"Internet hate" label misses the point

Cries of "internet hate, abuse" are being heard again. But such arguments miss the point completely. First of all this "hate phenomenon" is not exclusive in "right wing circles" as is being insinuated. It happens outside such "circles" too, so such convenient label pasting is unimpressive to say the least.

Secondly Twitter, Facebook, blogs, discussion forums and the internet in general is akin to a street corner. All kinds of folks frequent this place, as they should and one hears all kinds of voices here just like one would in a street corner. Including the downright ugly ones. But internet is a place where people should come to listen to voices. If one does not like the abusive ones, and no one does, they must be tuned out if they don't add anything to any debate. Why insist on exercising editorial control over the internet? There are other well established forums for that.

It would be unwise to call for moderation or regulation of voices on the internet. The aam aadmi is not always nuanced or articulate in making his point. Which is exactly why he is not an influential member of opinion makers. But the internet allows him the space and freedom to rave and rant on everything under the sun. Listen to what he has to say. If you don't like it, tune it out. Opinion makers have their pulpits to make their points. Calls for moderation on the internet deny the freedom of voice. It defeats the purpose of an open, free from rigid editorial controls medium.

Opinion makers have their TV studios and column spaces to make their point. Leave the internet free for the aam aadmi to rant.

See earlier post on similar topic here.

Open medium comes with distractions, don’t fall for it

This piece was written for Centre Right India. Also posting it below -

Veteran counter terror analyst and former head of intelligence agencies B Raman was recently at the receiving end of some unsavory treatment on the internet, especially Twitter. So much so that it led to an entry at his blog and in Outlook lamenting the attack. He labelled his tormentors “The Hindutva Storm-Troopers” because almost all of the abusers were upset with terror being linked to Hindus. Now this is no way to defend anything. Heaping personal abuse on someone can never be a credible defense of anything. Rather than doing any good, it actually harms the defender’s cause.

Questioning popular views, irreverence and occasional abuse has earned a certain band of people on Twitter the moniker “Internet Hindus”. We can thank journalist Sagarika Ghose for that. Leaving the irony of those denouncing label pasting, well, pasting labels on others aside, let us see if all this warrants the importance being given to it.

All of this “Hindutva Storm-Trooping” is taking place on the internet. This wonderful new medium has been a revolution in providing unprecedented access to information, news, entertainment, discussion that was hitherto unavailable or was inconvenient using conventional mediums. It has contributed to the richness of debates infusing some much needed diversity allowing all points of views being expressed. We have seen some excellent blogs and discussion forums emerge. Independent bloggers on the strength of their credible analysis are successfully transitioning into contributing columnists to established news media. Serious think tanks are emerging thanks to the networking capabilities of the internet. These are only some examples of the enormous promise and potential the internet holds.

On the other hand, in the absence of filters, this free-from-control medium finds all kinds of folks frequenting this space. Trolls and abusers are some who are the most disliked. They are given to attempting to derail discussions without adding any value. But they are just that, distractions, mere unwanted noise. If they had anything concrete to successfully derail debates, we would not have seen the growth of all these successful blogs and think tanks. To pay serious attention to them is to allow minor inconveniences distract us.

Some may argue that abuse is not unprovoked. But this is an endless discussion and nothing is likely to come of it. Besides provocation can hardly be an excuse to unparliamentary behaviour, especially when directed at respected personalities or when used in sensitive topics. If this “hate-abuse phenomenon” is such a monster as some think it is then veterans should surely know attention fuels, not defuses, such behaviour. Employing starve-the-beast strategy can be useful here. Works surprisingly well. Eminent journalists, columnists popular on Twitter have been at the receiving end of similar misdirected energy. But they have learned to adapt and are aware of the pitfalls of the new medium. Once this adjustment is made, debate carries on.

The internet seems to have unleashed all the disgruntled energy people had for perceived unidimensional discussions on national television. People seem not to know what do do with the availability of equal opportunity tools like Twitter. This is manifesting in all kinds of behaviour. Once this energy is released, debate here will temper to more serious, reasoned tones.

