Don't be a Sissy Justice Hegde!

Justice Santosh Hegde has been in news for some time now. The Karnataka Lokayukta is also a member of the committee to draft the Lokpal-Bill; and he is being subjected to some kind of smear campaign, for example by the empty-kurtas like Digvijay Singh. The scum-bag DS accused Hegde of being ineffective in Karnataka and this hurt justice Hegde who contemplated quitting the panel. Now Hegde seems to have decided to continue being in the panel.


We do not know if Justice Hegde is clean; nor do we know if he is unclean. But we do think that he is a sissy. Being a judge, if he is so vulnerable to emotional onslaught by unscrupulous people like Congress-persons, then his ability to maintain composure during investigations does become suspect.

We have already opined that this whole Anna Hazare anti-corruption drive will most likely be a farce (see here, here and here amongst others); and it indeed is turning out to be one. When the draft committee was set-up by authoritarian Anna, it was clear that every member of the committee was behaving self-righteous. The problem is not who the members are and if they are clean enough or not. The problem is how the committee was formed.

As we have mentioned earlier,

``...if this committee was a committee to form the would be in-charge committee, it would have been much less of a controversy. Why do these leaders not choose the sane way?...''

And none of these members did so much as to even express such a wish, in a hurry as they were to attain the status of super-wisdom. So far so good. Now comes the sequel, wherein as mentioned above, empty-kurtas of Congress, and empty-skull intellectuals are expressing doubts regarding the integrity of the members. In the face of this, each of these members is exhibiting emotional unrest. If they are so high above, why are they perturbed? And if they are perturbed, why did they not adhere to some open procedure earlier?

And this performance by Justice Hegde takes the cake! A few accusations and he wants to quit, a few apologies and he decides to stay! Why could he not challenge the accusers to prove their charges otherwise they face libel? A judge has to be manly enough. Don't tell us that you want to fight against the colossus challenge of corruption while you have no gall to face a few buffoons from the Congress! Don't be a sissy Justice Hegde.

Mr. Justice Hegde, if you would listen please, we are not passing judgment about your legal abilities, or your integrity. But we would like those who want to clean the system to be men of grit. No sissies please. By the way, it is no wonder that you are investigating another sissy, BSY the current CM of Karnataka.

Being a Mohandasian (Gandhian) what else can Anna be other than Authoritarian?

A group of individuals, filmmaker Mahesh Bhatt, historian K.N. Panikkar and activist Shabnam Hashmi Friday strongly objected to the authoritarian attitude adopted by social reformer Anna Hazare in his fight against corruption and accused him of being affiliated to right-wing Hindu groups.

Since Congress scum-bags, the foremost amongst them being Digvijay Singh and Manish Tiwari, not to forget Liar Kapil Sibal, have been conducting an orchestrated attack, under the able patronage of Sonia Gandhi (never mind her denials, she also denied that Quattrochi got any kick-backs in Bofors!), shouldn't the right-wing Hindu groups be eulogized for supporting a movement against corruption?

But no, intellectuals in India are mentally-challenged, intellectually-deficient empty skulls who think that Hindu right-wing is more dangerous than corruption and that corruption is more dangerous than Islamic-terror; while Secularism and Socialism are benign!

So they want Mohandasian (Gandhian) policy of tolerance (read spineless surrender) and appeasement to continue. Thus they expect Anna to do the Mohandasian act. And lo and behold, he indeed has been doing that. Anna distanced himself from comments on Modi, says he is apolitical, and so on and so forth.

So what is the problem with these intellectually negligible? They are aghast at the authoritarian behavior of Anna. But what else can you expect from Anna, he being a Mohandasian, but authoritarian behavior?

Mohandas, for most part, was a highly authoritarian operator. He wanted to have the last word on everything that he put his finger in, and there are few places which were spared his finger.

Thus, Hindus were sacrificed for Muslim appeasement, Jawahar was made PM being preferred over Vallabhbhai Patel, and even earlier Subhash Chandra Bose was forced to vacate his electorally acquired President-ship of Congress in favor of a Mohandas candidate Pattabhi Sitaramaiah.

