Indian Political Corner | All Updates & Discussions.

[911]

The Pseudo-Secularism of the Rampur molestation coverage
Media indifference to the religious profile of the accused might be healthy if only it wasn’t selective

Posted By Anand Vardhan | Jun 1, 2017 5 Comments
Twitter Facebook

It is never easy to admit to having missed an opportunity, and more so if it was an easy target. The tendency is to sulk while downplaying it with a sense of banality. Take, for instance, a significant section of the national media in dealing with the report of 14 men molesting two women at Kuwan Kheda village of Tanda in Rampur district of western Uttar Pradesh and posting a video of the act online.

The initial response to the crime drew in the national English dailies had all the makings of a story which could attack Yogi Adityanath government’s poll promise of prioritising the safety of women, and particularly the failings of the anti-Romeo squads. It’s something to which the government is still accountable, though the media’s expectations from the preventive nature of policing are often unrealistic. In fact, early media reports expectedly targeted the Chief Minister for the incident. As the video went viral, NDTV tweeted- “In Yogi Adityanath's Uttar Pradesh, 14 men molest 2 women. They make a video and post it online”

Then something happened which made media reports less keen on pouncing on the opportunity. The 14 molesters identified through the video, (12 of them have already been arrested) are Muslims and they include two minors. The victims were Hindus. As a consumer of Indian media, you could very well imagine what the headline would have been if there was a reversal in the religions of perpetrators and victims- ‘two Muslim women molested, Hindu mob posts the video of the act online’. It’s such selective religious profiling of crime in media which explained why the media didn’t sink its jaws into the story- the kill wasn’t what the smell had misled it to believe. So a large section of the media decided to report it as a run-of- the mill crime story. The only problem was that such duplicity was too obvious to go unnoticed. Responding to NDTV’s tweet, Prasanna Viswanathan, CEO of the right-of-centre monthly publication Swarajya tweeted: “How about an alternate but a factual headline? In Azam Khan's Rampur, 14 Muslim youth molest 2 Hindu woman, make a video and post it online”




Follow
Prasanna Viswanathan @prasannavishy
How about an alternate but a factual headline? In Azam Khan's Rampur, 14 Muslim youth molest 2 Hindu woman, make a video and post it online. https://twitter.com/ndtv/status/868729351986069504 …

9:08 AM - 29 May 2017 · Gurgaon, India

• 
  
• 
  2,4212,421 Retweets
  
• 
  1,5791,579 likes

Twitter Ads info and privacy






In addition to revealing the fault lines of selective media reporting, Viswanathan also took potshots at Rampur strongman and MLA Azam Khan who reacted to the molestation by advising women to stay away from places where they may be targeted. Interestingly, in a district with large Muslim population, Azam Khan’s son Abdullah Azam is the legislator from Swar-Tanda constituency, the area in which the women were molested and filmed.

But, that’s only a part of the discomfort national media had while dealing with the story. On May 30, UP Police had identified the victims as Dalits and early morning, the state police tweeted that along with other acts, the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocity) Act has been added to the charges against the accused.



View image on Twitter

Follow
UP POLICE

✔@Uppolice
#RampurMolestation case update

6:01 PM - 30 May 2017

• 
  
• 
  532532 Retweets
  
• 
  789789 likes

Twitter Ads info and privacy






In the news reports that were published in the major English dailies the next day, the fact that Dalits were the victims was not highlighted at all. It wasn’t part of the headline, and even in the report, an insignificant mention could be seen in the online report of The Hindustan Times. The sections of the national press which were simmering with reports of alleged violence against Dalits in Saharanpur district of UP last week suddenly chose to downplay the molestation of two Dalit women because the perpetrators weren’t useful for the kind of outrage they seek. The religion of molesters certainly didn’t suit the script of a possible headline if the perpetrators were upper caste men- ‘Dalit women molested, filmed and shamed online’. Somehow the Bhim Sena activists also thought that the religious profile of the molesters isn’t going to earn them the brownie points they need in the early stages of their political career.

Such indifference, however, to the religious profile of all the accused might be healthy only if it wasn’t selective. It’s the selective nature which makes it striking, though that didn’t stop Hindu organisations from discovering the untold story. On May 30, Dainik Jagran reported that Hindu organisations staged a demonstration in front of the District Magistrate’s office demanding immediate arrest of all the accused and later submitted a memorandum to the Superintendent of Police.

