My interventions in media through FACEBOOK
Sunday,
August 05, 2012
Top of Form
Bottom of Form
2 minutes
ago
- I have watched your
presentation on NDTV on the subject of Anna Hazare and his movement. I
felt your presentation suffered with acute personalized view without
giving any quarters for rational and historical perspective to the going
ons. Just because you do not like this old business of religiousness mode
of public mobilization, given possibly your 'modern' background, you
cannot deny that not only it has worked in the past and even now it
worked, or seasoned politicians like Congress as well as RSS/BJP both
would not have descended on the scene with unusual alacrity. Granted
there is a difference between perception and reality; the age of
communication is now overwhelming geared to perception. On that count, a
nondescript person, from a remote village did attract, not only physical
massing of masses of whatever counting, but had registered his own solid
record of 4 decades of fighting corruption, successfully in his own state
of Maharashtra, with the people at large at national and even
international level. He got ministers and babus resigning in Maharashtra,
without any approach to courts. Only his public agitation and that too
without big crowds, did succeed in bringing shame to politicians and
bureaucrats and forcing them to resign. It is natural for him and Team
Anna to adopt him to go national. Now just because a Madhu Trehan, feel
fasting and hoisting a single person is immoral, fascist, or antiquated,
which is quite so in essence if an argument is woven around it. But here
it forced the political establishment to at least move some distance over
Lokpal bill; which the parliamentarians on their own could not achieve
for last 40+ years. Anna and his team should at least be acknowledged as
catalysts.
I felt with your credentials as journalist with a keen mind, you could have possessed an open mind to see other people's perspective too and realized how your public argument was flawed by your personal prejudices.
-------------------
George Alagiah
2 hours
ago
- I saw your Mixed Britannia. It asked 2 questions. Why
Germany acted against race mixing while England was against race
profiling and more accommodating to mixed relationship. Don't get
surprised if I come out with a politically incorrect analysis. The key to
a correct diagnosis of the problem is the presence of Jews in the 2
societies. In Germany, Hitler movement was against Jews. In England, Jews
were more assimilated and were able to push multi-culturism for their own
protection.
Second question: Why England recruited the mixed soldier class from the colonies to 'serve the mother land'. England needed soldiers and had to depended on colonies for recruits. Moody question was addressed and solved, as there was no choice. 'The Empire would have broken up.' Naturally, those that remained back on the island and that arrived later when post-war economy had to be powered by immigrant labour ; interactions between races was inevitable and UK tolerated it, and will tolerate till the time, it does not need them. Jews will be in the forefront of sending immigrants back home.
Moral: Do not underplay role of the Jews, good or bad. They must be given their full exposure. Without putting them in place, none of our analysis will be complete and tenable.
-------------------------------
