Hi , guys !

I really like your show and am also a subscriber ! I have seen and read almost everything you guys upload and refer.

I like  your show as it attempts to provide a comprehensive understanding of issues.

I really like Madhu . Her experience helps to simplify even the most complex of issues. I especially like Clothesline , which is amazingly funny.

She has also done some really great interviews. I really like her interview with Madhu Kishwar . It was really funny how she made a fool of herself.

Though her jingoism is sometimes over the top.

Often i have heard on your program that Barkha Dutt is the best interviewer in India . But i believe Abhinandan is the best. He cleverly speaks less to let the other person reveal himself. Not like our prime time loonies where the interviewer speaks more than the one being interviewed.

Manisha and Deepanjana are really good . Manisha though is a little innocent. Deepanjana needs to work on her accent (:p).

You had Arunabh Sakhia also . His revolutionary inputs were really insightful .

However , there is a problem. Ranga Uncle cleverly uses facts to make his ignorant points about issues. He is a confused character. His views regarding Dalits led me to believe he is a true liberal . However whenever there is any criticism on Hindus or Hinduism , the bigot in him cannot control . His criticism of Islam is theoretical . He uses quotes used by jihadis to prove the problems with Islam . Nothing could be farther from the truth. There is a context to everything which scientists probably do not understand.

I really didn’t like your criticism of Katju . You guys completely ignored the 2 landmark judgments he gave. He is the one who declared Khap Panchayats to be illegal and prescribed death penalty for such people . He also legalised passive euthanasia in India. These are scholarly judgments. He also exposed corruption in Judiciary. Yes no doubt , that post retirement he behaves like a lunatic. But questioning his judgments by painting him as a lunatic is pettiness.

Your show is really great , keep up the good work . I assure you , that at least 1 person will subscribe always.

Abhimanyu Singh
Delhi

This article is made possible because of Newslaundry's subscribers.Click here and Pay To Keep News Free

Hi all,

Before I begin, I must say that I have recently started subscribing for news laundry. I have been following news laundry for the last year or so, and after hearing Abhinandan relentlessly raise the point about promoting free media, I finally made the move in the right direction.

I confess, that I wasn’t very aware of the political news in the country during my student days. No excuses here, but I never read beyond the entertainment section in a newspaper. After qualifying CA though, I had a lot more time to spare and wanted to keep up with the current affairs. A friend of mine introduced me to the NL Hafta last year and since then,I have been hearing them every week. I now read the articles that are posted and also follow your channel. I don’t always agree with all the opinions raised, and sometimes find the discussions to be overtly anti-state. Non the less, I find the conversations to be very insightful, and I appreciate camaraderie that comes that reflect during the discussions. Very often, I imagine myself being right there amidst you guys nodding along or disagreeing. And Abhinandan, much against what others say about your sense of humor, I find you really funny!

Madhu, I loved your interview with Arun Shourie and I like how most of your interviews are so conversational and questions pick up from the last answer.

I must thank you all for good work! You have made “news” a very interesting part of my life now and I find myself to be opinionated, interested and aware.

I urge all my friends, to listen to your podcasts and subscribe!

Much love to all the other members in NewsLaundry!

Regards,
Subiksha,
Hyderabad

This article is made possible because of Newslaundry's subscribers.Click here and Pay To Keep News Free

Hello Team Newslaundry,

At the outset, let me apologetically clarify that I am not a subscriber yet. I study medicine in Manipal and the little money I am able to spare is invested in old monk quarters. I hope you guys understand. Though I do think that the promise of exclusive content for subscribers will enforce a sober Saturday and compel me to subscribe soon. As we students are fond of saying- “subscription khaate me likh Lena boss.”

Being a news and current affairs junkey, I have been following Newslaundry since day one;  admittedly”muft me”. I remember old dhobi ghat and cleaners videos. The slant eyed sarcasm of the “I agree” interviews are a personal favourite. I hope Abhinandan gets to do them more often. The first thing that struck me about these early interviews was the refreshing camera work. Instead of boring steady cam angles, I remember being impressed by multiple, dynamic, split screen shots. I hope you bring that camera work back.

For me the trump card of Newslaundry has always been it’s tone and style. While your substance is augmented by the integrity of your business model and your constant stress on diverse reportage, what sets you guys apart is the way you present yourselves. In articles, videos and podcasts it is clear that you guys take the news far more seriously than yourselves. This self effacement, extended of course to other organizations when you critique them, is refreshing. While at one hand I am fed up of the narcissistic solemnity  of old media, I find myself increasingly disillusioned by the cynicism of the “Jon stewart school of satire.” (Not a big fan of the clothesline btw, leave it to AIB would be my advice). In you, I dare say that I have found an aesthetic balance. Serious news and opinion presented with the right balance of professionalism and irreverence. Something which on most days I find to be intellectually engaging without forcing me to emotionally detach myself.

A special word on hafta now. My consumption of Newslaundry revolves around your weekly podcast. While I do read your articles when I come across them on my Facebook and Twitter feed, listening to your hafta is a weekly ritual. I remember as a kid, the newspaper’s editorial was the first thing I would open. The lead and oped pieces would then set the parameters of my news gathering. Nowadays though, due to the multiplication of news sources and an arguably general decline in media credibility, my appetite tends to be chaotically eclectic. News laundry hafta, at least when it comes to national news(or more accurately-north Indian news), is one of the only editorial influences which I trust enough to bring some sort of order in this disarray. I rely on you guys to sum up the week’s newscycle.

This does not imply that I only have praise to offer. The most recent hafta, which discussed the surgical strikes was in my opinion the worst in weeks. While the jingoistic cheerleading of arnab and co was expected, I thought you guys would be slightly more wary. I had expected the incorporation of alternate, more circumspect opinion in your discussion, something entirely absent in the rest of the media, but was left thoroughly disappointed. If this were a story about anything apart from a military action, the gaps and inconsistencies would have raised more trimmed journalistic eyebrows. At the risk of coming off as an armchair military analyst, the sequence of events have conveniently worked out perfectly for both the governments. Both can now placate opinion at home and abroad with vitriolic rhetoric and their own versions of reality loyally parroted by their respective journalists. In the debate between nation-first and journalism – first, truth seems to be a casuality. Surely in light of  the chalcot report, news organizations must think twice before accepting government national security briefings as gospel.

This hafta was also beset by another problem that irritates me now and then. While I understand that the format is that of a gabfest and requires a certain informal conviviality, you guys sometimes digress too much into conjecture and anectodes, causing the discussion to lose its integrity. Abhinandan please be advised that the only justification for humour must be hilarity. And no, the annoying forced self congratulatory chuckle doesn’t count.( I must insist here that the swearing doesn’t bother me at all. I hope abhinandan continues to do it. Who doesn’t like some good old ribaldry.)

Abhinandan, btw, is my favourite. I used to watch HOMP religiously and was thrilled when I came to know that he had produced it.( I remember the doon school episode now when rocky pulls him in front of the camera!).

I must admit that I once only knew madhu as dr Trehan’s wife who happened to be a journalist. Then after watching her on newslaundry, I discovered old newstrack episodes on YouTube. As someone who wasn’t born then, it was educational to see the babri masjid newstrack clip. Her recent interview on rstv was superb. With India today, newstrack, aaj tak and newslaundry she has been a serial pioneer.

Anand’s pockets must be bulging with all the cherries he incessantly picks. I often find myself disagreeing with him which tends to be especially infuriating because his arguments are so thorough. As a fellow student of science, I understand his insistence on data but I  hope he makes an effort to appreciate paintings as parts of the galleries instead of concentrating on the brush strokes.

I think manisha is a great reporter. I make it a point to read everything written under her byline. Her “criticles” with their focus on news media are newslaundry’s unique strength and at a core of what you guys do.

With my weakness for Bengali accents, I thought deepanjana was a great addition to the hafta team. She has by far the most clarity amongst all of you and does a great job of putting her opinions across succinctly. I also think she would be better suited to host the hafta.(sorry abhinandan!).

In conclusion I wish you guys well in your endeavour to keep news free. And yes, I promise to subscribe.

Cheers,
Sai Krishna Vadlamudi.

First, an obligatory salute to the Liquor God of India.

In April 2016, Bihar imposed a total ban on drinky drinks. The reason given by CM Nitish Kumar was that alcohol consumption leads to domestic violence. He explained that prohibition is supported overwhelmingly by women and children, who are victims of these acts of violence. He didn’t just ban it, but imposed crazy draconian punishments for those found possessing liquor.

On September 30, the Patna high court declared the alcohol ban illegal. Amongst other things, they pointed out that the liquor ban is an invasion of privacy and citizens should be allowed to consume what they want, even if it is alcohol. In response, prohibition man Kumar is now planning to bring in a stricter and much more stringent law to ban alcohol.

Only yesterday, Supreme Court stepped in and stayed the Patna High court order. The bench said: “Ban on liquor and fundamental rights do not go together.” After this intense flip-flop roller coaster ride, the Bihar government seems to have emerged victorious. Kumar must be quite happy right at this moment!

Alcohol laws in India are strange, to put it mildly. Drinking ages and consumption rules vary for every state. While some have more liberal consumption laws, there are those that completely ban potable alcohol. This week, we shall talk about booze, booze and more booze. And whether banning alcohol by law actually has any positive effect.

The Three Lists

To explain why laws regarding alcohol vary from state to state, we must first look at the three lists of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India: The Union List, State List and Concurrent List.

The first two contain subjects for which laws can be made by the Union or State government exclusively. For example, the Union list includes subjects such as defence, citizenship, railways, census etc., while the State list includes subjects such as police, public health, water resources, waste management and…

The concurrent list, on the other hand, includes subjects that both the Central and State governments can make laws about. It includes marriage and divorce, adoption, forests, protection of wildlife, education etc.

These three lists are vital for our democracy because it demarcates the responsibilities of our State government and Union governments. Things like defence must be handled by the Union (for obvious reasons). If that demarcation was not made in the constitution, every state *might* pass laws to have its own army.

#JustSaying.

It’s also important for police to be under the control of the state government because internal security challenges vary from place to place. The police forces are trained to handle law and order in a specific area, for a specific number of people. Which is why it’s on the State list.

So liquor comes under the state list. Every state is allowed to make different laws for dealing with it. Our Constitution says one more thing on the subject:

#ThankYouBapu

This technically means that every state shall aim to prohibit alcohol and other intoxicating drugs. So Kumar is, kinda, just following what the constitution says, especially when you take the “standard of living of its people and the improvement of public health” part into consideration. Because, you know, drinking does cause *some* damage to personal health and well being.

Bihar’s Draconian Booze regime

If you look at what is happening in Bihar, you will understand to what extremes this law can actually go. Here are the highlights of Bihar’s new and improved alcohol prohibition law.

1. A person will pay a fine of 1 lakh to 10 lakh and go to jail for a term of seven years.
2. People who allow their premises to be used for a congregation where liquor is served will be imprisoned for a period of ten years. This can be extended to life term.
3. All adults of a family are liable to be arrested if liquor was found at their house.
4. Collective fine would be slapped on villages and urban clusters (O_o) in case of habitual violation of the prohibition law.
5. Errant officers will face three years’ jail and a penalty of Rs 1 lakh or both.

Basically, Bihar’s is now like a Monopoly game where all the Chance cards say only this:

Law and Order

Let’s talk about other states too!

Since it’s a state subject, alcohol bans through the ages for different states have been… amusing.

Take Maharashtra, for instance. Strangely enough, alcohol is banned in Gujarat today because of the ban imposed by Chief Minister Morarji Desai in undivided Maharashtra. Post-Independence, Desai implemented the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949, which made the consumption of alcohol illegal across the state. But Bombay of the day was becoming wealthier and with wealth comes lots of drinky drinks.

There was a booming black market for liquor on which Bollywood movies like Bombay Velvet and Raees are based. In 1960, Gujarat split up with Maharashtra and took the prohibition with it. The Bombay Prohibition Act is still applicable in that state. Ergo, no booze for the Gujjuz. Meanwhile, Maharashtra revoked prohibition in 1972.

Manipur and Nagaland are two other states that have banned potable alcohol. The Manipur assembly put in a bill in July this year to lift this ban. The reason: there is a crazy black market of illicit alcohol being imported from Assam. The number of deaths due to this spurious alcohol is on a rise in Manipur; so bye bye prohibition.