The communal underpinnings of such incidents aren’t new to western UP. It has often led to communal flare-ups as seen in Muzaffarnagar in 2013 or more recently in Bijnor in 2016. In fact, reports suggest sexual harassment of girl students had contributed to the school drop-out rate of girls in Bijnor. Assessing the positive response to the idea of anti-Romeo squads in terms of the scale of the problem which often leads to communal flare-ups, the Hindi daily Hindustan remarked: “Eve teasing of girl students is a daily occurrence. Girls are too frightened to protest or to file police complaints. When offenders belonging to a particular community are arrested, it often leads to a situation of communal tension”.

As media narratives choose to be selective in identifying the religion of the victim, the journalistic account of such incidents are warped by convenient profiling. So for a headline saying ‘ Muslim cop beaten’ in Madhya Pradesh, you don’t have headline that says –‘Hindu women cops were molested and stabbed by Muslim mob’ at Azad Maidan in Mumbai in 2013. Instead, the headline was restrained enough- ‘Woman cops molested’, and that too after Mumbai police brought it to media attention. Perhaps keeping religion out of the headline was the sensible thing to do, but one could easily guess its tone if the victim had a different religion.

Even headlines of reports carrying clear cases of hate crime reflect this selective approach. Two months back at Gopalpura in Madhya Pradesh, for instance, Shivam Rai and Ayush Shreewas were stabbed by Mohammad Nagori and Faizan Khan for their Facebook post supporting singer Sonu Nigam’s azaan tweet. The headline, predictably, in all the dailies reporting on the incident was ‘2 stabbed in Madhya Pradesh for backing singer’s comments’- the religion of the victims obviously isn’t meant for such cases. You can imagine the headline if the attackers were stabbed for protesting Sonu Nigam's tweet.

Similarly, when social media rumours about child abduction claimed seven lives in different incidents of mob lynching in Jharkhand recently, certain sections of the media were keen on highlighting four victims as Muslims. But, three Hindus who also lost their lives somehow had no religious identity in the headlines.

Having a default setting of batting for the perceived underdog, with indifference to disturbing facts, is a sure sign of lazy journalism. The obvious trap of political correctness could be seen in the cherry-picked debates the media chatterati indulge in. Often the dangers of such political correctness is a kind of prudishness which shields it from the inconvenient truth that should be its primary calling. The media reporting on the Rampur molestation case is another stark reminder of how the headlines reveal or alternatively conceal, media’s selective ‘secular’ battles.

The author can be contacted on Twitter @anandvardhan26

Anything we don't know already? Media mafia is there to serve their political masters.

 

[dray]

Why Abandoning Paris Is a Disaster for America

The Obama administration’s brain trust on how Trump’s rejection of the global climate change agreement is a monumental blunder.

BY DANIEL B. BAER, DANIEL BENJAMIN, HAL BRANDS, REUBEN BRIGETY, SHARON BURKE, DEREK CHOLLET, SHEBA CROCKER, DAN FELDMAN, JON FINER, NINA HACHIGIAN, COLIN KAHL, KELLY MAGSAMEN, JEFF PRESCOTT, ELY RATNER, VIKRAM SINGH, JULIE SMITH, JAKE SULLIVAN, JIM TOWNSEND


JUNE 1, 2017
Ever the showman, President Donald Trump tweeted Wednesday about his soon-to-be-announced decision on whether or not to pull out of the Paris Climate Agreement with the air of a 1950s Las Vegas emcee building up his audience’s anticipation for an upcoming act. But the decision to remove the United States from the long-negotiated, hard-fought, international agreement is no sideshow. This is about what’s in the best interests of American prosperity and security.

As promised, Trump stepped to the podium in the Rose Garden on Thursday afternoon, announcing that the United States would leave the Paris accord. The decision will have serious, irreversible repercussions for the United States and the world.

The president’s justifications for leaving the agreement are also just plain wrong.

