Bon voyage Sidd V we hardly knew ye

The followers of this blog might recollect that we went into hibernation around the time Lt Hon Sidd Varadarajan was named Editor in Chief of cHindu couple of years back.

Now with the announcement of his removal (or should we say firing?) the Hon LiC has done the newspaper some good. The replacements are no new faces by any stretch. The new editors N.Ravi and Malini Parthasarathy were formerly the editors between 1991 and 2003. So they question is how and why did this happen? The how is quite simple - there are 12 directors with equal stake the scions of the Narasimhan, Parthasarathy, Rangarajan and Kasturi ( who were past owners/publishers of the paper). In the past the scions of Narasimhand and Parthasarathy (old guard) were split against the scions of Rangarajan and Kasturi (new guard). The tie breaker in most scenarios came down in the past to veterans like S.Rangarajan, but with his passing last year the balance started to tilt.

After a serious of horrendous missteps and biased targeting of a certain CM without facts, the directors decided for change. The two groups made a blatant power grab. Out with the Frankenstein monsters and in with new faces. The new guard probably wanted K.Venugopal as Editor in Chief and K. Balaji restored as Managing Director. This was checkmated by LiC who cast his vote with his siblings. The particularly telling statement was that Sidd V had to go. Both groups probably agreed on that.

The decision to make deep-going changes was made chiefly on the ground that there were recurrent violations and defiance of the framework of the institution’s longstanding values on the business side, and recurrent violations and defiance of ‘Living Our Values’, the mandatory Code of Editorial Values applicable to The Hindu.

The interesting part was follow the tweets of Tunku V (Sidd's elder brother) who blatantly blamed family politics for his brother's removal. Never once did it cross him that people with inefficient performance can be fired.
The disagreement was who would get the plum chairs in this game of family musical chairs. It appears that this game is far from over.

Geelani prays for Osama exposes true Kashmiriyat

In what is an out pouring of love of dead terrorist mastermind Osama Bin Laden, Kashmiri separatists like Syed Geelani showed their true colours in celebrating martyrdom.
Never once condemning terrorism or the actions against the innocent by violent Muslims like Osama Bin Laden, Geelani made up rubblish like:

He alleged that a conspiracy was on against Pakistan and that the powers had an eye on nuclear bombs in that country. He prayed for the safety of Pakistan. People shouted pro-azadi and pro-Osama slogans.

Of course the Muslim mob was no different:

Protests erupted in the Batmaloo area soon after the funeral prayers. Masked youth clashed with police and CRPF personnel soon after Mr. Geelani addressed the gathering. The crowd called Osama a “martyr,” who sacrificed his life for the cause of Islam.

Guess this was true Kashmiriyat is about. Support of hardline Islamic terrorism. The whole talk about terrorism not having any religion is rubbish. It has a name.
Where is cHindu in not condemning this behaviour? If there were Hindus celebrating the death anniversary of say Godse, it would speak on its high horse about how they supported violence. But this exposes the hypocrisy of the media in not exposing the agenda of the Kashmiri terrorists posing as separatists.

Future LiC SV wants talks with Pak

The killing of Osama Bin Laden has exposed Pakistan to the world as the epicenter of world terrorism. It has covertly/overtly/subvertly/extravertly/supervertly created, nurtured, enhanced, sustained many of the leading terror groups like Al Qaeda, Taliban, LeT, JuD and many others. However the future LiC of cHindu SV has deemed it fit that India should continue talking to Pakistan. He has been a rabid supporter of talks to a terrorist nation even when it kills citizens of India. But that should not affect him as he's not an Indian citizen.

India is unlikely to make the mistake of allowing Osama bin Laden to sabotage this win-win process from his watery grave in the Indian Ocean. Apart from economic gains, greater trade will gradually enlarge the constituency of those in Pakistan who have a stake in the normalisation of relations with India.

That really made sense as his other nugget

What the U.S. did on Monday may have been effective but it remains a second-best solution to tackling terror on Pakistani soil. The fight against the entire syndicate of terror has to be waged by the Pakistani police and security forces, acting under the complete control of the civilian government there. This is a message India needs to emphasise to the U.S. and other allies and friends of Pakistan and it will be most effective if delivered with tact and restraint.

Only problem is that is likely to happen if Kayani has dropped all his nukes on India or sometime in the year 4000AD. Reading this rubbish from Siddharth Varadarajan seems to many as what paid news means.

Save cHindu, prevent Sidd V from becoming editor

In a recent letter from N. Ravi to cHindu employees he alleged that LiC is planning to put his puppet Sidd Varadarajan as the editor of the cHindu.
We are trying to validate the authenticity of this report.
But per the email Ravi alleges cHindu has become another "Paid News" outlet in the lines of TOI and NDTV.

Very recently, those of us who were not privy to the deal making learnt to our shock that a major interview with A. Raja in defence of the telecom licensing policy published on May 22, 2010—that was referred to by the Prime Minister in his press conference--involved a direct quid pro quo in the form of a full page, colour advertisement from the Telecom Ministry that was specially and hurriedly cleared by the Minister personally for publication on the same day in The Hindu.

If this is true then its another nail in the coffin, log in the funeral pyre of a vaunted newspaper.
More on this soon...

Legality of Libyan Intervention: Varadarajan's Half-Truths

I wish to draw attention to Siddharth Varadarajan's op-ed today titled "Odyssey Dawn, a Homeric Tragedy". As I pointed out in an earlier post, the Iraq invasion is not quite analogous to the Libyan situation today. Nor for that matter is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Israeli attack on Gaza was a response to the rocket attacks from Hamas-controlled Gaza. Much has been written about the Goldstone report and its findings and I will not go into that here. It suffices that the point is being made here in a purely rhetorical sense and has no direct bearing on the Libyan question.

