Thursday, February 26, 2009

Hollow praise in the third person, news or propaganda

Reading this article here Tibet on road of rapid uplift
reminds me of how high school used to be with friends spreading positive rumors about friends. I'm not sure of the smoke and mirrors with this style of reporting.
“People always asked why I went to Tibet again and again,” said Mr. Ram, attributing the visits to his intention to “do a reality check.”

Funny thing is its published in the Chindu from an article of Chin-hua about Chindu's own LiC! Surely one would've thunk Frontline would have some space to showcase out a detailed article.

Wednesday, February 18, 2009

Swat falls to the jehadis but Chindu chooses silence

On the outset, what I'm about to write is based on my look at the high level articles published on the Chindu in recent days about the handover of the Swat region of Pakistan to the jehadis. If there has been a detailed article other than quotes from the UPA Government and officials from other countries.
For those who have not been following this, the Swat valley was a tourist location (similar to Kashmir) and in a stroke of irony it was infiltrated by the Taliban who started to ring in their parallel government.
The Pak government tried to use its military might to control the situation.
However the situation went out of hand and the Pak government essentially had to hand over control of that region to the Taliban militants.
Essentially an elected democratic government has to yield power to a bunch of fanatic religious bigots who do not tolerate other religions and want to go back to the 7th century customs and traditions.
Compare this to the recent incidents with the Ram Sena and Valentine's day ruckus. The Chindu was all over this complaining about how the "Hindu-taliban" was sending the country back to stone age.
But when the Pakistani government essentially hands control over to the militants, there is not a peep to be heard from Chindu.
I am not sure who is the worse bigot the Taliban or Chindu.

Friday, February 13, 2009

Gopalaswami's Letter and Ram's Reply

I have been busy lately and apologize for not being able to respond to all the comments regarding my previous post. Regarding the CEC's letter and N.Ram's reply to it, a careful reading indicates several things.

1. In para 1, Gopalaswami explains that six months of the delay was because of Chawla. His statement is 'More than half the delay is explained by Mr. Gopalaswami’s keeping the BJP’s petition to himself between January 30 and July 20, 2008'. Does that mean that less than half (but perhaps nearly half) the delay is due to Chawla? Clearly, N.Ram is not denying the entire truth of the statement, only perhaps contesting it marginally.

2. Regarding para 2, he simply reiterates his view that the CEC's suo motu recommendation is unacceptable and therefore the CEC should not have not have entertained the BJP's complaint. But Ram does not argue that going by the CEC's view, his actions were not only acceptable but proper - after all, it makes no sense to have the EC in the room if the complaint is against him.

3. Ram claims that 'Mr. Gopalaswami’s version of Mr. Chawla’s stand in a 43-page counter affidavit filed in the Supreme Court in June 2006 is highly misleading'. Why is that? He says he quotes one sentence from the affidavit on the CEC’s recommendation being a condition precedent for the removal of an EC but not this clear assertion in page 17 of the affidavit: “I therefore submit that in terms of Art. 324(5) of the Constitution of India, the recommendation of the Chief Election Commissioner becomes relevant only in an instance where the appointing authority, i.e., the President (acting on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers) takes a decision to remove an Election Commissioner. I submit that, however, the recommendation of the Chief Election Commissioner is neither binding nor mandatory, definitely is not contemplated while considering the appointment of an Election Commissioner.” The issue being addressed here is whether the CEC's recommendation to remove an EC is 'binding or mandatory' for the President, a matter that becomes relevant only after the CEC has made his case. Note that the statement says nothing at all regarding the relevance of a reference from the President to the CEC before the inquiry is initiated which is the question before us. It is therefore Ram who is being misleading here.

4. Ram argues that other material suggest that Chawla does not necessarily share Ram Jethmalani's submission in the SC regarding the CEC's powers (he says that Jethmalani needs to explain or correct himself in view of Desai's observations - in other words, Jethmalani does not know anything about the constitution and is not qualified enough to talk about it!). The argument has its strengths but given that the SC has not laid down the law, it is not wrong for a constitutional authority to act upon what he considers to be a reasonable view (even if the SC eventually takes a contrary position) so long as it is done in good faith. The CEC's claim is just that when he says: "The very fact that many eminent jurists have taken a similar view goes to show that the existence of suo motu power is equally plausible." Ram does not address why Desai's view is so sacrosanct when alternative opinions are also perfectly plausible. Instead, he simply chooses to swear by it insisting that that indeed is the 'widely accepted view of constitutional experts'. I suppose that list of experts does not include Soli Sorabjee, Ramaswamy Iyer or Vivek Reddy. Even Fali Nariman is not as categorical as he has been made out to be.

5. Ram is however right on one thing - the two judge bench which wrote the August, 2007 order explicitly stated that it was not addressing the substantive questions at all. Given this fact, the sentence that Gopalaswami quotes in para 5 must be understood as summarizing Jethmalani's views and not as the Court's own position (sadly, courts often do not use inverted commas or put headings when they are summarizing the arguments of one side).