First, contrary to the president’s assertions, America’s hands are not tied and its sovereignty is not compromised by the Paris climate pact. The Paris agreement is an accord, not a treaty, which means it’s voluntary. The genius (and reality) of the Paris agreement is that it requires no particular policies at all — nor are the emissions targets that countries committed to legally binding. Trump admitted as much in the Rose Garden, referring to the accord’s “nonbinding” nature. If the president genuinely thinks America’s targets are too onerous, he can simply adjust them (although we believe it would be shortsighted for the administration to do so). There is no need to exit the Paris accord in search of a “better deal.” Given the voluntary nature of the agreement, pulling out of the Paris deal in a fit of pique is an empty gesture, unless that gesture is meant to be a slap in the face to every single U.S. ally and partner in the world.

The second big lie is that the Paris agreement will be a job killer. In fact, it will help the United States capture more 21st-century jobs. That is why dozens of U.S. corporate leaders, including many on the president’s own advisory council, urged him not to quit the agreement. As a letter sent to the White House by ExxonMobil put it, the agreement represents an “effective framework for addressing the risk of climate change,” and the United States is “well positioned to compete” under the terms of the deal.

Action on climate and economic growth go hand in hand, and are mutually reinforcing. That is why twice as much money was invested worldwide in renewables last year as in fossil fuels, and why China is pouring in billions to try to win this market of the future. A bipartisan group of retired admirals and generals on the CNA Military Advisory Board is about to release a report that will also spell out the importance of competitiveness in advanced energy technologies — not just to the economy, but also to the country’s standing in the world. Pulling out of climate will result in a loss of U.S. jobs and knock the United States off its perch as a global leader in innovation in a quickly changing global economic climate.

The rationale for ditching America’s commitment to the Paris accord just doesn’t hold up. Moreover, Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement comes with several serious and lasting consequences for the United States and the world:

The Trump administration is hastening catastrophic effects of climate change. Scientists and economists now state with confidence that the failure to act to arrest and mitigate global climate change will have devastating global consequences, including for young Americans alive today and for their children and grandchildren. Donald Trump himself may well live to see more climate-related catastrophes hit the homeland. His children and grandchildren certainly will.

Americans all over this country are already seeing the changes — storms are more severe, big floods come more often, and in the most extreme case, Arctic waters are melting and opening up sea lanes for the first time in recorded history. Trump saw the damage from Hurricane Sandy firsthand, a preview of what climate change has in store for future generations.

Heading off the worst effects of climate change requires global action: Action by one country alone, no matter how powerful, cannot address the threat. But our country, one of the world’s two largest carbon emitters, does have significant power to improve not just our own climate, but the world’s — and Trump’s decision takes us in the wrong direction. That’s especially tragic in light of the signature achievement of the Paris Agreement, which was to get every country on board; now China and India have made the same commitments the United States and other highly developed countries have. It binds us all together through a political agreement — but the strength of that agreement depends on all of us meeting our nationally determined responsibilities.

Put simply, the U.S. decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement will have impacts on the global climate that a future U.S. administration will not be able to undo. It will undermine the most significant and comprehensive coordinating mechanism for global action to combat climate change that we have. It will weaken an existing asset to defend present and future generations of Americans against a significant threat; it will undermine our security. Indeed, leading military experts, including Secretary of Defense James Mattis, have warned that the impact of climate change will lead to more refugee flows, more famine, more conflict, and more terrorism. As Mattis said, “Climate change is impacting stability in areas of the world where our troops are operating today.” By withdrawing from this agreement, Trump would be ignoring an issue his own secretary of defense has said is a national security threat.

Trump is abdicating U.S. leadership and inviting China to fill the void. During his Rose Garden address, the president asserted that the Paris agreement disproportionately benefits American competitors, such as China. Yet pulling out of the accord redounds to Beijing’s benefit even more.

The Paris agreement was forged in part on the backbone of a preliminary understanding between the United States and China—the two largest carbon-emitting nations. In recent days, as Trump dithered about whether or not to stay in, the Chinese quickly seized the opportunity to claim the mantle of global leadership and have made clear that they will stay in, even as the United States pulls out. Chinese Premier Li Keqiang is riding the wake of Trump’s disastrous visit to Europe, where China and the European Union are expected to release a joint statement on Friday reaffirming their commitment to combatting climate change. This follows Xi Jinping’s defense of globalization and the importance of countries’ looking beyond their own national interests at Davos earlier this year. Beijing will win an Olympics-sized soft-power boost by staying in while the Washington reneges.

