Demystifying Gandhi

Mahatma is a misused term. Indian society has tradition of great souls who dedicated themselves to the uplifting of fellow being –who were in immense misery and untold discrimination. They were quite vehement in their protest against temple squatter’s horrendous hold over society, and fancy rituals which tied people into absurdity. They spoke against the nonsense that was spreading through Vedas and superstitious norms that was replacing the egalitarian nature of Upanishadic culture. The temple squatter’s framework was the one that insidiously and consistently degraded Indian society, it just took away the soul. The unenlightened thoughts, stories and myths associated with gods –their unusual tendency for anger and uncontrolled egoist outbursts (which any normal person will find embarrassing, even a child listening to these godly stories cannot but think of moral depravity of evengods), grossly exaggerated self worth and pious juvenile penance is all part of package that has hallmark of what happens when amazingly mediocre people are given importance, who with no insecurities of livelihood, tax their harebrain to work out crude forms of expressions. These can be nothing but primitive, devoid of even basic sense. These arrogant knuckleheads cannot be really be expected to come out with anything subtle nor compassionate. It goes from crude to cruder, and over the centuries you have amazingly deviant people who are absolutely absorbed in their infallibility. These are percolated as common culture and therefore despite being amazingly mediocre inbred imbeciles they think of themselves as centre of the world. To keep common people (zombies) busy in the network they came out with incredible ways to propitiate these angry gods, therefore by careful default assumed themselves these crudeness, indeed the stories were in first place created to justify their own moral exigencies, giving it godly characteristics only embolden their nearness to god and the cruder world they created. The fact that it only helped temple squatter’s to consolidate themselves was never understood by the zombies, who if ever felt only trapped and isolated. Such was the grip, critically it sucked into very weak areas of human dealings, matters of gods, death, fate so on, therefore capitulation by the common people to these enormous traps that has making of some cunning people of over thousands of years.   

In the meanwhile, as is the nature of human societies it wasn’t completely emasculated of human feelings and wasn’t devoid of responsible people. There were parallel movements that sought to create sane, enlightened and compassionate ways of living that understood the nature of life and its connection to living. They were determinately not part of temple squatter’s worldview, indeed raised their voice against these primitive cannibalistic nature of society that were being perpetuated by temple squatters. They used the languages and nuances of common people and therefore attracted much attention and admiration but never could be mainstreamed as a system, since it generally fizzled out after the charismatic individual died. The squatter’s framework was much stronger, like any cunning marketer they assimilated these new ideas (even Budha was made a god, some even put him in dashavatara, wherein he was quite an ordinary man who contemplated and with empathy and insight enlightened. Unlike temple squatter’s quick fix there isn’t short cuts in life) provided it didn’t overtly threatened them, and so the pious viciousness of pouncing on any aberrations or questioning. Meanwhile any threat to them was equalized to threat to Hinduism, therefore zombies didn’t really cross lines of traditions drawn to them, they became circumspect faced with overwhelming odds as it dealt with matter of gods. If hell wasn’t much clearly defined wrath was and it had terrible consequences with millions of gods ready to spew fire, meanwhile ever opportune squatter negotiating the situation slyly from the sidelines. The caste based cannibalistic system therefore got consolidated hence the socio-cultural pointers too slanted towards squatter’s worldview, hence deviant traditions. So despite the best efforts of Budhas, Mahaviras, Kabirs, Nanaks, Tukarams…(the list is much long), who fought these discriminatory ways, it couldn’t dismantle the exploitative structures that had acquired very strong racist undertones. Nevertheless the efforts of great souls, the mahanatmas were not futile. Their thoughts influenced the moral fabric of the society and, despite entrapped in deviant social system, it had a deep impact and significant influence on the thought process of common people. Indeed almost all the egalitarian thoughts of Indian society and civilizational achievements can be traced to these great souls, thoughts that ran parallel as a protest as also a glimpse of subtle brilliance. 

