Dialogue October - December 2005 , Volume 7 No. 2
Menace of ‘Secular’ Media
To
respect the sentiments of Hindus, Akbar the most important Mughal King imposed a
blanket ban on cow-slaughter. The Mughal ruler Akbar was included in the
continuum of onward march of Indian civilization in the Constitution of India,
signed by all members of the Constituent Assembly. The only other Muslim name,
which finds mention in the Constitution of India, is that of Tipu Sultan who
valiantly fought Britishers (see ‘Supreme Court on Hindutva’ pp. 436 ff.).
Those Mughal rulers, who did not respect these sentiments allowed cow-slaughter;
some rulers even went to the extent of ordering cow-slaughter inside the temples
to desecrate them. It is a wide- spread impression among the historians that the
first war of Independence started in 1857, because Hindu soldiers suspected use
of cow-tallow in the cartridges supplied to them. In fact, cow has always been a
sentimental issue for Hindus since Rig-Vedic times. Mahatma Gandhi was an
ardent believer of banning cow-slaughter in the Independent India. He mobilized
the mass opinion on this issue through out the struggle for independence of
India. But the framers of the Constitution did not ban it straight away; instead
they put it under the Directive Principles of the Constitution. There have been
repeated agitations in free India for banning cow-slaughter completely. There
have been numerous communal riots on the incident of killing of a cow in the
last three hundred years. Mischievous throwing of beef was cause enough to
inciting religious riots. Recently, Narendra Modi lead Gujarat Government
enacted law banning cow-slaughter in the State. This law was challenged in the
court. Ultimately, Supreme Court of India upheld the Gujarat Legislation. Though
cow killing is banned in most of the states of India, the wish of the people to
ban it by Central Legislation is yet to be fulfilled. One can understand the
sentiments of Hindus by the fact that even during acute famines people in Orrisa,
Rajasthan and Gujarat prefered to die of starvation than killing and eating a
cow or a bull to save their lives. In fact, the very idea of exercising this
option does not arise in the minds of starving people; such is the high degree
of reverence for the cow. A couple of decades back there were some news items
stating that a particular brand of vegetable oil contained cow tallow. The
company selling this vegetable oil had to withdraw the brand of vegetable oil
from the market altogether. The cow is revered in India as Gau-Mata for
millenniums but in the Independent India pseudo-secularists have unleashed
torrents of mighty propaganda against this sacred belief of Hindus. One of the
most important Media Houses belonging to a member of Birla clan, which claims to
be the largest circulated newspaper of the capital has published a beef-eating
propaganda article, describing the tastes of various beef-preparations. This
propaganda article on promotion of beef-eating has been written by none else
than its editor Vir Sanghvi in the ‘Brunch’ supplement dated November 20,
2005. Some in-sets in big bold letters are given below. People can judge for
themselves, whether or not it amounts to inspirational propaganda in favour of
beef-eating:
“What is it about beef?
Evidence suggests that Vedic Aryans had no reservation about its consumption
(though this evidence has caused another controversy). And while I respect Hindu
sentiments, the whole point of Indian secularism is that we don’t impose our
religious beliefs on the nation.
“Muslims, Christains, Parsis
and even many less orthodox Hindus are quite happy to eat beef. (Take my own
case: I’m a Jain by birth so I shouldn’t even be eating onions or garlic.).
Beef is easily available in at least two states that I frequently visit: West
Bengal and Kerala. So, why do we get so hysterical about beef-eating in such
cities as Delhi?