Ceding U.S. leadership to the Chinese on this issue is likely to have political and economic costs. China, like Russia, sees value in any division between the United States and Europe — as a rising power it would rather negotiate with us separately rather than collectively. Europeans grateful to China for its continued partnership on climate will be less concerned to take account of U.S. interests with respect to, say, China’s harmful industrial policy, human rights violations, or economic and military coercion expansionism in Asia. European deals with China for the production of infrastructure and equipment related to renewable energy will surely follow. Pulling out of Paris will weaken our geopolitical standing – and complicate our efforts to work with our partners and allies to manage a rising China. Other nations that see themselves as bearing the brunt of climate change, including those of strategic importance to the United States — such as Vietnam, the Philippines, or much of Africa — will now see China as part of the solution to their problem.

Pulling out of Paris will likely result in creating jobs in China that could have been created here in the United States. It will give Chinese and other countries’ companies a leg up in the growing and competitive green economy, putting U.S. companies at a serious disadvantage. The industry and the jobs of the future are in renewables — why would we cede any of that ground to Chinese, Indian, and European companies? The United States will be relegated from a global leader, economically and otherwise, to a member of a lonely camp of pariah countries that haven’t signed this global pact, together with only Syria and Nicaragua. America First? Hardly.

Withdrawing from Paris will damage U.S. standing in the world. Pulling out of Paris will call into question the word of the United States and weaken our ability to call on other countries to work with us on other global threats, such as global terrorism and global pandemics. International agreements are not irrevocable; indeed this one, which the United States had a heavy hand in creating, was crafted carefully as a series of nationally determined, voluntary commitments precisely in order to gain worldwide support, and with the understanding that countries can adjust their commitments as needed. Walking away from that agreement sends a clear — and foolhardy — message to all other countries around the world: Don’t trust the United States.

And why should they, if we so evidently signal that U.S. foreign policy is utterly politicized, and that agreements signed with one administration will not be honored by the next. It is firmly in the U.S. interest to have others’ trust — and for us to be able to demand in return — the durability of agreements, even when governments change. As a chief architect and moral leader of the post-World War II order, our own behavior with respect to agreements and international law sets the example. If the most powerful country in the world has suddenly decided that signing and living up to an agreement no longer matters, why should it matter to other states?

Why should Russia, for example, fear any sanction for invading the sovereign territory of another country, or North Korea fear any reaction to flouting U.N. Security Council resolutions? Why would other countries look to the United States to lead — or choose willingly to follow our lead — when we come asking for commitments, to counter the Islamic State or to address the next global pandemic?

In the wake of the president’s disastrous first foreign trip, National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster and Director for the National Economic Council Gary Cohn were dispatched to attempt to reframe the trip on the Wall Street Journal op-ed page. There they gave perhaps the clearest and most alarming explanation of what America First means as a foreign policy and how it applies to the Paris Agreement. A key passage reads:

The president embarked on his first foreign trip with a clear-eyed outlook that the world is not a “global community” but an arena where nations, nongovernmental actors, and businesses compete for advantage. We bring to this forum unmatched military, political, economic, cultural, and moral strength. Rather than deny this elemental nature of international affairs, we embrace it.

McMaster and Cohn are wrong. To be sure, the world is a competitive arena that has at times throughout history turned into bloody conflict and ruin. That is precisely the reason the United States has always looked for alliances and partnerships grounded not only in common interests, but common values and commitments. It is also why wise presidents have long recognized that even as the most powerful nation on Earth — and in many cases precisely because of our global reach — the United States has an interest in a rules-based system. That system protects our citizens living overseas, our businesses operating overseas, and our military operations around the world. We threaten the underpinnings of that system at our peril.