Solution to terror in Mumbai, gift Pakistan aid

In the cult classic 'Lage Raho Munnabhai' actor turned terror supporter Sanjay Dutt in the protagonist's role gets this brainwave to praise his enemies and give them gifts. That worked well in movies. Now Chindu's resident genius and Wonder boy Siddarth Varadarajan claims India should now think of giving Pakistan sops to help it fight a war on terror.
His rationale being,
After expecting the worst, New Delhi today finds itself having to fashion a response to a Pakistani investigative effort that the entire world is likely to judge as serious and effective.

He then goes on to advice the UPA Government,
In order for this positive turn to be consolidated, the Manmohan Singh government should resist the temptation to gloat or to pick quick holes in what the Pakistani investigation into Mumbai has revealed.

Therefore in conclusion he deems that the Indian Government should praise the Pakistanis and give them sops for their effort.
Now that Pakistan has demonstrated more than a modest measure of cooperation, India will have to also evaluate the carrots, if any, it is prepared to offer to ensure the progress that has been made continues, and the planners of Mumbai are brought to book.

First off, who the f*ck cares what the world thinks. This problem has affected India most of all. There is more than circumstantial evidence to prove the involvement of Pakistan and its crony organizations like LeT and others. The more the investigation's report comes out, Pakistan appears even more negligent and blind to this cancer. Every attempt in the past by India to give out the Olive branch has been rebuffed or leveraged against it by Pakistan. So why should India reach out the olive branch again?
Of course a lot of bleeding heart liberals like Mr. Varadarajan would deem that Pakistan has turned over a new leaf. I disagree, there is still lack of details from the investigation from Pakistan(Source:Yahoo News)with details like
Malik said the suspects also used a digital teleconferencing system whose service provider is based in Houston, Texas, while a satellite phone used by the attackers was issued in a "Middle Eastern country," he said, giving no more details.

Let us say we were running a bank, someone comes in and breaks a few windows. We know the crooks and ask their landlord to help us catch them.
The landlord decides to dilly dally first stating the crooks don't live in his building, then keeps frequently changing his tune. Now there is an person who says, given the credibility of the landlord's information, the bank should give him a loan. What would the bank do? Probably fire him and recommend psychological analysis. That is what needs to be done in this case as well.

Monday, February 09, 2009

Constitutionality of the CEC's Recommendation

There has been considerable discussion in The Hindu regarding N.Gopalaswami’s recommendation to the President to remove EC Navin Chawla. As anyone who has been reading the newspaper in recent days knows, the Chief Editor N.Ram who broke the story has since then been persistently canvassing his view regarding the illegality of Gopalaswami’s move. Not only was this point made in several news items but it was repeated in an editorial. Additionally, Ashok Desai’s opinion to the former CEC B.B.Tandon was published on its pages as well as that of retired Justice S.Mohan’s opinion yesterday. The consistent point of all these opinions has been that the CEC has no authority to make a suo motu recommendation and must await a recommendation from the President seeking the removal of the EC before he is entitled to act.

The trouble with this claim is that it has no obvious basis in either the history, text or intent of Art.324(5) of the constitution. I suggest to all the readers to read carefully both Desai’s opinion and Justice Mohan’s opinion wherein they quote directly from the Supreme court judgments first before pronouncing their own views. The point to note here is that their common inference does not at all follow from the passages they cite.

All these commentators and Ram himself are however entitled to their views and to canvass for the same in the op-ed pages. What I would have appreciated though in light of these facts is a tad of modesty. While Fali Nariman was reported by The Hindu to have supported this line of reasoning, he was at least honest enough to admit that this is a grey zone in the law that remains to be clarified by the Supreme Court. I saw no such admission of even a remnant of doubt in Ram’s opinion which is what makes his dubious assertions all the more brazen.

There has been a good discussion on LawandOtherThings regarding this question. Read Vivek Reddy’s post as well as Sorabjee’s op-ed in IE which make a more reasonable case on this score. My own view is somewhat similar although I would not go as far as to assert the EC’s guilt nor do I entirely agree that President ought to be generally bound by the CEC’s recommendation unless there are good reasons to do otherwise. Still, I believe that the provision is best interpreted to mean what it says and no more – the CEC is entitled to act on any complaint or no complaint at all, there being no bar as to when he/she might recommend removal of an EC. A reference from the President ought to be treated in the same way as a complaint from a political party but even in the absence of either, an unethical act or breach of duties or obligations by the EC is sufficient cause for the CEC to initiate an inquiry suo motu and recommend action on that basis to the President.

Also read Manoj Mitta’s interesting post wherein he cites how Navin Chawla reversed his views regarding this legal question when it no longer suited his purpose.

Sunday, February 08, 2009

Fwd: Holier Than Xinhua

a demonstration of chindu's loyalty towards its fatherland.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Arun

 ADB: India shows resilience amid economic downturn

   MANILA, Feb. 7 (Xinhua) -- India has shown resilience amid the global economic downturn, the Asian Development Bank (ADB) said on Saturday.
    The global economies have seen a downturn, which may become even deeper, and the recovery will take longer than earlier expected, but India's economy was expected to grow at around 7 percent in 2008, the Manila-based bank said in a press release, quoting ADB president Haruhiko Kuroda.
    "Although lower than last year's 9-percent growth, this is nonetheless an impressive growth rate and a remarkable demonstration of India's resilience," said Kuroda, who also called for a "global solution" for the global financial crisis.