Nagaland has similar problems. That same illicit alcohol from Assam is also being sold in large quantities in Nagaland. At one point, the Chief Minister of Nagaland TR Zeliang said, “My state is the ‘wettest’ dry state in the country.” Plus, both of these states were losing out on a tonne of revenue in the form of taxes on alcohol.

Fun fact: I was scouring the internet and found out that Lakshadweep, a union territory where alcohol is banned, has a special island called Bangaram where only alcohol is sold. A literally crazy booze Island!

Here is a nifty table I found on the various laws applicable in different states, along-with the drinking ages. (Source)

Keep this list handy if you are going on a cross country road trip!

Does Prohibition work?

Simple answer: NOPE.

Try doing this: Go to any kid and show her a nice toy. Then put the toy far away and tell the kid that she is prohibited to play with that toy. Why? Because it’s bad for her. Then you walk away. After you return, a few minutes later, there is a 99 per cent chance that the kid will be playing with the toy. What’s more, if she’s caught, the probability of her picking up said toy and making a run for it is very high.

It’s human nature to be curious about things that are prohibited. We get a natural rush of excitement when we do things that are unlawful. Which is probably why there are people drinking alcohol in Bihar despite prohibition.

How do we know this? Because there has been a spate of deaths due to alcohol poisoning. There you go. So much for prohibition.

As I mentioned earlier, the law imposed in Bihar is incredibly harsh. It actually seems like overkill. But what Kumar did in Bihar was a powerful political move. He is merely doing what he thinks his electorate want. Perhaps, a few years from now, when the real evil of black marketeering and illicit alcohol hits the state, he might be forced to rethink his decision. Only time shall tell.

In the end, I leave you with my favoritest journalist of the century, Ravish Kumar, to explain the situation of Alcohol ban in Bihar.

Disclaimer : The information, ideas or opinions appearing in this article are those of the author and do not reflect the views of Newslaundry.com. Newslaundry.com does not assume any responsibility or liability for the same. If the article carries photographs or images, we do not vouch for their authenticity.

For Yogendra Yadav and Prashant Bhushan, the ouster from the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) wasn’t a dead end – rather, it was the beginning of a new political struggle. Under their new socio-political organisation, Swaraj Abhiyaan, the duo toiled on the streets of Delhi, made several rounds to the Supreme Court for litigation on drought and mobilised the agrarian community under its Jai Kisan Andolan banner.

On October 2, 18 months after being expelled from AAP, they announced their new political party – Swaraj India. With names such as Shanti Bhushan, Professor Anand Kumar and Anil Jha in the founding team, the party looks similar to AAP during its infancy.

“The vision of India is under challenge…and no political force in the country today is willing to take that on,” said Yadav. He further added, “On challenge to democracy, from complete one person rule I would still say Mr Narendra Modi is some steps behind Mr Karunanidhi, Badal, Jayalalithaa… and Kejriwal these days.”

Yadav admits that voters in Delhi and elsewhere might be a “little more cynical” about the fresh promises of ‘alternative politics’. He said, “dudh ka jala chanch bhi fuk fuk kar pita hai [once bitten, twice shy].” Yadav added that he is confident of getting support from the youth, former Indian Against Corruption and AAP volunteers and what he calls, discerning people, who can always see where things are heading.

The fearsome Durga has descended, decorated with a garland of her enemies’ skulls, her 10 arms frozen in the act of killing the buffalo demon Mahishasura. All through Navaratri, she will be worshipped in her many forms — fearsome and benign; she will grant boons and slay enemies. Along with daughters Laxmi, the harbinger of wealth and Saraswati, the repository of wisdom, this trinity of the feminine divine encompasses a range from the auspicious to the bloodthirsty.

As adoring crowds, largely female flock to pandals to soak in their divine energy, the contrast between the power of the goddesses on the pedestal and the women worshippers outside could not be greater.

Sure the ordinary woman is considered auspicious, especially at festive times, but only as a virginal daughter or fertile wife under control and sitting by a man during religious rituals. The widow, the unmarried woman past puberty and even the barren woman, is a potential threat to be banished to the edges of society. With modernity, a girl’s sell by date may be pushed back a bit past puberty, a widow may no longer be tonsured and the barren women will endure not desertion, merely a set of humiliating medical procedures. And without a shred of irony, all these manifestations of womanhood will be called Devi, and with the honorific bestowed, society will freely continue to control and exploit these goddesses.

The question to ask is whether the goddesses’ power ever existed independently from their consorts. The gods roamed the heavens and earth, Indra their king, freely engaging in dalliances with the apsaras. Krishna’s flirting with the gopis was transcendental and the object of veneration. But even before Lakshman carved one for Sita, the goddess knew there was a rekha, a line she dare not cross. Laxmi and Sarawati are benign consorts and dedicated wives.

Durga, too, after the crisis that causes her to go on a rampage, returns to domesticity, tamed by her husband, who puts a stop to her frenzied dancing and uncontrolled laughter, lest it wreak havoc on the world. In the end the fierce Kali/Durga, slayer of demons outside the home, turns out to be everywoman, giving in to her husband. And while a few women emulated her warrior ways, most women learnt not to laugh to loud or dance too hard. Only Radha’s dalliance with Krishna was in transgression of societal norms, perhaps the only improbable female icon in mainstream mythology.

The woman in this culture is fated to be, simultaneously, a repository of honour and a prisoner, a paradox best portrayed in Satyajit Ray’s Devi. The character of Doyamoyee in the film, played by a young Sharmila Tagore is determined by her father-in-law, the man in charge, to be Kali incarnate, and goes from being a carefree child to a cloistered object of veneration, hidden away and only brought out for public display. She is revered now, as a worker of miracles, but there is no power in this, for she remains subjugated, stripped of all joy. She is forced to buy into the myth of her incarnation, in other people’s definition of her. Because if she is not a devi, she is nothing. Unable to perform the miracles expected of her, she slowly loses her mind. The tragedy of Devi is the tragedy of many women, placed on the altar, worshipped as goddesses and imprisoned in their roles as wives and mothers.

Devi may be fictional, but the cult of Kumari, the living goddess is real. A young girl is plucked out of a life of obscurity, and displayed as divine. A glimpse of her is said to bring good fortune and crowds throng to her. Her feet can’t touch the ground, so she is carried everywhere, but barring rituals, she leads a secretive, isolated existence. Come puberty, she is rendered impure, and no longer of value, discarded.

Still her fate is better than that of the Devdasi, literally the servant of god. Dedicated to Yelamma, the goddess of fertility, in a ceremony similar to marriage, she becomes for all intents and purposes a prostitute. Her virginity is sold to the highest bidder. The devdasi system, now outlawed, but still practiced supplies, under the veneer of religion, sex to those in power. Poverty stricken parents, in a bid to unburden themselves of girl children continue to condemn their daughters to this life of sexual slavery. Yelamma may be a goddess, but she has no power to protect, for power lies as usual with a man, in this case with the priest, who uses his devotion of her to exploit her devotees.

The goddesses are ultimately no guardian angels. Inspite of the outwardly feminist appearance of goddess Durga, and the venerated status of Lakshmi and Saraswati, none of the trinity really protest the tyranny of husbands, ask for equal rights or rail against being seen as producer of sons. Not surprisingly, in spite of legislation, women’s inheritance rights are often overlooked, dowry as a practice is still rampant and female foeticide has resulted in a seriously skewed sex ratio. That men continue to ascribe, in a patriarchal society, the power of the divine to these goddesses, and to all women, is then quite possibly a manifestation of their guilt, a pretend worship of those they otherwise control and exploit.

The human and divine seem to be very different worlds, with different standards. Still given their status as goddesses, and inspired by Kali, the manifestation of female rage, and with a little help from the divine wisdom of Saraswati, women can foment a revolution. After all Durga’s warriors are female. And in Durga’s many avatars, some dark, old and disheveled, far from aesthetic, male-pleasing images, is proof that all femininity is sacred. In the end, it is not the goddess in whose 10 arms lies the burden of feminism. The goddess is ambiguous, sometimes Shakti, power, at other times Prakriiti, nature. She may be divine but she is a bundle of contradictions too — strong or weak depending on the circumstance. In the end she is like everywoman and everywoman can be every avatar of her.

Drunk on the blood of enemies, like Durga, she can be Indira Gandhi, who epitomised her after victory in war. She is is free to be Mira, the bhakti saint devotee of Krishna who wrote bhajans mocking marriage and celebrating love. Sure society mocked her in return, but because she craved only love, not respectability, she triumphed. She can be Sita when necessary, who in spite of her many weaknesses, was also a single woman who raised two sons on her own. She can be Rati or Mohini and explore her sensual side. And when she gets as angry as Kali, her energy alone will be enough to destroy the demon of patriarchy that now controls her sisters.

Disclaimer : The information, ideas or opinions appearing in this article are those of the author and do not reflect the views of Newslaundry.com. Newslaundry.com does not assume any responsibility or liability for the same. If the article carries photographs or images, we do not vouch for their authenticity.

The second US presidential election debate was widely billed as a heavyweight bout. In the event it was a score draw – but the clear loser was the American political process.

This election continues to be a rollercoaster ride, with the American electorate by turns gripped and nauseated as events unfold. The two days leading up to the debate alone threw up more drama than most election cycles manage to generate in two years, with the media and pundit class near-hysterical in their excitement.

Normal political discourse was fully abandoned little more than 48 hours before the debate began, when a video emerged of Trump describing how stardom empowered him to sexually assault women with impunity. The ensuing political and media storm reached a fever pitch just an hour before the debate, when Trump staged a press conference with three women who claim to have been sexually molested by Bill Clinton. Trump then brought them to the debate with him. Forget the boxing metaphors; this was presidential debate as reality television.

The debate used a so-called “town hall” format discussion, meaning the candidates answered questions directly from the audience and were free to move around the stage as they did so. But whereas this format was perhaps intended to keep the debate more moderate, what actually ensued was a nasty and noxious spectacle from the start. The candidates even declined to shake hands when they took the stage.

Keeping a grip

Clinton was at her strongest on the opening questions about Trump’s attitude to women. Trump was asked repeatedly by Cooper if he was advocating or had carried out sexual assault. He didn’t answer at first, repeatedly saying it was “locker-room talk” and oddly deflecting this by repeating that he would attack Islamic State. Eventually, asked again if he’d ever sexually attacked women, he said “No, I have not”. Hardly an apology, then.

After Trump doubled down, saying “There’s never been anybody in the history of politics in this nation that’s been so abusive to women” as Bill Clinton (who was after all in the room), his opponent replied with a carefully prepared commentary, saying that unlike any prior Republican candidate she had encountered, Trump was not fit to serve. She also made sure to note that besides women, he had also attacked many minorities – Muslims, Mexicans, prisoners of war, and on and on.

But by his own admittedly low standards, Trump was relatively disciplined. Refusing to take the sort of bait that threw him off at the two candidates’ first encounter, he rallied by picking up a mantra he repeated throughout the debate: “It’s just words, folks”.

He repeatedly insisted that Clinton has had 30 years in politics to do much of what she’s now campaigning to do as president, and that she’s so far failed. It was a strong tactic, and it helped him calmly swerve around issues that were dangerous for him. On non-payment of his taxes, he simply said he only does what Clinton’s elite friends and donors do themselves.

He came out with a few decent enough lines (“Lincoln never lied, unlike you”) and crucially, kept it simple (“Clinton is raising your taxes and I am lowering your taxes”).

Never mind the truth

Clinton seemed close to exasperated at times as Trump sniped at her supposed 30 years of inaction, and she eventually put forward a list of her achievements as senator and secretary of state, particularly on children’s health and women’s rights. She noted she had her name on 400 pieces of legislation, and stressed her ability to do hard political work on a bipartisan basis.

Clearly she had her own prepared formulas. On many occasions she began her responses to Trump’s comments by saying “much of that is not right”, and repeatedly implored people to fact-check Trump’s statements (many of which have already been judged misleading or downright untrue). At one point she recalled how Michelle Obama advised us all that “when they go low, we go high”. She was evidently trying to do this herself by generally not interrupting Trump, who (as in the first debate) repeatedly chipped in.

Trump’s approach was certainly hectoring – “When I am president we will have a special prosecutor to look into Hillary” – frequently chiding Clinton and ad-libbing erratically as she spoke, at other points prowling the stage and hovering menacingly behind her. But he never quite disintegrated into incoherence as he did in round one, and as the debate went on Clinton seemed to be more and more on the back foot.

