** Mufti vs. Missionaries

http://www.tehelka.com/story_main51.asp?filename=Ne040212INCOLDBLOOD.asp

‘People will act if the state fails to stop conversion’ 

Riyaz Wani

Kashmir’s Grand Mufti Bashir-ud-Din tells Riyaz Wani that missionary activities have to be halted to ensure communal harmony.

The Sharia court headed by you has passed strictures against alleged missionary activity in the Valley. What was the provocation?
Yes. We want the three Christian priests, MC Khanna, Jim Borst and Gayoor Messah, who have been involved in conversions, to leave the Valley immediately. We are still investigating the case against the principal of Tyndale Biscoe School, Parvez Samuel Koul, and we will soon announce the judgment on him.

The Sharia court has also decreed that the state government involve itself in the management of the missionary schools. Besides, we also want a prayer written by Sir Muhammad Iqbal to be read in these schools and a class allotted for Islamic studies.

You say that missionaries are forcibly converting people. What is the proof?
They use methods that force people to convert. There are several missionary agencies charged with harvesting souls for Christianity. People are deployed outside schools to lure students. They usually start with impressionable children or vulnerable people with problems and offer solutions. We also have reports that during the 2005 earthquake, Christian missionaries built houses worth Rs 7.5 crore and they were given to people who were willing to convert. Our Sharia court is still investigating the matter.

But will the Sharia court be able to execute its decisions?
Yes, if there has to be communal harmony in Kashmir, then the decisions of the Sharia court have to be implemented. Kashmir is a very sensitive state. We already have problems of our own, of a very complicated kind at that. So we hope the government will carry out the court judgment. It would be for the good of the state.

Is there any way the Sharia court can ensure that its orders are implemented?
If the state government doesn’t fulfil its obligation, then the people of the state will do it for themselves. In fact, the people are waiting to see what the government does. And if it fails to act, then the people will act.

What will you do if there is violence?
That is why we are warning the government in advance. In case the government fails to do its duty, things can go out of our hand. Violence is but natural under the circumstances. We are not for violence and want it averted. So, in the interest of peace and communal harmony in the state, we feel the missionary activities need to be stopped forthwith.

What is the number of converts in the Valley?
In the course of our investigation, Khanna said that 10 people have converted. He would have revealed more but he was arrested soon. We questioned many persons who had first converted and then returned to the Islamic faith. In fact, it is their account that has helped us understand the full scope of missionary activity in the Valley. We learnt that the persons who convert are given money, all their needs are met, they are taken to California, provided accommodation and jobs and settled there.

How will you deal with those who have converted and won’t return to their original faith?
I call upon them to return and revive their faith in Islam. And if they don’t, then we will respond in the light of what Islam says on apostasy.

Riyaz Wani is a Special Correspondent with Tehelka. 

** Lokpal: A divisive agenda

 A divisive agenda in guise of Lokpal

DailyPioneer-  Swapan Dasgupta

If the Congress had chosen to emulate the Samajwadi Party, the RJD and the Shiv Sena and declared itself against the very idea of an all-powerful Lokpal, it would have earned the grudging respect of many Indians.

 That the heart and soul of the Congress is not with a truly draconian Lokpal Bill as favoured by Anna Hazare and his sanctimonious claque is an open secret. It is also understandable that the Congress doesn’t want to take any effective steps that would make its use of discretionary powers answerable to some empowered ombudsman. Having exercised power for too long, the Congress genuinely believes that it is the natural party of Government. It is wary of curbs to its authority and, worse, an injection of the principle of accountability.Subterfuge has been the Congress’ signature tune in dealing with the unexpected euphoria around Anna Hazare and his Jan Lokpal proposals. From trying to intimidate Anna, to launching its dirty tricks campaign, the Congress did its utmost to see that the movement against corruption didn’t become a prairie fire. In this endeavour it was partially successful: Thanks to unending prevarication and foot-dragging, the Lokpal issue became somewhat of a bore.

The Congress’ manoeuvres against the Lokpal proposals were a part and parcel of politics. People may or may not have liked it but few could deny that it was part of a normal political game — and the reason why politics is regarded as ethically suspect. Last Thursday, however, the Congress went a step too far. In seeking to divert attention from the inadequacies of the Lokpal Bill introduced in Parliament, the party proffered the mother of all distractions: A quota-based Lokpal.

Those familiar with history will recall that VP Singh announced the implementation of the Mandal Commission report in 1990 because he wanted to puncture a mammoth kisan rally that Devi Lal had convened in Delhi. A momentous decision with far-reaching consequences was taken for the flimsiest of reasons. This time too, the founding fathers’ abhorrence of organising public life on religious lines — they had just experienced the devastation of Partition — was casually discarded because the Congress wants to come in third place in the Uttar Pradesh Assembly election.

The results of springing the quota rabbit from the top hat were exactly as the Congress intended. The focus shifted from corruption and the ways to fight it to identity politics, particularly the issue of religion-based reservation for minorities. The BJP went ballistic over the minority quota whereas Mulayam Singh Yadav and Lalu Prasad Yadav forgot their objections to Lokpal and embraced the return of the Communal Award. Read with the introduction of the 4.5 per cent quota for minorities from the 27 per cent OBC share of reserved jobs and college admissions, last Thursday was a landmark in contemporary history. It was the day the political assumptions of the 1950 Constitution were thrown overboard by a cynical political class.