In the meanwhile the squatters where sharpening their sinister styles, fashioning increasingly atrocious methods to inflict pain on common people. Concomitantly their amazingly mediocre minds were occupied in absurd ‘philosophies’ on all and sundry that their little overactive mind could comprehend, they had to fill the gap of being placed at the seat of wisdom wherein they lacked even the basic intelligence. Thus began the ridiculous nature of ‘philosophies’ that ranged from outrageous to rubbish, and vacillated hereabout for centuries, as the society suffered and slipped into depth of bizarre. With their limited thinking and actively fertile cleverness they worked to degrade common people, to justify themselves they even debased something as basic as physical work!! Being acutely aware of power they also gave certificates of closeness to god to the rulers. To get acceptance from zombie like people the rulers actively pursued them. So temple became centers for rulers to gain acceptance among population, thus gained quite wholesomely in the arbitration. They became centers of power and money, as they grew their nature of exploitation became much vicious. As coffers filled so was the demand for specific gods and miracles, and so elaborate rituals that was meant to further squeeze in common people and increase their hardship. Temple squatter’s worldview was slowly seeping into societies psyche with detrimental effect, the kind people still struggle to free. 

Thus lived the parasitic charlatans trapped in primitive frugality that was elevated as piety and cleverly worked as detachment. This then was the art of staying powerful by denying oneself power, living with outward symbols of simplicity but acutely egoistic and arrogant grandness about oneself. This special connection with gods and assured place in society gave them the assuredness in dealings. Thus amazingly mediocre people high in confidence, ready with clever lines that could turn any fact into fiction and vice versa. This therefore defined the deviousness of existence of elite section of this godforsaken society as it tumbles from one vicissitude of fate to another.

It is in this narration that Gandhi enters. He therefore doesn’t deny the deviant oppressive structure that made lives of common people miserable and exploited in the name of religion. Since this deviant structure was what gave him legitimacy. He was completely enmeshed in squatter’s worldview. He was born into it but wasn’t enlightened enough to grow out of it. Gandhi was a little man from the little word. He searched salvation/ truth within this framework and as has happened even the best of its expression lacked compassion. You cannot bring in egalitarian values from within an exploitative system, it is just not possible it is against the law of nature. At the most it is a good play act, a clever move, most likely godly brownie points for afterlife or next birth comforts. It is as ridiculous as that. Gandhi had firmly pitched himself into this framework –that lacked character, he wasn’t from the tradition of great souls who connected to common people, those who understood the causes of their misery, tried to assuage them with their enlightened thoughts and very fervent opposition against casteism and superstition. It is therefore easy to bring out lack of compassion in Gandhi in almost all the cases involving common people right from racism against blacks to his views of people who were massacred in Jalianwala bagh or people exterminated in Nazi concentration camps, to take few examples. Not at all surprising and out of place is his arrogant nature as he lived with simple frugal means, he effectively used pointers of simplicity that squatters were quite fine with. Even today squatters can be seen moving around half naked in small towns. It shouldn’t really be mistaken for signs of piousness or simple living but clever way of exposing the grime thread and claiming entitled status. How many times have seen the fellow across the seat strategically keeping the shirt buttons open to expose his threads? It is akin to exposing nazi tattoo in Europe.

Gandhi was useful for colonial british as much as for elite Indians. For british he was needed for emasculating the struggle of common people against the oppression, apart from day to day miseries (it also lead to worst of famines that killed millions of people in Bengal. Britishers didn’t want repeat of what had happened in 1857, it had severely jolted them, a renewed version of this would have most definitely ousted the colonial power from the subcontinent.  How sub-continental geo-political history might have shaped after this is matter of speculation and one cannot be really be prescient about it. Also Gandhian presence didn’t prevent the worst kind massacre that followed partition, millions and millions of common people bore the brunt. Gandhi’s non violent protest put the onus of realization of oppression on the oppressed. It remarkably gave the initiative to the oppressor. The strategy questioned the basic morality of oppressor but even the oppressed. Further the act of allowing being violated is in itself acceptance of violence, being injured and maimed in the process goes against the basic instinct of self preservation. Inability to stop violence against oneself and one’s being is undoubtedly immoral. In a civilized society one takes the recourse of law but britain was a colonial power. These incremental moral assertions were at heavy price.

