There are several jackasses in cHindu writing "articles" or "pieces of opinion". But the person who takes the cake is Siddharth Varadarajan or Sidd as we call him here. This post by Srivathsa cleanly exposes this big cheese of prima donnas.
This pompous douche tries to play the part of expert lawyer,
Literary expert,
Indiana Jones,
And ends up looking like a prime jackass which he is. For each of the above there are numerous reliable archeological sources proving that the temple existed, was demolished by Babar's generals and the building known as Babri Masjid was another dilapidated unused building. The court ruling itself covered thousands of pages of reports and Sidd somehow digested all of these in a few hours and wrote his judgment piece on the irrationality of the court judgment. Must have some awesome speed reading skills.
But then again when did 'secular' bigots like Sidd Varadarajan ever bother to do things like research or balanced reporting?
Even if there were detailed proof of evidence, these sickular writers would question the judgment:
You know what I'm sick of this and gladly show my proverbial middle finger to Sidd Varadarajan and his paymasters at cHindu.
This pompous douche tries to play the part of expert lawyer,
the court has inadvertently provided a shot in the arm for a political movement that cited the very same “faith” and “belief” to justify its open defiance of the law and the Indian Constitution.
Literary expert,
Tulsidas wrote his Ramcharitmanas in 16th century Ayodhya but made no reference to the birthplace of Lord Rama that the court has now identified with such exacting precision five centuries later.
Indiana Jones,
This was done in 2003, during the time when the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance government was in power at the Centre. Not surprisingly, the ASI concluded that there was a “massive Hindu religious structure” below, a finding that was disputed by many archaeologists and historians.
And ends up looking like a prime jackass which he is. For each of the above there are numerous reliable archeological sources proving that the temple existed, was demolished by Babar's generals and the building known as Babri Masjid was another dilapidated unused building. The court ruling itself covered thousands of pages of reports and Sidd somehow digested all of these in a few hours and wrote his judgment piece on the irrationality of the court judgment. Must have some awesome speed reading skills.
But then again when did 'secular' bigots like Sidd Varadarajan ever bother to do things like research or balanced reporting?
Even if there were detailed proof of evidence, these sickular writers would question the judgment:
- Written proof by Babar on a stamp paper that he ordered demolition of Ram Mandir
- Birth certificate of Ram that he was born in Ayodhya
- Portraits from Babur's architects on how Masjid was built on foundation of temple
You know what I'm sick of this and gladly show my proverbial middle finger to Sidd Varadarajan and his paymasters at cHindu.
Posts
8 comments:
Today's Chindu carries a half page colour ad from the Madhya Pradesh Govt, on its back page. Madhya Pradesh Govt is run by BJP, a party for which Chindu has got only contempt. The Congress has a tradition of denying govt ads to news papers hostile to it. If the asses in the BJP can't learn lessons from Congress, it has only itself to blame for its downfall.
What happened to Praveen Swamy? He has been absent from the pages of Chindu for several days. Has he left the Jehadi den?
Oh...friends, Surprise of the Surprises!!!
Given below is the Editorial of The Hindu Business Line on 02 October 2010, on the Ayodhya verdict.
Remarkable vote of confidence
The equanimity with which the Indian people have accepted the verdict is remarkable.
It is a measure of how sensible Thursday's verdict of the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court is that by 7 a.m. on Friday the 24x7 TV news channels had gone back to their normal programming of trivia. Considering how the country was tensing up, this is a remarkable vote of confidence. Some learned people have sought to trivialise the judgement by describing it as a ‘panchayati' one — the very same people, as it happens, who otherwise sing the praises of panchayati institutions. But as no one has yet read the 10,000-page judgement, they need not be taken seriously. What needs to be taken seriously, instead, is the complete equanimity with which the Indian people have accepted the verdict that gives equal and one-third shares to the Hindus, Muslims and the akhara (wrestling club), and the manner in which the stock market responded. It has gained about 490 points, or three per cent, in two days. Fears that the verdict would lead to violence that would damage the economy have now been laid to rest. It has been clear for some time that the majority of Indians, both Hindus and Muslims, now care more about economic issues than divisive ones such as the one that Ayodhya created. Politically, the issue has lost traction and, in that sense, for the BJP it has been case of ‘operation successful, patient dead'. But it may just be that the Congress will have a lot of explaining to do while wooing the Muslim vote.
