Once again, Khare comes out with communist logic to say Modi is good on all fronts, he must be thrown out.
The Hindu : Opinion / News Analysis : Stake-holders and their opportunities
The Hindu : Opinion / News Analysis : Stake-holders and their opportunities
Since 2002, he has managed to graft on the Gujarat citizens impulses and attitudes that are very much at odds with India’s liberal political culture — as also against Gujarat’s own history and Gandhian legacy.
Posts
1 comment:
This is what I posted at another blog.
Marxist mayhem in Nandigram put a spanner in the psec works for a while, but the journos are once again brandishing their knives. The media is being menacingly driven by vendetta.
Let’s face it, the secularist media excels at yapping about communal/secularism, and knows no better. It’s favorite horse, the Congress party, doesn’t have any issue apart from rehashing the media kool-aid. And the secularist media still hasn’t gotten over the serious drubbing it received in 2002. Their only option is to keep revisiting issues that they can talk about. In a democratic polity, responding with recriminations is par for the course, which is what Modi did. After Sonia dumbed down the level of political discourse with a cheap personal smear directed at Modi, he or anyone else is bound to respond. Their is no segueing for her adversary because of Sonia’s position in the ruling party. But the shrewd and conniving media has found it suitable to fault only Modi, just as expected.
Now let’s see how motivated a response the media has delivered, through some ham handed mistranslation of course. First, it has gone ballistic over Modi’s Sohrabuddin-observation. If you see the tape, or flash clip, it becomes apparent that Modi is asking what a person who has connections with Pakistan; is caught with arms and ammunition; is a wanted criminal, deserves? A fair question. The crowd then responds with ‘Maru Nathi,’ implying that such a person deserves death. To which Modi responds that that’s what he (Sohrabuddin, being one such person) got. Any group of sane people will echo this sentiment when responding to a rapist’s end, or that of a preadtor, or a child molester, or a drug trafficker. And such reaction conveys wider public concern for personal safety, and not a chant for vigilantism. Terming it vigilantism is not just folly but a recipe for disaster. If you discourage people from voicing security concerns you obviously are courting disaster.
The court, too, has no locus standi in this simple issue, no matter how much the media clamors for its intervention. Any case merely based on this simple public conversation will simply collapse even at the petition level.
Now, is talking about terrorism or terrorists communal? Has it not been the secular refrain that one should decouple his/her group identity when an individual terrorist is charged? Is the secular media not guilty of violating its own cannon by highlighting Sohrabuddin’s communal identity when it shouldn’t?
Much a do about nothing, if you ask me. But then again, just as leaders, people get the media they deserve.
Post a Comment