“…This has two immediate
consequences. The first is that chefs use water-buffalo in dishes that require
beef. While you can get a reasonable filet steak out of a buffalo, you can’t
really substitute its meat for beef in most recipes. The second consequence is
that a strange beef-obsessed netherworld has developed in the capital. No
restaurant will use the word beef on its menu. Instead they will use such
euphemisms as ‘tenderloin’ (a term more suited to a bordello, I would have
thought). What you get when you order ‘tenderloin’ tends to depend on the
price. If it’s cheap, its is buffalo. Slightly more expensive means beef
brought in from Calcutta. Expensive means imported beef. And very expensive
means US steak or even, Wagyu”
“A
few other excerpts of the same article would make it abundantly clear as to
whether it is insult to Hindu-value system and if it hurts the Hindu
sensibilities:
“In
Bombay, it’s no big deal to eat a good sirloin steak. But in Delhi,
restaurateurs can’t put even a beef sausage on the menu.”
“Beef
is easily available in West Bengal & Kerala. So, why do we get so hysterical
about it in Delhi?”
“At
Hakkasan in London, they quickly stir fry the Wagyu.”
Vir
Sanghvi is front-ranking journalist, who favours Pseudo-Secular and Marxist
historians, particularly the one who wrote about Vedic people eating cow meat.
The newspapers and editors have propagated the biased views of Marxist
historians alone ignoring completely facts of the history. The more authentic
and much reputed historian Dr. Makkhan Lal has written about this controversy in
his book “Educating to Confuse and Disrupt” as follows:
“Let
us now come to the issue of cow eating in Ancient India. One of the ‘eminent
historians’ has earned a great reputation and huge money by writing a
fictitious book on this subject, full of incorrect and false references. From RigVeda
and AtharvaVeda, we know that some domestic animals like buffalo, bull,
ox and male calf were eaten but NOT COW, which was held sacred all through. The RigVeda
refers to the cow as being Aghnya (not to be killed or injured) at
least at 17 places. The Vedic texts prescribe death or banishment from the
kingdom to those who kill or injure the cow. Rig Veda (10.87.16) clearly lays
down that ‘the evil person who kills or eats the meat of horse or a cow
deserves to be terminated.’ Further, RigVeda says don’t kill any
being. Mimansa, Mahabharata and a large number of texts clarify
that killing of animals are prohibited in yajna. Mahabharata (Shantiparva,
265.9) says: ‘It is only the evil-minded hypocrites who started saying that
Vedic yajna involve intoxicants and meat eating; it is never in the
Vedas.’
The AtharvaVeda
clarifies the confusion of Vedic words and says that in the Vedic Samhita,
the names of the materials used for actual fire ceremony in yajnas are
sometimes named as the names of an animal. For example, ‘rice’ is named as
‘cow’ and ‘sesame’ is named as ‘calf’. It only means rice and sesame
and those who know the Vedic grammar, Vedic morphology and Vedic yajna know
this. In English language, there are expressions like ‘sweet meat’ and
‘meat of Hazel’. In reality, is there any meat which tastes sweet? Is there
any meat in hazel nuts”? Symbolism cannot be converted into literalism.
That’s the rule of grammar.
“The rule of the Vedas that cow
is Aghnya has been constantly reiterated in Sanskrit literature. The Mahabharata
says, ‘The one who himself doesn’t eat meat but even if he gives his
consent to eat meat or kill animal, he becomes equally sinful as them (15.39).
The meat-eaters who kill an animal in the name of yajna or say that it is
the requirement of the yanja is a sinner and he will go to hell (15.43).
The one who brings an animal to be killed, the one who buys the animal to be
killed, the one who kills the animal, and the one who sells, buys, cooks and
eats the meat are all sinners (15.45).’ This shows that the Vedic yajnas did
not involve any animal sacrifice.
“A few words about the word goghna
the interpretation of which has added confusion. It is mentioned by Pt.