These intellectuals have never raised an eyebrow against that authoritarian performance. So why does Anna's authoritarianism peeve them? Anna is bad enough being a Mohandasian. His being authoritarian merely confirms his being a Mohandasian, and if at all, it must please these intellectuals. Or they must raise their cudgels equally against the man, rather the eunuch, himself (Mohandas).

Don't Credit Mr. Narendra Modi with Hindutva!

Narendra Modi is often hailed (and also bashed) as a Hindutva-Hero. We beg to differ. First of all, we have termed Hindutva as a confusing term, used by many people. Notwithstanding that, Mr. Modi is not to be hailed as a Hindutva-Hero.

There is an old saying, Give the devil his due. We must hasten to add that never give anyone what is not due to him!

B Raman, Additional Secretary ( retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai, and Associate of the Chennai Centre For China Studies, an otherwise reasonable man, in his analysis wrote:

``The storm in the tea cup raised by some so-called secular elements over the praise by Anna Hazare, the social activist, of the rural development achievements of Shri Narendra Modi, their whipping-boy, in his State of Gujarat underlines once again the determination of these elements to keep Modi quarantined in his past and not to take cognizance of his achievements in ushering in an era of prosperity and development in Gujarat. ...''

The phrase quarantined in his past hints as if there is some inglorious past. That is, Mr. Modi did or did not do something, amounting an error of omission or commission, for which he needs to be judged!

We claim that:

1. There is no evidence to either effect. That is Mr. Modi did not favor Hindus, nor did he disfavor Muslims. If at all, he favored Muslims, and disfavored Hindus.

and more importantly, we opine that:

2. What happened, the so called reaction, was not inglorious. What was inglorious was the Police atrocity which stalled the spontaneous flow of reaction.

B. Raman continues:

``The venom and hatred, which these elements keep spreading against him, are because of his strong Hindutva ideology, which is anathema to them, and his perceived sins of commission and omission during the horrendous acts of violence against our Muslim co-citizens in the aftermath of the massacre of a number of Hindu pilgrims by some Muslims at the Godhra railway station in Gujarat in the beginning of 2002. ..."

Mr. Modi, like his RSS patrons, extols secularism, does not question it! This is the old fight between truly-secular and the pseudo-secular. The need of the hour is we need to question secularism itself!

Anyone who does not question Secularism can only be  promoting pseudo-Hindutva!

``There has been a perception---not unjustified---that Modi did not, in the initial stages, deal with the explosive situation vigorously in order to protect the members of the Muslim community from brutal and beastly reprisal attacks by the Hindus. The fact that the Police subsequently took vigorous action to protect the Muslims ---as evidenced by the large number of Hindus killed in police-firing--- would not mitigate from the fact that in the initial hours after the news of the Godhra massacre spread across the State, the administration dragged its feet in protecting the Muslims, thereby wittingly or unwittingly giving a free run to frenzied Hindu mobs. It was a horrible episode of which all of us have to be ashamed. ...''

Mr. Modi should then equally be accused of being pro-Muslim for not taking adequate security measures against the traveling Hindu-pilgrims, who were burnt alive in even more brutal, beastly and rather evil manner!

What is even more unjustified is the total absence of the recognition that Hindus are being repeatedly asked to be ashamed of something that everyone else is always allowed and encouraged to do.

Please recall that it is alleged, and possibly proved beyond reasonable doubts, that Congress goons were being encouraged to massacre Sikhs during 1984 riots in Delhi.

Mr. Binayak Sen has recently been granted bail despite the fact that he has been charged with sedition, for  sympathizing with reaction of the poor villagers, also called Naxals!

``After the frenzy of the initial hours, the State Administration did move in vigorously to bring the situation under control. The fact that no effective action was taken in the initial hours has left a scar in the minds and hearts of Muslims. This scar is likely to take a long time to heal. The cases registered in connection with the brutal attacks on the Muslim community are under investigation or prosecution. The investigation made so far has not produced any evidence of complicity by Modi. ..."

It is common dumb-fuckery in India to be satisfied by the bringing of a tense situation into a situation under control. How about justice? Articles after articles by our socialist and communist DF journalists are replete with claims that reactions happen because of prevailing injustice! Recently the media has been supporting Mr. Binayak Sen, who is being tried for reasoning in favor of Naxals. Why are the same journalists not voicing reasons in favor of reaction in Gujarat?