The internet, while it has been around for a while, is still evolving. For all the impact it has had on our lives, it’s potential is far from being realized and we have still not wrapped our arms around it. While some are coming to terms with it, those getting diverted by this fringe behaviour are either new entrants very much behind the curve or still have not adapted to it. The following B Raman attracts for his blogposts and the wide readership for his columns is a testimony to the respect he commands. Lamenting the minority who resort to personal attacks risks ignoring this fact. Look at the immediate reaction to his laments. Personal abuse directed at him was rightly denounced, support came pouring in which is very encouraging. Like most things in life, there are always different sides to everything. While a majority of people respect B Raman, there are a few who do not. Unless there is serious criticism, why fall for distractions?

"Hindu terror"

That is the new buzz in mainstream media these days. Apparently, investigative agencies believe that certain right wing Hindu groups may be behind Mecca masjid (Hyderabad) and Ajmer Sharif blasts. It seems picking up people with Hindu names for interrogation is proof enough of "Hindu terror" existence. This is more an effort to counter popular perception world over about Islam and its band of Jihadi terrorists taking innocent lives and causing much damage to property on almost every continent. Islamic terror is the name given to that phenomenon and it not without reason.

Islamic terror has entered every serious discussion across the world since 9/11 occurred. Attacks by Islamic Jihadis in India, US, France, Spain, Russia, China, indeed parts of almost every continent on earth has everyone taking of terror. And everyone believes it is Islamic terror. Reasons -

1. Every Jihadi quotes verses from Koran or orders from religious leaders to justify their attacks.
2. There is no dearth of Islamic religious leaders exhorting the faithful to wage Jihad in the name if Islam. They claim it is incumbent upon every Muslim to spread Islam all over the world and crush everything coming in the way.
3. There is also no shortage of Muslims willing to take up Jihad, sacrifice innocent people and themselves to spread Islam.
4. Muslim parents sending their children to wage Jihad can be found in plenty. They insist it is their duty.
5. Educated, well off Muslims who have spent significant part of their lives in western or non-Islamic countries have been joining the rank of Jihadis. Religion is the connection.
6. Almost every terrorist attack has been carried out by Muslims.
7. Jihadis also seek to threaten sovereignty of nations.

We have witnessed this for decades in India. The Indian Mujahideen sent lengthy e-mails quoting Koran to justify their acts. What other logical conclusion could be drawn in face of these facts? Yet "secularists" hesitate; indeed chide anyone mentioning "Islamic terror".

However, all of this is missing from "Hindu terror". Hindu political or religious leaders calling for terrorism? Absent. Sanction for terror in Hindu religious scriptures? Absent. Sanction for terrorism in Hindu society? Absent. LeT, HuJI, AQ like terror groups by Hindus? Absent. Existence of "Hindu terror" world over? Absent. And this despite suffering Islamic terror for decades in modern times. But, "Hindu terror" it is! If talking of Islamic terrorism hurts Muslim sentiments, wouldn't Hindus be upset too? This consideration is clearly missing and casts doubt on intentions behind this attempt.

And how do "secularists" support their claim? Sadhvi Pragya Thakur, Col. Purohit and other Hindus under investigation. It matter less if the charges have'nt been proven yet. On the contrary, the case against them has been weakening with every passing day. All attempts to find some terror connection to them have failed so far. It riles every "secularist" up to learn many Muslims picked up for interrogation are eventually let go for lack of evidence. However, they couldn't be bothered if Hindu connections cannot be proved and continue to be in jail. But attempts to sell the "Hindu terror" theory must continue. How else will "communal" vs. "secular" debate continue? How else will Muslims be portrayed as victims?

Inconvenience begets silence

Objectivity was never the media's forte, particularly the Indian national electronic news media. Upon seeing a possibility to malign Hindus, most of the 'secular' media houses and the self appointed conscience keepers invariably jump the gun. While Islamic violence is treated with deference by the same entities. We are advised to try and 'understand' their (imagined) 'grievances'. Clearly, the majority never needs to be understood, they can never have any grievance. Or even if they did, it can never be justified.