Given the claims and counter-claims, both emotional and legal, the High Court has done the most practical thing under the circumstances. Now the Supreme Court will have to decide whether it has done the right thing in legal terms. It is to be hoped that it will dispose of the matter sooner rather than later. The Government also needs to be congratulated on having handled the security and related aspects with extraordinary dexterity. The Home Minister, in particular, deserves special thanks for having seen India through what could have turned out to be major upheaval. Good pre-emptive action, good intelligence and a heavy show of force did the trick, it would appear. Now the challenge is to see through the next one week, and especially the weekend.
Last but not least, the verdict has also shown into sharp relief the three groups that always play a part in such controversies: the so-called experts who sound off on TV; the politicians who seek some political mileage; and the people, who just want to get on with their lives. The key point here is that while politicians are accountable in some ways at least, the TV experts are not. They voice opinions that they think are valuable merely because they hold them. Yet it is how India at large reacted that mattered. It did so with an equanimity that none anticipated.
Oh...friends, Surprise of the Surprises!!!
Given below is the Editorial of The Hindu Business Line on 02 October 2010, on the Ayodhya verdict.
Remarkable vote of confidence
The equanimity with which the Indian people have accepted the verdict is remarkable.
It is a measure of how sensible Thursday's verdict of the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court is that by 7 a.m. on Friday the 24x7 TV news channels had gone back to their normal programming of trivia. Considering how the country was tensing up, this is a remarkable vote of confidence. Some learned people have sought to trivialise the judgement by describing it as a ‘panchayati' one — the very same people, as it happens, who otherwise sing the praises of panchayati institutions. But as no one has yet read the 10,000-page judgement, they need not be taken seriously. What needs to be taken seriously, instead, is the complete equanimity with which the Indian people have accepted the verdict that gives equal and one-third shares to the Hindus, Muslims and the akhara (wrestling club), and the manner in which the stock market responded. It has gained about 490 points, or three per cent, in two days. Fears that the verdict would lead to violence that would damage the economy have now been laid to rest. It has been clear for some time that the majority of Indians, both Hindus and Muslims, now care more about economic issues than divisive ones such as the one that Ayodhya created. Politically, the issue has lost traction and, in that sense, for the BJP it has been case of ‘operation successful, patient dead'. But it may just be that the Congress will have a lot of explaining to do while wooing the Muslim vote.
Given the claims and counter-claims, both emotional and legal, the High Court has done the most practical thing under the circumstances. Now the Supreme Court will have to decide whether it has done the right thing in legal terms. It is to be hoped that it will dispose of the matter sooner rather than later. The Government also needs to be congratulated on having handled the security and related aspects with extraordinary dexterity. The Home Minister, in particular, deserves special thanks for having seen India through what could have turned out to be major upheaval. Good pre-emptive action, good intelligence and a heavy show of force did the trick, it would appear. Now the challenge is to see through the next one week, and especially the weekend.
Last but not least, the verdict has also shown into sharp relief the three groups that always play a part in such controversies: the so-called experts who sound off on TV; the politicians who seek some political mileage; and the people, who just want to get on with their lives. The key point here is that while politicians are accountable in some ways at least, the TV experts are not. They voice opinions that they think are valuable merely because they hold them. Yet it is how India at large reacted that mattered. It did so with an equanimity that none anticipated.
Oh...friends, Surprise of the Surprises!!!
Given below is the Editorial of The Hindu Business Line on 02 October 2010, on the Ayodhya verdict.
The equanimity with which the Indian people have accepted the verdict is remarkable.
It is a measure of how sensible Thursday's verdict of the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court is that by 7 a.m. on Friday the 24x7 TV news channels had gone back to their normal programming of trivia. Considering how the country was tensing up, this is a remarkable vote of confidence. Some learned people have sought to trivialise the judgement by describing it as a ‘panchayati' one — the very same people, as it happens, who otherwise sing the praises of panchayati institutions. But as no one has yet read the 10,000-page judgement, they need not be taken seriously. What needs to be taken seriously, instead, is the complete equanimity with which the Indian people have accepted the verdict that gives equal and one-third shares to the Hindus, Muslims and the akhara (wrestling club), and the manner in which the stock market responded. It has gained about 490 points, or three per cent, in two days. Fears that the verdict would lead to violence that would damage the economy have now been laid to rest. It has been clear for some time that the majority of Indians, both Hindus and Muslims, now care more about economic issues than divisive ones such as the one that Ayodhya created. Politically, the issue has lost traction and, in that sense, for the BJP it has been case of ‘operation successful, patient dead'. But it may just be that the Congress will have a lot of explaining to do while wooing the Muslim vote.
