CSDS Commie Wolves

Recently, the issue of Shaheed Bhagat Singh being termed a “terrorist” in some Delhi University books came up in the media. This is nothing new and many have known about it for long. When asked about it the Commie Boss of CPM Sitaram Yechury stated “It is just colonial legacy” which needs correction. Really? That is all? Just colonial legacy? Truth is, the Commies have dominated the misinformation and distortion of history in our school books and other publications and carried on this crime for over 60 years. Just check how Mughal criminals were glorified in Bengal text books. Almost all institutions that deal with Indian History has been infested like Wolves with Commies, thanks to Nehru and the fake Gandhis. They have systematically tarred our heroes, especially Hindu heroes and glorified mass murderers and villains. These are the Wolves that now whine about “Intellectuals” being under threat under ModiSarkar.

Madhu Kishwar (MK), a prominent critic of Narendra Modi-turned-fact-finder-turned-admirer, was recently at the receiving end of discrimination by such Commie Wolves that infest the organisation called CSDS (Centre for Study of Developing Societies). This CSDS grandly claims they are commonly popular as “The Centre” on their website. You know, you get down at Delhi station and ask the auto or taxi guy to take you to “The Centre” they will take you to CSDS. Okay? We’ll get to this in a bit. Through a web article of MK I came to learn about a Commie whining more about intolerance and how historians are suffering under ModiSarkar. On the page I saw a pic of Karl Marx and I knew where the article was headed. But wait! The guy wasn’t Karl Marx; his name is Sanjay Subrahmanyam. I had never heard of him but my education about Commie jerks is a never-ending agony. Here are some of the questions he was asked in a TOI article called “Real people are censored” (Don’t laugh, that is seriously the title):

Is history being used in India today for political purposes?

When you see what happened to Wendy Doniger's book, are you worried about the fate of intellectuals today?

How do you react to historian Ramachandra Guha's recent statement that this is the most anti-intellectual government India has ever had?

Is this government failing to protect Indian pluralism?

Does the Indian public discourse today worry you?

I was laughing and wondering who concocts such fallacies and idiotic questions. I had made a rare mistake in my reading-life. I forgot to read the name of the writer of this garbage. It had to be the extreme C5M Sagarika Ghose. After that, all my joy of wide-eyed surprise simply disappeared. These Commies who call themselves intellectuals and berate everyone who challenges them are in reality just Scaredy-Chicks. I remember Arun Shourie, who challenged these Commies, had a hard time publishing his first book. Such is the grip on public discourse and publishing by the Commies and yet they whine like pigs because the corrupt party that kept their bottoms warm has lost power. In “Eminent Historians” Shourie narrates how a guy flares up and throws tantrums just because he was asked to account for his travel expenses properly. We all remember Amartya Sen throwing tantrums and threatening to quit Nalanda because he was asked about financial accountability. These are the Commie intellectuals! Want to live on public money but don’t want accountability.

In the TOI article I just mentioned, this Sanjay Marx refers to Madhu Kishwar as a “BJP” intellectual. She maybe an intellectual but why a BJP intellectual? Are these Scardy-Chicks then Congress Intellectuals or Maoist Intellectuals? Their whining is eternal. Here’s how and why MK became an untouchable in the very Commie circles that she had worked relentlessly for years:

It’s that interview with Modi followed by a book – all prior to LS2014 – that marked MK as “Unacceptable” and “Untouchable” in the very circles she worked for ages. Here’s the problem her organisation called “The Centre” also known as CSDS heaped on her with ignominy (excerpts from MK’s legal notice to CSDS):

“That on 03.12.2015, my client received a communication from the Indian Council for Social Science Research (ICSSR) informing her that she has been awarded the prestigious Mahatma Gandhi National Fellowship for two years period starting 2016; as a “recognition” of her “pre-eminent scholarship… That before my client, Prof Ashis Nandy and Prof DL Sheth as recipients of the same fellowship in the years 2006 and 2009 respectively, were granted CSDS affiliation without the least fuss by the CSDS. Prof D L Sheth, Prof Ashis Nandy and Prof V B Singh continue to be provided affiliation as well as office space and other support systems at CSDS even though they have retired in May 2001, 2002 and 2005 respectively. The presence and guidance of these seniors is a huge asset for CSDS.

The CSDS has over the years granted affiliation to countless scholars, including those from outside the Centre. Even in 2014-15, the following ICSSR and UGC scholars were given affiliation: That to her utter shock and dismay, on 11.01.2016, my client learnt from you the noticee, that grant of her affiliation will depend on the approval of the Faculty Standing Committee. It is noteworthy that the existing Rules neither envisaged the placing of the applications for affiliation before the Faculty Standing Committee nor mandated the approval of the said Committee”.

In short, MK, who retired from CSDS on April 30 was denied Affiliation by CSDS despite their funders ICSSR granting her such status. This is nothing short of brazen Commie discrimination. Such affiliation has been granted to hundreds of persons (including foreigners) by CSDS and MK is the first one to be denied this citing some fraudulent internal committee on such decisions. The reasons are quite obvious. The CSDS grandly puts up this disclaimer on its website:

I don’t see any reason or need for such a disclaimer but the fact is most of the CSDS operators are political pimps of either the Congress or the Commies – both same in meaning. That MK chose to dig into facts over Gujarat and the campaign against Modi is the reason she is being discriminated against and penalised. She has a natural and moral right to her affiliation, her right to work and be funded for it the same way many redundant political-activists do at CSDS. This organisation proudly boasts of political hacks like Yogendra Yadav and Ashis Nandy among others. Nandy had to recently apologise to SC for his bogus tirade against Modi and Gujarat. For long the Commies have carried out a systematic campaign against BJP and Modi with fraudulent issues and here’s a show where MK brilliantly nails the lies of MonkeyBalancer and StreetThug Rajdeep Sardesai on his campaign of lies (Video 4.3o mins):