The reason why I seriously question this is that oppressor aren’t unaware of the lack of morality in their act, they use this occasion of emasculation of oppressed as means to consolidate themselves. Britishers did exactly that as they stripped the land of its natural resources as also exploited the people. They left not because of any overwhelming desire for non violence but from the realities that emerged after Second World War, the most violent phase of human history. Which also saw “our leaders” supporting colonial British against Germany for higher good, while common people suffered as usual, the ideals of “high moral ground” never reaching them, it still haven’t changed much even after 60 years of so called independence. It seems that goodness of British people took precedence and therefore violence was acceptable.  To be fair with Gandhi he gave the clarion call for do or die against British but one wonders what kind of non violence is that? What does ‘do’ means if not violence? Call to die is not non violent. It seems his entitled position ordained by feudal-casteist nature of society was being used by him to experiment on hapless people who had put trust on him. Such arrogance and self assured nature of one’s being while one lords over common people can come only from squatter’s framework. “My life is my message”. Surely a mahatma will never utter such eulogy on oneself, and yes I am struggling to understand the message.

This framework is the same he practiced in the case of oppressive system of casteism, he very determinately emasculated the protest that was gaining momentum against the heinous practice. His deviant insistence on non violence on people who faced untold violence over centuries and violation of all forms of their being is where Gandhi faults much grievously and cannot be pardoned. Gandhi was a pacifist of the conservative mold who strived to preserve the existing structure, his morality seemed hinged on this, people were expendable. This was his focus as he dealt with colonial atrocities of british as also while he dealt squatters (indeed he never did, his focus being the mechanism of the dealing of the oppressed, there must be some perverse pleasure in this). So what we are left with are structures: The colonial structure as a form of insensitive administration (even after so many decades and much misery to people, they remain archaic and nobody seems much bothered. They call it freedom), indeed the bureaucracy is such that it strives to preserve itself over people. While the temple squatter’s structure/framework is still as intact and oppressive, meanwhile even acquiring forms of culture expressions and redefining the land of diversities. These are true dedications to Gandhian efforts.

As much as Britisher preferred, as it made their job of exploitation much easier, the elitizens too played a major role in hiking Gandhi, indeed he was tailor made for them. By the late 19^th century temple squatter’s framework was being severely questioned from within, not for its oppression of common people but for lack progressiveness, as they negotiated the western world and the new emerging power structure. The wily ones had to capitalize on these new opportunities, so westernization became a wont for some. Clearly westernization they faced had egalitarianism extended to only few select, this suited them immensely and so the race to get into this coveted status of being accepted which for most was natural extension of their entitlement, the god ordained status that was very much their due. The colonial power quite astutely used these cravings of the ‘natives’ and so were made ally, an exalted status in the little world of neo squatters. They therefore furthered the cause of colonial powers with centuries of tongue twisting ability that was chiseled with selective inbreeding (the progenies justify colonialism as good for the society even know, with straight face without sounding ridiculous at all). As they adopted western lifestyle they sought to distinguish themselves with acquired tastes and thoughts. Modern values seeped in as necessary alibi but it rarely pricked the omnipresent casteist structure and oppressive nature of society, such moral transgression never disturbed their conscience.

As was expected they soon locked horn. The neo squatters found problems with traditional squatters whose conservative ways and lifestyle was seen as unpalatable and hindrance to projecting themselves as modernist. Thus you see the beginning of the fratricidal divide and ensuing war in the clamor to grab the power. The conservative section (i.e. the temple squatters with all the miserable tradition intact) acquiring right wing character that sought to safeguard Hinduism while the other section (i.e. the neo squatters) masquerade secular liberal concerns and sought to carry the legacy of colonial masters in a veneer of acquired sophistication. Interestingly both sides never condemned the squatter’s framework i.e. the heinous caste system as it defined them (so whatever side they were in the mock anguish they carried the squatter’s surnames with flourish). They divided their turf but usurped and sucked on to the perverse legacy of thousands of years, that gave misery and defined common people’s life. It gave them the entitled advantage as well as necessary reach and easy comforts cushioning the hiccups in the journey. It was an easy way out to lead the hapless people. Matters came to head on as Gandhi was assassinated. Before I go further into this let me acknowledge that there were enlightened people genuinely concerned with the plight of people but these were scattered lot. The mainstream was broadly occupied by these two sections.  