Taranatha in his Vachaspatyam. This Sanskrit dictionary of Taranath was
commissioned by the East India Company in order to provide legitimacy to the
writings of people like Max Mueller. In view of Taranath’s poor financial
condition and a lure of the payment of Rs. 10,000 in those days of 1886, (today,
almost about Rs 30 lakh or even more) he misinterpreted certain crucial words. Goghna
was one of them. Taranath interpreted it as ‘the killer of a cow’ ignoring
the meaning given by Panini, according to whom the word meant ‘the donee guest
who receives a cow.’ By changing the meaning, Taranath imposed on Hindus that
they ate cows, in order to provide legitimacy to those who were and are eating
cows. There is no reason, whatsoever, to accept Taranath’s interpretation of goghna
over and above Panini’s interpretation, unless someone proves that Taranath of
late the 19
“It is important to
differentiate between the meat of any other cattle and that of the cow, exactly
the way not every woman is one’s mother and not every man is one’s father.
We have different relationships with each other in society. A cow was clearly
given a special status – that of Aghnya – in Hindu society, which
means that it cannot be injured or killed. The AtharvaVeda lays down
‘death penalty to those who injure or kill cows.’
“Some ‘eminent historians’
may come up with a few post-Vedic, and that too isolated, references about the
killing of a cow, but it needs to be remembered that exceptions have always been
there [in very society and religion]. For example, in Tantricism eating the
flesh of a dead human being and having sex with a woman, any woman, even with
one’s own mother, is part of the sadhana. Can we really consider this
aberration as a general practice? When we are talking about beef, we must learn
to differentiate among the animals that were eaten and that were not eaten. The
cow was never a part of social cuisine.
“Hurting Hindu sentiments has
become fashionable pass time of pseudo-secular propagandists, specially after
dazzling popularity of Ramayana, and Mahabharata serials which
created curfew like desertions in the streets with all eyes glued to the T.V
screen. When BJP came to power, they (pseudo-secularists and Marxists) were
shocked and in their desperation they resorted to false propaganda of extreme
nature through out six years of Vajpayee led NDA Govt, defaming Hindus, Hindu
Organisations and govts supported by Hindus was on the top of their agenda. It
has been clear all through that it is Hindus versus media, specially the English
language media, which percolates to vernacular as well as International media.
Here are some examples:
Anti Hindu Mindset of Media
The present phase of the image
war on the Sangh Parivar, including the BJP, is by far the most intense. In the
last six years, we have seen anti-Hindutva media bombardments on half a dozen
non-issues which lasted for quite some months, maybe even over a year. No
previous Government had ever experienced such a degree of hostility from the
media and the Opposition. Even at the peak of the anti-Congress climate it was
not so. The so-called secular parties and pen pushers could not digest the
arrival of the BJP at the seat of power. ‘How can they be allowed to rule?’,
was the mindset.
The leftists had been the most
perturbed people by this arrival. Incidentally, they are also the most vicious
propagandists. These self-appointed guides and philosophers of the opposition
parties and the media kept polity on an election mode for the last four years.
Every six months, there is an anti-BJP campaign. Image matters a lot. Image
building, good or bad, is an extremely complex phenomenon. Image represents an
intellectual and emotional complex at an instant of time, though the final
perception may not be more than three or four words long.
The Sangh Parivar is a
conglomerate of organisations, which are disciplined, well organised and
patriotic. The BJP too has evolved as ‘a party with a difference’. Its
opponents have been out to demolish these characteristic features and let me
admit, they have been successful in making a dent to these features of the party
and that of the Sangh Parivar as well. Unfortunately, we too have contributed to
their success. A few examples of their malicious propaganda are as follows:
(a) First, it was Dang
whereat a small incident of burning a hut-cum-Church in retaliation to the
desecration of a Hanuman statue was picked up. Though, there were skirmishes,
but not a single person had died. It became a global controversy wherein
ministers of Germany, Canada, US and Australia showed their concern.
(b) Then came the Jhabua
nun-rape controversy based on totally false linkages with Hindutva. The
propaganda implicated the Vishwa Hindu Parishad in this heinous crime. This rape
case became an international media event. The Church organised hundreds of
protest marches throughout the country and abroad. It acquired high voltage
because a Sangh Parivar organisation was said to be involved. Ultimately the
truth emerged. The inquiry ordered by the Madhya Pradesh government revealed
that Sangh Parivar had nothing to do in the matter. Twenty four alleged rapists
were arrested, all of them belonged to the Bhil tribe, 12 of them were
Christians. The court convicted them. This crime had no communal angle at all.