It is possible that the formal introduction of religious quotas may take a while. There is certain to be a judicial challenge to the Cabinet decision and this in turn will have a bearing on the final shape of the Lokpal Bill. The Mandal Commission too took many years before the implementation got under way and the Muslim quota (let’s face it, it’s really about a Muslim quota) will probably be the subject of prolonged litigation and, maybe, even a Constitution amendment.

The passage of the proposal will be protracted but what is not in any serious doubt is that a clear majority of MPs favour minority reservations and will be reluctant to oppose it in public. In short, the ideological and political battle over religion-based quotas has been lost even before the battle has begun.

The reasons are well known. For the past decade at least politicians in the Muslim community have mounted a spirited campaign for Muslim reservations on the grounds of natural justice. Regardless of the merits or otherwise of the proposal, what is extremely clear is that those who favour it are better organised to leverage their numbers during elections. Tactical voting has given the Muslim community a clout disproportionate to their numbers.

On the other hand, there is nothing that can actually be called a countervailing Hindu vote. Although the Ayodhya years were an exception, Hindus by and large are disinclined to vote as Hindus — they vote along class, caste and other lines but not on the basis of their Hindu identity. This naturally means that canny politicians don’t have to really bother about any reaction to minority appeasement strategies. The Muslim vote is far more purposeful.

Unless nationalist India awakens from its slumber, the country is faced with a potentially divisive agenda. If the religious quota secures judicial and political approval, it will only be a matter of time before there are demands for religious quotas in the judiciary, the UPSC, Comptroller and Auditor-General’s office and even university departments. To talk of the balkanisation of India is woefully premature but it would be safe to assume that the emotional balkanisation process is in an advanced state. There is an Indian identity that still holds its own, but it is only a matter of time before particularist identities overwhelm it.

I hope I am horribly wrong, but for India, the Lokpal Bill may turn out to be a costly misadventure.    Source

1)  Stalling Parliament  2) Lokpal Quota ???

** What India Needs:Rediff

Why India needs a leader like Narendra Modi

Shashi Shekhar

Rediff

‘Let us start the debate in 2012 in favour of a directly elected executive with a civil society-based Electoral College as a check for a directly elected strong leader in the mould of a Narendra Modi which serves the national interest far more than an indirectly selected, weak but acceptable prime minister,’ argues Shashi Shekhar.

It may be odd to draft an ‘apolitical agenda’ for politics in 2012, but the manner in which politics conducted itself during 2011 gives us good reason to do so. During 2011 there was more agenda setting outside the government and political parties than from the inside.

The nebulous entity called ‘civil society’ asserted itself in a manner never seen before to break new ground in what has come to be described as the ‘pre-legislative’ consultation process.

If the UPA stood guilty of the original crime of having institutionalised this process through the ‘National Advisory Council’, the BJP and the rest of the Opposition stand guilty of having hopped on the ‘civil society’ bandwagon on the Lokpal issue.

‘Civil society’ activism is viewed by many as a potent vehicle for mobilising and polarising public opinion on policy debates that have in the past bypassed much of popular consciousness.

In reality, however, civil society is a micro-minority with a loud megaphone. Its nuisance value has assumed a proportion where it can no longer be ignored by government and political opposition alike. Its limitations are such that its agenda cannot really get ahead of the political realities of the day as has been evident from the Lokpal debate.

As we enter 2012 we are faced with a curious choice between a shallow political culture where political parties barely invest in enlightened policy making or citizen engagement and a disconnected civil society that barely understands how to navigate around political realities.

Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi made a very perceptive observation in his New Year blog post on the governance deficit and policy paralysis during 2011. Reflecting the same concern some on the other side of the political divide like former minister and the Congress MP from Thiruvananthapuram Shashi Tharoor [ Images ] made a forceful argument calling for a directly elected executive.

On the political margins of this debate you have civil society activist Arvind Kejriwal calling for direct elections of a different kind where referenda on specific issues set the legislative agenda between the five year election cycle.

Between the fears over a strong and directly elected executive and the chaos and anarchy of direct democracy a common ground must be found that helps us overcome the governance deficit and the policy paralysis to help further an agenda for what Narendra Modi describes as the economic opportunity created by the crisis over Western capitalism.

Hence this ‘apolitical agenda’ for politics in 2012 hoping that debate begins in the earnest on remaking our democracy where navigating political realities no longer becomes an excuse for not delivering on governance or for persisting with paralysis on key reforms.

A Constitutional remaking of the executive to be elected directly with new Constitutional space for ‘civil society’ through an electoral college could be key elements of such an agenda.

There are many formulations already in the public domain for how the executive may be directly elected. Shashi Tharoor in his essay in Tehelka showed a preference for the French model over the American model. This columnist in another proposal has called for adding a single non-voting seat to every legislature with the entire state or country being the constituency that this non-voting seat represents.

