Advaniji
I watched only in parts the parliamentary debate.A text of the proceedings is unfortunately not available either on the parliament website or elsewhere.So I could be a little lax. During the half an hour or so that I happened to listen to Advaniji 90% time was dedicated to "we told you so" or why the tougher laws were not brought in when BJP asked for them.One would have thought that the parliament's time is precious and that the "we told you so" bit was restricted to 10% so that substantive matters could be debated.I strongly suspect that there was little of "substantive matter".May be there ought to be a debating framework.Perhaps there is.I will come back at a later date.Or perhaps the speaker should have restricted he "we told you so" bit.
Does Mr Advani look up to only the US of A for a role model. what about the about 200 countries where there were no terrorist attacks ever happened in the first place.
whither "White Paper on Terrorism" ?
As far as my knowledge of the reactions in India to the 26/11 Mumbai attacks goes no soul searching has been done.As far back as Thursday, Aug 30, 2007 , Andhra Pradesh State Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) president Bandaru Dattatreya has demanded a white paper on terrorist activities, particularly in Telangana and the Hyderabad city. Nothing ever came out and it is a pity that Advaniji has not asked for "White Paper on Terrorism".
Complex problems need multi pronged solutions not just a few tinkering here and there. I wrote last time about the need for common people to make a fishbone diagram. Let alone common people the people who should know better seem to know no better.
Antulay's remark
This title is borrowed from the TimesNow website article.Whether it was a remark, a cry of anguish or plain dramebazee as we say out here I don't know. I tried to look up Mr Antulay's site. pity he doesn't have one.Surely He could afford to have maintained a site. As mentioned earlier transcripts of the debate are not available.
I start by analyzing the possibilities
case1: Antulay made an off the cuff remark Looks very unlikely because he is a mature politician and could not have made a potentially damaging remark.
case2: a cry of anguish Nobody knows who all were part of the team giving inputs to the Home minister. If indeed Mr Antulay was part of the team or was in the know of things Mr Chidambaram could have intervened to say so.To my knowledge such an intervention did not take place. The only interventions I know of are the ones which all but said said that He was a 'Pakistani agent'. I am willing to give him the benefit of doubt.
case3: "dramebazee"cannot be ruled out. But neither can it be claimed that he was "playing politics"(what are politicians supposed to do anyway?)
TimesNow news/panel discussion
The main reporter was seething with rage at the supposed "misdemeanour" of Mr Antulay and the subsequent discussion was colored by this undercurrent. For starters I make the "No war / No Censor Assumption"
No war / No Censor Assumption
Under this assumption I expect any media person to to remain neutral, objective and rational. If there is a war/censorship I expect the media to acknowledge and say sorry gentlemen we can't be objective.
Antulay's remark supports the Pakistani media/Government
The substance of the discussion implies Antulay's remark is a disgrace to the nation and therefore should be condemned. Mr Singhvi, the congress spokesman washed off his hands and left the resignation thing to the honorable prime minister. Dileep Padgaonkar made an ad-hominem attack and claimed that Mr Antulay was a loose cannon. The shiv sena MP wanted 'the sack for Mr Antulay'. Another senior journalist was more balanced and said that a sack is not required because such an action would actually help the Pakistani Establishment and / or the media.
I expect media person's to be objective in their views and / or discussions and not get swayed by so called patriotism the way the shiv sainiks and all are prone to. Neither should they believe that problems will vanish by lighting candles or talking to movie stars.
If Pakistani media is right (I personally doubt this) what is the problem? Give it a whirl. Show them that they are wrong. Do I need to add that you are supposed to critique ideas, not people.
Jug Suraiya claimed in one of his recent articles that the Pakistani media is far too establishment biased.In yet another article Mr Suraiya also advocated/remarked that a potential reunification of the subcontinent is a potential solution. I am personally inclined to believe in this potential solution/Utopia(depending on how you look at it). Any Engagement with our 'Subeh ka bhulaahs' or prodigal sons should be fair. If they are right so be it. If they are wrong please do tell them why that is so rather than saying that 'we don't trust the Pakistani press' and that Everything they say is 'Bakwas'. Please do consider issues on merits of the case. case by case rather than lump the good, the bad and the ugly into one heap of scrap.