What elitizens refer to as concept of liberal values and tolerance is something that exists quite effortlessly in the lower strata without anybody being aware of. They coexist with people of different religion and regions without much effort. For divine selves emerging out of insulated abode of pure world living it was quite challenging. Such was the deviant world that the act of interacting with ‘others’ itself was heightened case of tolerance, extending this skills to muslims was seen as beginning of secularism. This was quite a remarkable achievement in their little worldview, considering that it dealt with hobnobbing with non vegetarian. While common people had never any problems of vegetarian or non vegetarian or whatever anyone eats as also any heightened sense of oneself and purity associated. For squatters trying to modern themselves these were significant achievements while common people carried on negotiating their life and observing these burgeoning modern values with tired amusement. For icons emerging from squatters framework these were immense challenges that shook their being (like for instance something as trivial as having food with common people was almost the end of world as they knew), crossing of which was major achievement as one negotiated treacherous path of acquiring enlightened liberal nuances. Since their interaction (or shall I say adventures) were confined to elite sections of muslims therefore these became their references. These superficialities are reflected in how the idea of secularism is practiced. It lacks compassion and is more towards patronizing the feudal power and pandering entrenched deviants. Common people were never in scheme of things although these acts were purported to be played for them!

The breakaway neo squatter brown sahibs concerns of freedom from colonial rule and liberal thoughts wasn’t finding much resonance among common people, the hypocrisy was obvious as also it lacked the native touch. It was into this cauldron of squatter’s worldly concerns that Gandhi entered, arriving from South Africa, with some reputation of taking on the colonial rulers. That his concerns didn’t extend to black Africans, who faced amazing discrimination, was telling but then it was pushed under the carpet with traditional alacrity. You will notice that the same sections (including Gandhi) didn’t feel much about oppressive caste structure, therefore lack of concern for blacks was absolutely normal, it is even likely that tolerating discrimination against lower section was so entrenched that they didn’t see black Africans worth concerned about. Some humans don’t measure up the scale to fight for, to be concerned about, they live they die it is their karma. It is this structure that they were trustee of, it was balanced on purity pecking order.

Gandhi soon brought in the pointers that were close to squatter’s worldview but very cleverly molded into liberal language. He was immensely successful with the elites as also it gave hope to common people, but these were mirage and was only a ploy to gain ground against colonial force. The mass movements weren’t meant for change in common people’s life but a move to transfer power to Indian elitizens for which Gandhi was eagerly acquiring a status of compelling mascot. Furthermore Gandhi didn’t threaten their ordained status, he didn’t find anything morally shallow in the depraved socio-religious system under which Indians functions, the traditions hinged on exploitation and discrimination. Despite these glaring ethical ambiguities they were able to build Gandhi as some kind of moral guardian of the masses. Wherein the reality was unlike the tradition of protest against temple squatter’s framework, the enlightened souls and seers who were born time to time to reaffirm civilizational values and its unique legacy, while providing ethical framework to hapless common people in an increasingly immoral oppressive mainstream lives of elites, Gandhi fell grievously short. In the context of things Gandhi was an amazing travesty, but nevertheless a successful ploy. It fooled common people into believing that something significant was about to happen or is happening. Gandhi played his part, his body language, postures and the life style reflected the image of a great soul, detached and connected to divine, a man of wisdom. These motifs common people had come to associate with the tradition of mahatma, of great souls who were indelible part of this society who, from time to time, guided common people from the atrocities of temple squatters. But in reality Gandhi was very much earth bound, quite a cunning politician and astute in matters of money, meanwhile disposing of his political threats with much ease.  Paraphernalia that pointed to divinely interests, puritanical frugal means and pious bearing (that was quite a characteristic of temple squatters, it was certainly taken around as trophy) were nothing but subterfuge for extending his moral authority and necessary arrogance that comes with it. From this lofty ground Gandhi’s patronizing self saw ‘god’s children’ (the bullshit called Harijan, a divinely insult inflicted on common people) but not the discrimination. Gandhi’s experiments with truth were a joke on common people and a travesty on truth itself. In the meanwhile the discriminated faced such untold misery that even a person with common sense would shudder but not Gandhi he was made of much sturdier piety that is so much valued by squatters. Even meekest of protest by most wretchedly discriminated was met with aggressive angst or even sadist threat of self harm. These were beginning of Gandhian techniques of solving problems, which have since been much intellectualized and indeed has shifted from original framework to egalitarian worldview.  