The American media was itching for a decisive or dramatic result, keen to promote one of two narratives: that Trump has hit rock bottom at last, or that he has staged an amazing comeback. In truth (what’s left of it, anyway), neither narrative is believable.

Trump lives to fight another day, but he probably did nothing to attract the fresh voters he needs to win. In the meantime, he’ll have to hope no more revelations of sexual predation emerge, and that the current scandal hanging over him somehow loses potency.

Still, Republican leaders are clearly worried the scandal could contaminate candidates further down the ballot and put their congressional majorities at risk. Many such candidates have disavowed Trump since the tape of his misogynistic bragging was leaked, and more may yet leave the ship if things don’t improve.

On paper, this looks dire for Trump – but then again, the events of this election have violated almost every tenet of conventional wisdom about how American politics works. We are living in what increasingly appears to be a “post-factual” age in which scandals roll on without accountability and facts are trumped by ideology. As Trump would say: “It’s just words, folks.”

Disclaimer : The information, ideas or opinions appearing in this article are those of the author and do not reflect the views of Newslaundry.com. Newslaundry.com does not assume any responsibility or liability for the same. If the article carries photographs or images, we do not vouch for their authenticity.

India Today TV now has a War Room. This is the studio, complete with sandbags, a map of Jammu and Kashmir, spooky lighting with a 60-watt bulb hanging on top, guns in the background and Ram Gopal Varma-like camerawork, from where the anchors tell you what’s happening on the Line of Control. General GD Bakshi chips in as guest, his booming gunfire as impactful as Sunny Deol’s dhai kilo ka haath.

On a neighbouring channel, the Arnab Goswami Howitzer has been deployed for months, targeting Islamabad, Rawalpindi and Karachi. Every other night, he engages with retired Pakistan generals and admirals in entertaining mock fights, with insults of the Roast variety, reminding them of 1965 and 1971. Indian television in battle mode is one start-up that is witnessing maximum seed capital investment.

In the last fortnight, the broadcast media was quick to latch on to the Maharashtra Navnirman Sena and Shiv Sena-led call for boycott of Pakistani actors because in a jaw-for-a-tooth India, it is a TRP belter. The ‘Pakistanis Go Back’ Quit India movement of 2016 was tailor-made for the television media that revels in reducing everything to black and white. The Hindi film industry was asked to take a position.

India or Pakistan? Amritsar or Lahore? Kohli or Afridi? Anupam Kher or Fawad Khan?

One of the definitions of a patriot, post-Uri, is someone who will eschew working with Pakistani actors or perhaps will not watch any movie starring Pakistani actors. The argument is that when Pakistan is in a state of proxy war with India, Mumbai cannot engage in cultural ties with Karachi. So the filmmaker who is fine with this ‘ban’ is dubbed truly nationalistic, while those who do not join the jingoistic chorus, are labelled dodgy characters, who deserve to be sent to Pakistan.

Mind you, it is not the government of India or even mainstream opposition parties who are saying this. It is not like the boycott of South Africa when it was practising apartheid and no country had sporting ties with it. This is a media-generated surround sound, degenerating into a cacophony so loud, that it drowns every sane voice in the bedlam.

The television media is the new casting director of the heroes and villains of Bollywood. ‘Villain’ number one, Salman Khan, who merely pointed out the legal position that Pakistani actors are not terrorists and came to India with valid visa and work permit. Villain number 2, Om Puri. The Ardh Satya actor faced his moment of truth during his ‘court martial’ in Justice Arnab Goswami’s court.

The ‘hero’ of the week was Ajay Devgn who said as of now, he will not act with Pakistani actors. Applause followed, with media saying ‘Ajay does what Salman did not’.

The media charge against the likes of Fawad and singer Rahat Fateh Ali Khan is that they did not condemn Pakistan-sponsored Uri terror attack. At one level, it is a fair expectation that they should take a position publicly. But then can they afford to, in their unruly land? Will they be spared if they spoke against Pakistan-sponsored terrorism sitting in Lahore? To my mind, the actors are irrelevant to the plot where the main role is being played by the non-state actors like Hafiz Saeed and Maulana Masood Azhar, with the Pakistan army writing the screenplay.

For argument’s sake, let us say we listen to the media and the Thackerays and boycott the Pakistani actors. Let us tell the world it cannot be business as usual. But is this cultural untouchability that the media – largely hawkish – is batting for, the best way to isolate Pakistan? Are guns in TV studios, 24×7 warmongering and chest thumping the best form of journalism we can broadcast? Is TV journalism happy being this screechy handmaiden of hypernationalism?

Did I hear anyone say, the Pakistani artistes should summon the courage to do so? In which case, let us talk about one of our own, Nawazuddin Siddiqui. The actor was prevented by Shiv Sena members in his hometown of Budhana in Muzaffarnagar in Uttar Pradesh, from playing a part in the Ramlila, because he is a Muslim. The organisers were warned that there would be trouble, if he did. The Ramlila team buckled under the threat.

‘We, the People of India, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic, republic and to secure all its citizens …’

What is ironic is that just a couple of days back, even Nawaz had spoken the same language as the Right-wingers, the same group that is targeting him now. He was quoted in The Times of India as saying in Meerut on October 4 that, “Right now the situation between India and Pakistan is very sensitive and they (Pakistan actors) should leave India.”

Without a doubt, the situation at the LoC is grim. But what about the divisive cancer within. The parallel thanedaar who rules that an actor’s religion will decide his role in the theatre of modern India. Bolo Siyavar Ramchandra Ki Jai!

Ram Rajya, anyone?

It is also clear that Nawazuddin was picked upon because the Shiv Sena wanted to send across a message. Because there are lesser-known Muslim actors who do play roles in Ramlila in different cities, including Delhi. But when the BBC reports ‘Muslim Bollywood star out of Hindu play’, do we realise the image of an intolerant India that goes out. How different do we look from Pakistan then?

But Nawazuddin being pushed out because he is a Muslim does not seem to bother any of his colleagues in Bollywood. Targeting the Pak actors for them, is like plucking the lowest hanging fruit and win brownie points with the mafia that rules Mumbai. It is playing to the gallery of a hyperventilating media that revels in the Bushism of Us versus Them and will bay for your blood if you don’t fall in line. Standing by Nawazuddin’s side will mean inviting trouble. Why risk your Dussehra and Diwali release?

The MNS and Shiv Sena have won this round. Unfortunately, the media by whipping up a frenzy has been an accomplice. But now that the purpose of ousting the Pakistani actors has been achieved, will the mainstream media, for the sake of its own credibility, get rid of its lynch mob mindset? Or will it simply hunt for its next BARC-friendly kill.

Let us certainly bat for India but also ask tough questions to people with an agenda. Labelling anyone whose decibel level does not hit the shrill notes, as a betrayer, to my mind, is not called journalism.

Jai Hind. But not an India on loudspeaker please.

Disclaimer : The information, ideas or opinions appearing in this article are those of the author and do not reflect the views of Newslaundry.com. Newslaundry.com does not assume any responsibility or liability for the same. If the article carries photographs or images, we do not vouch for their authenticity.

Following the directions of Delhi High Court, the ECI has now directed all the political parties not to use public funds or public place to carry out any activity that would amount to propagating the party symbol

Following the directions of Delhi High Court in a Writ Petition concerning the BSP, the Election Commission of India (ECI) has now issued directions that no political party shall either use or allow the use of any public funds or public place or government machinery for carrying out any activity that would amount to advertisement for the party or propagating the election symbol allotted to the Party.

The Background

In 2009, the ECI received three petitions raising the issue that statues of ‘Elephant’ (reserved symbol of BSP) and ‘Ms. Mayawati’ (President of that party and the then Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh) have been installed in various places, including public parks, in Uttar Pradesh at Government expense. All the three petitions prayed for freezing of the party symbol ‘Elephant’. One of the petitioners also approached the Supreme Court in 2010 asking for directions to not open the statues and not spend public money on the glorification of a party’s symbol.

The Supreme Court asked the ECI to take an appropriate decision on the earlier petitions. The BSP on its part responded by saying that the statues of ‘Elephant’ being installed are not an exact replica of the party symbol and that the party symbol has an elephant with trunk lowered while the statues are of an elephant with its trunk raised in a welcome pose. BSP also mentioned that such elephant statues are found in many public places, temples etc. BSP also added that the Indian National Congress (INC) had named many programs, projects and public places after its leaders. The BSP’s written statement also added that earlier governments of INC and BJP had also built such statues.

The BSP also reminded that the jurisdiction of the ECI is to superintend, direct and control elections during the elections only and that the ECI has nothing to do with the day to day functioning of the government in a state during non-election period.

After hearing both the sides, the ECI said that the petitioners have not pointed out any violation of any direction or instruction of the ECI within the meaning of para 16A of the Symbols Order by BSP. Hence the question of freezing the symbol does not arise. While the ECI did not find any violation of the Model Code of Conduct by the installation of statues, it did mention that such activities vitiate the level playing field and are a violation in spirit if not in letter. The ECI also mentioned that it would take appropriate steps and measures at the time of elections to see that the statutes of Ms. Mayawati and BSP’s symbol ‘elephant’ do not disturb the level playing field and give undue advantage to BSP vis-à-vis other political parties.

The Delhi High Court Order

The Delhi High Court while disposing a writ petition on this issue directed that the ECI should detect the lacunae and issue relevant directions so that no political party in power exploit such rules in future. The HC in its order said that “A political party in power cannot use development activities carried out by it and which the government in any case is expected to perform, to propagate its symbol or its leaders so as to come in the way of a free and fair election. The performance of a political party in governance should be allowed to speak for itself”

The court directed the ECI to issue appropriate guidelines to prevent ‘recognised political party in power from using public places and public funds for propagating its reserve symbol and / or its leaders, so as to come in the way of conducting of free, fair and peaceful election and to safeguard the interest of the general public and the electorate in future’

Following these directions from the Delhi High Court, the ECI sought the views of the recognized parties on the issue. The parties supported the idea of having guidelines. The ECI directed that no political party will use any public funds or public place to propagate the election symbol of the party. It also mentioned that any such violation would be treated as a violation of the directions of the ECI and that appropriate action would be initiated.

Featured Image: www.dailymail.co.uk

Disclaimer : The information, ideas or opinions appearing in this article are those of the author and do not reflect the views of Newslaundry.com. Newslaundry.com does not assume any responsibility or liability for the same. If the article carries photographs or images, we do not vouch for their authenticity.

As drawer of the shortest straw, it falls on this lucky correspondent to watch the second American Presidential debate taking place in St. Louis, Missouri, at 6:30 am IST.

After all at Newslaundry, our unofficial motto is, we watch/read dire things, so you don’t have to. This debate, moderated by flawlessly coiffed CNN anchor Anderson Cooper and Martha Raddatz of ABC News, follows the townhall format. This means that unlike the previous debate, there will be no podium for the speakers to proselytise at, and more importantly allows for audience questions, albeit pre-vetted and screened.

The concerns of the last debate were that Republican Nominee Donald Trump had to stop lying (and following the 2005 hot mic debacle, perhaps the GOP wishes he hadn’t) and that Democratic Nominee Hillary Clinton (whose own email scandal has followed her the length of this election) was overprepared (zealousness and preparation are apparently frowned on when it comes to holding positions in the government).

And while policy, unemployment, police shootings, and immigration have been the core of their respective platforms, what has really shaked up the polls is the recording of Trump advocating sexual assault.

As Republicans rush to condemn and distance themselves from him, including his own vice presidential pick, astute readers are aware that this is nothing new under the sun for Donald Trump. If his past actions and comments on women, African Americans, Mexicans, and immigrants is anything to go by, Trump continues to be #TRUETOHISBRAND.

And so, with one plate of reheated momos, a glass of subpar gin, the second 2016 US Presidential Debate Highlights:
Prior to the debate, Trump hosted a media event where he brought forward three women who have accused Bill Clinton of sexual assault or rape and one woman, raped as a child, whose assailant Hillary Clinton defended, as court mandated, in 1973. This was the strategy he had admitted to eschewing during the first debate.

Surprising no one, the candidates did not shake hands at the start of the debate.