When the list of rapists along with their caste and religion was provided to
media persons by Press Information Bureau, no newspaper of the national Media
published the report despite the fact that they had written so much about the
Parivar’s involvement in the case. Even now some newspapers write and blame
the Sangh Parivar. The mainline media in India and outside as also the Church
have never allowed the truth to come out, let alone regretting for a totally
false and fabricated campaign.
(c) The burning of an
Australian missionary, Graham Staines along with his two children, created a
furore the world over. The Wadhwa Inquiry Commission castigated the media for
linking Hindu organizations with the incident. We received a whipping by the
media and media trials were conducted for more than a year. However the Wadhwa
Commission found that Dara Singh was neither a member of the Bajrang Dal nor was
he in any way connected with the RSS. The Commission was very critical about the
partisan role played by the media and practically indicted it for its bias
against the Sangh Parivar. But the impact of the media against the RSS regarding
this case has left a durable impression in the mind of the whole world, for it
was prominently reported in the world media A number of similar stories of
attacks on Christians, and its linkages invented by media, did the rounds.
(d) The Wadhwa
Commission appointed to inquire into the Staines murder and other cases,
established that the rape, “Was a made up story”. Investigations further
proved that Sister Mary’s FIR stating that she had been raped, was false.
Justice Wadhwa had noted that it was highlighted all over the world as an attack
on Christians. But it was a deliberate fabrication by the Church itself, with
clear communal intent.
(e) Then came screaming
headlines in the national media “Jhabua repeated in Jhajjar.” The fact was
that the villagers protested against two nuns for meddling in some local
committee election. But it was depicted by Church spokespersons as something
similar to that of the nuns’ rape on the Jhabua pattern. Mr. Balbir K. Punj,
who was then editor of the Observer, sent a reporter and a photographer to
verify the Jhajjar case and the mischief was nipped in the bud or else it could
have been a major subject for another onslaught on the Sangh Parivar.
(f) By that time, it had
become fashionable to paint any incident communal wherein Christians were
involved and whip Sangh Parivar organistaions. For example, take the report of
foreign news agencies which said an American Doctor was attacked in Allahabad
and he had to take refuge in a Baptist Church. It was found to be totally
fabricated. The Doctor himself denied the incident.
(g) It was reported with
the six column screaming headlines in a big English daily that “The Christian
nun was raped in a moving car in Baripada in Orissa.” The rest of the Press
also repeated it with usual Jhabua nun rape story replay and dubbed it as the
handiwork of Hindu fundamentalists.
(h) A young girl and a
boy were murdered in Candhamal, one of the remotest areas in Orissa. The Indian
and the foreign media cited it as a continuation of attacks against Christians
by Hindu fundamentalists. After an elaborate survey of the media the Wadhwa
Commission noted that “the incident was taken as an attack on the
Christians” and said “ultimately investigations revealed the crime was
committed by a relative of the victims, who was also a Christian.”
(i) Some tribals
attacked the Police station at Udaigiri’ and lynched two prisoners and later
burned some houses. The media immediately projected it as a clash between
Christians and Hindus. The Wadhwa Commission found that it was a caste clash and
had nothing to do with religions at all. In contrast, Justice Wadhwa found that
when in a village “23 houses of Hindus were burnt down by criminals belonging
to Christian community. The incident went largely unreported and totally ignored
by the national and international media.” Imagine the reporting, which would
have followed if the 23 houses that were burnt belonged to Christians and the
attackers were Hindus! What Justice Wadhwa indicated by this contrast was that
while “attacks on Christians” were “made up”, the actual attacks against
Hindus went unreported, unnoticed and ignored.