With regard to the UN Security Council resolution 1973, this is what he says:

The problem with UNSCR 1973 is not the in-built ‘mission creep' but the fact that it is ultra vires. No resolution can violate the principles and purpose of the U.N. Charter. Article 2(7) is quite explicit: “Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state.”

This is a very selective reading of the relevant provision of the UN Charter. Article 2(7) states:

Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.

The last part of the provision has been conveniently left out of his quotation. As the text of UNSC Resolution 1973 clearly states, it is precisely under this Chapter VII that the Security Council has acted. Article 39 empowers the Security Council to determine "any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or acts of aggression" and decide upon measures to maintain or restore international peace and security. These words guarantee broad powers to the Security Council and there are past resolutions which have been triggered by internal disturbances in various countries. Particularly since the end of the Cold War, a broad definition of threat to the peace as a positive concept (as opposed to a negative absence-of-war notion) is fairly apparent in resolutions and Presidential statements. It is therefore eminently debatable whether this is indeed a violation of the UN Charter as claimed.

Varadarajan is nostalgic for the Saddam Hussein regime:

Like the Iraqis who foolishly welcomed the American invasion of their country in 2003, the Libyans who wanted Operation Odyssey Dawn may well end up taking part in a tragedy of Homeric proportions.

He should tell that to the Iraqi Shia who have just been empowered, the Kurds and the Iranians who fought against the Baathist dispensation. If Gaddafi is overthrown, I doubt likewise that there would be many who would miss him.

Varadarajan, the lobbyist who didn't get caught

Siddharth Varadarajan is Barkha-fying news. Chindu has a list of journalists who are propagandists for Congress. Harish Khare, who was the political editor at Chindu, used to frequently write articles praising Congress and pleading the Dynasty to assume totalitarian control. He later became the media adviser to Manmohan Singh. Varadarajan belongs to the same category.

According to Varadarajan, there was no corruption before NDA government.
Inspite of Dr.Singh presiding over unprecedented corruption, his personal integrity is unquestionable for some strange reason.
The root cause of all problems is capitalism. Was there any corruption during the golden era of Nehruvian Socialism when the politicians could work  for the masses without the distractions of dirty money?

Siddharth Varadarajan is a congress lobbyist was lucky enough not to have been caught in Radia-gate.
The Hindu : Opinion / Leader Page Articles : It's time to get down to business

The United Progressive Alliance inherited this corrupt system and presided over its unprecedented expansion.
As an economist and a man of unquestionable integrity, Dr. Singh ...
When individual corporate houses attempt a short-cut, however, they
invariably corrupt the wider political edifice. Corrupt politicians come
and go. But unless the crony capitalists who use them are punished,
Indian democracy will continue to corrode.

Celebrating MMS the new-era Dhritharashtra

There are certain figures in mythology who are tragic figures due to circumstances and some due to their own creations. Dhritharashtra of the Kurus showed a blind eye (literally and figuratively) to the rampant corrupt and vengeful behaviors of his sons and paid for it with the loss of their lives and his kingdom. As a ruler of a nation maintain Raj-Dharma is of paramount importance and is one of the valuable lessons Indian history has tried to teach its rulers. Its something MMS has done poorly in 2 terms as the PM of India.
After numerous scams and feeble efforts to defend the government's inaction and bringing the perpetrators to justice, the new "vigilance" is being swallowed by the MSM especially cHindu hook, line and sinker.

The same Prime Minister whose silence and ambivalence on 2G was seen by the Opposition and the public at large as weakness and even complicity has pushed the Central Bureau of Investigation into summoning and questioning top industrialists like Anil Ambani, raiding Kalaingar TV, the business arm of a key political ally, the DMK, and sending A. Raja, who was Telecom Minister till some time ago, to the unwholesome confines of Tihar Jail.

Call me a sceptic but sending a minster to prison temporarily and raiding KTV is not vigilant action. The corruption is endemic and across the nation and token actions are simply not enough. Sidd V asks a potent question when says,

The question, of course, is whether or not the CBI will persist in its endeavours. Are we being treated to an elaborate dog-and-pony show? Or does the agency's current activism represent a fundamental course correction for a system which has tolerated and thrived on corruption? If yes, does the Prime Minister have the political clout to see things through?

However where Sidd Varadarajan fails to hit the nail on the head is his sympathetic portrayal of MMS as being a decisive leader misled by his ministers.

As an economist and a man of unquestionable integrity, Dr. Singh knew full well the revenue consequences of forgoing an auction for the allocation of 2G spectrum and recorded his unhappiness with the decision. If the Prime Minister were anyone other than Dr. Singh, one might be justified in treating his belated intervention in the 2G matter as an indication of his own involvement. In reality, the delay was the product of both his individual political weakness and his party's failure to understand the political implications of the scam.

Its as though cHindu wants to treat MMS and the UPA with kid gloves and come hard against the BJP for similar failings. Final words from Sidd V.

Corrupt politicians come and go. But unless the crony capitalists who use them are punished, Indian democracy will continue to corrode.

What about corrupt journalists Mr. Siddharth Varadarajan?

Using wicked censorship protecting Islamic miscreants

cHindu and LiC have always blamed Hindus for creating communal tensions for situations where they were innocent bystanders. In a recent incident in Delhi the police brought down a "religious structure" and somehow some "people" were injured when they "protested". The whole incident caused "religious tension". (Yes I'm having a Sidd Varadarajan hangover here).
Guess which religion they were referring to? What was the "religious structure"?