Given the claims and counter-claims, both emotional and legal, the High Court has done the most practical thing under the circumstances. Now the Supreme Court will have to decide whether it has done the right thing in legal terms. It is to be hoped that it will dispose of the matter sooner rather than later. The Government also needs to be congratulated on having handled the security and related aspects with extraordinary dexterity. The Home Minister, in particular, deserves special thanks for having seen India through what could have turned out to be major upheaval. Good pre-emptive action, good intelligence and a heavy show of force did the trick, it would appear. Now the challenge is to see through the next one week, and especially the weekend.
Last but not least, the verdict has also shown into sharp relief the three groups that always play a part in such controversies: the so-called experts who sound off on TV; the politicians who seek some political mileage; and the people, who just want to get on with their lives. The key point here is that while politicians are accountable in some ways at least, the TV experts are not. They voice opinions that they think are valuable merely because they hold them. Yet it is how India at large reacted that mattered. It did so with an equanimity that none anticipated.
Quite generous of Chindu Business Line to have written a seemingly balanced editorial.
However, the comment,"Considering how the country was tensing up, this is a remarkable vote of confidence" was somewhat condescending.
The fact is the country was not tensing up. It was only the media (and the UPA Govt.) who were tensing up and getting the country tensed up, by building up hype day be day (and they have been doing that annually in the first week of December for the past seveal years to remind the minorities, in case the minorities have forgotten the so-called Babri structure).
cHindu hero, Sidd Vard, is a classic, cry-baby hate-monger. He is playing to the gallery that he knows will lap up every drop of what he vomits. A lot of content in the cHindu is paid to humour advertisers/patrons of a certain hue and color. Only, if the insane BJP heads would shut their "Hindu magnanimity" and let the cHindu die its inevitable death.
Meghana Iyer.
www.MoneyAdvice4U.info
Here is something on Chief's favourite intellectual buddies.
Not sure if Chindu carried this news:
Times of India (October 9, 2010)
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/How-Allahabad-HC-exposed-experts-espousing-Masjid-cause/articleshow/6716643.cms
How Allahabad HC exposed 'experts' espousing Masjid cause
The role played by "independent experts" — historians and archaeologists who appeared on behalf of the Waqf Board to support its claim — has come in for criticism by one of the Allahabad High Court judges in the Ayodhya verdict.....
Most of these experts deposed twice. Before the ASI excavations, they said there was no temple beneath the mosque and, after the site had been dug up, they claimed what was unearthed was a mosque or a stupa. During lengthy cross-examination spread over several pages and recorded by Justice Agarwal, the historians and experts were subjected to pointed queries about their expertise, background and basis for their opinions.
To the court's astonishment, some who had written signed articles and issued pamphlets, found themselves withering under scrutiny and the judge said they were displaying an "ostrich-like attitude" to facts.
He also pointed out how the independent witnesses were all connected — one had done a PhD under the other, another had contributed an article to a book penned by a witness.
Some instances underlined by the judge are: Suvira Jaiswal deposed "whatever knowledge I gained with respect
to disputed site is based on newspaper reports or what others told" (other experts). She said she prepared a report on the Babri dispute "after reading newspaper reports and on basis of discussions with medieval history expert in my department." Supriya Verma, another expert who challenged the ASI excavations, had not read the ground penetration radar survey report that led the court to order an excavation. She did her PhD under another expert Shireen F Ratnagar.
Verma and Jaya Menon alleged that pillar bases at the excavated site had been planted but HC found they were not present at the time the actual excavation took place.
Archaeologist Shereen F Ratnagar has written the "introduction" to the book of another expert who deposed, Professor Mandal. She admitted she had no field experience.........
Post a Comment