Who is the real "Fascist"?

On the 16th of May, the Bharatiya Janta Party (BJP) won a thumping victory in the recently concluded Lok Sabha elections of 2014. This victory was largely attributed to Modi, the erstwhile Chief Minister of Gujarat, who had been declared the PM candidate long before the elections. While this victory meant ecstasy to Modi's supporters, it also spelled fear for another section of the electorate.

Modi has long been reviled as a "fascist", "authoritarian" leader by the mainstream English media. So much were these words used that they came to be used by even people who had trouble framing complete sentences in the English language. Something like the word "secular". It does not matter if you do  not know what it means, you just use it along with Modi's name and seem on a higher intellecual plane than the Modi-supporting mortals. However, to their credit, this fear was justified to a certain extent. Modi has had a history of alleged religious persecution of Muslims (yes, I do not prefer the word "minorities"). Also, he had banned the release of the movie Parzania in Gujarat.

A few days after the victory, there were reports of a certain individual called Devu Chodankar from Goa arrested for an "anti-Modi" post on Facebook. Libtards suddenly went into a tizzy outraging about the attack on freedom of speech and make a mocking reference to Modi's campaign slogan "Achhe Din Aanewale Hain". The fact that Goa ia BJP-ruled state complicated matters. People pointed out that Parrikar is running a witch-hunt for Modi critics since the police is under state control. However, for a person who has taken enough time out to even skim through the article, it is quite clear that someone else complained about the person and the police took the required action under existing laws. Next were reports that a student in Bangalore has been arrested for an "anti-Modi" joke on Whatsapp. This case had the same pattern, the only difference being that Karnataka happens to be a Congress-ruled state.

So, is Congress hand-in-glove with Modi? Or is the Karnataka police under central Governmetn control? I am sure none of the "free speech activists" would have an answer to this than some stupid reference to Gujarat 2002. Also, it would seem strange that a PM candidate who has not yet been sworn in is already on a witch-hunt and that too on common citizens. Also, it is inconceivable that Modi, who has been hounded by a vicious vilification campaign for more than 10 years, would take offence at some stupid Whatsapp joke.

Anyway, while people were mourning the death of free speech under Modi rule in India, some rather despicable things were transpiring in other areas of the country. Some other "secular" parties who were badly defeated in the elections were exacting revenge from common citizens. Yes, the Samajwadi Party government in UP was reported to have cut the electricity supply to areas in UP which were thought to have voted for BJP. Curiously, Mulayam Singh's "loyal" constituency was receiving 24-hour electricity supply. This shameless MLA also had the audacity to ask the voters why they were asking for electricity from Mulayam when they had voted for Modi.

A little further down south, Mamata Banerjee's party MLA Kalyan Banerjee threatened & manhandled some Hindi-speaking people in Kolkata who were excitedly discussing & were visibly elated about BJP's victory.

The TMC did not stop at this. Their cadres also attacked & shot at some BJP supporters in Sandeshkhali when they were celebrating Narendra Modi taking oath as India's PM. 

The point of this post is not to justify any repressive acts by Modi by Tu Quoque but point out the hypocrisy of the media and our left-liberal elite with respect to the fascist acts by those on "their side". If you claim to fight in support of free speech or against fascism, you have to condemn each and every such act which infringes upon the right to freedom of a citizen of India. However, libtards are curiously silent about such acts of those parties in the "secular" fold. The same hypocrisy was evident when some guys who do not speak a word on the ban of Taslima Nasreen's books or movie in Bengal, were crusading for the freedom of speech for Wendy Doniger. The reason for this is that she has written "objectionable" content about HInduism and the person who took offence had an RSS background.

The imaginary BJP trolls

Yesterday I came across a post written by someone called AbyHydros. It was quite a mediocre piece but was instantly hailed as scholarly research by many of the Congress supporters, as is true of any piece which attacks the so-called "trolls" on right of centre. Shashi Tharoor even called it a "brilliant analysis". 

The ecstasy of average Leftlib trolls was not at all surprising because of most of them just pretend to be liberals anyway when, in fact, they rabidly hate anyone who opposes their worldview. But, all that in another post. Coming from Shashi Tharoor, this praise for such a pedestrian piece was surprising. I seriously wonder whether he even read the article.

To be honest, the article did have some relevant points. But, I don't think that a person has to be an astute & keen observer of politics or social media, or any topic actually, to be able to tell which politician they support. However, my problem is not the inference drawn by AbyHydros or actually many before him but the logic that they have used. Some conclusions in the post are mere hypotheses propounded by the author which have not yet withstood the test of statistical analysis. I expected Shashi Tharoor to be aware of such criteria if not the author himself.