Gandhi in effect gave moral authority to the elitizens despite the fact they were trapped in primitive framework, this exploitative setup fed them well in the meanwhile gave a head start on angst. So you could be blatantly casteist (therefore racist), amazingly feudal and patronizingly patriarchal but still can claim to be modern, therefore liberal. You could be crude but can easily claim to be wise, discriminative but can seek redemption. This self assurance despite being hypocritical, ability to patronize despite lacking sympathy is gandhi’s enduring gift to the elitizens. He became their moral torchbearer, they therefore went overboard in edifying him, it was a self justifying act. Being a Gandhian covered whole lot of crap and you could still walk head held high, some angst for others as you hobnob with power –while denying it all at once! This skewed nature of things is how India’s foundation was being laid, and does reflect quite acutely in the discriminating nature of development pattern that followed. One could say India’s development pattern, seen through social indices so on, is very much Gandhian with necessary trustees angst.

Gandhi therefore was promoted with gusto, a moral trump card. He was a Mahatma. Father of nation. Public spaces were occupied, from roads to statues to what not. The more it was pushed into psyche of hapless people more elitizens justified their crude piety and patronizing self, while necessary lip service became the defining nature of trustees. It all worked so well, Gandhi filled the moral gap that existed with transfer of power that commonly sold as independence for which common people paid heavy price particularly along the indo-pak border. Never in the history of human society was a man used to emasculate the aspiration of common people over generations. Never ever on this land did a ‘mahatma’ haughtily claim his moral bearing standing on discriminations. Never was non-violence used to justify violence against the most wretched and discriminated people in the history of human society. And never ever in the history did Mir Qasims and Mir Jaffars claim that they fought for freedom of people from oppression. 

Gandhi undoubtedly was a great man with good intention but he fell short since he could never come out of the entrenched system, he faults further in that he lacked the wisdom to realize these. He worked well within this oppressive system which he mistook for religiosity, hence was ‘morally’ stuck to it. With the advantage of hindsight one can see that his best intention were nothing but patronizing the agonizingly oppressed.  This therefore was seen as justification by much cruder elitizens who were passing through existential crisis and immense personal tribulations being exposed to harsh world outside the squatter’s superior entitlement framework and enchantingly self assured world. Gandhi assuaged this transitional angst and agony of liberal world and remodeled it to fit into squatter’s reality. Hypocrisy was redefined and oppressive framework was seen as uniqueness of cultural diversity, racism was patronized as acts of ‘god’s children’. Gandhi used all the pointers of squatters to negotiate the modern values, hence casteism was onlya discrimination and not racism. These subtle differences falls in the pecking order of Indian philosophy that needs one to strip into absurdity and mediocre nature of traditional thoughts and deviant ideas that kept emerging quite regularly from temple precincts.