Global crisis to hit China more than India: ADB

7 Feb 2009,  PTI

NEW DELHI: Multilateral lending agency Asian Development Bank (ADB) on Saturday said that the impact of global financial meltdown will be much more on China than India as the Chinese economy is heavily dependent on exports.
"The extent of slowdown in China is much bigger than India because Chinese economy is more dependent on exports than Indian economy," ADB President Haruhiko Kuroda said in an interview to a news channel, adding that both China and India were not in recession.

Chindu is holier than Xinhua

Friday, February 06, 2009

IE demonising RSS and Hindus

Two posts from IE which have URL links with text that contradicts the main article. Now the media outlets are competing against one another in demonizing Hindus.
Sriram Sene not part of Sangh: K’taka CM
Hindu activists attack missionary school

Thursday, February 05, 2009

Sonia sayeth..

In what seems to be a regular occurrence Ms. Maino continued her series of making obvious but meaningless statements. In a speech in Dadra and Nagar Haveli she vowed to defeat terrorism. Can you do it  Ms. Maino?
The victims of the Mumbai attacks are still waiting.
India’s identity is that all religions and communities co-exist in harmony. Our neighbour wants to weaken this strength of ours but they do not know that we can give a befitting reply to their every design

So far the only reply we have given is boring statements through TV interviews. If our solution is to kill them by boredom then we are in for a long wait.

Wednesday, February 04, 2009

Fwd: Chinese earthquake may have been man-made, say scientists

the chinese have been messing with nature in a rather disconcerting manner. around 90% of groundwater and 70% of waterways is contaminated. more than 10% of arable land has been destroyed. about 1/3rd of china is desert and the rate of desertification is alarming. and now the earthquakes arising out of massive dams. god save the chinese from china.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Girish 

Chinese earthquake may have been man-made, say scientists

The 511ft-high Zipingpu dam holds 315 million tonnes of water and lies just 550 yards from the fault line, and three miles from the epicentre, of the Sichuan earthquake.

Now scientists in China and the United States believe the weight of water, and the effect of it penetrating into the rock, could have affected the pressure on the fault line underneath, possibly unleashing a chain of ruptures that led to the quake.

Monday, February 02, 2009

Fwd: Mangalore Pub Attach: NCW Blames Media

can someone gag the media, please. look at what the ghoul of calcutta did to the city's image with the help of foreign media. or how the elm has already done irreparable damage to gujarat. karnataka better watch out.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Girish

"Media hype has spoilt Karnataka's image" 

MANGALORE: The "disproportionate media hype" over the January 24 pub attack here has tarnished the image of Karnataka, member of the National Commission for Women (NCW) Nirmala Venkatesh has said.

"People of Karnataka are a peace-loving lot. This incident makes it seem as if that is not the case," she said.

Ms. Venkatesh was visiting the city as part of a one-member inquiry commission set up by the NCW to submit a report on the attack on women by Sri Ram Sene members.

In an interaction with the media, Ms Venkatesh remained non-committal about the alleged role of Hindutva outfit in the attacks.

Asked if she would recommend a ban on Sri Rama Sene, she said, "We will definitely consider that [banning] under the provisions of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA)."

A little later she, however, said, "We are not after this group. Why should we concentrate on groups? We must focus on the mindset of men who commit such acts."

Contrary to all available evidence, chindu blames the victim

Chindu indulging in the usual secular game of blaming the victim as the aggressor. This time, the victim is not just a second-class Hindu citizen but an irritant to the dynasty. On the other hand, Navin Chawla is a Congress sycophant and has never been shy of displaying his loyalty, much like Chindu.

Gopalaswami’s claims on timing of missive are seriously misleading
A careful, item-by-item verification by The Hindu of the CEC’s claims on what happened within the Election Commission between January 30, 2008 and January 12, 2009 reveals that they are seriously misleading.
The documentary record shows that he relentlessly hounded an Election Commissioner...

Read anything but the chindu to get the true picture.

Arun points out the following articles on Rediff:

Chawla's loo breaks led to Congress phone calls: CEC

In the report to the President, the CEC notes that whenever the full bench meeting was seized of an issue, Chawla will make an excuse of going to the washroom. And soon thereafter, invariably, the CEC would get phone calls from top Congress functionaries even as the meeting was in progress.

Unfair to impute motives to CEC
Chawla was also found to have exercised 'extra-statutory control in jail matters', including 'the treatment of detenues'. Not confining himself to dictating to his boss as to the persons to be arrested, he also prescribed how they were to be treated in prison. For instance, he was for constructing special cells with asbestos roofs to 'bake' certain prisoners. Kishan Chand pathetically admitted to Justice Shah that he was not a free agent and Chawla used to receive instructions directly from Sanjay Gandhi and he (Kishan Chand) came into the picture only to the extent that he was required to fulfill some technical formalities.

Daily Pioneer has gone on to suggest Why Chawla must go.