Wen cHindu celebrated

The arrival of Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao on his second state visit to India on Wednesday is akin to a return for 'Lord Ram' from the forests (or just King Ram for the rationalist morons) for the people of cHindu.
Even if a single accord worth Rs.10 is signed one can expect a huge hullabaloo from the LiC and his minions on how this turns the relations between the two countries and presumptuously world domination.
Already Sidd V has started the opening act of getting the readers ready for the onslaught by putting out a piece Time to reset the India-China relationship.
As usual Sidd V blames Indian politicians and military commanders for questioning the Chinese authority (how dare they!)

But the stridency of its assertions — especially its objections to Indian leaders visiting the north-eastern State — took the Indian side by surprise. On their part, some Indian military commanders muddied the waters by making irresponsible public pronouncements which have fuelled both the jingoism and insecurity of a hyper-nationalist media and middle class. The suggestion made on background by some Indian officials that China's claims to the whole of Arunachal Pradesh violated the “political principles and parameters” governing the boundary settlement agreed to by both sides (because of the reference there to due regard being paid to the wishes of settled populations) may also have pushed Beijing into a more assertive mode.

Currently Sidd V is the leader in this week's Jackass of the week award (to be published shortly).

Sidd V blasts corporate India - editorial on Radia scam

This blog has not been kind on Sidd V and we don't plan on being so anytime soon. However we do tip our hat every time there is a hard hitting post on the cHindu and it is our hope that they become the norm than the exception. So when Sidd Varadarajan hammers corporate India's ability to spin yarns on the Indian population by buying ministerships,spectrums etc. that is exactly the hard hitting article we wanted cHindu to publish a week back when the issue was hot.

In one of the tapes, an unidentified interlocutor asks Ms Radia, whose clients include both Mr. Tata and Mukesh Ambani, why “you people [i.e. the Mukesh Ambani group] are supporting [Raja] like anything ... when the younger brother [Anil Ambani] is the biggest beneficiary of the so called spectrum allocation”. “Issue bahut complex hai,” Ms Radia replies. “Mere client Tatas bhi beneficiary rahein hain (my client, the Tatas, have also been a beneficiary).”
Apart from telecom, the tapes also provide valuable insight into the gas dispute between the two Ambani brothers. This was a dispute in which Mukesh Ambani made skillful use of the “gas is a national resource” argument with a pliant media even as he used his influence with individual MPs to try and orchestrate a massive tax concession for his company from the same national resource, Krishna-Godavari (KG) basin natural gas.

The entire article strikes hard at the nexus between the various parties and companies involved to keep key players involved (or in the case of Marans excluded) to ensure certain benefits were accrued.
The key gripe here on this article is that it does not focus on the DMK infighting and involvement in the entire affair given A. Raja was the other key focal point. Lets see if there's going to be some follow up in the near future.

Setalvad caught in falsifying evidence 4 Gujarat riots

Karma is often a bitch, you reap what you sow. Setalvad and her "secular" cronies along with the Indian MSM have been trumpeting about how minorities were being hunted down and killed during the Gujarat Godhra riots following the train carrying Hindu pilgrims was burnt down.
Slowly revelations from various sources have come out about how Setalvad had falsified evidence, coerced witnesses, created and fed stories to the media.
Now comes more news about how she hacked the email accounts of one of the witnesses and fed stories.

To find out who was responsible for “manipulating” the affidavits, Mr. Pathan had reportedly requested the commission to direct the cybercrime police to retrieve his e-mail ID which, he alleged, was hacked by Ms. Setalvad. He claimed that he used to receive the “fabricated affidavits” of various witnesses from Ms. Setalvad, of which he took copies and submitted before the courts and commission.

Not only did she hack the accounts but paid off witnesses,

Mr. Pathan also alleged that Ms. Setalvad was trying to manipulate witnesses through use of money. As in-charge of CJP operations in Ahmedabad since 2002, he had been responsible for disbursing funds received by the CJP from various agencies for the benefit of the riot victims. But, he claimed, Ms. Setalvad gave priority to the witnesses rather than to the victims in payments. According to his affidavit, Ms. Setalvad paid Rs. 50,000- Rs. 1 lakh per witness, while the victims were paid only Rs. 5,000 each.

Of course some credit to cHindu for covering the incident, but where's Sidd V now? He who was shouting from the rooftops about how minorities were targeted based on stories he heard from people like Setalvad. Where is the humble response that he might be wrong? I'm not going to wait for that to happen.
However interestingly, it appears that Setalvad might've been separated at birth from another pompous person in the film industry, choreographer/director Farah Khan.

Pompous braggart Siddarth Varadarajan is a US Citizen

Lookee here, the pompous braggart Siddharth Varadarajan with the cHindu who is always advising India to be vary of the "big bad wolf" US, but can be friends with "peaceful" Pakistan or "friendly" China (excuse my quotatations here, I'm following Sidd's journalistic style) is a US Citizen.
As per the Indian Press Information Bureau is:

The Press Information Bureau (PIB) is the nodal agency of the Government of India to disseminate information to the print and electronic media on government policies, programmes, initiatives and achievements. It functions as an interface between the Government and the media and also serves to provide feedback to the Government on people�s reaction as reflected in the media.

It has a news release which was pointed to us by an Anonymous contributor to this blog some time back --> http://pib.nic.in/rchieve/others/2008/dec/namewise.pdf.
This states that Mr. Varadarajan is a US Citizen.

Sitting on top of an ivory tower and spouting advice to the natives is apparently an easy job.

Fear mongering and excessive quotations

Maybe Siddharth Varadarajan got dumped by a supermodel once, or perhaps dropped on his head as a baby. It might seek to explain his tactless rantings against the US moving towards closer relations with India. The whole article A partnership built on flawed assumptions is written like a movie on self loathing. The principal hero being an up and comer is approached by a out of his league girl and rather than build a relationship with the girl (knowing her motives and furthering his), he would try double guessing the principles of the girl. Not to mention the comic buddy who tries to point at the girl's flaws to make him fall for his ugly sister instead.