No matter which method is employed towards getting us a directly elected prime minister or President as the case may be, it must take us in a direction away from fragmented legislatures and minority parties determining the government’s fate.

Fears over a directly elected executive are largely overblown. More than fearing a directly elected strong prime minister or President who may be recalled we must fear a weak prime minister who is susceptible to influence and control by proxy.

It is not just a weak Manmohan Singh [ Images ] vulnerable to proxy influence from 10 Janpath we must fear. In fact we must fear anyone deemed ‘acceptable’ for such acceptability comes with a price tag of vulnerability to blackmail by regional parties or remote control.

Only two BJP leaders in office have a track record of standing up to Nagpur — one from Delhi [ Images ], the other from Gandhinagar and L K Advani [ Images ] is neither of them.

Greater federalism could be one way to counter balance the fears of over a strong, central executive. However an effective check against excessive concentration of executive power in the states and the Centre could be an Electoral College where civil society finds transparent representation and a Constitutional role with accountability.

The Electoral College can be the vehicle by which the directly elected executive may be recalled should it transgress Constitutional boundaries mid-term. The Electoral College can also be the vehicle by which legislation of public interest can be introduced as an ordinance pending legislative approval.

The composition of the Electoral College and the mechanism by which its civil society members are selected or elected can be a matter of debate. Rather than have an unaccountable NAC or a maximalist Team Anna exercise disproportionate influence in an opaque, raucous manner it may be in our own enlightened self interest to harness civil society energy as a force of good through the Electoral College.

There is a real danger we may lose another decade to hung Parliaments, figurehead prime ministers and emotional blackmail by fasts unto death.

Let us start the debate in 2012 in favour of a directly elected executive with a civil society-based Electoral College as a check for a directly elected strong leader in the mould of a Narendra Modi with civil society as a check which serves the national interest far more than an indirectly selected, weak but acceptable prime minister vulnerable to pressure from regional parties and outside groups that may have propped him or her up.

Related Posts:  

1) Truth about Rahul Gandhi      

2)  Do you Know Sonia? 

3) India Under Influence

** Azab desh ki ghazab kahani

Azab desh ki ghazab kahani

Kanchan Gupta

Pioneer

A  decade after 9/11 when Governments around the world are reassessing the heightened threat posed by radical Islamists and their jihad brigades to their national security, Mr Manmohan Singh, who notionally heads the morally decrepit and functionally paralysed Government of this wondrous land of ours, would rather, ostrich-like, bury his head in the gravel that paves the path to the Prime Minister’s Office in South Block and pretend, as Law Minister Salman Khurshid is fond of saying, all is well. It’s not difficult to spot the three idiots of the Congress regime which goes by the moniker of United Progressive Alliance. Others may have a different opinion of him, but I have always held that Salman Khurshid has a wry sense of humour.

Hence, it comes as no surprise that Mr Singh, while addressing the 66th session of the UN General Assembly on September 24, should have made a bland, meaningless, one-sentence reference to terrorism at paragraph 11 of his rambling, 50-paragraph-long speech whose text would reassure those who grew up in the 1960s on a steady diet of ‘internationalism’ that the lamp of their cause still flickers in some hearts and restore faith among chronic insomniacs that it is possible to have a good night’s sleep. “Terrorism continues to rear its ugly head and take a grievous toll of innocent lives,” Mr Singh droned from the dais, making it sound as no more than a customary mention, as is done by billion-dollar charlatans who gather at Davos every summer to hunger in Africa. At paragraph 36, Mr Singh added three more sentences on terrorism: “The fight against terrorism must be unrelenting. There cannot be selective approaches in dealing with terrorist groups or the infrastructure of terrorism. Terrorism has to be fought across all fronts.” He could well have been referring to the breakout of a strange disease in Timbucktoo.

And while Mr Singh held forth on the “need to address the issue of the deficit in global governance” (yawn), blithely glossing over the huge and ever-increasing deficit in India’s governance ever since he found himself being pole-vaulted into the PMO in the summer of 2004, the Prime Minister of Israel, the only democracy between India and the Maghreb, took it upon himself to say it as it is, bluntly telling the world that the real danger to our present and future emanates from radical Islamism. “A malignancy is now growing between East and West that threatens the peace of all. It seeks not to liberate, but to enslave, not to build, but to destroy. That malignancy is militant Islam… (applause)… Since 9/11, militant Islamists have slaughtered countless innocents — in London and Madrid, in Baghdad and Mumbai, in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, in every part of Israel. I believe that the greatest danger facing our world is that this fanaticism will arm itself with nuclear weapons. And this is precisely what Iran is trying to do.” Mr Benjamin Netanyahu is not known for being politically correct. But he knows that we live in a politically incorrect world.

A measure of just how politically incorrect is our world was provided by the Islamic Republic of Iran’s Islamist President, Mr Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whose bilious rant at the General Assembly led to a walkout by all delegates barring those representing the Organisation of Islamic Conference. Further confirmation of the strange times we live in was provided by Mr Singh in his speech which marked a formal departure from India’s long-standing position on Palestine whose formulation was in keeping with the UN Security Council’s Resolution 242 of November 22, 1967, which was adopted following the Six-Day War in which David beat Goliath to pulp. The operative portion of Resolution 242 calls for the “Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every state in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognised boundaries free from threats or acts of force.”