Gandhi may have been a Mahatma for squatters desperately trying to fill in the moral gaps and modernize themselves as they grab the power as it is transferred. But considering the tradition of great souls who guided common people, who vehemently recognized and protested against oppressive nature of traditions and the deviant values derived, Gandhi falls woefully short, indeed he is an embarrassment, he couldn’t even recognize what great saints could thousands of years back, prominent being Budha, and in his lifetime saints like Ayyankali (great man who didn’t pretensions of mahatma and other divine attributes. These saints insistence on practicality differed diametrically from Gandhi. Indeed Gandhi took shield of even superstition to cow down common people rather than engaging with their reality, prominent being causes of earthquake so on). The list of these venerable saints is quite long, and unfortunately Gandhi doesn’t even deserve a footnote. Gandhi wasn’t a Mahatma, and most definitely doesn’t deserve to be called as one, compelling motifs withstanding. He was a politician who wanted to bring in morality in discourse. We don’t need any father of nation, how about fathers and mothers of nation? The ‘founding figures of nation’ will do. Gandhi has been overplayed by the elitizens, quite appropriately, the recent instance being the statue in London, this to buttress a million dollar arms deal by Britain.  British know the value of hypocrisy, and the use of Gandhi.

It’s time to expose Indians and shake them out from their self assured world. This is going to be difficult. The popular culture too has consolidated discrimination as diversity, squatter’s utterings as divine interventions while the fact is these are worst forms of superstitious hogwash that seeks to perpetuate a sinister world. They have infected the myth, traditions and collective conscience of the society. It is going to be difficult to weed out these. International community declaring India a racist country would be a good beginning, some reality check for mediocre Indians ensconced in superior considerations.   

Congratulating BBC

I happened to see a physically handicapped (or challenged, the politically correct version) anchor, that too in a wheel chair, in BBC channel the other day. It was quite refreshing. Here in india it has gone primitive, as is expected, and they focus more on body and its unique expression called body language and other crude nuances, adding to it, amazingly puerile nonsense as news and high claims on freedom. They also have sponsors stampeding them, to somehow hoodwink people to buy. It is called business model.  

Though, as mentioned earlier, standard of BBC has plummeted quite drastically, they are about “monarchial butt” –quoting the speaker in a debate about monarchy in Australia. Australians are such primitively feudal people to have British monarchy as their head is amazing. The aborigines should demand the ouster of this nonsense.  

Indian elitizens too are quite keen on monarchial matters, as it justifies their feudal gains. Some in mysore claim that it was the royal family that created the city and its infrastructure, it may be true, they were known to be benevolent, indeed it was expected from the rulers. Period. In the contemporary time it is disgusting to refer back to them as torch bearers and the ‘incumbents’ given respect which is not at all due. It is a sickness. They should have absolutely no role in public functions especially festivals like dashara, it is a deviant tradition. Instead citizens who have contributed exceptionally to the society should be taken in as guest of honour. Royal family and their minions have no place in civilized society, their role is over. And yes thank you for ruling well, it really shouldn’t be allowed to stretch any further. 

There are people who conduct heritage walks, and take tourists to look at these monstrous structures. I had that offer but I said thank you. These are nothing to be proud of, indeed in mysore the palace is shoddy copy of Europeans, and lacks any local understanding or innovation.  I am not at all impressed by royal fleet of cars, it made me puke. They should dump these into some garbage yard and convert the space into organic farm or something, or maybe a science park. A democratically elected government is expected to see to that any reference to ‘royal’ is removed from any dealings and leftovers be treated like ordinary citizens. It is too much to ask from sycophantic mindset that characterizes Indians, which is so cleverly capitalized by elitizens. It is also not uncommon that some novae rich want these royal treatments be extended to them, while others cling on to traditional claims and entitlements. The only heritage I am keen on is natural heritage, and they are making all effort to see that it is plundered in the name of development.        

    

Biradri ki aukat: making of high culture family

Crude woman was saying “har biradri ki bhaisaab apni apni aukat hothi hai. Ham logon ko hi dekh lo. Hamare hi log hai mandiron me. Tum logon ka kriya karam bhi hum logon ke hath me hai. Hum logon ka bhagwan ke saath seedha connection hai”. Her high culture claims was blatant take on casteism was not lost, she even stressed that it has to do with “superior genes”. “hotha hai bhaisaab, kudrath me yeh sab hoth hai, aap mano ya na mano. Some people are always superior to others”. “Dekh lo Sharma log kahan tak pohunch gaye hai. Agar aap bbc dekhoge tho hamare log, Amrika jaoge wahan pe hamare hi log hai uche position par. Akbaar kholo tho mishra, cricket dekho tho sharma. Kya bathaye hum logon ke biradari ke naam pe pahad bhi rakh diya hai amrika me. Ye sab natural hai bhai saab”. “Bharath bana he hai ham logon ki karam se, freedom fighters se lekar patrkar sab hamare biradri ke hai” “ab bolo kya bolthe ho” “bolthi bandh ho gayi kya?” 