Pulling out of Paris means Republicans own climate catastrophes. Just as President Barack Obama bequeathed to the Trump/Paul Ryan/Mitch McConnell team a workable framework for ensuring health care coverage, President Trump inherited a workable framework for global climate action. The Republicans have chosen to pour sand in the gas tank of Obamacare, using the levers of government to attempt to make the Affordable Care Act fail even as they themselves fail to deliver a real alternative. Polls show that Americans — even Republicans — understand that the GOP now owns health care as an issue. They will similarly own whatever disasters befall the United States if they do nothing to be part of the solution. They are ignoring the scientific evidence and turning their backs on the best chance to address this global challenge. In fact, the majority of the population of every state in the United States supports staying in this agreement. The president and his Republican allies are flouting the will of the American people as our country walks away.

This week, there was news that this year’s peach crop in South Carolina and Georgia was ruined by the extreme temperature swings — unseasonably hot in late winter, and a cold snap in late spring. As extreme weather events like this and other phenomena associated with climate change accelerate, when we confront our next Katrina or Sandy, people will remember that it was Trump and the Republicans who did nothing. Make that worse than nothing: They lost ground and put their party ahead of the country.

Trump’s pulling out of Paris means that the rest of us are called upon to do more — and we will. Even as the White House abandons the pact, there are plenty of ways for Americans to advance its goals. Many state and local governments are already tackling energy efficiency and emissions reductions. California, the sixth-largest economy in the world, will not abandon its emission standards. And many U.S. cities are a locus of both great innovation and high-impact investments. That is why Mayor Bill de Blasio announced this week that he will sign an executive order for New York City to uphold climate commitments even if the United States pulls out. Major corporations across this country have recognized the opportunities in clean energy and energy storage, and see the risks of inaction to their long-term profitability. ExxonMobil’s shareholders even voted this week in support of more open and detailed analysis of the threats posed by climate change to the oil business. Entrepreneurs, investors, and researchers will continue to press forward with the next generation of innovations that can reduce carbon emissions. And we can all continue to pressure our political leaders to take serious action to confront this threat. If Trump ditches Paris, there’s no time for despair — it’s a time for action.

There are many reasons why pulling out of Paris is a bad idea. (In addition to those above, there’s the fact that, like most divorces, this is a yearslong legal process that requires more than a tweet or a speech.) Trump can bluster that he’s putting America first, but climate change is real and will become far more dire in the coming years. The need for action to address it will remain urgent. The rest of the world won’t be standing still and neither should we if we want to advance American security and prosperity.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/06/0...um=email&utm_campaign=FP&utm_term=Flashpoints

 

[kadamba-warrior]

Why Abandoning Paris Is a Disaster for America

I wish I could drag these rich idiots, who claim man-made climate change as a hoax, to the towns and villages in India and elsewhere to show them the devastating affects of the climate change first hand.

It is one thing if a barely literate idiot in my village doesn't believe in climate change. It is quite another if that person happens to be the leader of the most powerful country in the world, the same country which also happens to be the most responsible for all the greenhouse gas emission that has taken place over the last couple of centuries!

What is even more unbelievable is that, the only source to their claim that man can't alter nature, is a 2000 year old book!

One reason why I don't like the American RW politics! It is nothing like Indian RW at all!

 

[dray]

A WISE ENEMY IS BETTER THAN A FOOLISH FRIEND ! - - An old saying.

 

[Sky lord]

Sad day for the world. Can't figure out what's wrong with Americans these days. Have they given up on science?

 

[kadamba-warrior]

Sad day for the world. Can't figure out what's wrong with Americans these days. Have they given up on science?

I think they had given up on science long time ago. Only the fear of Soviets in the Cold war, kept them going so far and brought them unprecedented success and glory. But now that the old Russians are buddies-in-chuddies, it is time to lock down the Smithsonian Museums and open more Creation Museums.

Like this little beauty in Jesus's place of birth - Kentucky, USA!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_Museum

 

[Gadkari]

US is doing what the US has been doing for the last 200 years, looking after itself and screwing the world in the process.

I hardly think its a new thing.

 

[bhimram]

Ashotosh special

 

[Gadkari]

https://twitter.com/x/status/870188008590295040

Remember muslim population of Telengana is only 12.7 %

https://twitter.com/x/status/870523585235791874

 

[bhimram]

This is from Opindia.

@baajey , if not for my Hindu Dalit WhatsApp grp, I wouldn't even know about this. Do you know MSM has not reported it. Only local papers? Now you understand why I take the position I am taking?
We know who our enemies are and we remember the lessons Bhimrao taught us.