Extrapolating from Resolution 242, India’s position on the demand for Palestinian statehood was restricted to reiterating support for a two-state solution based on the “sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of Israel and Palestine and their right to live side by side in peace within secure and recognised boundaries”. On occasion, there were minor deviations (especially when politicians spoke extempore without a prepared text) but broadly the thrust would remain the same. Mr Singh has now introduced, in his standard and sly manner, a new element to India’s position on a crucial issue without bothering about the need for public deliberation or parliamentary debate. In his address to the General Assembly he went out of the way to raise a contentious issue in whose resolution India has no perceivable role and which really is of no concern to us: “The Palestinian question still remains unresolved and a source of great instability and violence. India is steadfast in its support for the Palestinian people’s struggle for a sovereign, independent, viable and unitedstate of Palestine with East Jerusalem as its capital, living within secure and recognisable borders side by side and at peace with Israel.”

That’s a bizarre proposition, not the least because reiterating support for East Jerusalem as the capital of a ‘united’ state of Palestine amounts to endorsing the belligerence of those who wish to see Israel “wiped off the map of the world”. A ‘united’ Palestine, as in a state with a single territorial identity, is a geographical and political impossibility; Palestine, as and when it gains statehood, will be no different from Mohammed Ali Jinnah’s “moth-eaten Pakistan” and in due course will collapse into two entities. That apart, Mr Singh calling for the inclusion of ‘East Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine’ from no less a platform than the UN General Assembly may serve to excite the imagination of wannabe Islamists who dwell in sequestered mohallahs in Azamgarh and similar places across India and aspire to join the ranks of God’s Army, but it is not going to bring about any change on the ground.

The Green Line belongs to the past, as does the Ottoman Empire’s occupation of the House of David. Mr Singh is expected to be aware of basic historical facts, including the UN’s 1947 resolution declaring Jerusalem a “corpus separatum” which was accepted by Jews on the premise that Arabs, too, would accept it. But that resolution was rejected by the Palestinians and Arabs do not even concede the legitimacy of Israel.

There’s a postscript to the Prime Minister’s uncalled for ministration of a demand that is untenable and flies in the face of what he himself says, and ironically so, at one point in his speech: “Actions taken under the authority of the United Nations must respect the unity, territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of individual states.” That postscript is about Hurriyat leader Mirwaiz Umar Farooq’s visit to New York, coinciding with that of Mr Singh. The Mirwaiz was at the UN to attend the OIC’s Kashmir Contact Group meeting where the demand for Kashmir’s ‘azadi’ was reiterated. The meeting was attended, among others, by Palestinians who unhesitatingly recorded their support for the OIC’s resolve to see Kashmir separated from India. Which only proves how inconsequential is Mr Singh’s gratuitous offer of ‘steadfast’ support for ‘united Palestine with East Jerusalem as its capital’. But then, national interest was never a priority for our Prime Minister. Nor does the nation seem to care how its interest is being compromised, again and again, by him.          http://kanchangupta.blogspot.com

Also Read >> :

1)   Rahul lacks Sincerity   

2)  India: continental Refuge   

3)  Sonia’s Links

** Rotten State of India’s Media

The Rotten State of India’s Media

India Realtime

- Ajit Mohan

Early in November, before more interesting controversies distracted them, Indian journalists were up in arms over a statement by the chairman of the Press Council of India, Justice Markandey Katju. The PCI chairman had the audacity to articulate his perspective on the state of India’s news media, holding that he had a “poor opinion” of it and expressing his assessment that “a majority of the media people are of very poor intellectual level,” with no “idea of economic theory or political science, philosophy or literature.” The Indian press, he argued, “was not working for the interest of the people.”

The outrage that followed was largely limited to the journalistic community. For most consumers of news in India, in print or on television, and for dispassionate observers, Mr. Katju’s assessment was an articulation of the most obvious reality. In fact, the PCI chairman did not need to set the bar as high as an evolved intellect and an acute understanding of economics, sciences and liberal arts for India’s news journalism to fail to clear the hurdle. Most newspapers and television channels struggle to meet the very rudimentary requirement of reporting news with the analytical depth that a subject deserves, without bias or deliberate distortions.

What is broken about the news media in India is self-evident on the front pages of the dailies in the mornings and on the nightly news on television in the evenings.

Fragments of news, a significant portion lazily strung together from press agency clippings, are what a careful newspaper reader can sift out between a series of full-page advertisements peddling products, and images of women (usually of non-Indian origin) in different states of undress (in their defense, savvy editors must be acutely aware now that many of their readers prefer to get their titillation from their English-language newspapers than from other sources.) If there is any original reporting at all, it is always a bit unclear if a government agency or a private company has sponsored the report, or whether it is just another unpaid favor that has been granted by the editor.