If you are thinking it is fiction then you are grossly mistaken. These are fragments of discussion one catches while travelling. So what is morality of the story here? The caste reference is quite clearly claimant for superior genes by primitives in this part of the world, though the fact is India as a society is amazingly mediocre. Also those who carry these as identities should be aware how it percolates down into racism and prejudices. Mishras and Sharmas (of course our little Pande) claiming high moral ground should be put in their primitive framework. Indian zombies will take time to understand these, it is too entrenched, but international community should take stern actions. I strongly believe it was Gandhi and his ‘moral’ reach that emasculated these matters, hence the blinkers, as people suffered untold misery. They quite effectively hid these primitiveness with heightened secular claims. Gandhi saw the glimpse of it not in poor marginalized muslims in here but by supporting calipha in Turkey. In school, I distinctly recall, this was regarded to as his “masterstroke”. It is this superficial secularism that some elitizens practice and even claim more than their share of returns –it has become a game, as poor people suffer and mullahs embolden.  Casteism is racism and the fact that Indians are blatantly racist should be accepted. It is in the same context that the mountain that was named after an Indian recently, unfortunately, represents racism.           

Crude Indian media slips further down the drain

We all know how obnoxious Indian media is, with very rare exceptions it is such a nuisance.  You really have to flip through many channels and printed materials to take the average to make sense of what is really happening. Despite these you still have to create your own medium to get quality news and views. Thankfully internet is an effective alternative. Every channel and newspaper is in its own little pit, very effectively coalesced by the market scramble for selling. The framework is going from crude to crude and hitting the bottom of sanity. A minor skirmish between an actor and her partner becomes a major concern, in the meanwhile a journalist at a TV channel (India TV) attempts suicide accusing the management of serious violation is blocked, by all the media outlets. It is the temple squatter’s framework: instead of finding out the problem and addressing it they close rank to ward of any threat to their power and prestige. Such hypocrisy is natural in scheme of things, it is a tradition. The readers will know that the squatters spread with much alacrity wherever there was opportunity to lick it big time (indeed they didn’t have any competition) so shifting from sanctum sanctorum to controlling news, therefore opinion, therefore blackmail, wasn’t that difficult. From tirupati to cricket to media to politics to entertainment the shift is rather swift (see it even rhymes, there must be some divine cause to it!!). Sharmas and Mishras have done it with much ease, and now they pass on to litters as legacy. The crude market has only consolidated these, indeed the crudeness has become an advantage, a sign of smartness. It is in the same context I express profound shock that a mountain that is named after an Indian carries a caste reference, it is regrettable. I request people to be careful while dealing with Indians, they bring load of muck, and therefore should be closely scrutinized. It is for the same reason that international community should declare caste as worst than racism, and any reference to it condemned. There are Indians who have been hanging around with high culture claim for sometime now; some even come with Gandhian charm. 

