated narrative. It is incomplete because only about three per cent of the total number of about 5800 intercepts has been made public. This clearly indicates that there has been a careful selection of the intercepts to be leaked to the press. Who made the selection? With what motive? Unless one has answers to these questions, there should be a big question mark over the narrative.
Telephone intercepts are double-edged swords. One can get valuable information regarding law-breaking from them. At the same time, they also lend themselves to be easily manipulated to damage innocent reputations.That is why many foreign Governments have carefully drafted dos and donts regarding telephone tapping ----like fixing the duration of the tapping just as one fixes the duration of police custody of a suspect, taking a fresh authorisation every time the duration expires, destroying intercepts which do not indicate any violation of law to prevent their misuse for character assassination etc.
The danger of misuse of intercepts to harm innocent persons is real. In the 1980s, when Rajiv Gandhi was the Prime Minister, a young officer, who was in charge of tapping, was sacked because he manipulated the process in order to create suspicions about some members of the Sikh community being Khalistani sympathisers. His manipulation of the process was detected in time before any damage was done to the reputation of those named by him.
Many circumstances relating to the tapping in the present case are not clear. On what specific grounds was the tapping authorised by the competent authority? Was the authorisation of limited duration? If so, was it renewed from time to time? Was a due judgement made at the time of each renewal that there were valid reasons to suspect criminal wrong-doing? Were the intercepts not indicating any criminal wrong-doing ordered to be destroyed to prevent their falling into wrong hands? Such questions need to be gone into thoroughly and a detailed directive issued on the use of tapping for the investigation of crime.
6.Tappings are meant to facilitate detection and prosecution of crime and not to damage the reputation of innocent persons.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)