The U.S. sees the macro growth data and has a fair idea of where India will be in economic terms two decades from now. It sees the rise and wants to get in at the ground floor. This was the meaning behind the gratuitous promise, made during the presidency of George W. Bush, of helping India emerge as a world power.

Abysmal writing style
Anyone reading Sidd V's writing style knows that he's the master of using unnecessary super grandiloquent invectives akin to using a samurai sword where a butter knife would suffice. Now he adds a new tool to the arsenal, the super quotations. Believing that an article would have more depth if it had the needed sarcasm, almost every punch line has a couple of sarcastic adjectives. For example in this article,

For all its appeals to “shared values” like democracy as a counter to China
...
the development of capitalism in India than in the rest of the “free world”.
...
But India is not in need of that “help”.
...
They are also upset with India's reluctance to sign “foundational” defence
...
One test of the Indo-U.S. “strategic partnership” will be if it is able to survive an Indian refusal
...
While the “unreliability” of the Americans is not in dispute

You would have thought that anyone with a modicum of understanding of journalism would have the sense to temper the theme of the article without dousing it completely in unnecessary demarcated sarcasm where subtlety would've been effective.
So we award Sidd V the "Glorious writer of the week" award here.

Douchebag of week- Siddharth Varadarajan

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,

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

They play to their audience which is other sickular monkeys or JNU jholawallah crowds who despise everything in ancient Indian culture that is of Hindu origin.
You know what I'm sick of this and gladly show my proverbial middle finger to Sidd Varadarajan and his paymasters at cHindu.

Siddharth Varadarajan, the speed reader!

Cometh the time, Cometh the man. Its Siddharth Varadarajan (Siddha Anartha) again. As a posterboy of Chindu, he never fails to deliver. These days he seems to be working overtime after having probably taken lessons in rapid reading. You can find his article here. Same link:
http://www.hindu.com/2010/10/01/stories/2010100163711400.htm

We request Siddharth (Siddha Anartha) to give us the address of the school from where he took the speed-reading classes so that we can digest the Ram Janam Bhoomi jugdement delivered by the Allahabad (prayAgam) High Court and get an "understanding" of it as he has. As we are lesser mortals (yet, i.e. not yet done the speed-reading class), we seek to understand Siddharth (Siddha Anartha) in his own words and attempt a humble analysis of the same:

The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court has made judicial history by deciding a long pending legal dispute over a piece of property in Ayodhya on the basis of an unverified and unsubstantiated reference to the “faith and belief of Hindus.”

Faith and belief of the Hindus need "verification and substantiation", while the faith and belief of those people who burn transport buses in Bangalore to vent their anger against some cartoons drawn in Denmark need no "verification and substantiation". Siddharth's (Siddha Anartha's) silence about (i) The Danish cartoon issue, (ii) The destruction of Bamiyan Buddhas (iii) The imposition of restrictions against films and film songs in Swat province by bigoted Taliban, (iv) The imposition of similar restrictions in Afghanistan by Taliban during their regime (v) The killing of women by stoning on frivolous charges of adultery in Iran (vi) The bigotry of the Saudi Arabia in not permitting anyone entering its territory from having any religious symbols apart from Islamic - has been deafening. But then, Siddharth (Siddha Anartha) is a battle hardened knave.

The irony is that in doing so, 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.

The "irony" of the Shah Bano case where the judgement of the apex court was upturned in the "people's court" is something that we should all forget. In Siddharth's (Siddha Anartha's) fantasy world, all these are at best inconvenient truths, best forgotten.

The three learned judges of the Allahabad High Court may have rendered separate judgments on the title suit in the Babri Masjid-Ramjanmabhoomi case but Justices Sudhir Agarwal, S.U. Khan and Dharam Veer Sharma all seem to agree on one central point: that the Hindu plaintiffs in the case have a claim to the disputed site because “as per [the] faith and belief of the Hindus” the place under the central dome of the Babri Masjid where the idols of Ram Lalla were placed surreptitiously in 1949 is indeed the “birthplace” of Lord Ram.

First of all, if you call someone as "learned", the least you can do is to respect their judgement. But then, hypocrisy is Siddharth's (Siddha Anartha's) second nature. Hindus do not even have a right to a faith that a certain place is the "birthplace" of Lord Ram. They have to take permission from Siddha Anarthas of today. For identity-less people, it galls to see other people asserting their identity.

For every Hindu who believes the spot under the central dome of the Babri Masjid is the precise spot where Lord Ram was born there is another who believes something else.

The census-man and psephologist in Siddharth (Siddha Anartha) had to speak out. He had conducted a nationwide survey to arrive at this "fact". We lesser mortals shouldn't question this.

But leaving aside the question of who “the Hindus” referred to by the court really are and how their actual faith and belief was ascertained and measured, it is odd that a court of law should give such weight to theological considerations and constructs rather than legal reasoning and facts.

The question of place of birth of a certain historical or mythical character can be a "theological" one. But for Siddhartha (Siddha Anartha), anything concerned with God (Theos) should be shunned. But then why should he lecture Hindus as to what should be their faith?
Siddharth (Siddha Anartha) is not only a master of law, but also a master of rapid reading that he could digest the thousands of pages of judgement in 2-3 days to come to a conclusion that the judges haven't considered "legal reasoning" and "facts". (I cannot resist the temptation of a ROFL here :D)

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.