(j) The media had
reported that in a village of Orissa, Ranalai, Hindus, who were a minority, had
sparked off a clash with Christians. The Wadhwa Commission found that actually
the Christians had manhandled a police inspector, who later filed an FIR against
them.
There are over a dozen or more
similar incidents, which were either total fabrications or a deliberate twist of
communal colour was given to the incident. But let us realise the implication of
this massive propaganda, the world over. Firstly, the image of India suffered.
In international opinion India has been painted in a Pakistani colour, where
Christians have been marginalized and their women raped. The Christians are
falsely being accused of blasphemy. They are regularly beaten to death. Their
land is being grabbed by Muslims. There are 30 lakh Christians living in
Pakistan in a nightmare. The Sunday Times Magazine (reprinted in Readers’
Digest, May 2000 as “Pakistan’s War Against Christians”) reporters Cathy
Scott - Clark and Adrian Levy had written about systematic religious cleansing
of a tiny minority.
Indian media’s fabricated
reporting of incidents tarnishes the national image of India in the world and
brackets our situation with that of Pakistan. The Pakistani press either ignores
or nominally covers the real incidents of ‘War Against Christians’ whereas
our English media fabricates, exaggerates and projects this type of incidents
and gives credibility to them. May be in India secularists get a little
political propaganda advantage by falsification of these incidents. .Indian
media ignores national interest to say the least. It goes to the extent of being
not only unpatriotic, but anti national. An important section of the media
behaves as if they belong to the post nationalist era. On a societal plane they
do not mind publishing anti people and anti society write ups. It is due to
their exaggerated portrayal of Veerappan and similar anti heroes, at all levels,
that society has to suffer. Practically the media never introspects or takes
corrective measures. Even if in some quarters realization dawns, it is too late.
I quote from Arvind Lavakare’s article titled ‘The English Media’s
Hostility Towards Hindus’,
“Shekhar Gupta, Editor-in-Chief
of The Indian Express, displayed a rare ethical standard, combining as it did a
fair degree of contrition with a healthy commitment to truthfulness qualities
which are difficult to find these days in our troubled land.
“Let’s see the facts as
outlined by the gracious Gupta himself. His column stated that - “First of all
in Jhabua, there has indeed been no evidence yet that anybody from the Sangh
Parivar was involved in the rape of the nuns.”
“Then, despite all the
commotion and outrage in the media and the world, not a single Christian has
been killed in Gujarat yet Also, Gujarat has a history of Hindu resentment
against the missionaries dating back to Mahatma Gandhi’s time.”
“Similarly, Orissa… a state
run by the Congress, has a history of indigenous violence against the
missionaries. Six persons were killed only last year and since the state has a
large tribal population, conversions have been going on there… There is no
evidence yet that Dara Singh” (the main suspect in the Staines incineration)
“was actively involved with any Sangh Parivar organization…”
“Based on an examination of
the above, Gupta came to the conclusion that “On facts, therefore, it
would seem that we in the English-language media have something to answer for.”
Just a few paragraphs later, Gupta’s column recanted even more by stating that
“Surely, we in the media have much to answer for.”
“Now it is precisely such
irreverence for the vital difference between “something” and “much” that
often exhibits itself in a lot of our newspaper copy and misleads millions of
readers.”
“Just after Gujarat results
India Today wrote editorially about media’s bias in its issue, “In this
country, secularism in practice meant romancing the minority and demonising the
majority.”
At times one feels that the media
has been derailed enroute its objective destination. The dictum that “News is
sacred”, it seems is no more valid. Everywhere in the media – be it
newspapers, periodicals, TV channels to electronic superhighway – one can
often hear comments galore on ‘newborn news’ whose facts are unconfirmed and
details unknown. The speculative flight of the reporter’s imagination becomes
the real news.
Earlier we have talked about this
type of admission on the issue of pseudo-secular propaganda. Now look at the
secular admission of guilt by one among the top ten secular propagandists Mr.