Frighteningly, the situation is even worse on television channels. Most news channels just do not do reporting anymore. What counts for reporting is usually a small snippet of a roving ‘journalist’ talking to a few randomly chosen individuals on the streets of Delhi and Mumbai for their take on the big controversy of the day. This then segues to what has become the preferred format of all channels: a panel of six to eight ‘experts’, usually spokesmen of major political parties mixed with out-of-work politicians, newspaper and magazine editors, and the day’s representation from the roving celebrity class of lobbyist-PR agent-commentators (whose reason to be on the panel is never quite clear), ranting at each other while struggling to have their screeching voices heard above the incessant screaming of the anchor. All this while the viewer struggles to keep up with the multiple, disjointed layers of scrolling headlines perennially sliding on the screen below the screamers.

So, it is broken in some very obvious ways. That news has become entertainment is part of the story. In itself, this need not be a crime. If journalists report and package news in a compelling manner that grabs an audience’s attention, that is no bad thing. That the news coverage from mainstream media is obsessively focused on just politics, Bollywood and cricket is also only part of the problem. To the extent that this is a genuine reflection of the audience’s preferences, there is a case to be made for the focus on these three areas. But it is harder to defend the plethora of stories that have blatant errors and distortions, sometimes even on the main features and headlines of the day.

News in India is also broken in ways that are not immediately apparent. For a start, there is just not enough investment made to explore a story fully. Very rarely do you see newspapers and television channels bring reporting and analytical depth to a story, unraveling the many plausible layers behind what is well-known and well documented. The fascinating story of a country with the diversity of India, which is seeing important transitions across its political, economic and social fronts, should be an exciting canvas to paint stories of multiple hues and colors. And yet, more often than not, the point of the news seems to be to reduce this extraordinary diversity to the most banal, or to a contest between extremes that can only be resolved through a shouting match on live television.

Equally troubling is the consistent presence of a single, dominant narrative in the mainstream media on almost any issue of importance. This is especially true on any subject that can be even remotely categorized under the broad umbrella of national security. From militancy in Kashmir to the Naxal insurgency in central and eastern India, from relations with Pakistan to the troubled Northeast, there is rarely a dissenting narrative to be found. Almost all the daily reporting tacitly accepts the government’s perspective. There is never any real effort to discover whether there are competing truths, whether there are stories that will cause Indians to examine these subjects with less certainty than what their government has been telling them to believe.

The dominance of a single narrative extends to other issues too. Anna Hazare is either leading a national revolution at one moment or leading a bunch of crooks the next. Tata Motors is building a revolutionary cheap car for the masses that should make every citizen proud, or Singur is a fight for the future of economic reforms. (A well researched Purdue University analysis showed how over a period of 18 months, the media accepted and amplified a narrative of the Tata Nano’s launch that was remarkably in sync with the company’s own communication.) The list goes on.

Above all, though, the objectivity of the Indian news media is now in question. The audio recordings of PR agent Niira Radia revealed last year showed a cozy relationship between the journalists and the subjects they are supposed to cover objectively. A television anchor was heard playing the role of an intermediary in negotiations between the UPA allies during the formation of the central government in 2009. Newspaper columnists were taking advice from PR agents on what to write in their columns. What the tapes revealed was a press that was fiercely independent on the surface, but looked like it really wanted to be influenced by the highest bidder. And, therefore, for every story that is covered, there always seems to be five other stories that are deliberately ignored.

In many ways, the crisis of the media in India reflects the broader crisis and angst that the news media is going through around the world, especially in the West. But the drivers could not be more different. The turbulence in the West is driven by a dramatically shrinking readership amongst newspapers and magazines. Mainstream news organizations in the West are threatened too by a new breed of media outlets that is ideologically extreme and filters every domestic and global event using the narrow lens of the fight between the left and the right.

Remarkably, neither is an issue in India. Almost alone in the world, India’s print, magazine and television news businesses are growing rapidly, in circulation as well as in advertising revenues, often in double digits. Between 2003 and 2009, as print circulation declined in most major countries, India added more than 25 million new readers. Advertising and circulation together is expected to grow at more than 10% annually for the next few years. Neither is ideological radicalization an issue in the Indian press. In fact, reflecting the rest of the polity, the domestic news media rarely possesses even a clear philosophy on economic development, politics or international relations.

Of course, none of this should take credit away from the journalists and reporters in India who still continue to do the old-fashioned shoe-leather reporting, toiling to get the facts and the stories right. And, in the midst of all the gloom, the magazine sector has seen much innovation as well as the occasional willingness to counter the mainstream narrative and to invest in digging out the real stories behind the screaming headlines. But more often than not, their work highlights what is starkly missing in newspapers and television channels (and unfortunately, their circulation dwarfs the readership and viewership of these newspapers and channels).

So, how did we get here? For a start, the crisis in Indian media does lend credence to the emerging wisdom around the world that objective and independent journalism can only thrive in a non-profit environment, perhaps with the benevolent support of wealthy trusts and individuals. Most major newspapers and television channels in the country are owned by for-profit corporations that understandably have an emphasis on the bottom-line. These organizations invariably have other business interests and relationships that may make objective journalism within their newspapers and channels difficult and inconvenient. Many media outlets are disproportionately reliant on their advertisers – a recent analyst report estimated that nearly 75% of print revenue in India comes from advertising – thus, the temptation always exists to pander to them, especially when these advertisers are the subjects of the reporting. The temptation must also exist to punish those advertisers who choose competing outlets.