The post starts by saying that right-wing groups mobilize & organise better than others. Now, I don't know how much experience AbyHydros has in studying right-wing organisations & religious extremism. But, this is a hypothesis which needs to be statistically supported. As long as it does not have it, it is just his opinion, the credibility of which depends on his credentials. And I have some serious doubts about them. 

Next, AbyHydros talks about political parties defending communal riots. It is no secret that he is alluding to BJP. Now, there is no record of any BJP leader having said that, to the best of my knowledge. AbyHydros cites a particular blogpost to bolster his claim. This post, in turn, quotes from a study by Raheel Dhattiwala and Michael Biggs, two scholars of the department of sociology, University of Oxford. However, what is interesting is that nowhere in the post is it mentioned that BJP defended the riots. It just cites the study to show how BJP could have benefited from them. 

AbyHydros then tells how the campaign strategy of BJP started using social media to counter MSM's bias against them. He has a problem with anonymous handles on Twitter. Now, this is from a guy who has given his name as Aby Hydros. Now, as per my knowledge, this is not a name in most parts of the world which are considered to be civilised. However, I am not going to resort to personal attacks. The other problem is that these so-called anonymous handles are promoting NaMo for the PM position in 2014. Now, is this a crime in itself? I don't think so. NaMo satisfies all the constitutional criteria for PM & hence can be promoted by his supporters. If you have a problem with it, promote your own candidate or be quiet. Don't treat this as a crime against humanity.

AbyHydros also has a problem with the supporters of the "party with majority"  being called "anti-nationals". It may be a strong word but a true liberal should accommodate the other person's right to say what he wants & understand his reasonf or saying it. Congress-led UPA has been embroiled in a lot of scams. Are scams patriotic? I am within my rights to say that the Government does not care about the nation. Also, if "anti-national" does not describe the Government who has made a mockery of the concept of Indian nationality, I don't know what will.

AbyHydros tries to paint a picture of Congress supporters as people who are fighting hard against some kind of a dictatorial regime & are cowering in fear against vicious attacks. This is the same tactic that is used by Sagarika Ghose for minorities. It is true that eminent journalists & common people are abused. But, that was also done by Congress supporters when something was said about PM. The following image proves that.

Congress trolls

I don't support or advocate use of abusive language. But, painting it as some sort of "attack" causing some sort of a grievous injury, which could prove to be fatal too, is downright stupid & childish. Have you ever asked Dr.Swamy how it feels to be called a "low IQ troll" when he teaches at Harvard? AbyHydros & many others whose names are mentioned in the post make it out as if people are being lynched, which is quite amusing. I have never seen Dr.Swamy whine about the "attacks" on him.  If someone is abusing you, Twitter gives you an option to block that person. I admit it is troublesome. But, then if you don't want *all* opinions, go off Twitter. Whatever is said on Twitter is said off it as well. The only difference is that it does not reach the  media divas. I had read somewhere it is not the people whom we control but we can control our response to them.

Also, what is wrong in writing blogposts about what I feel is wrong about the media, politics etc. Abyhydros should make it clear whether he has a problem with dissent or abusive language. I think,like all so-called liberals, it is the former. Leftlibbers are very sensitive to anything said to them. I am afraid, in a few days, even "Excuse Me" from a right-winger will be termed as abuse.

Hijacked trends is another of AbyHydros' personal grievance. Trending something to spread awareness is a marketing strategy which used quite effectively by brands. It is not a crime if it is used by a political party. However, I am not sure whether anyone is paid to actually trend things. As far as I know, it is just a group of disparate elements who have come together on a common platform where they can voice their opinions. In my opinion, such allegations of paid twitter accounts is just a result of Leftist paranoia working overtime. On the contrary, Congress supporters are well-organised bunch under ringleader Sanjay Jha, who you can see actively participating in trends while no BJP leader has been seen trending anything.

I am sure when he says "Attack political rivals, devalue them in public opinion by making them the brunt of ridicule trends" he specifically means Rahul Gandhi. Well, dude, that is just public opinion about him. Even the recent polls show that more people want Modi to be PM than Rahul Gandhi. Deal with it. Don't tell people to shut up. The very fact that he doesn't want it to trend means that he is trying to "suppress voices of dissent", an accusation he makes on right-wingers. Also, some of his fellow Leftlibs have said that leaders are open to criticism. I don't understand what he is cribbing about.