This sentence stands testimony to the irresponsibility, corruption, and malice of Siddharth (Siddha Anartha). The least any journalist could have done is "verification and substantiation" (See above for his lecture to the judges on "verification and substantiation") of his facts. For the benefit of Siddharth (Siddha Anartha), let us ask him to read one doha from the rAmacharitamAnasa (we are sure that he hasn't even read a word of it, for if he had, a crore sins of his would have been washed away and he wouldn't have written such heinous anti-hindu propaganda):
1. taha kari bhoga bisaala taata gae kachu kaala puni.
hoihahu avadha bhuaala taba main hoba tumhaara suta..
"Having enjoyed extensive enjoyments there you [Manu and Shatarupa] shall, after some time, be born as king of Ayodhya; then, odear[sic] one, I will be your son." (matter in square brackets mine.)
rAmacharitamAnasa, bAlakANDa, doha 151, can be found in rAmacharitamAnasa published by giita press gorakhpur, pg 171. The same can be downloaded here. You may copy paste the following link alternately:
http://www.gitapress.org/BOOKS/1318/1318_Sri%20Ramchritmanas_Roman.pdf

2. avadhapurii raghukulamani rAu. beda bidita tehi dasaratha naaU..
In the city of Ayodhya thre ruled a king who was a jewel of Raghu's race. he was called dasharatha, a name which is familiar in the vedas. (rAmacharita mAnasa, bAlakANDa, chaupai 4 after doha 187).

We can multiply instance after instance where tulasiidaasa (Tulsidas) clearly states the city of birth of rAma was Ayodhya. But then, tulasiidaasa was not watchful enough to give the exact street address of rAma's janmasthaana because he didn't foresee the likes of Siddharth (Siddha Anartha) asking for "verification and substantiation" for the place of birth of rAma. In the absence of the exact street address, we can make Siddharth's (Siddha Anartha's) life easier by suggesting that the whole of Ayodhya is the place of birth of rAma and no mosque be kindly constructed there. Will the Muslims or Siddharth (Siddha Anartha) accept construction of a rAma temple just beside their mosque at Mecca?

The “faith and belief” that the court speaks about today acquired salience only after the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and the Bharatiya Janata Party launched a political campaign in the 1980s to “liberate” the “janmasthan.”

This is a disingenuous claim of Siddharth (Siddha anartha). When tulasiidaasa (to whom Siddharth[Siddha Anartha] seeks to impute the omission of the place of birth of rAma) wrote his rAmacharitamAnasa, he was following the movement of Vishwa Hindu parishad!!! So also the likes of kamban of drAviDadesha, kR^ittivAsa of va.ngadesha, pampa of karnATaka, and multitudes of others!!! Please see this link for a partial listing of different versions of rAmAyaNa:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Versions_of_Ramayana
This was only till the advent of the messiah Siddharth (Siddha Anartha), who seeks to disabuse the Hindus of the mistaken notion planted into them by the heinous Vishwa Hindu Parishad!!!

Collectives in India have faith in all sorts of things but “faith” cannot become the arbiter of what is right and wrong in law. Nor can the righting of supposed historical wrongs become the basis for dispensing justice today.

"Faith" cannot become the arbiter of what is right and wrong in law? But Chinese government's opinions should become an arbiter. We understand it Siddharth (Siddha Anartha). We remember your articles crying hoarse about the falling through of the foolish Iran-Afghanistan-Pakistan-China gas pipeline. Moreover, Hinduism (A recognised religion in the Constitution of India) is just a "collective" (something like a laughter club or an old men's club or a trade-union in a PSU). Siddharth's (Siddha Anartha's) condescension and contempt for Hinduism is clear from this. But then, what else can be expect to come from the Chindu's columnists?

One of the questions the court framed was “whether the building has been constructed on the site of an alleged Hindu temple after demolishing the same.” Pursuant to this question, it asked the Archaeological Survey of India to conduct a dig at the site. 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.

When ASI failed to toe Siddharth's (Siddha Anartha's) line, it is because the ASI survey was conducted during NDA rule. I think this is a serious charge against the ASI and the ASI may find it appropriate to file a defamation suit against Siddharth (Siddha Anartha). One is surprised that the "secular" Ulta Pulta Alliance (UPA) which has been at the helm since 2004 didn't influence the ASI to find something more "secular" under the janmasthaan. Tthe CPI(M) for which Siddharth (Siddha Anartha) and his newspaper (Chindu, or "The Hindu") has ample sympathy, were partners of the UPA till the Indo-US nuclear deal. They could have easily done the bidding of Siddharth (Siddha Anartha) and forced the ASI to find something "secular".

The territory of India — as of many countries with a settled civilisation as old as ours — is full of buildings that were constructed after pre-existing structures were demolished to make way for them. Buddhist shrines made way for Hindu temples. Temples have made way for mosques. Mosques have made way for temples. So even if a temple was demolished in the 16th century to make way for the Babri Masjid, what legal relevance can that have in the 21st century?

This is another malicious charge that Siddharth levels against Hindus "Buddhist shrines made way for HIndu temples". When the communist historians have been challenged time and again to come up with a shred of evidence to support this claim, they have drawn blank. The understanding that they want the people to gulp down unquestioningly is very clear: "Now, come on!!! Everyone has been destroying every other temple in history, what is the big deal in it? Accept this and move on with life". When overwhelming proof from Islamic chroniclers are presented to them, we get deafening silence. If Siddharth (Siddha Anartha) is so concerned about Buddhist shrines, why doesn't he start a movement for restoration of Buddhist temples? Why doesn't he start by writing a few kind words about the Buddhist regime of Tibet which has been forced to live in exile in India? Why doesn't he write a few kind words in support of the Buddhists who are facing demographic change in Tibet because of settlement of thousands of Han Chinese? But then, he isn't serious about this, he wants to score a rhetorical point with a "suppressio veri suggestio falsi".