This drift towards seeking easy ways to pander to audiences and advertisers is exacerbated by the culture of incestuous self-serving relationships. Enthralled by the prospect of not being subject anymore to the long speeches of the Information and Broadcasting ministers masquerading as news on Doordarshan, we made celebrities out of the new television anchors on private channels before they had even become genuine reporters. Many of these celebrities became a coveted part of the incestuous social circles of Delhi and Mumbai that brought the decision makers of the polity together, much before they had learned how to draw the lines adequately between their personal lives and their professional responsibilities. Many editors have overt and covert relationships with political parties and business leaders. These relationships, and the outcomes that they reveal on newspapers and magazines and television channels, highlight why outstanding journalists around the world have always believed in keeping a safe distance from the polity; in knowing when the party stops, and when the honest work begins.

Underlining the troubled situation is the absence of any kind of meaningful regulation. When the PCI chairman raised the issue of bringing electronic media under the Press Council as well, and giving “more teeth” to the council to call out errant behavior, in a way, for example, that the Bar Council currently does for lawyers, he was met with vicious opposition from editors who cited the need for absolute press freedom to play their special role as the society’s watchdog.

So, is there a path to renewal for journalism in India? Absolutely, and the answer partly lies in the staunch defense the editors made for the freedoms they have become used to. They are right that regulation is a slippery slope. While the temptation to regulate is high, the role of the press is a unique one in democracies and the freedom of the press – even a flawed news media – is absolutely essential to making sure that it stands a chance of playing the role of the custodian that it was always meant to.

One of the best chances for renewal lies not in limiting the freedom of the press but in expanding it, and particularly in rolling back the limits that are currently put on it through the structure of the anti-defamation laws in the country. There is no doubt that the threat of a libel suit — whether from a politician or a business leader — carries much weight in the coverage choices made by journalists and editors. India also hasn’t seen the proliferation of online sites like in the West that scrutinize the coverage of mainstream media and hold journalists accountable for their reporting.

The other response to the proliferation of mediocre journalism has to be more competition. Competition to the entrenched, for-profit, domestic media should come from two sources: foreign news organizations and a new non-profit public broadcaster.

Foreign news organizations have been locked out of the domestic news market. Limits exist on foreign ownership in local television channels, while foreign print organizations cannot tailor editions for a local audience. No rational argument exists any more for these controls. In a resurgent India where domestic firms have fiercely competed with foreign companies in markets at home and abroad, the only reason for these controls now is the protection of domestic media firms. And, it is time to break the status quo on this. There is no guarantee that foreign news organizations will practice a more elevated form of journalism (the outrageous behavior of the tabloids in the U.K. is still recentmemory.) But there is at least a chance that a fresh infusion of talent and methods from established news organizations, facing shrinking revenues in their own domestic markets, will shake up India’s cozy, incestuous media circle.

Perhaps these imports could also teach some of our celebrity anchors and editors the rudimentary lessons in reporting and objective journalism that they seem to have skipped on their way to stardom.

The game changer, though, would be the establishment of a new, non-profit public broadcaster with the mandate to pursue serious journalism without the distraction of an agenda set by advertisers and business partners. While the restructured Prasar Bharti could well have evolved to play that role, there is no evidence that it is sufficiently independent from the government’s influence to get there. Around the world, public broadcasting has always been a bulwark against the race to the bottom in journalistic standards. Whether the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) and the National Public Radio (NPR) in the United States, or the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) in the United Kingdom, these public broadcasters have played a valuable role in pursuing stories with an objectivity and integrity that sometimes have eluded the more mainstream news organizations. PBS, in fact, was explicitly created in 1970 to counter what was then seen as the dominance of three network television corporations in controlling news and entertainment in the U.S. All three organizations have done a stellar job of grooming reporters who have gone on to play leadership roles in private news corporations.

While their revenue models differ, a substantial portion of their financing comes from public donations, grants and contributions from local affiliates (in the case of PBS and NPR), and a national television license fee in the case of BBC. In other words, they are free to pursue independent journalism measured against standards set by independent leaders, none of who are reliant on advertisers or the government for their careers.

No pillar is more important in a democracy than the fourth estate. And no institution is weaker in India presently than its news media. There is a path to renewal, and it is one that involves more competition and more freedom of expression.

** Is Hinduism Casteist?

http://www.ariseindiaforum.org/varnashram.php?type=36

Is Hinduism Casteist?

Sw. AbhayaNanda

The Vedic society is often criticized by the modern intelligentsia for its apparently discriminating stand against a certain section of the society. The detractors claim that the Vedas directly support racist and feudal dominance by brandishing a certain group of people as ‘shudras’, or low born. India has witnessed social upheavals on this issue, and today caste system has become a sensitive subject with serious ramifications on the national political scene.

However the Vedas present a view contrary to the modern zealots’ interpretation, and is actually egalitarian in outlook, a point totally ignored by the critics.