This means that only non-Hindus have a right to react in this secular country. And Mr. Modi is not reasoning in favor of the rights of Hindus to react as well! So what sort of Hindutva-Hero is he?

``Modi enjoys the unqualified support of large sections of the Gujarat population and is increasingly admired for his drive and administrative acumen in other parts of the country too by people who can by no means be called Hindutva ideologues. People, who look up to him and want him to increasingly play a pan-Indian role, are nationalists and as much secular in their outlook and beliefs as the so-called secularists whose main preoccupation has become stopping Modi at every stage. ...''

Mr. Modi must be duly praised and criticized for what he deserves. We are not discussing his drive and administrative acumen here, thus we will skip that matter.

However, Mr. Modi, or anyone for that matter, must not be praised or criticized for what he does not deserve.

Mr. Modi is not fighting for the rights of the Hindus. He is fighting for Secularism!

Of course, Mr. Modi is not Gandhian either. If he were a Gandhian, he would have gone on a fast unto death until the culprits in the incendiary act on coach  carrying Hindu-pilgrims surrendered to the Police! Or he might have done similar to dissuade the rightful reaction in Gujarat.

Mr. Modi did not do either. He could not stop Muslims from burning the coach carrying Hindu-pilgrims. And later he did stop the Hindu reaction to the barbarous incendiary act. So where has he shown any aggressive Hindutva, assuming that there was such a thing?

So don't credit Mr. Modi with Hindutva! You may credit him with Secularism!

We repeat our call:

O Hindus, realize that no politician is representing you! So you need to choose and send politicians from among yourselves. Make new politicians, make new political parties. Encourage people with spine to become your representatives. Otherwise you will be led by a bunch of Mohandas and Jawahar clones. And surely they will lead you to your doom!

Should he be referred to as Dean Headley or Dawood Gilani? At the very least "Mr. David Headley formerly known as Dawood Gilani".

There have been frequent question marks about the sense of responsibility displayed by the Indian news media, who wholeheartedly subscribe to preaching Gandhian-Non-violence, Nehruvian-Socialist-Central-Planning, Communist-Secularism-(Muslim Appeasement), each thing being a DF-ness in itself.

What takes the cake, in the present situation, is their constant reference to a recent accused as Mr. David Headley. I wonder how many of us know that this person changed his name from Dawood Gilani to Dean Headley. Notice how this fact has been mentioned in the media link in a cursory reference. In view of the fact that the perpetrators of 26/11 came from Pakistan; any responsible media-person must not just mention, but rather highlight the person not as Mr. Headley but as "Mr Headley formerly known as Mr. Dawood Gilani". Better still, "Dawood Gilani who changed his name to David Headley". This way of mentioning is not only factual and not merely more complete and accurate, but rather it also helps the reader (or viewer) to place the person in a more complete perspective. Mr. Headley is not an American who converted to Islam. He is a Muslim who has recently (in 2006) assumed a western-sounding name. Imagine how our media would report if a person with a title Sharma or Singh had forbidden from defacating in front of his own home, another person with a title Koda. From NDTV to AajTak, they would harangue the viewers by referring to the incident as an "Upper-caste atrocity on a Dalit". Of course, from the perspective of our news-media, what else is there in Hinduism other than horrible practices like casteism? By the way, a somewhat sober view on casteism is presented here. So a Sharma/Singh vs. a Koda is "atrocious casteism". Whereas in the case of Headley (Dawood Gilani), his former name is irrelevant! Talk of responsible jounalism? Phew!

All right thinking people must guard against such deceptions.

A clarian Call to Hindus

O Hindus, realize that no politician is representing you! So you need to choose and elect new politicians from among yourselves who will represent your interests. Make new politicians, make new political parties. Encourage people amongst you with spine to become your representatives. Refuse to be led and manipulated by a bunch of Mohandas and Jawahar clones. These clones will lead you to your doom! Say NO to them.

If you do not find able leaders, become ones, at least strive to become ones, and also work towards making abler future leaders.