Asked about his comments on the video that had surfaced, Trump dismissed it as “locker room” banter, compared Bill Clinton’s treatment of women as “far worse,“ before ineptly segueing into an explanation of ISIS.

Tonight, we were all this woman. #debate pic.twitter.com/or1jVVDhFx

— Femsplain (@femsplain) October 10, 2016

Clinton did not respond to Trump’s allegations on the behaviour of her husband, other than to comment they were “inaccurate.”

Trump also disagreed with his vice-presidential nominee Governor Mike Pence on Syria, claiming they hadn’t spoken.

“She didn’t interrupt you. Please allow her to respond,” Cooper interjected at one point, perhaps aware that Clinton had been interrupted 70 times at the last debate. In fact, Trump interrupted her six times in a one-minute period for a grand total of 18.

Clinton was forced to explain her use of a private email server as secretary of state. An explanation that was found wanting, “If you did that in the private sector, you’d be put in jail, let alone after getting a subpoena from the United States Congress,” Trump said.

A point he’d go on to repeat. He told Clinton, if he were president, she’d be in jail (keeping Trump in the fine company of leaders who have jailed their opponents such as Putin, Mugabe and Pinochet).

Perhaps, the strangest question was the one that brought the evening (or morning) to a close. An audience member asked the two candidates what they admired most about each other.

“His children,” Clinton deftly answered. Trump called her a fighter saying, “She doesn’t give up. I consider that to be a very good trait.”

However, the many subjects that did not come up were racial tensions in the US, the refugee crisis, gun control and women’s sexual and reproductive rights, despite being the divisive platform for both parties.

As to who won the debate insofar as these things can be considered in such terms? CNN attributes the victory to Clinton, others, to Trump.

Caption: Despite having the look of a Christmas duet, this debate was akin to an underground rap battle, only meaner.

But as to who lost? We did, every one of us who was up, woke up, and stayed up. The US elections continue to hurtle past the point of existing tracks. Nothing has changed, no one’s vote base has dislodged, and one reporter is simply out the cost of cheap gin.

There is a 100% chance that tonight will be a landmark event in the history of televised debates

— Ned Resnikoff (@resnikoff) October 9, 2016

I feel like I’m about to watch whatever the opposite of the moon landing is

— Ned Resnikoff (@resnikoff) October 9, 2016

Faizul Hasan Khan, a twenty-seven-year old research scholar in Sociology department, was yesterday elected as the new President of the Aligarh Muslim Students Union (AMUSU). The polling for the elections was done on October 8 and the results were announced early morning of the next day.

Faizul defeated his closest opponent Abul Farah by nearly 2662 votes while Md. Rizwan remained the last choice. “This is a big victory and I’ll take this opportunity to congratulate the winners. Now that the Union is elected, Faizul along with the other chairpersons should start working on the promises he made”, said Ahmad Mujtaba Faraz, an ex-court member of the Law Faculty, AMU.

Soon after the results were out Faizul Hasan said, “Haan main Faizul Hasan hoon. Haan main aapka sadar hoon. (Yes I am Faizul Hasan. Yes I am your president)”, which was later posted on his Facebook wall as well. His supporters and other students started celebrating after the victory by firing crackers at the Union Hall.

Nadeem Ansari, a student of MSW (Masters of Social Work), was elected as the Vice President of the union. He defeated Kehkashsan Khanam, his closest opponent and also the only female candidate for the chair posts where as MBA (Masters of Business Administration) Nabeel Usmani was elected as the General Secretary who defeated Emran Ghazi.

Also for the first time in AMU was that all three female students contesting for the post of cabinet won. Labiba Sherwani, a BSW (Bachelors of Social Work) was the second most voted candidate for the post of cabinet after Naved Ahmad who now is declared as the senior cabinet.

AMU students this year participated actively in the election and the overall polling was around 70.09 per cent.

students shouting slogans in front of the Dept Of Foreign Languages, AMU.

Supporters of Kehkashan Khanam, the only female candidates for the chair post.

Students and the Halla Bol team asking question to one of the presidential candidate, Abul Farah Shazli.

Students and the Halla Bol team asking questions to Emran Ghazi, contestant for the post of secretary.

Cycles decorated with the posters; all set to be rode for a rally. (Picture – Amirul Jaish)

The cycle rally of Mahfooz Alam proceeds towards Faculty of Management and Research. (Picture- Amirul Jaish)

Vaseel and his supporters, most of them from Kerala, posed for us during a rally.

Bike rally of one of the candidates on a city road.

Another Bike rally exiting out of the campus main gate ‘Bab-e-Syed”.

Nabeel Usmani, a secretary candidate speaking at his Sherwani Poshi.

Supporters of Nabeel Usmani in a rally after his Sherwani Poshi.

Crowd at the final speech of AMUSU 2016-17.

Students, teachers and at The Final Update.

For more stories from AMU, click here.

The situation after the ‘surgical strikes’ on the intervening night of September 28-29 is surreal and bizarre. India conducted deliberate trans-Line of Control (LOC) Special Forces (SF) operations, one to three km deep, to destroy about seven terrorist ‘launch pads’ on a 250-km arch from Kel to Bhimber, inflicting “significant” casualties. India also declared that it had done so through a formal briefing by the Director General of Military Operations (DGMO) — a first apart from the three wars of 1947-48,1965 and 1971. Even in 1999, India maintained the ‘sanctity’ of the LOC.

Pakistan, which is extremely sensitive to any unusual movement of the Indian Army even within India let alone across the LOC, categorically denied that any trans-LOC operations had taken place. Director General Inter Services Public Relations, Lieutenant

General Asim Bajwa, said only heavy trans-LOC firing had taken place in which two Pakistani soldiers were killed in action. One Indian Army soldier belonging to 37 Rashtriya Rifles (RR) who “inadvertently strayed across the LOC” (according to the Indian Army) was “apprehended” as stated by the Pakistan Army.

Pakistan went to the extent of taking domestic and foreign correspondents to the “supposed” launch pads to prove its point. Despite the DGMO, Indian Army, having given only a terse statement in standard military language bereft of any details, the Indian media went berserk speculating how the operations were conducted and the immense damage inflicted. Pakistan responded by ridiculing the claims and asked for evidence to be furnished. The international media reported both the Indian “claims” and Pakistani “doubts”.

Indian public and politicians celebrated the benchmark ‘surgical strikes’ and raised the jingoistic rhetoric to a new high. Posters (allegedly put up by the ruling political party at the Centre) highlighting the retribution inflicted on Pakistan appeared in poll-bound Uttar Pradesh. In response, while unequivocally supporting the surgical strikes, the opposition parties highlighted that similar strikes have been carried out covertly in the past under the policy of ‘strategic restraint’, and further put the ruling party in a bind by asking it to release the evidence to counter Pakistan’s malicious propaganda and international scepticism.

If that was not enough, since September 28/29, three terrorist attacks and a couple of infiltration attempts have taken place in Jammu and Kashmir (J&K).

So, what does one make of this situation?

It is Information Warfare in full play by the strategic decision makers and Armed Forces on both sides. The media, which revels in scoops, ‘inside information’ and free access, had no choice but to report the official version and speculate. On either side, military spokesmen have been economical with words and followed a planned script. The media, including the social media and the public at large, took the bait, hook line and sinker. The resultant confusion notwithstanding, the fallout is that both sides have retained enough manoeuvre space to pursue their long-term strategy.

I had earlier written two columns: “How to solve a problem like Pakistan” on August 2 and “How should India respond to 18/9” on September 21. The former focussed on likely long-term strategies of India and Pakistan in generic terms and the latter in more specific terms after the Uri attack. I recommend that the readers scan these pieces while reading this column.

Pakistan caught off guard

Pakistan, owing to its birth on religious grounds, the deprivation of J&K including the control of river waters and its dismemberment in 1971 considers India as an adversary state. It follows an unambiguous India-centric National Security Strategy backed by military, political and public consensus. Its essential features are:

• Wage a deniable Fourth Generation War (4GW) in J&K and hinterland of India exploiting its fault lines.
• Quid pro quo response to Indian threat below threshold of war in the form of surgical air/drone/missile strikes and Special Forces (SF) operations.
• Control India-sponsored 4GW (as Pakistan perceives it) in Balochistan, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) and the hinterland, and expose it diplomatically.
• Avoid a conventional war and if it is forced upon it, stalemate India with conventional capability, ‘irrational’ nuclear brinkmanship, and actual use of tactical nuclear weapons if required.
• Neutralise India’s influence in Afghanistan by facilitating Taliban’s return to power.
• Back the above strategy with diplomacy and special relationship with China, Islamic countries and the US.

Is Pakistan’s conduct after the surgical strikes in consonance with this strategy? The answer is an unambiguous yes.

Pakistan is used to the Indian Army’s undeclared retributive, trans-LOC operations. It noted with concern the symbolism and import of India’s declared trans-LOC ‘surgical strikes’ on terrorist launch pads. It realised that India was targeting the domestic and international constituency, and also aimed at forcing an irrational response from Pakistan to show that it controls and sponsors the ‘non-state actors’.

Pakistan was taken by surprise. It was focussing on defending its posts and military installations after 18/9. But India struck at unlikely targets. No Indian soldier was killed, no body was left behind. No prisoner of war was taken except the RR soldier who was either part of the support operations or simply a victim of the fog of war. India had also showcased its world-class capability to meticulously execute Special Forces (SF) operations.

Casualties suffered were substantial — 30 to 50 terrorists had been killed (author’s assumption). Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) also noted the anger of the leadership of its proxies, the Lashkar- e-Taiba (LET), Jaish-e-Mohammed (JEM ) and Hizbul Mujahideen (HM) .

Keeping the above in mind, the Pakistan Army re-calibrated its strategy. Bodies of terrorists, all of whom were from Punjab, were removed in haste to be buried later in nondescript villages in Punjab. The local population, which is either ideologically committed or dependent upon the Pakistan Army for jobs, was taken into confidence. The surgical strikes were out rightly denied to prevent India from taking any domestic and international advantage.

Pakistan ridiculed the entire operation and termed it a ‘hoax’. The same line was followed by the Pakistan media and public. To add insult to the injury, it orchestrated three terrorist strikes in J&K and stepped up infiltration, daring India to respond again. In a nutshell, Pakistan has adhered to its strategy and retained all strategic options as highlighted above. It has prevented the situation from escalating and diffused the post-18/9 stand-off by not immediately resorting to a quid pro quo. It perceives that it has called India’s bluff and denied it any domestic or international strategic advantage, and has put it on the back foot to provide evidence of the strikes.

Be that as it may, Pakistan from now on will have to take note of the change in India’s strategy — that India will not hesitate to raise the ante by pre-emptively or reactively countering Pakistan’s 4GW in India, in a calibrated manner with punitive operations across the LOC or the International Boundary — a watershed moment, a paradigm shift in strategy!

India changes the game

In my column dated September 21, I had highlighted India’s options after the 18/9 terrorist attack at Uri:

• Punitive operations below the threshold of war focussed on targets related to prosecution of 4GW by Pakistan.
• Wage a counter 4GW in Pakistan exploiting its fault lines.
• Wage a pre-emptive J&K-centric limited war to compel Pakistan to stop 4GW in J&K and hinterland of India.

I had also highlighted that the first option is a short-term option and the latter two are long-term options. I further emphasised that carrying out punitive operations below the threshold of war was a strategic compulsion to assuage public rage and for the sake of national morale and had to be carried out at the earliest but not later than 10 days.

On the intervening night of September 28/29, exactly 11 days after 18/9, the Indian Army SF struck across the LOC on six/seven terrorist launch pads, destroyed the terrorist infrastructure and inflicted “significant casualties” on terrorists. The operation was meticulously planned and professionally executed. All SF teams de-inducted safely and suffered only one SF soldier who was wounded owing to a mine blast.

Needless to mention that to enable the SF operation, supporting operations were conducted by troops manning the LOC in the form firing and physical containment using patrols and Ghatak Platoons. Having read in detail about all major SF operations over the last 100 years, I have no hesitation in saying that this operation had professionalism written over each and every aspect — political aim, political and military decision making, intelligence, secrecy, choice of targets, conduct and the official statement.