Mr Karkare and the Martyrdom
As I have said earlier the late Mr Karkare was probably a fine officer and that my personal sympathies lie with his family. Having said that We should bear in mind that we lost three officers in one go and that too ill prepared for the task. The Bombay Police chief's claim that they reached the spot within 10 minutes and wanted to save more lives is simply incredible.
The Indian movie goer is used to seeing all and sundry Heroes and villains brandishing their AK-47s . Is the Mumbai police so blissfully ignorant of these movies and the reality? Do they run their affairs in such a lackadaisical fashion bordering on the unprofessional?
Either the Mumbai police is incompetent ( I don't want to join the candle brigade. Let's not forget that there is rampant corruption and inefficiency) or they are doing a cover up job. Every one doing his or her job cannot claim Martyrdom. If we use this as a definition we will end up with too long a list of Martyrs.Besides Martyrdom is no excuse with which to gag the doubts raised by people.
People certainly want to know the answers to many questions that the events have raised in their minds. It is a pity that the media considers 'Asking questions' as Anti Patriotic Pro Pakistani etc. If Mr Anulay asked questions for which he didn't get the answers ( as far as can be figured out) he is well within his rights, at the risk of sounding Unpatriotic, to raise the question in an inappropriate way.(And of course take the credit or the blame).
Back To Media
Pakistani media is supposed to be part of the "civil society". Should we rubbish them lock stock and barrel?No Sir, give the issue a fair trial, review and critique the views as they come. That the question or comment or remark came from Pakistan is no bar to it's fair trial or critique.
I don't have answers to the questions I have on the circumstances leading to Mr Karkare's death.( I am by no means implying that he was gunned down by Hindu Fundamentalists.).Perhaps as a member of the laity, I am not entitled to have my questions answered in "National Interest".
To the extent that it sets to rest Any questions or doubts raised either by the Pakistani media or by laity , Mr Anulay's request for a probe is justified especially because Mr Antulay is no ordinary Mortal. He is a cabinet minister and no less. To say that he is "playing politics" is absurd. What else do you expect him to play? Cricket? If he voiced either his or a section of his constituency's voice that is as it should be not as it should not be.
All the media commentators claimed that his questions had no basis as they were his views. A section of the Hindi channels called it "Shahadat par Sawal"- Questions on Martyrdom. Tears, candles, patriotism .. etc need not veil basic flaws in thinking and Critiquing events. Whether or not the conclusion follows from a hypothesis is established in this sort of cases is by recourse to empirical facts. Which in this case means a neutral probe. one eminent journalist claimed that he had similar circumstantial questions and doubts but that this did not entitle him to conclusion. Fair enough at face value , But not so when you realize that it is Mr Antulay's basic job and not the journalists to answer these questions on behalf of people.
What are parliamentarians supposed to do? Put their rubber stamp and move on? To my knowledge there has been no parliamentary debate on the general terrorism perspective. Yesterday was the only occasion when Mr Antulay could have raised the issue. Mr Chidambaram's speech on 11th dec cannot be counted as an initiation of debate.
As far as I am concerned people like me too have a right to have their questions answered except in rare cases of national security. To cry foul to each and every thing as "national security" is to cry wolf.
To deny Mr Antulay the right to know is to deny the people their right to know because Mr Antulay represents them.
RamRajya and Caesar's wife must be above suspicion
Ramayan tells us that Lord Ram asked SitaMata to undergo the acid test based on a dhobi's allegation. To me the Lord was establishing the principle of heeding the Minority view. If that is a part of the tradition that Indians carry why didn't the BJP, Shiv Sena combine respect the minority view?Let the truth come out "Satyameva jayate".Let there be an enquiry or probe.
In Brief
- Mr Karkare's death needs to be probed to on the grounds of not squandering precious officers .
- Exposing the real truth behind Mr Karkare's apparently foolhardy behaviour.
- The principle of fairness and objectivity.
- Last but not the least to set at rest any doubts or questions some among the Muslim community might share with their coreligionists across the border.
No comments:
Post a Comment