Vinod Mehta, editor of ‘The Outlook’ weekly:
“In matters relating to the
Constitution, Supreme Court, not a TV journalist, is the highest authority. The
latter can make themselves heard and the former has no megaphone.”
‘The Outlook’ editor Vinod
Mehta is undoubtedly one of the tallest secular propagandists who are
instrumental in widening the secular-communal divide in the polity. When opinion
leaders turn propagandists and occupy the highest positions in media, they
become a power centre unto themselves of the Fourth Estate, which in turn
impacts fortunes of political parties. The debate on the secular-communal divide
has been continuing for two decades.
Vinod Mehta has gone much beyond
in his magazine’s ‘Diary’ column than India Today’s editorial conclusion
of December 30, 2002, which states: “In this country, secularism in practice
meant romancing the minority and demonising the majority.”
Mehta’s ‘Diary’ column in
Outlook dated May 23, 2005, is the best confession of a ‘pseudo-secular’
journalist. “At what point does a ‘national treasure’ become a ‘national
liability’? Pseudo-secularists like me have blindly defended and deified Lalu
Yadav for his courageous, single-minded fight against communal forces. We
pretended that the havoc he has caused in his home state was forgivable, if not
understandable, given the caste antagonisms and social fabric of Bihar. His wit,
buffoonery and rustic horseplay, we said, was a tribute to grassroots of Indian
politics which had thrown up a genuine son of the soil. Torn, as he was between
courts, Yadav consolidation and criminal MLAs/MPs, we overlooked his clear
mendacity. When he made his simple-minded wife the chief minister, we said,
‘Poor man, who else can he trust?’ Meanwhile, Bihar fell off the map of
India and its galloping anarchy did not merit discussion because, in a sense,
Bihar was not part of India. Bihar was Bihar. I don’t absolve myself or
Outlook from spreading the aforementioned logic. In the last 15 years,
consequently, we have allowed Lalu a very easy ride.”
Through
this great debate, the intelligentsia held the view on secularism similar to
that of Supreme Court expressed in as many as jugement in 12 cases. But
propagandists are busy demonising Hindus, Hinduism, cultural nationalism,
Sanskrit and the Hindutva. Throughout the NDA regime, attempts were made to
defame Hidndutva forces, whether it was in the Jhabua nun’s rape case, Graham
Stains case or the Dang conversion case. The Gujarat riots came as a godsend
opportunity for propagandists. However, despite all hostile propaganda, the BJP
registered an emphatic victory in the Gujarat Assembly elections. There was
soul-searching among journalists, as reflected in the India Today’s comments.
But how did Vinod Mehta reach this conclusion?
Mehta
says: “When Lalu was Chief Minister, his potential for mischief was limited.
Bihar had reached the point of no return, so what could Lalu do to further
aggravate its condition? We were insulated from his heavy hand. Sadly, he is now
out of power in Bihar and a Cabinet Minister to boot. Thus, his imprint
currently has national implications - and with Patna out of his grasp, he has
time on his hands not to entertain us but to frighten us. There’s no rule he
will not break, no institution he will not denigrate, no charge he will not
fabricate to achieve his twin objectives: Win back the gaddi in Patna and mount
onslaughts against the BJP. His behaviour at the railway crash site in Gujarat
where the deceased were swiftly forgotten and all media attention diverted to
publicise an exaggerated ‘death threat’, and last week’s shameful assault
on one of India’s proudest constitutional bodies - the Election Commission -
should make all of us who champion him think again. Of course, he has 24 MPs and
could bring down the UPA, but he knows what will follow will ensure that he
stays permanently in jail. Lalu has nowhere to go. It’s time we called his
bluff.”
If one discerns the piece, it seems that Mehta is
repenting media’s support to Lalu and not so much the secular-communal divide
created by media. In his concluding part, Mehta wants somebody to mend Lalu’s
ways.
Dialogue (A quarterly journal of Astha Bharati) |