We request Siddharth (Siddha Anartha) to kindly come up with a scholarly rebuttal to the book "Hindu Temples What happened to them". For his benefit, we give the link to the online version of the book in two volumes:
http://voi.org/books/htemples1/
http://voi.org/books/htemples2/
The above book gives evidence from Islamic chroniclers about thousands of Hindu temples which were destroyed by political Islam. For his part, Siddharth (Siddha Anartha) may also kindly produce for us evidence about "Buddhist shrines made way for HIndu temples". We hope he won't disappoint us. For Siddharth's (Siddha Anartha's) kind attention, we quote here the statement of a non-Hindu, non-VHP historian, an American historian, Will Durant:
"The Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex of order and freedom, culture and peace, can at any moment be overthrown by barbarians invading from without or multiplying within."
We can wake up sleeping people, but not people who keep pretending to sleep.

Siddharth (Siddha Anartha) has probably learnt the art of pre-emptive attack that his Chinese mentors follow. Hence he comes up with another gem:

And if such demolition is to serve as the basis for settling property disputes today, where do we draw the line? On the walls of the Gyanvapi mosque in Varanasi can be seen the remnants of a Hindu temple, perhaps even of the original Vishwanath mandir. Certainly many “Hindus” believe the mosque is built on land that is especially sacred to them. The denouement of the Babri case from agitation and demolition to possession might easily serve as a precedent for politicians looking to come to power on the basis of heightening religious tensions.

Yes, Siddharth (Siddha Anartha), you will hear soon from us (the awakened Hindus). We aren't asking for too much, we are asking for 3 temples (two more now) out of thousands destroyed by Islamic bigots (Not very much more bigoted than you. You are an intellectual iconoclast, they were and are physical iconoclasts. Both of you have a visceral hatred of Hindus and Hinduism.)

Even assuming the tainted ASI report is correct in its assessment that a Hindu temple lay below the ruins of the Babri Masjid, neither the ASI nor any other expert has any scientific basis for claiming the architects of the mosque were the ones who did the demolishing.

This is Siddharth (Siddha Anartha) at his poetic best. Ooooo... he is being too irresistible here. See, how even-handed he is (he is actually granting that the ASI report may be correct, albeit rhetorically)!!! The architects of the mosque didn't do the demolishing, they got labourers to do it for them. By this logic, they didn't build it either. The mosque wasn't built by the "architects". It was the wily Hindus who brought up a structure resembling a mosque so that they could beat the s***t out of the muslims centuries later. Another ROFL moment. So, Siddharth (Siddha Anartha) surely has a humour bone in the right place. Only that his humour is turning out to be more of a farce these days.

cHindu journalists to keep monkeys away during CWG

In a news article reported today, all the journalists from cHindu from LiC to Sidd V, Ananth K to Neena Vyas were hired to provide security for the CWG ;)

To keep monkeys away from the Commonwealth Games venues here, the civic authorities are now ‘deploying' langurs. The New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) has brought in 10 langurs for the same, an official said. The NDMC already has 28 langurs, which are used to scare monkeys in VIP areas of the Capital

In response cHindu langurs were already claiming how Chinese monkeys had better unions and pay structures than the Indian democratic setup.

Varadarajan's Questionable Nuclear Liability Claims about South Korea and Hungary

With the report of the Parliamentary standing committee recommending a change to the controversial clause 17(b) of the Civil Nuclear Liability Bill (my thoughts on the committee report can be read here), Siddharth Varadarajan has already fired his opening salvo against it today in this so-called news item. I say so-called because the author's sentiment comes across plainly in the text.

I have explained the issues with this provision in earlier posts (see here, here and here) and will not repeat them here. In support of his view that India ought to have retained that provision, he claims that "Globally, South Korea and Hungary provide the operators with a right of recourse against the suppliers in the event of gross negligence, regardless of whether or not the contract provides for it or not." As far as I know, this is simply not true - in my previous post, I had explained the position taken by the South Korean law which allows the contractual arrangement between the parties to prevail over the default position laid down by the enactment. Hungary is a signatory to the Vienna convention which explicitly limits the operator's right to recourse (under article X) if expressly provided by contract or the incident resulted from the act or omission done with intent to cause damage, i.e. in other words, provisions equivalent to cl.17(a) and cl.17(c) in the Indian bill.

S.V. calls for making borders irrelevant

Siddharth Varadarajan seems to have dropped his inhibitions and stepped out of the closet -- he is nakedly espousing a position which has no logical justification and calls it the only option! Disingenuous, stupid, frustrated, conniving or whatever you call it, this is a preposterous position to take. I wonder if Varadarajan, being the American citizen, will ask for U.S. making borders irrelevant with Mexico.
The Hindu : Today's Paper / OPINION : Building trust, one step at a time

The truth is that there are no other cards. The ‘make borders irrelevant' approach is the only game in town and sooner or later all stakeholders in Pakistan will have to be reconciled to it.

Putting Victims at the Centre of Liability Law: A Response to Siddharth Varadarajan

As a follow-up to his first op-ed, Siddharth Varadarajan wrote a second piece in The Hindu. Earlier, I raised some issues in my previous response and post here my thoughts on matters addressed in this later article.

His first point is that “[s]ince the government wants to accede to the IAEA's Convention on Supplementary Compensation (CSC), 300 million SDRs has been chosen as national cap so as to receive compensation from countries that are parties to the CSC beyond that.” My reading of the CSC is different. Art. III(1) of the convention states: “Compensation in respect of nuclear damage per nuclear incident shall be ensured by the following means: (a) the Installation State shall ensure the availability of 300 million SDRs or a greater amount that it may have specified to the Depositary at any time prior to the nuclear incident...” I understand this to mean that 300 million SDR is the minimum amount a state must ensure, not the maximum. The cap amount specified by the GoI in the bill cannot therefore be justified on this ground.