When AbyHydros says that BJP is making an attempt to create disillusionment among the youth, it meas he hasn't been out on the roads often. There is a lot of outrage in the country. It is not only on Twitter but also among auto-drivers & paanwalas who are not on Twitter. He may perhaps say that BJP is trying to fan it but, is it not what it needs to do to win an election? Or does he expect BJP to actually praise Congress? What would have Congress done in such a situation? The use of Gujarat riots is still made to an extent where people think no other riots ever took place in independent India. Every party exploits the other's weakness for political mileage. Work on those weaknesses first rather than cribbing why people are accusing your party.

The post has grown longer than I wanted to write. I fear I actually have dignified that post by writing this one. All the points, except the one of abusive language, mentioned by AbyHydros were simply whining. I remember AbyHydros spamming people with a message that he had a brilliant idea to "thrash Internet Hindus". And this is a person who is accusing people of threatening him. Talk of irony. Just like the thriving Modi-bashing cottage industry, there is also an online club of "humanist intellectuals"(read attention-seekers) who write blogposts on Modi which are, then, treated like gems in the Literature Hall of Fame. AbyHydros is the latest entrant to that club. Well, inadvertently, I have actually given him more than his share of attention. And for all those who thought his analysis was brilliant & he is the next intellectual on the Congress block, get well soon guys.

My reply to Sagarika Ghose

Indian journalist Sagarika Ghose wrote an article in Outlook regarding hate speech on Twitter, in particular, and social media, in general. With due respect, the article seemed, to me, to be a rant, tirade, whine, all at the same time, before ending with sanctimonious advice. Before I proceed with the finer points in the article, I would like to point towards another blog post by Suresh Nakhua exposing not only the double standards adopted by Ms.Ghose on Twitter, but also the frivolity and journalistic gaffes that she shows online. I have also taken the liberty of sourcing some images from the post.

Ms.Ghose has been venting her anger for quite some time now about how she gets abused regularly on Twitter. Any regular Twitter user worth his/her salt would be aware of it. To give her credit, she is not completely off the mark. I admit, there is tremendous abuse on Twitter in the most crass language imaginable. However, I have a problem with Ms.Ghose's portrayal of it. Also, I am not sure whether it is reason enough to censor social media.

Ms.Ghose starts with a disclaimer, shown in the below excerpt, that she is not against Social Media per se. 

Social media is not the enemy. It is simply an amoral technology, a busy highway, waiting to be used by all. If dissenters and propagandists are using Twitter to spread their message, then the government must also jump in and use social media to fight the information war. Twitter has created an entirely new world where public figures are no longer distant idols but readily accessible. Barack Obama’s massively successful Twitter campaign reveals how well politicians can use new media.

She makes two pertinent points in the above paragraph :-

1. Social Media is an "amoral technology" ie. it is a double-edged sword.
2. Twitter has flattened the world where it is easier to get in touch with celebrities.
3. Utility of Social Media for politicians

These points are important to the rest of the post as Ms.Ghose forgets or ignores them later in her article.

If I understand correctly, she clarifies that her grudge is not against social media itself but how it is used. She calls Social Media an "amoral technology". Now, isn't every technology amoral? Take, for instance, nuclear technology. It can be used to generate power for an entire city or completely obliterate it. Every technology is amoral and so is Social Media.

After that Ms.Ghose launches into a tirade against "hate speak" and explains how it is different from free speech. According to her "free speech" means "the right to canvass for a political cause, the right to criticise the government" but not "the right to say what you want". Well, that is an easy enough definition of "free speech", isn't it? But, I am sure some scholars would differ with it. But, hey, who are they to argue against the great Ms.Ghose? In any case, this debate requires a book in itself, perhaps. So, I am not going to delve into it in this post.

According to Ms.Ghose, there is "A deluge of profane language, abuse of religious icons and vicious attacks on minorities" on Twitter & Facebook. And Twitter, in particular, is dominated by "right-wing religious nationalism", as she puts it. These "right-wing religious nationalists", according to Ms.Ghose, vent their "foul-mouthed loathing not only of public figures but of minorities and those perceived as ‘pseudo-secular’ or ‘sickular’".

Talking of profane language, isn't such language a part of our everyday lives? Is there anyone reading this who has not used the F-word or more desi stuff like "ch****a" and insinuations to relationships with women in the family? I am, by no means, advocating use of profanities or justifying them. However, I am sure that the people who vocally oppose such language on Twitter do not follow the same rules in their real lives. Is Ms.Ghose sure that she has not used a single expletive in her entire life in the presence of by-standers? 

Ms.Ghose also has a problem with "abuse of religious icons". She reiterates her stand against abuse to religion in the following tweet.