War or use of force as an instrument of policy is always in pursuit of a political aim. India’s long-term political aim is simple — prevent Pakistan from interfering in internal affairs of India through a 4GW and if it does so, maintain good relations for common good. A war of retribution, if it does not compel the adversary to accept peace on your terms, is a war without an aim and serves no purpose. The political aims of the surgical strikes was, however, limited in scope:

• To send a clear signal to the international community that the threshold of India’s patience had been reached to warrant the exercising of hard options and that the onus of exerting diplomatic pressure on Pakistan was on the international community.
• To send a clear signal to Pakistan with respect to the change in India’s strategy and that India will respond to the 4GW in a calibrated manner with punitive operations across the LOC/IB.
• Retribution on Pakistan for terrorist attack on 18/9 with targets restricted to terrorists and their infrastructure.
• Force Pakistan to respond in an irrational manner and raise the ante to inflict more retribution.
• Demonstrate India’s capability for world-class SF operations.
• Assuage public anger and uplift national morale.
• Reap domestic political dividend.

Since 1990, a fair number of proactive or reactive operations have been conducted across the LOC with or without government sanction. However, keeping in view the stated government policy of ‘strategic restraint’, all these operations remained classified. “Alea iacta est — the die is cast,” said Julius Cesar on crossing the Rubicon.

The import of this operation is not in the number of enemy casualties and the infrastructure destroyed or the depth and frontage of the operation or the type of weapons used. It lies in the declaration of India’s intent for dealing with the 4GW perpetrated by Pakistan in the future.

Therein also lies the burden of expectations from the public and the media, which would want a punitive response to every 4GW action of Pakistan. By all counts, this operation so far appears to have been a standalone and one-off operation as a signal of strategic intent and for retribution, and not part of a strategy for progressive escalation to a limited war. This operation was also contingent upon Pakistan’s outrage and irrational response wherein more retribution would have been unleashed on him. However, Pakistan did not oblige.

So, what has India achieved?

• A clear signal of strategic intent to Pakistan that India will respond to the 4GW by punitive operations across the LOC/IB.
• A signal to the international community that India’s threshold of patience has been crossed and the onus is on them to exert economic and political pressure on Pakistan.
• A demonstration of Indian military prowess and ability to conduct world-class SF operations.
• Assuaged public anger and uplifted national morale.
• Demonstrated political will to take hard decisions.

Baton passes from Indian Army to politicians

As opposed to the brilliant SF operation, the political management of the aftermath was an unmitigated disaster. Jingoistic political and public emotions were allowed to run wild. No effort was made to rein in the more-than-compliant media.

To the contrary, it was egged on by the credible and not so credible leaks to raise war hysteria knowing fully well that sooner than later, it will emerge that it was a one-off operation to signal a strategic intent. A junior minister commented on the use of helicopters leading to more speculation. The Raksha Mantri, of all the people, said the Indian Army like Hanuman had awakened to rediscover its prowess. Without any complementary mobilisation of the Armed Forces, the evacuation of villages in Punjab up to 10 km from the international border, made the action politically suspect.

In such situations, only the PM or the RM should make a terse and clear political statement and leave it at that. Political capital was already on the table. Now it is lost in the shrillness of election rhetoric. Pakistan’s smart response and our political frenzy have diluted the gains of this watershed SF operation.

Prognosis

So, are we back to business as usual? The answer is yes, but with a rider that now our response to 4GW will be in the form of calibrated trans LOC/IB operations. These will continue to be at a “time, place, and scale of own choosing” and calibrated according to the situation.

Pakistan’s strategy will see no change. In fact, it perceives the events from September 18 to September 29 as a tactical victory. The probabilities of a limited war that may alter the current impasse are very low. Neither India nor Pakistan has so far shown any inclination to further raise the ante. We are likely to see a quiet period before Pakistan responds in the form of a major terrorist strike. However, in J&K, Pakistan will continue with business as usual, daring India to respond again.

For India, it has gained precious time to formalise its National Security Strategy and initiate long overdue structural and organisational reforms in the Armed Forces, Central Armed Police Forces and the State Police to cater for internal and external threats.

Last but not the least, it was heartening to note the political, public and media support for the Armed Forces. I only hope that it translates into removing the anomalies of the Seventh Pay Commission.

Disclaimer : The information, ideas or opinions appearing in this article are those of the author and do not reflect the views of Newslaundry.com. Newslaundry.com does not assume any responsibility or liability for the same. If the article carries photographs or images, we do not vouch for their authenticity.

Pakistanis are addicted to Bollywood movies. Middle-class families spend holidays and weekends to watch the latest movies coming from across the border. People either go to cinema houses to watch the movie or buy cheap pirated CDs (at Rs 100) from CD shops that dot every locality in the cities of Pakistan. Since Pakistan-India relations have worsened, watching Bollywood movies has become a problem.

As a private initiative, most of the cinema houses announced that they will stop showing Indian movies a few days after Indian Motion Picture Producers Association (IMPPA) banned all Pakistani artistes from working in film projects in India.

Nadeem Mandviwala, who owns nearly a dozen cinemas in Karachi and Islamabad, said he and other distributors have agreed to stop showing Indian films until relations improve, “We will suspend the exhibition of Indian films till normalcy returns,” Nadeem Manviwala announced through a media statement. This was followed by dozens of statements of cinema house owners, which landed in newsrooms, coming from across the country announcing a ban on the screening of Indian movies. The cinema house owners said they wanted to show solidarity with Pakistani military and actors in these troubled times.

Indian movies, however, continue to be a lucrative business in big cities of Pakistan. In a middle-class locality in Islamabad, where I live, a CD shop owner tells me he is still doing brisk business selling Bollywood movies. But all is not good in the business; the biggest center of trading in Bollywood movies in Northern Pakistan is Hall Road Market in Lahore, where the traders staged a protest rally against India and burnt thousands of rupees worth of CDs of Bollywood movies last week. Since Hall Road market is the biggest center of trading in pirated CDs, decision of the traders to stop dealing in Indian movies is going to affect their supply to the CD shops throughout northern Pakistan, “We are still selling Indian movies like hot cakes but from the existing stocks, but we are not receiving new supplies,” says one CD shop owner.

I don’t know how Pakistanis will satiate their love for Indian movies in this emerging situation, but there is always a blacker market of a black market. I discussed this issue with CD shop owner in my locality and he says he would find suppliers, in due course of time, who were ready to break the self-imposed ban. “The desire in the public to see Indian movies is too strong and margin of profit is too huge which suppliers cannot ignore,” he tells me.

The cultural impact of Indian movies on Pakistani society is too strong. For Pakistani middle-class affluent families, fashion trends in Bollywood movies are part of their wedding planner. They dress up like Indian movies stars, dance like them and even ask their hairdressers to style them like Bollywood. Amitabh Bachchan is a household name and drawing room chats often discuss private lives of Bollywood stars regularly reported in the media.

But the love for India stops there; I have often seen (especially during the last three weeks) people in Islamabad and Lahore talking about a military conflict just as they talk about a one-day cricket match with India. Thanks to Pakistan’s overly jingoistic electronic media (which started churning out visual reports about Pakistan ballistic missile programmes since the start of tensions) people have started to talk about Pakistani ‘delivery systems’ (missiles) as if they are talking about cover drive of Pakistani batsman in their match with India.

On a more serious note, though the Nawaz Sharif government, in the early stages of the crisis, was worried about the deteriorating relations, it never perceived the crisis as a serious military threat. Two weeks after the Uri Attack, a senior government told me, “Our military have not detected any large scale military movement on Indian side of the border.” Clearly, in Islamabad, this was not seen as a developing situation.

As the crisis unfolded I interviewed a number of retired civilian diplomats and military officials. One of the senior retired military officials told me that watching the exchange of Pakistani and Indian military officials during last three weeks in the wake of Uri attacks was an exercise in understanding the cryptically phrased words and sentences. “Strong desire in these cryptically phrased sentences was quite discernible to keep the crisis from climbing the escalatory ladder,” he told me.

No transcript of formal exchange of views between Director General Military Operations of Pakistani and Indian army – which is the only and formal contact between military establishments of two countries – are available nor any part of the content of their telephonic conversation during the crisis were revealed to the public or media.

However, military officials of two countries through their public assertions conveyed to each other that they were in no mood of escalating the crisis despite the heat and emotions generated by the Uri attack and the Indian government announcing that its Army had carried out surgical strikes across the Line of Control (LoC).

For instance, military statements emanating from Islamabad, besides brandishing their military prowess, always ended with the additional phrase, “escalation is in nobody’s interest”.

Similarly, Director General Military Operations of the Indian Army indicated a desire not to escalate the crisis by stating that the “operations aimed at neutralising the terrorists” had stopped and that they have no plan to cross the LoC. Military statements emanating from Pakistani side contained more cryptically phrased sentences, which in Islamabad’s thinking had a de-escalatory impact on the “militarily adventurous” minds in New Delhi.

For example a common refrain contained in Islamabad’s military statements was, “We are ready for every kind of response”- which in plain words would mean Islamabad’s readiness to use tactical nukes in case of a conventional attack from across the border.

After the happenings of September 29, the mood became more jingoistic: “We also have the capability to launch a surgical strike,” said Prime Minister Sharif in a statement after presiding over a cabinet meeting that discussed “India’s aggressive posturing”. For a brief period Pakistan’s recalcitrant political parties showed some signs of unity. All of them gathered in the Prime Minister house in Islamabad to condemn, “Indian atrocities in Kashmir and support Kashmiri freedom struggle.”

This unity lasted only for a week, after which they were again at loggerheads, accusing Prime Minister Sharif for being too soft on India. Many in Pakistani opposition parties started to say that India started to commit “atrocities in Kashmir” after Prime Minister Sharif invited Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi to his granddaughters wedding in Lahore last year. “Modi Ka Jo yar ha Ghaddar Ha Ghaddar Ha [whoever is friends with Modi is a traitor],” became the popular slogan among opposition parties in Pakistan.

In fact, there were signs of normal relations between Pakistan and India two years back. Exchange of visits, number of telephonic conversations and exchange of gifts, all heightened the expectations of resumption of a process of dialogue. I recall a conversation with the then Indian High Commissioner, Dr TCA Raghavan in January 2015 at a diplomatic function in Indian High Commission in Islamabad. He told a group of Pakistani journalist (I was present) that Pakistan-India relations are on tipping point and a little push would result in massive improvement in our relations. He made a very interesting revelation that Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and Prime Minister Narendra Modi know each other intuitively and very soon this good rapport will result in tremendous improvement in our relations.

I can’t be certain whether the expectations of normal relations in the diplomatic circles and events happening in Pakistan’s domestic politics are linked in any way. But they were certainly happening at the same time. After Indian Prime Minister’s visit to Lahore, opposition political parties in Pakistan became more venomous in their attacks on Prime Minister Sharif, whose stronghold Punjab is the hotbed of anti-India feelings in Pakistan. With the passage of time Prime Minister Sharif may have realised his mistake of trying to improve relations with India. He started indulging in anti-India rhetoric to retain his power base.

Rhetoric apart, things are complex beneath the surface. A week ago a senior leader of the ruling party and member of parliament, Rana Afzal while speaking in the parliament’s foreign relations committee severely but cryptically criticised the presence of anti-India militant groups in Pakistan’s public life, “What kind of eggs Hafiz Saeed lays that we are pampering him?” he asked during the committee’s meeting convened to discuss rising tensions with India. Afzal’s comments were widely reported in the media and some analysts started to predict that Sharif government might start a fresh crackdown against militant groups.

It appears this would not be enough to pacify the annoyed Indian government in order to bring it back to the negotiating table. However, it is clear, after reactions from political parties in Pakistan, that Prime Minister Sharif would not be able to offer too much to the Indian government as his space or his capacity to act has been severely reduced. Prime Minister Sharif’s instinct to survive will prevail over his long-standing desire to improve relations with India.

Disclaimer : The information, ideas or opinions appearing in this article are those of the author and do not reflect the views of Newslaundry.com. Newslaundry.com does not assume any responsibility or liability for the same. If the article carries photographs or images, we do not vouch for their authenticity.

After decades of pusillanimity, India decides to counter Pakistani terrorism by conducting surgical strikes across the border.

In 1958, Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru wrote to US President Dwight Eisenhower: “[To] make it clear to you how anxious we have been ever since Independence to have normal and friendly relations with Pakistan. We had hoped that the old conflicts and the policy of hatred and violence, pursued by the old Muslim League, which indeed led to the Partition, would cease. It was obviously to the advantage of both countries to live in peace and friendship with each other and devote themselves to their social and economic development … Unfortunately for us and for Pakistan, our hopes were not realised and the Pakistan government continued to pursue that policy of hatred and violence. Every government that comes to power in Pakistan bases itself on this policy of hatred against India.”