Reams of columns and hours of videos are produced when any incidence has a supposed Hindu link. The editors of the 'secular' media can hardly wait until the investigations are complete and truth established. If they did, it wouldn't be sensational. After all, where is the fun in indicting Jihadi terrorists or sleazy Christian priests who seem unable to keep their pants on? That would be stating the obvious. TRPs would not jump with such coverage. However, almost all such attempts to 'explain' Jihad or rabid evangelism have only yielded lemons. And yet, the media has not learnt.

Sister Abhaya was murdered 16 years ago. There were any number of attempts by the powers to cover it up. Yet, it turns out, the truth is tougher to bury. And now, two Christian priests and a sister have been arrested in connection to the case. Soul searching questions are not being asked. Fact finding teams are not being sent.

The Orissa nun, who was allegedly raped, got more coverage when Hindus were the alleged aggressors. However, as investigations progress, facts seem to suggest something else. The secular media's reaction? Silence. That's the standard hit-and-run ploy followed by them.

The editors of the 'secular' national media never pontificate the Muslims and their leaders to treat their women with respect and dignity. To respect the law of the land and to integrate with the nation. On the contrary, Mullahs that claim being ISI agents, seek to convert India into a Dar-ul-Islam, leaders that sing in Pakistan's glory, shout anti-India slogans are defended. And yet, it is the Hindus that must introspect.

The Sadhvi Pragya Thakur case is a more recent glaring example of the media's lopsided coverage. While terrorism could never be 'green' or 'Islamic', 'Hindu terrorism' or 'Saffron terror' is suddenly in vogue, so much so, that the mission to link terrorism to Hinduism has now continued unabated for about a month. Curiously, no other blast case received so much coverage. News reports of every other blasts died out after a day or so. But this new 'Hindu terror' story has outlasted every major news item, even the Chandrayaan-1 (which ought to have received the maximum coverage).

Even about a month's worth of effort in linking Hindus to terrorism has only resulted in incoherent theories, contradictory findings and inconvenient truths. While a Muslim terrorist who has no qualms taking innocent lives has all the human rights protection in the world. The same are not accorded to a Hindu 'suspect'. That too a woman no less. None of the usual activists have uttered anything so far. The National Commission for Women (NCW) too is guilty of inaction, especially now when the Sadhvi has alleged ill treatment by the Mumbai Anti Terror Squad (ATS). The affidavit makes for gut wrenching reading. However, that has failed to move Girija Vyas (President, NCW), the human rights activists and the usual concerned citizenry.

The media, who on days when the ATS did not have any leaks would cook up their own, too is guilty of being silent on the affidavit. Such a revelation demands equal coverage. So does the glaring violations of ATS in handling the case. But, it is inconvenient for a media who has bet heavily against the nation.

Trial by media

Raucous reporting by presenters of vacuous intellect passes off for serious news In India. The 24 X 7 television news channels are so driven by sensationalism and TRPs, they have dropped all semblence of responsibility, objectivity, fairness and nonpartisanship. News reports are no longer factual presentations made after thorough verification, instead they are almost often peppered personal opinions, spun to suit the presenter's political inclinications. Hardly any report could be considered credible enough to be regarded as a reliable record of an event.

Any objective viewer of the Indian news channels will have noticed their blatant one-sided coverage of events. The electronic media has appointed itself as the nation's conscience keeper. The abject lack of respect for law and the judicial process in the media houses is evident from their eagernesss to pronounce verdict even before the law has taken course.

The recent Amarnath episode is one such example. News coverage presented the Pakistani flag waving, anti-India slogan shouting Muslims of Kashmir as the aggreved party, while there was a near total black out on the completely patriotic and justified Jammu protests. Apparently Hindus had no claim on temporary land for their pilgrimage to Amarnath.