The maximum amount of 300 million SDR available through the CSC (assuming every member of the IAEA joins the convention) probably comes from Ben McRae (Reform of Civil Nuclear Liability, p.176). However, if you use the IAEA calculator and add all IAEA member states, you come up with a figure of ~375 million SDR. I am not sure how he got the figure of 50 million SDR as “the best a member state can hope to receive” but if you add Japan and India to the existing list of member states that have ratified the CSC, you land up with the amount of ~94.2 million SDR. Still it is not a lot which also argues for a higher total cap or no cap at all. I am also unable to see a connection between prohibiting discrimination (between national and cross-border victims of a nuclear accident) in distributing compensation and capping total liability for an incident.

He wants the operator cap to be raised and limited only to public sector operators. Under-provisioning of safety and the prospect of over-optimal share of nuclear power in India’s energy mix are the reasons given in support of this contention. The first has been dealt with before and my explanation in the following paragraph also relates to it. As for the second, the government’s authority to authorize (or deny authorization for) the construction of plants is not in doubt. A low cap as an incentive to build more plants can and surely will be countered by activists highlighting possible hazards and the final outcome will ultimately be guided by political judgment (rather than purely on economic grounds) as to the impact of its pursuit on public support.

He points out that insurance costs only amount to a small percentage of the total cost of the plant and third party liability in any case costs several times less than property insurance which is routinely purchased by nuclear plants around the world without hurting the viability of nuclear power. The issue, as I understand it, has primarily to do with availability. If insurance is not available up to the limit laid down by law, the company would have to make up the difference by setting it aside in bulk which will increase the operating cost. For example, if someone were legally obligated to purchase liability insurance for car accidents for a minimum amount of 1 crore but insurance carriers are only willing to offer coverage up to 10 lakhs, the only way to fulfill the requirement would be by setting aside the sum of 1 crore – 10 lakhs = 90 lakhs of his/her own money which is where it gets expensive (Insurance does not generate assets; it only protects what exists. So, it makes good sense for any business to attempt to keep the expense low). It was primarily this concern of availability that prompted the US Congress to mandate that plants maintain as financial protection “the maximum amount available at reasonable cost and on reasonable terms from private sources” and additionally provide for the state to indemnify them when the Price-Anderson Act was first enacted in 1957.

Insurance carriers are willing to underwrite plant property for amounts much higher than third party liability. Inferring the possibility of raising operators’ cap from the former would therefore be erroneous. The reason for this disparity is not so clear but a general explanation of how the business works would help to understand what factors might contribute to it. Insurance plays a role in a zone which lies between having no knowledge of the probability of an accident and having perfect knowledge of it. In the former instance, any protection offered would entail an unjustifiably high risk; on the contrary, if there was absolute certainty of its occurrence, there would be no point in insuring against it. Operating between these two extremes, insurers utilize various models to estimate the risk involved. These models are usually based on a mix of theoretical and real world data. The more actual data there is, the greater is the confidence with which predictions can be made and vice versa. The maximum amount an insurer is willing to underwrite depends on how much confidence it has in its model. For things like cars and aero planes which crash not infrequently, a fair amount of accident related data is available which gives insurers greater confidence in protecting against such risks and they are willing to cover higher amounts (relatively speaking). Nuclear property damage involves both routine property related risks and those specific to nuclear plants. The former are, likewise, more easily measurable and for the latter, they rely on reports of engineers and experts on the risks associated with particular equipment. Small safety incidents at nuclear plants are not uncommon (often involving non-nuclear damage) and that provides a significant wealth of data enhancing reliability of their predictions. Large nuclear disasters entailing third party liability, on the contrary, have only occurred on a few occasions and a major part of calculations is based on theoretical simulation which leaves them with less confidence about how far such estimates mirror reality. I suppose it is this difference that makes insurers much more wary about underwriting very high amounts for third party liability, a sentiment which would ring stronger in a new market where a priori experience is lacking.

When the Price-Anderson Act was first introduced in the US, private insurers only covered a fairly limited amount of $60 million and the state, in return for a mandatory payment of $30/1000kW from any facility, offered indemnity for an additional $500 million. The amount privately covered grew gradually over time as safety measures ensured that payouts were few and allowed the state to gradually withdraw its own role completely replacing it with a secondary layer of coverage financed entirely by the operators’ themselves, a system that exists to this day (the only differences are in the amount which comes to ~$12.6 billion including both first and second layer of coverage and a third layer was recently added to meet the international obligation under the CSC financed now by suppliers).

Regarding cl.17(b), I have already discussed that the key question is what impact retaining it will have on the willingness of suppliers to participate in the Indian market. Increasing that limit will also likely have a greater adverse effect on smaller suppliers who may prefer to stay away as they would have much more to lose than larger ones who may be able to internalize costs better. Domestic companies may also lose out to their foreign counterparts who, being less readily accessible to Indian law enforcement agencies, may be willing to risk more. If suppliers are made liable for total damages whilst keeping the limit much lower for operators, that too would lead to a moral hazard with operators (rather than suppliers) having a lower incentive to undertake adequate safety measures. This may be more so for state-owned entities owing to the fact that in the event of a disaster, the state, anxious to both deflect blame from itself and to pursue the prospect of obtaining large scale damages from the supplier, may be predisposed to use its control over the investigative machinery to downplay the role of the operator in the incident.

As he says, if India retains cl.17(b), it would have a choice to join the CSC with a reservation or choose to stay out of it. Comparison of this provision with article 4(1) of the South Korean law is not entirely appropriate. Article 4(1) of the South Korean act provides for the operator’s right to recourse “only insofar as there has been a willful act or gross negligence by the supplier of the materials concerned or by his employees” but this is overridden by article 4(2) which states that “If, in the circumstances described in Paragraph 1 of this Article, a special agreement has been made regarding rights of recourse, such agreement shall govern.” Cl.17(b), on the other hand, is distinct and applicable regardless of the operator’s agreement with the supplier under cl.17(a). Thus, the Indian bill is stricter but also, as a consequence, less flexible. Whether that is a good thing or not will depend on how strong the negotiating position of Indian operators will be vis-à-vis suppliers. For example, if the plant operator badly wants something from a supplier who is unwilling to provide it for fear of liability, the Korean law would allow its acquisition by providing a waiver but not its Indian counterpart.