Nehru’s plaintive plea passed off as Indian policy toward Pakistan for decades. Since partition in 1947, Indian policymakers sought a hopeful utopia while the rest of the world engaged hardnosed realpolitik and furthered national interests.

URI ATTACK

Gradually, “strategic restraint” became a euphemism for this naive hope. Decades of such a weak and vacuous policy perhaps lulled the Pakistani establishment into disbelieving the director general of military affairs’ (DGMO) announcement about India reserving “the right to respond to any act of the adversary at a time and place of our choosing,” after the attack on the army camp near Uri on September 18, 2016.

Pakistan ignored the new winds of change and did not pay heed to incumbent Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s radio broadcast where he declared: “[The] Indian Army does not talk; they speak through their valor. The Uri attack will not go unpunished.”

On September 29, India crossed the Rubicon when its special forces neutralized terrorist launching pads in Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir (PoK) through surgical strikes. It was retribution for the Uri attack by the Pakistan-backed Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM), a terrorist organization. With this response, India has adopted a new policy of offensive defense and has abandoned the failed policy of strategic restraint.

India has treated the Line of Control (LoC) with sanctity. Even when Pakistan crossed the LoC in 1999 and illegally took up Indian positions in Kargil, Indian troops did not cross the LoC to the Pakistani side. As a result, thousands of young men died in retaking strategic heights occupied by the Pakistanis. Crossing the LoC and besieging these positions made better military sense. However, India was ridiculously wedded to its asinine policy of strategic restraint.

It was via this policy that Nehru first sought the intervention of the United Nations (UN) in 1947. Then, the Indian army was in the ascendant against Pakistan-backed tribal militia and soldiers who attempted to annex Kashmir. Thus, the much-deified Nehru threw away a winning hand and damned India for decades if not centuries.

Never before in the annals of military history did a nation with an upper hand in battle approach a third party for a ceasefire. India’s naive optimism was exploited by Pakistan, who soon refused to adhere to the ceasefire agreement. Far from withdrawing the irregulars and tribal aggressors, it fortified its positions in Kashmir.

Today, Kashmir has become a festering wound for India, which Pakistan continues to exacerbate at will.

Pakistan has launched many invasions of India since 1947. When none of them succeeded, it launched guerrilla warfare against its bigger neighbor. Pakistan has never quite forgotten 1971, and the emergence of Bangladesh as an independent state has filled it with a burning desire for revenge. It has infused the radical idea of jihad as an essential part of the asymmetric war it has waged rather successfully against India.

In 2000, Jessica Stern of Harvard Kennedy School pointed out that South Asia had replaced the Middle East as “the leading locus of terrorism in the world.” Stern wrote: “If madrasahs supply the labor for ‘jihad,’ then wealthy Pakistanis and Arabs around the world supply the capital.” Not much has changed since.

Liberating Kashmir from the kuffar (non-believers) is an essential part of Pakistani jihad. General Zia-ul-Haq, the Islamist military dictator, came up with this idea. In fact, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, his predecessor, had set the ball rolling by slyly appropriating the defense of the entire Muslim world. His dream project of building a nuclear weapon, the so-called “Islamic bomb,” became a national obsession. Buoyed by support from other Muslim nations, Bhutto went on to promise that Pakistan was willing to wage a “1,000-year war” over Kashmir with India.

Fair Observer – World News, Politics, Economics, Business and CultureFair Observer provides you deep and diverse insights for free. Remember that we still have to pay for servers, website maintenance and much more. So, donate now to keep us free, fair and independent.

Zia followed in Bhutto’s footsteps and gave the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) a free hand to unleash mindless violence in Kashmir. During the course of the violence, Kashmiri Pandits were massacred in cold blood and at least 100,000 were compelled to flee. It was ethnic cleansing that the Indian bureaucratic and political elite silently ignored if not condoned.

For years, the Indian response to each attack has been confused and submissive. So-called Indian strategists have been shackled by self-imposed chains of restraint. In contrast, Pakistan has become increasingly belligerent.

In 2001, Pakistan-backed terrorists even attacked India’s parliament. Forces of both countries stood face to face in “masterly inactivity” for nine months before withdrawing to their barracks. In 2008, militants of Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) attacked Mumbai with a savagery that shocked the world and acted as a model for the November 2015 attack in Paris.

The 1998 nuclear tests by both countries emboldened Pakistan. India has adopted a “no first use” policy and also a defensive nuclear deterrence policy. Contrast that with British Prime Minister Theresa May’s willingness to press the nuclear button. Pakistan’s policy is even more aggressive, and it believes that the threat of nuclear war makes India impotent because the country is led by half men and half shadows.

Pakistan has not been wrong in this assumption. Indian leaders have been exceedingly pusillanimous and have constantly given in to nuclear blackmail. Even Modi, supposedly a hawk, made zealous attempts to reach out to Pakistan.

Commendably, he invited Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and other neighboring leaders to his 2014 inauguration ceremony. In 2015, Modi made a last minute detour to Pakistan on his way back from Afghanistan to attend a party in Sharif’s family. He resisted calls from some his hardline supporters for payback against Pakistan. It was a major political gamble for a leader who has sold himself as strong and decisive in all his campaigns.

The Uri attack and Sharif’s subsequent statement at the UN that notorious terrorist Burhan Wani was a “young leader” forced Modi’s hand. It is important to note that the US State Department classifies Wani’s organization, Hizbul Mujahideen, as a terrorist organization. If India was like the United States, it would have killed Wani in a drone strike.

GOOD TERRORIST, BAD TERRORIST

The Pakistani establishment conveniently follows a spurious doctrine of the “good terrorist” and the “bad terrorist” that beggars belief. As per this doctrine, terrorists who strike India or even Afghanistan can be good. The bad terrorists are those who bite the hand that feeds them. India has been paying a steep price in blood for Pakistan’s policy of promoting “good terrorists.”

Pakistan has long funded terrorists in Kashmir because it draws its raison d’être as a state for Muslims of the Indian subcontinent. Yet as Maham Javaid writes at Al Jazeera America, Pakistani soldiers abducted, imprisoned and raped thousands of women in present-day Bangladesh in 1971. The Women’s Media Center chronicles rape camps where women “were raped by anywhere from two to 80 men a night.” Around 200,000 to 400,000 young girls to old grandmothers suffered this ordeal. Naturally, Bangladesh jettisoned Pakistan to emerge as an independent country.

Now, other parts are doing so. Balochistan is trying to gain independence from Pakistan, and Modi rightly referred to the human rights abuses that Pakistani troops perpetrate against Balochis in his Independence Day speech. The Indian foreign minister followed up by labeling Pakistani brutality against the Baloch people as “the worst form of state oppression.” In a speech in the UN, she called on the world to isolate Pakistan because it sponsors terrorism.

The Indian focus on Balochistan is a new-fangled thing. Modi has been moving toward a more robust policy after his outreach to Pakistan failed spectacularly. The surgical strikes mark a new era in India’s policy to Pakistan, which will be more assertive going forward.

Nehru’s strategic restraint is now dead and buried six feet under. Modi has decided that offensive defense is the only way forward.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit: Beyhan Yazar

Disclaimer : The information, ideas or opinions appearing in this article are those of the author and do not reflect the views of Newslaundry.com. Newslaundry.com does not assume any responsibility or liability for the same. If the article carries photographs or images, we do not vouch for their authenticity.

The last one year has been extremely eventful in terms of students’ politics. It might be argued that its after Jay Prakash Narayan’s Sampoorna Kranti Movement, there has been such a massive engagement of students in the affairs of the nation. It started off with the massive strike at the Film and Television Institute of India (FTII) followed by the nationwide Occupy UGC Movement which coincided with the casteist hounding of four Dalit students at the University of Hyderabad (UoH) which ultimately lead to the tragic suicide of Rohith Vemula and finally the fracas at Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU). Students spanning across colleges and universities and regions have spilled out onto the streets voicing their anger against Government policies and highhanded decisions or as in the case of the continuing Pinjra Tod Movement in the colleges of Delhi, against discriminatory administrative decisions.

As the Aligarh Muslim University (AMU), one of India’s oldest University elects its union, it has its work cut out, not only in terms of the issues concerning India’s largest minority population, but also about how it responds and engages with the current state of affairs.

Ever since the ascension of the Narendra Modi led BJP Government, attacks on minorities have been on a rise coupled with hate speeches and religious polarisation. Its quite obvious that the Union and the University students at large given the history of AMU. would (and have) protest on issues such as these. But keeping itself limited to that would be politically naive and inconsequential in terms of alleviating the crises in which we find ourselves today.

For the union to make any meaningful contribution it must engage itself with the politics of solidarity. Along with Muslims, attacks on Dalits in India have also been on a rise, and the politics revolving around the holiness of cows have also been thrust upon them. It would be essential to stand in solidarity with movements such as those being led by Jignesh Mevani in Gujarat. For a state like Gujarat which has seen a stronghold of upper castes in its affairs, and whose politics has revolved around brazen Hindutva, its incredible the kind of Dalit assertion we are seeing. Most importantly, the current Dalit movement in Gujarat does not confine itself to the question of caste or look at it in isolation, but speaks of intersectionalities of various forms of institutionalised injustices in terms of gender, class, land ownership and communalism. Mevani has also repeatedly asserted (through various interviews of his) on the importance of solidarity stating that he would welcome anybody who would join the movement. The AMU Students’ Union (AMUSU) would actually make a meaningful contribution especially in terms of an unified struggle of various oppressed groups.

The other extremely important thing for the AMUSU would be to speak out against the politics of terror. Terrorism is certainly a global problem and every thousands of innocent lives are lost because of it across the world, including in India. However, coupled with it is also the fact that hundreds of innocent young people are framed in false charges, the consequences of which are immeasurable. This is only one among the hundreds of such cases concerning young, innocent citizens of the country, and it is essential to ensure that we fight terror and its perpetrators do not go unpunished, and at the same time we must avoid such massive injustice to our nation’s fellow citizens. It should be the union’s responsibility to work in coordination with various civil rights groups that provide legal help as well as help in rehabilitating victims following their acquital. The previous AMUSU did make certain important interventions in this regard and it would be important for the current union which is to be elected on the 8 to carry this forward.

Finally for a students’ union whose roots lie in a debating club, (the Siddons’ Debating Club had grown into the AMUSU as we know today) it would be essential for it to promote the culture of informed debate and the rights of speech and expression, upon which we have seen some unprecedented attack in recent times. It is worth noting that the first debate organised by the Siddons’ Debating Club was on the question of access of women to education, which was one of the boldest issues to discuss and debate upon in those times.

Keeping those traditions alive the AMUSU must engage with the current problems of the day and look for meaningful political alternatives. Of course it would be politically naive to presume that a University students’ union has the power to set right everything that’s wrong with our country today, but of course with the huge student body that the AMUSU represents, it certainly has the potential to make important interventions that could be built upon in our future course of action.

For more stories from AMU, click here.

On October 5, 2016, CNN-News18 aired a ‘global exclusive’ in which the channel essentially tricked Ghulam Akbar, a police officer in Mirpur, Pakistan occupied Kashmir, into stating that he knew of such a thing as the surgical strikes — conducted by the Indian Army and denied by the Pakistani government.

Newslaundry, by no means, has the resources of CNN-News18 at their disposal. But with our modest means, we decided to surpass CNN-News18 and conduct a ‘universal exclusive’. We tried, we fumbled; but ultimately, all we had to do was ask the right person (in an unconvincing accent): “Aur janab, kya chal raha hai?”

Watch #NLUNIX and find out what!

Samar Khan and Rahul Puri are back with their sporty round-up. This time around they discuss the ISL and its level of sports broadcast – why it is below standard and has the risk of becoming the IPL’s poorer cousin. The also speculate on the futility of the World Cup qualifiers and if it is time to rethink the format. And why Lewis Hamilton, the reigning formula 1 racing champion, is a man we all love to hate and why the one-sided cricket matches between South Africa vs Australia point to a larger problem. All this and more discussed and dissected on this episode.