Birth v/s qualification

Lord Krishna states in the Bhagavad Gita, the most authorized book for the Hindus, that a person’s position in the society is based on his qualifications and work, and not on birth (BG 4.13). Thus a person, although born in an apparently higher caste, has to qualify himself.

Similarly if a person born into a ‘lower’ caste displays qualities of a person of the ‘higher’ order, he shouldn’t be discouraged. We cannot assume that a child of doctor parents automatically qualifies himself/herself to be a doctor on the basis of birth in one such family. Similarly no one can claim to be a brahmana without qualifying himself by the necessary training.

The Chandogya Upanishad illustrates this point with the story of Satyakama, a young boy who approached a spiritual master for enlightenment. The guru enquired about his father and the boy said he was unaware of his father’s identity. He was then told to go and ask his mother. He soon returned and candidly confessed that his mother had known many men, and is herself unsure about his father’s identity. The spiritual master, being pleased with this honesty, declared to the boy, “You are a real brahmana“.

Need for social divisions

However a question arises on the need to have such a system in the first place, because this categorization threatens to alienate certain groups from the mainstream. Moreover a classless society assures freedom from these artificial barriers, and promises equal opportunity to all.

The Vedas declare that this kind of division exists in the society naturally. A balanced and healthy body has the brain, arms, belly and legs working in good condition. Similarly the symptom of a healthy social body is the peaceful coexistence of teachers and intelligentsia, the administrators, the business class and the laborers. The brahmanas in Vedic society refers to the ‘brain’ of society, i.e. they provide the intellectual capital and spiritual and moral direction. The Kshatriyas, or the administrators are compared to the arms and they have a crucial role to protect the citizens. The Vaishyas, or business class are compared to the belly, and the worker class or shudras are the legs which support the other three orders.

This division is natural in any society as different people adopt different occupations based on interest and inclinations.

To say the arms are needed but the legs are unimportant for the body is foolish. Likewise to condemn a certain occupational class within the same society is disastrous. Needless to say all the orders have to work with dignity of labor, mutual respect and in harmony with each other.

Cause of modern problems

The problems in the Vedic society arose primarily due to getting these basics wrong and rampant exploitation taking place on the basis of one’s birth in a particular caste.

In a human body, although all parts are important, the brain is undoubtedly most vital. Without the brain’s working, a physically perfect body is considered unproductive. Similarly for the society to run smoothly, the brahmana class has to be of impeccable character and integrity. With the corruption of this class, influenced by false pride and arrogance, the social order became chaotic.

Sadly today in India there are many smarta- brahmanas, or caste-conscious brahmanas who insist that one cannot be elevated to brahminical status unless he is born in a brahmana family. This brahmana by-birth conception is non-Vedic, and has justifiably agitated the other sections. Little surprise then, that the politicization of this issue and the resultant violence is eroding the social fabric.

The solution- Rising ‘above’ the caste system

Lord Krishna reveals in the Bhagavad Gita, the identity of each person as distinctly different from the body (BG 2.13). Presently the ‘soul’ or the real ‘I’ is covered by this body and identifying with this perishable body, we claim to belong to a particular caste, nationality, race etc.

Although this occupational division helps one to progress gradually by encouraging us to dovetail our propensities, Krishna extols the intelligent to transcend these temporary designations. He declares the highest religion is to render loving devotional service to God, and when we engage in our activities with a desire to serve and please Him, we immediately go beyond these petty classifications. When the society is trained to be God conscious, each member then performs his/her duty in a purified consciousness and considers himself as a servant of all others in the society.

Thus the Srimad Bhagavatam declares:

“O best among the twice-born, it is therefore concluded that the highest perfection one can achieve by discharging the duties prescribed for one’s own occupation according to caste divisions and orders of life is to please the Personality of Godhead.” (SB -1.2.13)

The Vedas thus declare that the perfection of this institutional framework is to cooperate jointly for the satisfaction of the Supreme Lord. Srila Prabhupada, the founder of ISKCON writes, “This system exists not for artificial domination of one division over another. When the aim of life, i.e., realization of the Absolute Truth, is missed by too much attachment for sense gratification, this institution is utilized by selfish men to pose an artificial predominance over the weaker section. In the Kali-yuga, or the age of quarrel, this artificial predominance is already current, but the saner section of the people knows it well that the divisions of castes and orders of life are meant for smooth social intercourse and high-thinking self-realization and not for any other purpose.”

A Global revolution since mid 15th century

Five hundred years ago Lord Shri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, who appeared in Navadwip, West Bengal (1486-1534), preached the dharma of Kali-yuga, namely chanting of the holy names of God. Widely distributing this message, he induced all to take shelter of God, irrespective of caste and religious barriers. Some of his closest associates were not even Hindus, yet by their unflinching faith in chanting the Holy Names of God, they proved to be more glorious than the ritualistic priests and brahmanas.

One of Lord Chaitanya’s closest associate was Haridas Thakur who had taken birth in a Muslim family and was a reject according to the conventional Hindu caste system. However Lord Chaitanya recognized him as the greatest devotee of Lord Krishna of that time (16th century).