So it is with this charisma that Kasturi&sons have taken the responsibility of playing granddad of media, pointing to the hypocrisy of Indian media for blocking the news of journalist as also bring home some bitter truth about functioning of media. However the slave they recruited has an axe to grind (which is also quite normal, these deviousness. Wonder where do people get Pandita as surname?! Must be foreign return innovation by our little scoundrel, they get heightened culture consciousness once they are abroad, very easy to sink down the traditional muck). The fellow, quite sycophantically, points these firmly as hindi belt deviance. People who speak and conduct themselves in Hindi will very definitely have to be substandard, in turn Kasturi &sons with their fake sophistication and English (matching the british) are much better. The fact is most Indian media, in particular English media, are load of nonsense, indeed English media with its reach to the powerful and high intentioned grievously intrude and degrade institutions. So it seems news ‘stuck’ between luxury cars and colas are much better standard than “Amul Macho and Barnala Sariya”. Sample these lines by our little slave to know what English elitism and prejudice means “They knew the algorithm of elections and vote percentage. But many among them also brought with them various deep-rooted complexes about, among other things, the English language. They grudged a handful of journalists who could converse in English, who dressed in a particular way, and who thought nothing of a female colleague lighting up a cigarette”. Quite ironically the colonial minded slave has himself brought in “deep-rooted complexes”, further cigarette smoking is a stupid thing to do, male or female. Our juvenile seems to be stuck in ‘bollywood’ inspired surrogate ad sponsored route to emancipation, that keeps some people very happy and wealthy. Grow up kid. 

This is the version of journalist (of India TV) who attempted suicide, you will get insight into how these people work…

I joined India TV in February this year (2014) and things started to turn sour within a month. Senior Executive Editor, Anita Sharma repeatedly humiliated me in front of colleagues and belittled me on every occasion. She'd find faults with everything, from the way I looked, to the clothes I wore, to my hairstyle. I was told I'm not glamorous enough and that I didn't know how to carry myself. Anita Sharma would constantly criticize my voice and say it's too harsh but no one in the newsroom complained. In fact, I routinely gave voiceovers for special features - why would they let me do so if my voice was so bad?" "I asked whether it was for an interview or a byte but she never responded clearly. She kept telling me that she would like to send me out for some other reasons and once, when I insisted, stated that I could earn extra money if I agreed." "I used to cry every day and broke down finally. As a final resort I messaged MN Prasad (Senior Executive Editor) simply saying that ‘I am resigning'." Prasad said he'd discuss the issue, but he made no effort to call me or hear me out. While standard procedure across organisations need an employee to submit a formal resignation letter, but Prasad treated my one-line SMS as a formal resignation and asked me to leave without giving me a notice period or taking an exit interview. This is rather surprising considering the contract does not allow the employee to terminate his/her services." "The HR acted more or less like a puppet in the hands of the management and I was told to leave", she says. Dejected she attempted suicide. 

Now read the response by the India TV channel, I am tempted to add my observation in the bracket… 

Ms XY had joined in February 2014. She was still on probation as her three month probation period had been extended since in her first three months she had made two serious mistakes on air. First time, she was laughing on air during live news while presenting serious news (well well, what do we say to that?! Are there any serious issues in news?! Isn't having winning body language the major journalistic concerns these days? Such delicate matters!). She had been warned. Second mistake she made was that while she was on studio duty she left the studio and newsroom, putting her phone on silent was sitting in the cafeteria. Due to non-availability of anchor, the channel had to give breaking news without an anchor on just graphics (and when did any news channel had any non ‘breaking news’ occasions?). She was given a second warning by HR. Complaints regarding her behavior were reported regularly. The last incident was a minor reprove by her senior in the girls make up room in the presence of two other female anchors (so the major part of job involves makeup room inspirational get-together. Aha how charming), after which she sent a message that she is resigning. It was confirmed with her by her immediate senior and then forwarded to HR. HR sent her a mail and informed her that her resignation had been accepted and she should come and meet them for the relieving formalities. She came and met them, handed over her I-card, collected her belongings from the make up room and left saying good bye to her colleagues. And the matter was amicably closed. During her service she never made any complaint of harassment or even shared it with any colleague. India TV was amongst the first few channels to have instituted a complaint redressal committee for women employees which is headed by a Supreme Court lawyer, if she actually had any issues she could have approached the committee. The two people she is blaming are very senior and highly respected professionals in the industry. The lady she is blaming has trained hundreds of young producers and anchors and is respected and appreciated very much (yes we know the standards the dimwits have). She is herself a mother of two girls, (aha we are now back to ‘I too have girl child, not one but two’ emotional drub, that is quite effectively used. I presume they are high culture family!) these false allegations have caused a lot of harassment to her and her family.

Geez I am drooling….