In an unfortunate development reminiscent of the incident in Rampur, where a group of Muslim men had molested two Dalit women and put the video on social media, Tajganj area of Agra too saw a Dalit woman being harassed by a group of youth belonging to the Muslim community, which led to communal tensions in the area on Thursday night.

Reports say that a Dalit woman was going to buy medicines around 8 PM on Thursday evening when a group of men waylaid her. They were smoking and drinking and started misbehaving with the woman. When she opposed this behaviour, they reportedly snatched her dupatta and started abusing her. The woman had to run back to her home to save herself.

Around 3-4 men had tried to intervene to save the woman from this harassment, but they were also beaten up and chased away by a mob supportive of the miscreants. This apparently turned the entire incident communal as these 3-4 men were chased away by a mob of almost 100 men who belonged to the same locality as of the miscreants who were harassing the Dalit woman.

Apart from attacking the men who tried to intervene, this mob, made of Muslim men as per the complaint, also attacked the house of the Dalit woman whom they were sexually harassing. At least 5 women were injured thereafter, who were taken to the hospital by the police. The situation could have led to larger communal clash but police is reported to have acted on time assuring punitive action.

Reports say that police kept a vigil eye and marched in the region ahead of the Friday namaaz the following day to keep the situation in control. At least two miscreants are reported to have been arrested out of eleven named in the FIR, while the police is trying to identify more who formed the mob.

Local residents are apparently unhappy with reports that police has not applied the (Prevention of Atrocities against) SC/ST act in the case. It should be noted that this act was invoked in the incident that had happened in Rampur more a week ago. The situation is reported to be under control now.

 

[bhimram]

Amit Shah in kerala getting grand reception from Kerala people.

 

[bhimram]

https://twitter.com/x/status/870935274187923457

Kejriwal & EVM epic fight

 

[911]

https://twitter.com/x/status/870935274187923457

Kejriwal & EVM epic fight

 

[bhimram]

Shocking! Kashmir labelled as 'Indian Occupied' in UP Congress booklet

Lucknow: A booklet on three years of BJP-led NDA government released by the UP Congress here has labelled Kashmir as “Indian occupied”, a media report said on Saturday.

The major gaffe came to light during a conference of the opposition party here to highlight the shortcomings of the Narendra Modi government during its three years of rule.

Page 12 of the 16-page booklet titled 'Rashtriya Suraksha par Aanch', which was distributed by the Congress, showed the entire state of J-K labelled as "Indian Occupied Kashmir" in the context of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), PTI reported.

The booklet was released by UP Congress in Lucknow today.

Asked about the incident, party's state chief actor-turned politician Raj Babbar said, “Those who have printed it have already given their statement, it makes no sense to comment on the matter again and again.”

Terming the incident as "highly objectionable", the BJP said the Congress must make its stand clear whether it is with India or Pakistan.

"Congress which has created the Kashmir crisis must answer and make its stand clear that whether it is with India or Pakistan. The question arises, as today the Congress came out with a booklet, which mentions Jammu and Kashmir as India occupied Kashmir.

"This is highly objectionable, and it goes on to prove that on one hand the Indian Army is eliminating the terrorists, while the Congress is refusing to believe that Kashmir is an integral part of India," UP BJP spokesperson Shalabh Mani Tripathi said.

This categorically makes it clear that the language of the Congress and Pakistan is the same. The Congress party should tender an unconditional apology to the country, he said.

"Border dispute with Pakistan and terrorism in Kashmir is a gift of the Congress. It is quite surprising to see that Congress which has virtually failed on all fronts in the last 60 years, is today giving a certificate to the BJP on terrorism and Kashmir dispute," Tripathi said.

UP BJP leader Rakesh Tripathi said, "While the Congress was registering its opposition for Bha Ja Pa (BJP), it has now started opposing Bharat (India) too."

The Congress and other Opposition parties such as the National Conference have been criticising the government over its handling of the Kashmir issue.

Congress true colours are coming out.
Why would any Indian vote for these traitors?

 

[bhimram]

A tight slap to haters. This one will particularly hurt those who think Muslims of India are a monolith and will follow their divisive agenda.
Well done sir.