Following this tradition, Srila Prabhupada also preached this message of Krishna consciousness in the Western countries. Starting from New York in 1966, he created a revolution by initiating Americans, Europeans and Africans as Vaishnava brahmanas and sannyasis. For all the criticism by the orthodox Hindus, it is these apparently ‘low born’ who have contributed to spreading the Vedic culture all over the world. Ironically the narrow minded champions of Hindu dharma on the other hand have done little to glorify the supreme Lord and His Holy Names.

Of course Srila Prabhupada clarified that this awarding of brahmana and sannyasa to individuals should not be done indiscriminately but rather by careful examination and training in highest standards of purity and God centered principles. Today many other ‘Hindu’ societies like Art of Living, Chinmaya mission, besides many others are demonstrating this principle through their world wide preaching of the real Vedic/Indian spirituality.

Also Read : INVADING  THE  SACRED

http://worldmonitor.wordpress.com/2007/08/13/invading-the-sacred/

** A Christian Yoga??

There is no Christian Yoga

Boloji.com

Tom Beal

It was quite astonishing to see on the flyer “Christian Yoga! This Thursday night..” I could feel the wheels spinning in my brain. “Christian Yoga”, I thought. Now while Christians can practice yoga, I am not aware of any Christian teachings about yoga. Yoga is not a Judeo/Christian word! It is not a part of the Roman Catholic teachings and certainly not a part of protestant teachings. It is not found within the King James Version of the bible. It is a Hindu word, or more correctly a Sanskrit word from the Vedic civilization. So how did we get “Christian Yoga”?

From this I could conclude that “Christian Yoga” could only indicate one of two possibilities:

1. Christianity is threatened by yoga and is attempting to take over this system that “invaded their turf” pertaining to spiritual teachings and techniques.
2. Christianity is subconsciously attempting to return to the spiritual roots of civilization-the Vedic civilization.

I thought to myself, “why would they want to take over yoga?” Could it be due to the decline of members within the Christian church within the last 60 years? Is this an extensive marketing plan cooked up in some New York marketing guru’s head? Is it an attempt to water down the teachings of yoga and import their own teachings into the system? Or is it that they cannot stand not to own everything spiritual?

I think the best reason might be that yoga, and eastern spirituality, offered answers to the spiritual questions that the spiritually hungry masses had. It offered a practical, rational, logical, and ruthful approach to spirituality. It did not contain any form of self-righteous condemnation, but offered love and acceptance to all. It did not prey upon victims with terms such as “Sin” and “eternal damnation”. But most importantly, it had answers! It offered a practical approach to cultivating a relationship with divinity. It offered a systematic approach and an abstract approach to meet the varying temperaments of the spirituality hungry.

The second possibility was that Christianity was itself looking for answers. A small book filled with judgment, inflexibility, and condemnation was no longer fulfilling the needs of the masses or the leaders of the church. Offering yoga classes allowed the Christian to secretly practice Hinduism without having to renounce their Christian tradition.

Possibly by embracing the technology of yoga and meditation, the Christian church could finally return to the idea of love and acceptance that it believed it was founded upon. It is ironic that one religion would need to look to another religion to teach them about love, peace, harmony, and forgiveness. If successful, it could embrace these ancient teachings and save itself from the fate it planted over the last few thousand years.

But possibly in their wisdom, the current fathers of the church realized that their time was coming to a close. So within America they must absorb yoga before they are absorbed by it. This is a common religious view that has appeared numerous times within world history. Then they would immediately move their resources to India. Taking over the country would allow them to own all the spirituality, and then ‘pick and chose’ which tasty spiritual treats they would share. After all they have 2000 years practice with this.

Indian being a loving, peaceful people, openly embraced their brothers from the west. They looked the other way as their temples were torn down. They accepted it as karma as their families were torn apart over differing religious beliefs. The Indians thought it was thoughtful of the missionaries to dress up just like swami’s, to be “just like them” and to share in their kindred spirit.

Modern day scholars from India frequently present the attitude of “let them have yoga, I am interested in protecting Hinduism.” I have heard this sentiment on numerous occasions, but the reality is that yoga is a part of Hinduism. Allowing one part to be taken from Hinduism opens a door for the distortion of the teachings. We must remember that the roots to modern day yoga comes from Vedic Yoga. The same Vedic Yoga that is the authority of Hinduism. Allowing one branch to be severed from the tree of knowledge will not necessarily kill that tree, but it can produce strain and have an unbalancing effect upon the tree.

Hinduism should reclaim its full heritage and not allow other groups to rename its sacred teachings under their banner, especially when they have no history of those teaching within their own system. If they wish to ‘borrow’ and say this comes from our brothers and sisters in Hinduism, then that is another thing. But frequently groups attempt to privatize the information and present themselves as the original authority. Hinduism should guard against its sacred traditions becoming distorted and taken away.

Scholars at universities should take the stand that yoga is part of Hinduism, though one is one required to be a Hindu to practice yoga. It is important to acknowledge the roots of the tradition; after all we are expected to give credit to the orginial sources within books and research papers, but yet Hindu scholars have ignored this fundamental western view when it comes to their own heritage.