Listen to #JustSports on iTunes here and Stitcher here

Ever since India retaliated to the attack on the naval base at Uri with surgical strikes, there have been a flood of jingoistic tweets by Twitter users from India and Pakistan, pouring out their heart-felt opinions about the other country. But not all these tweets are about random things that your eyes glaze over — they are tweets, all by male users, about women.

These tweets usually fall into two categories: in the first, men from India casually talk about raping or ‘conquering’ women from the other country, and in the other men in Pakistan take it upon themselves to describe India as a country that wants war, but can’t even take care of its women.

This man, for instance, has tweeted, “india should just pay some delhites to go to pakistan and rape their women #allahisgay #uriattacks #nukepakistan”. This isn’t his only tweet. Amidst a very proud declaration about being the first Indian to complete Pokedex in the UK, he also has a series of tweets that not only encourage war with Pakistan, but also say, “countries should join hands to rape all pakistani women and kill their terrorist children. but wait they are ugly as fuck #nukepakistan”.

These tweets are incredibly violent and disturbing and it’s worrying that they seem like an automatic response — I remember another, in which a man tweeted that the only things worth conquering from Pakistan were Pakistani women and Coke Studio.

In another case, a man who tweeted that Indians should “count your days” because the country will be nuked by the Pakistan army, received a response from an Indian woman who said she was scared by this. The man responded with this amazing tweet, “You don’t have to be. There is a beauty filter in our nuke missiles. It’ll not damage the beautiful things in India.”

This approach to women as property, beautiful things or commodities without agency who can just be ‘conquered’ continues to depict women as spoils of war — as people who simply come with the deal. It’s as though there’s an understanding that in the middle of debates on war or terrorism, there is ownership over women.

Even the statement by a man who thought he made an apparently smooth response to the woman by telling her that beautiful things in India would be spared has this inbuilt sense. Rape becomes a threat not only to women, but has also become tied to the honour of countries, where men must be protecting ‘their’ women. When one country loses, this ownership of women is automatically and unquestionably transferred to the winners, who are free to treat women in any way that they please, and hence also destroying the honour of a nation.

It’s also the same thought that allows a man to tweet, “how do you think Sati became a norm in India??? Invaders would rape our women. They’d rather burn themselves,” and leave no space for women to speak.

There is, for instance, a tweet from what seems to be a Pakistani handle that has been shared multiple times with the hashtag #TweetLikeIndianMedia. It has the image of a woman wearing a sari that is the Indian flag (because Mother India), and a politician is pulling it off. An arms dealer is forcing the same woman to come closer to him, and a bureaucrat is running his finger up her leg, with his tongue sticking out. A man from the mining mafia is looking into her purse. The caption of the image is ‘Rape Public of India’. All the men tweeting this image say, “This is the situation of women in India and they want wars with Pakistan?”

Every tweet by an Indian man (like this one, making fun of the lack of electricity in Pakistan), is responded to with a smug jibe (like this one) about rape in India. In another one, there is an outline of the map of India, with a women cowering and crying in the centre of it.

Of course, there is no way of comparing the number of rape cases in India and Pakistan, and this isn’t even the point — these conversations are so hyper-masculine, with men assuming a position of authority, and discussing women in this game of one-upmanship, in proving that their country is indeed better. They do this in jokes, in throw-away lines, as though this is enough to override the idea that they, whichever country they happen to have been born in, consider women to be nothing more than transferrable objects.

Tangled somewhere in the middle of all this is also the complicated dynamic of countries being seen as feminine – as has always been done, and as we saw in the case of the meme on the ‘Rape Public of India’. This was also glaringly apparent in the title of Leslee Udwin’s documentary India’s Daughter. Why should we call Jyoti Singh “India’s daughter”? Sometimes it seems as though the only way we know how to respond to rape is by making women someone’s daughter, or by deifying her, rather than seeing her as her own person.

This is the same idea that is present when people talk about sending ‘our men’ to go and rape ‘their women’, or ‘their men’ talk about coming to rape ‘our women’ — it sounds like the kind of trash talk that we hear at sports matches. And in the midst of all this, several women on both sides are calling for peace — this Facebook post by a woman in Pakistan, for instance, was picked up by the media as a call for peace.

We try to neatly tie up women, the nation, assault, power, and terrorism, where countries take precedence, and in the meantime the lives of women and the realities of sexual assault become less important. The women are evidently missing from this kind of conversation, and yet they become spoils of war.

Disclaimer : The information, ideas or opinions appearing in this article are those of the author and do not reflect the views of Newslaundry.com. Newslaundry.com does not assume any responsibility or liability for the same. If the article carries photographs or images, we do not vouch for their authenticity.

Pakistan should immediately lift the travel ban imposed on columnist Cyril Almeida of the independent daily newspaper Dawn.

Almeida was notified on Monday that he’d been placed on Pakistan’s “exit control list” following publication of an article in the newspaper describing a clash between the civilian government of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and the military, according to press reports. The ban came a day before Almeida was due to leave the country for a vacation with his family in Dubai.

“Pakistan can be a dangerous place for journalists, but the nation has a proud tradition of a fiercely independent press,” said CPJ Asia Program Coordinator Steven Butler. “Unhappiness with a press report should never be used as an excuse to restrict the freedom of a journalist.”

Almeida’s report described a confrontation in which civilian leaders warned the military that the country faced international isolation unless the military cracked down on Islamist groups, including the Haqqani network, which is active in Afghanistan, and Lashkar-e-Taiba, which is blamed for the 2008 Mumbai attacks, and Jaish-e-Muhammad, which is linked to attacks in Kashmir. According to the article, Sharif’s younger brother, Shahbaz Sharif, the chief minister of Punjab province, accused the military of working to free militants who’d been arrested by civilian authorities.

Dawn has published government denials of the story but maintains the accuracy of its reporting. An editorial note published by the paper states that Dawn “considers it a sacred oath to its readers to pursue its reporting fairly, independently and, above all, accurately. The story that has been rejected by Prime Minister’s Office as a fabrication was verified, cross-checked and fact-checked.”

Commenting on the travel ban yesterday, Almeida tweeted, “Puzzled, saddened. Had no intention of going anywhere; this is my home. Pakistan.”

Disclaimer : The information, ideas or opinions appearing in this article are those of the author and do not reflect the views of Newslaundry.com. Newslaundry.com does not assume any responsibility or liability for the same. If the article carries photographs or images, we do not vouch for their authenticity.

Sometimes a book can remind you of a song; not a quote, a movie, or even another book, but a powerful, ever-lasting number. Though in the case of Kashmir: Virasat Aur Siyasat (published in Hindi by Anamika Publishers), it was a mash-up of a very famous quote and a song that played on loop in my head. The book was launched on October 8 at Constitution Club, though the author, renowned journalist Urmilesh, refused to call it a book launch.

It was the 92 day of unrest in the valley since Burhan Wani’s killing. The book was also launched on a day when another teenager had been killed, this time, succumbing to pellet injuries, with the death toll rising to 91. And it was a day after Shah Faesal, the first Kashmiri to top the coveted Indian Administrative Services exam, wrote a facebook post which went viral, “I am director of shut schools, I need a job.”

Much has been written about the launch event, which was high powered and well attended, hence I shall discuss the book with least spoilers.

In a poignant yet apt manner, emperor Jehangir’s quote, Gar firdaus bar-rue zamin ast, hami asto, hamin asto, hamin ast (If there is a heaven on earth, it’s here, it’s here, it’s here), merged together with Phil Collins’ Grammy winner Another Day in Paradise in my head.

The book is the second offering on Kashmir by Urmilesh, after his travelogue Jhelum Kinare Dahaktey Chinar, which won him the Hindi Academy Award. Urmilesh started his Kashmir reportage, like many others, during the Kargil war of 1999. But he has been going back to the state since and engaged with it, its fault lines, its institutions and its people. The first edition of Kashmir: Virasat Aur Siyasat was published in 2006. The current edition comes with two additional chapters in hardback cover.

Currently, as our sabre-rattling is at its peak and jingoism is passing off as journalism on both sides of the border, Kashmir is the reference point for nationalism. In such times, the book makes a strong case for historicity, perspective, empathy and engagement. It challenges the dominant narratives on Kashmir- the portrayal of a homogenous Kashmiri. It shines a light on the many Kashmiris with their many aspirations, the pacifist Kashmiri, the separatist Kashmiri, the Kashmiri who is the victim of militancy, the Kashmiri who is victim of state militarisation, the militant Kashmiri, the Kashmiri who is part of the state machinery, and the Kashmiri calling for self-determination.

The book is expansive in scope, from the accession, Shiekh Abdullah’s leadership, through Article 370 and its centrality, to 1989 and militancy to militarisation and via 2010 unrest till today when the fault-lines are becoming so deep that talking with each other is becoming harder and talking at each other, the norm. The chapter dealing with Sheikh Abdullah’s arrest and the dismissal of his government elaborately deals with the issues that many observers feel, led to the Kashmir crisis. It describes the realpolitik of Sheikh Abdullah’s engagement, dialogue and accession. This book is a corrective intervention to re-telling of history that is rampant today where Sheikh Abdullah is routinely portrayed as the antagonist.

The timing of the book is perfect. It comes at a time when war-mongering is at its peak and normalisation of relations with Pakistan a distant possibility. In the chapter, “Kashmir through partition and accession”, the description of Mahatma Gandhi’s first visit to Kashmir is instructive. According to Urmilesh, if the then-leadership had paid heed to Gandhiji’s views on the state and its future with the seriousness it deserved, then the Kashmir problem would not have been the festering wound that it is now.

The book details four critical occasions when India and Pakistan seemed close to reaching a solution to Kashmir issue, with Dr Manmohan Singh’s tenure being one of the critical phases. Alas, Singh didn’t get the support from his own party that he needed. Against the realpolitik of six parliamentary seats of Jammu Kashmir versus 500+ seats of rest of India made a frank, open dialogue with trust and imagination impossible.

Considering Urmilesh’s show Media Manthan on Rajya Sabha TV, is the only dedicated media watch programme on national television, it is appropriate that the book has a new chapter on the narratives of the Kashmir conundrum in mainstream media, especially the TRP chasing, Hindi heartland media where anti-Pakistan prism has always been the dominant rhetoric. The chapter offers an insightful perspective of what such hyper-nationalism, from the safety of studios does to finding a peaceful and lasting solution that works for all.

In our current times when TV studios are making war-room dioramas for anchors to play with and news-casters come in battle fatigues to discuss military options to the Indo-Pak issue and retired military personnel are amping up the belligerence, this book makes an unrelenting case for calm, the need to understand the problem with historical and fact-based perspective, engage with real Kashmiris and talk with them, not at them.

It also flags the crippling dangers of hyperbole in finding any solution to Kashmir, Indo-Pak relations ever. This is a necessary red-flag, considering the latest Nobel Peace Prize to Columbian President Juan Manuel Santos is also under scanner for hurting, rather than helping, the cause of peace, especially when the opponents i.e. the FARC rebels are not part of the peace prize (it takes two to tango and both sides to make peace, and awarding the Nobel to only one side, especially when the peace deal has lost popular vote in Columbia also wore off some shine of the Nobel). And Shah Faesal has already pleaded for the need to protect national interest from the national media, the self-appointed vigilantes of the national interest………..in jingoistic TV studios. So if a Nobel peace prize can hurt so much, imagine the damage hateful journalism, one-sided narratives, reductionist binaries can inflict. And that is a caution aptly made in the new chapter of the book.

There can never be a wrong time to plea for sanity, as this book displays. Considering RSS leader Indresh Kumar has also called upon the central and state governments to engage with stone-pelters and misguided militants, the point cannot be emphasised enough.

This book is an essential reading, in our current times of false binaries, othering of Kashmiris and newsroom noise.

My only complaint, considering the book is an offering from a man who hosts India’s only dedicated media watch show on TV, it would have been good to know of the stand-out examples of balanced and nuanced reportage in Hindi on Kashmir. And if there were no such example, then the reader needs to be informed of that as well. This is especially important, considering there are examples of sterling reportage in conflict situations too, like Gideon Levy did for Haaretz in 2014 during the peak of Israeli bombardment of Gaza Strip.