Varadarajan calls for extending the filing period for compensation to 30 years from the present limit of 10 years. The main issue in other countries has been the unwillingness of insurers to offer coverage beyond 10 years. Mark Tetley cites three reasons to explain this reluctance: unwillingness of shareholders to commit to long term risk and uncertain exposure, wariness of second guessing future societal problems in an increasingly litigious climate and uncertainty of the security and solvency of the concerned insurer over such a long period of time. Extending the period is meaningful provided that a way is found to ensure reliability of payout possibly through state support either for all claims beyond an initial 10 year period or perhaps only as a backup.

Involvement of health and environmental experts is not specifically mentioned but the Claims commissioner can seek their assistance under cl.12(2) while holding an inquiry; a similar provision is missing for the commission which is only entitled to the assistance of officers and employees the Center provides as it may deem fit under cl.30(1). This suggestion needs to be considered though the main role of such experts will be in conducting studies and publishing reports in the aftermath of a disaster.

As mentioned in the last post, I cannot see any justification for allowing victims to file civil tort claims in addition to the recourse available under this Act as it duplicates the effort without offering any additional advantages to any concerned party (other than lawyers). I believe the proper answer is to amend cl.46 to preclude this possibility. Providing for judicial review may also be a pragmatic step to take as discussed in an earlier post.

Turning the Nuclear Bill from Liability to Asset: A Response to Siddharth Varadarajan

Siddharth Varadarajan’s op-ed today in The Hindu about why the nuclear liability bill is flawed is a familiar theme. I have addressed most of these points in an earlier post and will not repeat them again here. It suffices to mention that I explained there why legal channeling makes more sense than economic channeling, what the basis for operators’ liability cap amount is (or at the very least, ought to be assuming the GoI is doing it according to the rationale) and what the issues with the operators’ right to recourse under section 17(b) are. What follows is a short follow-up to that post.

It is true that the entire nuclear liability regime began as an attempt to protect the American nuclear manufacturers from foreign liability. The regime, however, does not distinguish between Americans and others and as it stands today, protects suppliers from all countries with membership in any of the liability conventions. That includes India’s own domestic industry which is expected to play an important role in building nuclear power plants. It is not surprising then that this group is strongly supportive of the bill and efforts to exclude suppliers from liability.

It is obvious that section 17(b) does not alter the rights of victims of the disaster; there are several reasons to doubt whether it will offer any benefit to consumers/tax payers either despite the explicit provision to collect for damages from the supplier. Firstly, in the event of such a provision being passed by parliament, it is extremely doubtful that any supplier will venture into the business without insurance cover at the risk of losing all of its assets. So, if we assume that arrangements are worked out amongst suppliers and possibly including operators, the next question is whether such an arrangement will add assets which would not be available were operators alone to purchase it (otherwise, there is no advantage at all: operators pay for the insurance instead of suppliers or both do so having entered into a mutual arrangement but regardless of who purchases it, the assets remain the same, total amount up to the cap is covered and will be paid out to third parties in the event of an incident). The answer to that is probably in the negative given how insurance systems work. Nuclear insurance pools are mostly regional or countrywide, not global (barring very limited global coverage offered in some instances such as the $50 million by ANI). Also, even if some Indian company specialized in a different line of business such as making automobile parts and insured against tort damages decides to venture into supplying parts for nuclear plants, the much higher damages involved will entail a much greater risk which will likely prevent coverage from being extended to its nuclear manufacturing arm. Thus, the insurance asset pool is not going to expand merely by bringing suppliers within the ambit of the law – in fact, the heightened risk may very well serve to incentivize the opposite - which begs the question why it is needed at all.

Varadarajan wants section 17(b) to stay along with the removal of the operators’ cap which means full liability or at least up to 300 million SDR for operators. As explicated in the previous post, the question is what that will do to the operating cost of the plant and in consequence, to the consumer/tax payer who has to bear the burden of the increased cost of electricity/subsidy. My guess: it will be beyond the ability of the consumer or the state government to purchase it and the enterprise might well turn into another Enron type of disaster. The article is silent on this question.

As mentioned in the previous post, capping liability to operators and suppliers does distort the true cost of running the plant but not doing so, it is feared, will render the effort prohibitively expensive and impractical. Properly enforced regulations are partly the answer but critics would argue that this is not adequate. Besides rhetoric, the author offers no solution to this conundrum. The optimal solution I can think of is a compromise where liability limits are capped at low levels initially but are gradually raised as the industry grows out of its infancy and its capacity is increased. History of the US Price Anderson Act and nuclear liability legislation in several other countries suggests that this may be a feasible course for India to follow as well.

Lastly, the whole point of strict liability and the separate mechanism for adjudicating claims is to allow victims to obtain compensation without having to meet the higher standard of tort law. If victims are free to pursue tort remedies in addition to this, it raises the question whether the caps and channeling requirements laid down by this law are meaningful at all. If extended litigation in courts is not preempted and the prospect of unspecified damages having to be paid looms large over the heads of operators and suppliers, it is entirely possible that the purpose of this law will stand completely defeated. This is an important concern and a strong case therefore exists to amend this provision to preclude such a possibility if the GoI is intent on creating a workable arrangement to develop the nuclear industry.

The bottom line is that the purpose of this legislation will not be fulfilled unless hard compromises are made. The question is whether the government has the courage to do so or would rather give in to populist impulses and end up passing a version too diluted to make meaningful change possible.