My final thought: abuse media, abuse journalists, criticise, find fault, but DO NOT ABUSE ANOTHER'S RELIGION! Thats hatespeech.
— Sagarika Ghose (@sagarikaghose) August 19, 2012

She, however, fails to elaborate on her interpretation of the word "abuse". Can merely passing negative comments on any religious icon be perceived as abuse? In that case, Ms.Ghose is herself guilty of it, as the image shows.

Sagarika Ghose calling Ram a divine encroacher

So, let me get this straight. Ms.Ghose, who has no problem with Ram being called a "divine encroacher", has a problem with people calling Muhammad & Jesus names. How is it that Ram does not deserve respect but Muhammad & Jesus do? Ever heard of the term "Hypocrisy"? Or is it selective application of morals & ethics?

I happen to be quite close to being an atheist & make allowance for her right to opine about Ram. However, by the same logic, other people have a right to criticise Jesus & Muhammad too. Futhermore, Ms. Ghose also claims

 to be a fan of Dawkins. I would expect her to be more open to debates on & criticisms of religious ideologies. Oops! She is, actually. However, her atheism & intellectual criticism is perhaps limited to only one religion.

Clearly, her focus on "vicious attacks on minorities" & pain at Muhammad & Jesus being called names tells of her boundless love for minorities. Her programmes portray them as a pitiful lot cowering in mortal fear, trying to eke out a living in a country where they are hated & discriminated against. Now she would have you believe that they are being "attacked" on Twitter too. Twitter attacks! Really harmful, aren't they? However, are they the only ones being abused? The following images make a point or two.


So, according to Ms.Ghose's logic, the above two tweeps may also attack anyone as "Violent action is just a step away from violent thought". Incidentally, Ms.Ghose does not know or chooses to be oblivious to the fact that most of the recent riots have been started not by the usual villians "right-wing religious nationalists" but her beloved minorities.

Ms.Ghose openly accuses the fans of Narendra Modi & Subramanian Swamy of accusing her, implying that these two individuals are exhorting tweeps to go on a rampage & terrify the minorities on Twitter. Nothing can be further from the truth. Dr.Swamy gets trolled on Twitter as much as anyone else. And a majority of this trolling is from Ms.Ghose's beloved minorities. He, however, chooses not to fuss over it unlike the petulant Ms.Ghose. And not only Dr.Swamy & Narendra Modi, but many other public figures are ridiculed or abused. Some examples:-

Congress supporter trolling Dr.Swamy

Indecent comment about Sushma Swaraj

Ms.Ghose forgets one point that she herself made at the start of the article about how Twitter has flattened the world by bringing celebs closer to the common man. What she forgets is that among these common people, there can be fans and critics. There is hardly a celeb who is admired throughout the country. There will always be detractors and critics and some of them will be harsh. It is naive of the celebs to expect that they will be greeted with adulation by everybody. Ms.Ghose is also trying to create that only female journalists are targeted is totally false. I think we may say that female journalists are *also* targeted. People on Twitter basically voice their differences with what a particular journalist has written. An example of this is given below. All the culprits in this case are whom Ms.Ghose calls "sickulars".

The problem with Ms.Ghose has been the criticism that she regularly receives from even those who may not be comfortable with being labelled as right-wingers. The following pictures may give you an idea of the reason for the criticism. These images have been explained in detail in Suresh Nakhua's post.

Her proximity to the masses has not only exposed her journalistic errors but also subjected her to dealing with criticism. Initially, this criticism was limited to drawing rooms. With Twitter, it has come out into the open. And journalists like Ms.Ghose are finding it hard to deal with it. There have been instances when people have been blocked by her just because they have asked relevant & pointed questions. If you can't answer them, block them!

B. Raman and the Storm Troopers: My take

Today, I logged on to Twitter to see a post on B. Raman's blog. The points that I could pick up from that article are follows :-

1. The abuse hurled by fans of Namo on his critics as a whole and Mr.Raman in particular.
2. Allusion that BJP/RSS/Namo might be condoning or,even, encouraging the abuse.
3. A recent blog post which wrote disparaging things about Mr.Raman.

Mr.Raman had written another blog post a few months ago wherein he had dealt extensively with what he called the StormTrooper-like tactics used by Namo supporters. He even called them the "Namo Brigade" and used the words "Nazi" or "fascist" for them.