Gujarat riots of 2002 were covered to death, without investigating into the cause, however, there was complete silence on the Nandigram episode. The Gujarat riots brings us to another example of blatant partisanship. The Nanavati commission, which had the Supreme Court's (SC) blessing, after one of the most thorough investigations, absolved Modi of wrong doing. Yet the media sough to discredit the report by comparing it to an extra judicial commission on whose report a stay order has been issued by the SC, simply because it did not suit them.

While multiple bombs exploded in Assam last month, it only was as a momentary breaking news item on the news media which is in the midst of a campaign to prove "Hindu terrorism". The alacrity with which the media is seeking to prove Hindus as "terrorists" is galling. The same was completely missing in investigating or reporting any previous acts of terror. In contrast, there was every effort to protect any and every Muslim link. The same media houses denouncing Hindus as "terrorists" never painted previous acts as "Green terror" or "Islamic terror". Terrorists did not have religion we were told. Yet that has not stopped the media in proclaiming Hindus as "terrorists". While the "intellectuals" are busy lecturing, the same conscience keepers of the nation are completely silent on the illegal Bangaldeshi immigrants issue, illegal and unethical conversion activities of the foreign missionaries.

It is time the media be held accountable for its irresponsible and partisan behaviour. It is time for a reality check. The political position they hold and try to sell to the people is so far left that it is an anathema to our national interest. Divisive and seditious voices are given prominence and termed as the voice of the "sane" or "intellegence" while nationalism is denounced. The nation must question the media's transgressions.

Is Hinduism really bad?

The modern media would surely like you to believe that. Hindu or Hinduism has almost acquired a negative connotation in the media circle these days. But is it really as bad as is made out to be?

Let’s look around with our eyes / minds open & then decide for ourselves. An overwhelming majority of Indians are Hindus. This religion in itself is very diverse & is a collection of various groups with different beliefs & traditions. For example, not all Hindus bury the dead as opposed to all Christians or Muslims. Some Hindus worship fire, others don’t. The wedding customs also vary according to region in India. Yet all of the Hindus live together peacefully. They are largely tolerant towards each other & other religions.

The Hindu religious leaders are known to do a lot of social work. Look at Sri Satya Sai Baba of Puttaparthi. His social work is well known. Amongst many, they include, education, health care etc. The super specialty hospitals run by the Sri Satya Sai Central Trust provide world class health care to all for free. The facilities should be seen to be believed.

Another example could be Sri Sri Ravi Shankar. He has been involved in working for the social good for long. He has formed a foundation called ‘The Art of Living’. He has also founded many other institutions in the fields of rural development, agriculture etc. His foundation recently provided free help & stress relieving courses to the anguished farmers in Vidarbha.

We all know that Baba Ramdev is the modern yoga guru & is greatly responsible in raising awareness of yoga among the public. Thanks to his workshops, thousands have now begun to practice yoga & have started benefiting from it.

Even the Hindu places of worship have been greatly involved in the betterment of the people. For example, among many others, Tirupati Balaji Devasthanam, Dharmasthala & the trustee Veerendra Heggade.

None of the Hindu spiritual leaders or organizations has been involved in forced conversions to Hinduism. The only objective behind all their work was for the social betterment, regardless of one’s religion. The ancient Hindu teachings, traditions & the spiritual leaders have all been for the betterment of humanity. The only principles being love, peace & harmony. Yet some believe in religious supremacy & forcing one’s religion on the other.

Sure, there are some not-so-good aspects of the Hindu religion. For example, the sati tradition, the dowry tradition, gender bias etc. But, all of these have been exploitations by some to gain supremacy. These traditions may have been misinterpretations. However, one cannot deny that these traditions did (and do continue on a small scale) exist. But, this is not the only religion that had such traditions. Christianity is known for its hostility towards women. Women have little freedom or free voice in Islam.

When you look at the amount of good work done by the Hindu religious leaders, trusts & the general Hindu way of living, all of the criticism seems like nitpicking. Hinduism only preaches peace & harmony. Let us all understand that.

Must read Op-Eds from Arun Shourie

Hindutva and radical Islam: Where the twain do meet

What more is needed to stoke reaction?

The vital difference

Who's Arun Shourie?