Going back to Phil Collins’ Another Day in Paradise, the song is here. Lines that particularly speak to the current situation, the lack of empathetic engagement, both with the pellet-gun injured Kashmiri and with our soldiers at the frontline:

……………………She calls out to the man on the street 
He can see she’s been crying 
She’s got blisters on the soles of her feet 
She can’t walk but she’s trying 

Oh think twice, ’cause it’s another day for you and me in paradise 
Oh think twice, it’s just another day for you, 
You and me in paradise, think about it……………..

Kashmir: Virasat Aur Siyasat is published by Anamika Publishers and Distributors Private Limited and can be found here.

Disclaimer : The information, ideas or opinions appearing in this article are those of the author and do not reflect the views of Newslaundry.com. Newslaundry.com does not assume any responsibility or liability for the same. If the article carries photographs or images, we do not vouch for their authenticity.

The state of Haryana is leading a movement in medical science that few are aware of.

The state is providing treatment of Hepatitis C (Hep C) at an unprecedented low cost. The 12-week Hep C treatment at All India Institute of Medical Science, Delhi is Rs 60,000, excluding diagnostic tests — which can cost anywhere between Rs 5,000 to Rs 15,000 on multiple occasions. In Haryana the same treatment is priced at Rs 18,600, inclusive of tests.

How is this possible? The answer is a conscientious doctor, a supportive state government and (surprisingly) free market competition.

Ground Zero: PGIMS Rohtak

A clean, sterile ambience pervaded Ward number 33 of the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences (PGIMS), Rohtak on the late afternoon of October 4. Posters with supportive faces promise solidarity with patients in fighting Kala Peeliya (Hep C).

This wasn’t always the scene. Till 2010, PGIMS Rohtak did not treat Hep C patients at all. Patients were referred to mostly Delhi. Now, six years later, the institute gets approximately 20-25 Hep C patients every day, according to Dr Praveen Malhotra, Head of Hepatology at the institute. He was also the one to start the department in PGIMS Rohtak in 2010.

“Hep C is a lower middle and lower class disease. As the price of treatment dropped, the number of patients increased,” Malhotra told Newslaundry. Of all the approaches Malhotra adopted in fighting the disease, his efforts in reducing the treatment cost have been one of the most fruitful.

Initially, the medicine of choice for the Hep C was Pegylated interferon. Each injection of interferon cost Rs 16,500. The 24-week treatment, with an injection everyday, costs patients around Rs 2 lakh. Apart from the cost, interferon had side effects ranging from high fever, weakness, sexual impotence to sugar problems, hair-fall and thyroid issues.

“Things changed with the generic release of the miracle drug Sofosbuvir in India. It was the game changer,” Malhotra explained.

The Haryana state government also played its part. When the Hep C rate, in a small sample of 7,500 people in Haryana (there are 10-12 million Hep C patients in India), was found to be 10 per cent, the government launched the “Jeevan Rekha” scheme.

“This scheme deals with the treatment of Hep C. Under Jeevan Rekha we provide free drugs to Schedule Caste and below poverty line patients and drugs for general category is subsidized to the price at which we buy them from companies,” Dr Aparajita, Deputy Director of Health Services of Haryana told Newslaundry.PGIMS Rohtak was made the nodal centre for starting the scheme.

Many have benefited from the scheme. “Jindal Hospital wanted Rs 6 lakh for my wife’s treatment,” Rajesh Kumar said. A tailor by profession, he could not afford the private treatment. His wife was treated for free in PGIMS Rohtak under the Jeevan Rekha scheme.

But the journey of Sofosbuvir was not without its bumps.

The cost of saving a life

After years of research, in 2013, an oral drug for Hepatitis C with 99.5 per cent success rate was created —Sofosbuvir.

A US pharmaceutical company Gilead Sciences, had filed a patent application for Sofosbuvir, also known as “sofo,” which it sold under the brand name Sovaldi.In March 2015, the company decided to enter into a generic licensing agreement with an Indian pharmaceutical company, Hetero.But Gilead had come under sharp criticism for the price it was charging: Sovaldi was launched in the United States at $1,000 per pill, or $84,000 for the course of the 12-week treatement.

Step two in democratising the elite drug came with the release of Sof ledi and Sof daclatasvir on December 20, 2015. The two drugs were combinations of sofosbuvir (400 mg) with ledipasvir(90 mg) and daclatasvir(60 mg). They were released in India at Rs 25,000. In Gurgaon its price was Rs 21,000. But this was nowhere near the price at which they were launched at in the rest of the state — Rs 14,000.

Now, the price of the same tablets have come down to just Rs 6,200. Malhotra explained,”We made it clear that the company which will give the drug for the cheapest amount will get the tender.”

“Every company has its policies for pricing drugs in a territory, which are confidential,” a medical representative of Hetero Drugs told Newslaundry on condition of anonymity. Hetero Drugs manufactures Sofosbuvir in India. “In Haryana, the prices are low mostly because of government policies and efforts of Dr Malhotra of PGIMS Rohtak,” he added.

In fact, Haryana worked on the well-known principle of free market competition, in one of the very rare instances where it has helped the consumers.

The government buys drugs from pharmaceutical companies at bulk rates for which tenders are issued. As economy of scale kicks in, pharma companies sell the drugs on cheaper rates to the government. Malhotra’s strategy to pit one company against other in terms of cost made drugs cheaper still. From Rs 14,000 to Rs 12,000, then to Rs 8,000 and now finally the prices are less than half and stand at Rs 6,200.

But the process didn’t end with this. Under the Jeevan Rekha scheme even the diagnostic tests are free for patients. The expense is borne by the pharmaceutical company. In fact, according to Dr Aparajita the prices are going to go down further.

In any case, the treatment is the cheapest in India and possibly the world.

How to save a life

“Nowhere in the country is the public healthcare system treating Hep C,” Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) South Asia Access Campaign Head, Leena Menghaney told Newslaundry, adding, “In this sense, what PGIMS Rohtak has done in India, is absolutely revolutionary.”

According to her, what Haryana has done is to adopt a people’s rights approach to Hep C.

“The critical illness fund in Manipur was used to reimburse cost of treatment to a few people. Similarly in other places, people appealed to health departments and some patients were able to get help,” Menghaney said, emphasising that PGIMS Rohtak’s success lies in making the treatment available at affordable prices to people.

Apart from reducing the cost, a lot of effort has gone in to create awareness about the disease.

“People did not report the disease because it is very similar to HIV,” Malhotra explained. “We have countered that by creating teams of cheerleaders like in cricket matches.”Patients who have undergone successful treatment spread awareness about the disease.

In fact, Rajesh Kumar is one of the cheerleaders. “Since my wife’s successful treatment I have been spreading awareness about the disease. I take people to PGIMS for treatment,” he said. With Kumar’s help, more than 200 patients from his area have been treated. And that too, for free.

Haryana’s journey from a region that did not treat Hep C, to being the model in the fight against the disease is remarkable. And the effort is ongoing.

“Within two months, we will expand Jeevan Rekha scheme to include other hospitals also,” Aparajita said.

Since Monika Ghurde’s murder on October 6, every media outlet in the country has rushed to ‘cover’ the case. She was a 39-year-old woman, a former photographer who subsequently switched careers to specialise in perfume design. She held olfactory workshops through her company MoLabs, had collaborated with eminent designers like Satya Paul and Christian Louboutin, and was living on her own in Sangolda village, Goa.

What several headlines initially chose to highlight about her horrific death in her apartment, however, was the dubious detail of her nudity. “Naked, bound body of celeb perfumer found at Goa home, rape suspected” – Mid-day; “Perfume designer’s body found in Goa flat with hands, legs tied to bed” – New Indian Express; “Perfumer Monika Ghurde murdered, naked body found at Goa home” – Hindustan Times; “Perfumer Monika Ghurde murdered at Goa residence, body found naked with hands, feet tied up” – India.com; “Goa Perfumer Found Dead In Apartment, Her Hands Tied To Bed” – NDTV.

Headlines are meant to be concise summaries of the facts of a report, but even by the standards of our sensationalist times, there was a particularly disturbing quality to these headlines’ deployment of phrases with pornographic undertones in this case. And while these attention-grabbing tactics are routine by now, it’s also important to note that some media have begun to pay attention to facts rather than sensation.      An article in The Hindu said that her body was found “partially clothed”, an expression that Firstpost, The Quint, Business Standard, One India, The Indian Express, Big News Network and others subsequently used while reporting this case.

More details about the case emerged after Rajkumar Singh, a former security guard in Ghurde’s building, was arrested in connection with her murder on October 9.

Interrogations are ongoing and on October 11, news reports said he has admitted to having undressed her to film and later blackmail her.

An article by Bikram Ghosh in Firstpost made salient points deploring the sleazy depictions of the murder in the press, and highlighted the impact that the media’s disclosure of graphic details (even before an autopsy report) might have on Ghurde’s family and friends. Social media users have expressed similar thoughts that were featured in an article on The Quint about crass media coverage, whole another piece on Scroll by Nupur D’Souza pointed out the free-for-all manner in which anonymous sources were cited for unverified details about Ghurde’s life.

Beyond these factual problems with the media’s reporting, however, there lies the upside down reasoning of patriarchal protection. One example might be from this collection of the public’s outrage, where one indignant man deemed it an issue of protecting Ghurde’s modesty: “Looks like our TRP hungry media has forgot that they are writing about a lady. I am sure, had this been a boy they wud hv never bothered to write abt the state (whether dressed or not).” This is not really true either, of course. Just one example might be how NDTV did sensationalise an incident where an elderly man was murdered earlier this year — “Delhi Journalist Finds Father’s Body in Pool of Blood”.

Either way, people seem to be missing the point about why the media should not use salacious, often untrue phrasing to report violence against women. The idea is to desist from such phrasing for the sake of truth and verity, rather than for the sake of prudishness about a ‘lady’s’ modesty.

Crude headlines are not the end of it. On October 11, the media reported Singh’s admission to having raped Ghurde, but the results of forensic enquiries are still pending. News outlets, however, rushed to report suspicions of rape days before any of this.

Additionally, even when the media has tried to engage with the incident in depth, some tributes to her have been ridiculous at worst and irrelevant at best. A One India article with the headline “Scent of a Woman: Murdered perfumer Monika Ghurde was passionate about her art” begins by exoticising her profession as a perfume specialist, and describes “Monika’s love for everything that smells sweet to the senses”. It goes on to conclude, somewhat disingenuously, that “there was nothing ‘aromatic’ about the way her life came to an end.”

One of the most inane and insensitive pieces on this case, one that goes much beyond just a bad headline, has been by the literary novelist Siddharth Dhanvant Shanghvi. In an obituary published in Mumbai Mirror, Shanghvi admits that he wasn’t a friend of Ghurde’s but this doesn’t restrain him from improvising – he freely recreates the scene of the murder at a point when barely anything was known about the circumstances of Ghurde’s death.

On October 8, much before any of the details had emerged from the security guard’s confession (such as evidence pointing to a scuffle where Ghurde was smothered), Shanghvi had already constructed a neat little saccharine dream about her “brave, beautiful fight” that he assumed she put up during the assault. This was apparently based on information he got from a friend about the state of her apartment.

The writer goes on to insinuate that Ghurde was a social climber: he admits that her “social ambitions” scared him, adds an irrelevant detail about witnessing Ghurde “coming into her own” only after her divorce from a “kind, older man”, and does not mention her photography career.

He then goes on to conflate her case with that of Jyoti Singh, the victim of the infamous 2012 Delhi gang-rape: “But here, so far away, I can hear both their screams, the screams of rage and disbelief, the screams of torment, and anguish, and I can hear the brave, beautiful fight both women would have put up.”

Shanghvi’s faux-poetic flights of fancy make apparent the limitations of our engagement with such incidents. Why is there such an urgent need to present an inspirational “she fought back” narrative without any substantial corroboration of fact, to make the victim sound fierce enough and brave enough so that her trajectory and its tragic end look like a tidy graph?

Contrast this to a short obituary published in Vogue that proved to be far more sensitive and chose to talk about Ghurde’s extensive professional achievements rather than mention invasive (and phantom) details about her life and death. The bottom line is that among all the half-truths of hasty headlines and the titillation of absentee facts, very little has stopped our media from turning Ghurde’s death into a macabre spectacle.

Disclaimer : The information, ideas or opinions appearing in this article are those of the author and do not reflect the views of Newslaundry.com. Newslaundry.com does not assume any responsibility or liability for the same. If the article carries photographs or images, we do not vouch for their authenticity.