It would be absolutely naive or untruthful of me to deny that there is abuse on Twitter. And, trust me, there is a lot of it. It is, however, not limited to any one side. Also, there is no consensus as to what constitutes "abuse". I have noticed that some people have a very narrow and sensitive definition of the term "abuse". Many a time, people have claimed to have been abused, when in reality they have just been called things like "dumbo", "moron" or "idiot". It is debatable whether this should be counted as abuse and the topic of a post in itself. What is important are the inferences that Mr.Raman proceeds to draw from this abuse.

Mr.Raman claims that he was a suppporter of Namo/RSS/BJP before he was exposed to abuse on Twitter. He, apparently,wrote about it advising Namo about how he should react to the abuse. But, his advice fell on deaf ears. 

I sincerely believed NaMo was not aware of the obnoxious behaviour of his online followers. I wrote and tweeted a number of times suggesting that he should openly condemn their methods and dissociate himself from them. There was no response. I couldn’t help believing that his followers were indulging in such methods with his knowledge and approval.

It is not clear whether he wrote directly to Namo or just tweeted or blogged as usual, in which case it is rather inconceivable that his advice would reach the right person unless Namo is following his online activity. As far as I could see, Namo is not following Mr.Raman on Twitter. I cannot comment on whether he reads his blog. However, it would be prudent to give Mr.Raman the benefit of doubt as he may have used channels, which he didn't deem prudent to disclose, in which case the blame for not replying rests with Namo.

Furthermore, from the lack of a response, Mr.Raman draws an inference that Namo is fully aware of the activities of his followers and, since he didn't condemn them, actually approves of it. I remember a Marathi play that I once watched about Nathuram Godse. In that, the SP infers that since Godse's newspaper "Agrani" prints a photograph of Veer Savarkar on the front-page, the latter must have exhorted him to murder Gandhiji. Needless to say, this is a fallacious inference. It is tantamount to saying that, since it does not dissociate  itself from them, St.Stephens approves of the inane theories that people like Rahul Gandhi & Sagarika Ghose continue to propound. In fact, if we were to take that logic one step ahead, we could also infer that since Rahul Gandhi believes Gujarat is bigger than UK, St.Stephens actually teaches that. I am amazed that an eminent person like Mr.Raman should draw such an absurd conclusion.

I would also like to add a few more things. It was found, in the recent Guwahati incident, that the main accused Amar Jyoti Kalita was a member of Youth Congress. The Congress did not, as per my knowledge, dissociate itself from him. Neither did it dissociate itself from YC members who indulged in eve-teasing in China. Should we also draw an inference that since Congress knows about these acts and does not condemn them, it approves of them? This does not even include the recent attacks by YC members on Dr.Swamy & Baba Ramdev.

Having said that, I admit that the attacks that Mr.Raman has highlighted in the excerpt below are heinous and uncalled for, especially to a person of Mr.Raman's stature. Personal attacks should not be used as counter-arguments to any opinion held by anyone.

Further in the post, Mr.Raman points out cheap insults heaped on him in a blog post. The author alleges that Mr.Raman is infatuated with young women like Ms.Barkha Dutt and, now, Priyanka Gandhi. I think we have to agree that this kind of character assassination is unwarranted and the post seems more like a rant against Mr.Raman than an argument against his support of Priyanka Gandhi. 

However, whether such kind of slander can or should be stopped is another matter altogether. This is the kind of talk that goes on in living rooms about almost all celebrities. With the advent of social media, it is just that the celebs are getting aware about it and are able to see it. It is natural that it should affect them. 

However, can we be sure that lewd statements about actresses are not made among guys? Or journalists/politicians are not abused in real life? Whether it should be written on a blog is a debate on censorship, again. Personally, I feel it is better to deal with it than rant about it. People should realise that not all people will agree with them. Also not all among those, who don't agree, will adopt a decent way to say it. However, this should be the topic of another post.

The man who wrote the post in question is, apparently, an educated person and is currently, allegedly, coordinating the online campaign of Namo. Mr.Raman proceeds to evaluate Namo on the basis of this person that he has, allegedly, hired. His logic is that a person is only as good as the company he keeps.  By that logic, a company should be judged solely on the character of it's employees. Also, I think Rahul Gandhi should be a certified goon as his YC proteges go on the rampage at the drop of a hat.

However, I am not a big fan of the argument "Every man is known by the company he keeps". I feel it is prudent to judge each person individually. On this,  I would like to quote two lines from one of my favourite poems "If" by Rudyard Kipling.

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,

' Or walk with Kings - nor lose the common touch  

Before concluding, I would like to say that I meant no disrespect to Mr.Raman by writing what I did. He may have written the post in anger or frustration caused by such calumnious comments about his character, which is but natural. My answer is something I would have told him if I knew him personally.