Rajdeep is not the only one. The entire Commie gang that calls itself “Intellectuals” indulged in this fraudulent campaign, gave themselves awards and truck-loads of money. Now they whine about being targeted under ModiSarkar. Again a fraudulent whine – Non-Commies are still being discriminated against and penalised by Commie outfits like CSDS and many others. The public, through the ICSSR, funds the CSDS. Don’t be surprised that it is also funded by the Ford Foundation. Lately, anyone who has heard of FF would know about their evil agenda and their preference for foot-soldiers who will peddle that agenda. Looks like MK refuses to be a part of that political agenda which CSDS so deceptively claims it doesn’t have in its bogus disclaimer. And that is the reason she is being made to pay such a heavy price.

How Commie Pigs destroy truth, tar Hinduism and Hindus and their culture can be seen by how they treated their own scholars. Read this excerpt from VoiceOfDharma on the Criminal Commie conspiracy. It will stun you how they trash real scholars who have the courage to speak the truth (emphasis mine):

“How hostile Communism can be to everything Hindu is proved by an incident in which S.A. Dange and his son-in-law, Deshpande, got involved a few years ago. Deshpande wrote quite a scholarly book in which he propounded that several important principles of modern mathematics and science (including dialectical materialism which is the greatest principle of modern science according to Communism) were first discovered by systems of Hindu philosophy, notably SãMkhya and Vedãnta. Several other Communist savants had earlier indulged in a similar exercise of casting ancient Hindu philosophies into a materialist mould. 

The party had paraded them as expert explorers and authentic interpreters of the revolutionary undercurrents in India’s philosophical heritage. Where Deshpande went wrong was that he took a genuine pride in the ancient Hindu past and expressed it in no mean measure. Dange himself contributed a Preface to the book and presented it as quite an academic achievement. Little did they know the consequences of what they had done. The Party came down upon them like a ton of bricks. It called a seminar, Marxism on Vedanta, in which Dange had to confess his errors and eat crow.  Deshpande’s book published by a society in Bombay was withdrawn from circulation”.

For all the ruckus at JNU or FTII or Jadavpur University, the Commies have destroyed all possibilities of any challenge to their bogus ideology and failed political system. So much so that they can’t even stomach a simple movie being screened at some of their Commie lairs and hide-outs:

That’s a movie about a Naxalite Professor brainwashing his students. Little jokers like Sagarika whine about Wendy Doniger or that Sanjay Marx or Distortian Guha rants about intolerance and intellectuals suffering under ModiSarkar. Truth is that the Commies have a history of crying wolf and destroying every factual account in history. The CSDS Commie Wolves just added another chapter to it with their illegitimate decision on Madhu Kishwar. The GOI must intervene and end this nonsense of such discrimination. 

Poll Pranks

The recent poll by CNN-IBN, presented by The Hindu and conducted by CSDS, led by Yogendra Yadav, puts Rahul Gandhi as the most popular choice as Prime Minister at 19% vote by the population sample and 42% of the UPA sample. (If I missed out anyone involved in the exercise please remind me!) Hang on though, we’ll get to that poll in a few minutes.

First, let’s have some fun. In an episode from the 80s TV series ‘Yes Prime Minister’, Jim Hacker, PM, wants to announce a ‘grand design’ by cancelling introduction of the Trident nuclear missiles and reintroducing conscription (national service). Sir Humphrey, his permanent Dept. Secretary doesn’t want him to make such an announcement and has to turn the cabinet ministers’ opinion against the decision. What follows is an interesting poll exercise between Humphrey and the PM’s assistant, Bernard Woolley. Here are some random and edited excerpts (in blue):

Plot: Jim Hacker has just returned from his visit to the American President in Washington. While the PM is suffering from jet-lag (in other words: sleeping), Bernard Woolley is briefed by Sir Humphrey to stop the PM from announcing his Grand Design (canceling Trident and reintroducing conscription) in his first television broadcast. Jim Hacker sounds out General Howard about canceling Trident. The General is in favour because Britain does not need it. When the General later learns from Sir Humphrey that canceling Trident also would mean a reintroduction of conscription, his opinion about canceling Trident changes immediately.

Bernard goes to see Sir Humphrey and tells him that Hacker is planning to announce his Grand Design in the broadcast. The PM thinks it will be a vote-winner because a Party poll has shown that 64% of the population are in favour of reintroducing conscription. Sir Humphrey advises Bernard to issue another poll to show the majority of the population is against reintroducing conscription. Bernard wonders how this can be done and Sir Humphrey explains it. Sir Humphrey will make sure all the Permanent Secretaries will brief their Ministers to oppose the Grand Design.

After the Cabinet meeting where the Grand Design is discussed Jim Hacker is rather puzzled by the outcome. All his Cabinet colleagues who were previously in favour of it, now all seemed against it. The Foreign Secretary was talking about how it could look as appeasing the Soviets. The Defence Secretary was saying that Britain should have the best and Trident is the best. And the Employment Secretary was raving about how conscription will let an army of trained killers loose on the streets.

Sir Humphrey advises Hacker not to announce his Grand Design in the television broadcast. Bernard gives Hacker the results of the latest poll that shows that 73% of the population are against conscription. Hacker now thinks it is best not to refer to the Grand Design in the speech.

The discussion here between Humphrey and Bernard is a good example of how poll pranks are played out:

Humphrey: "You know what happens: nice young lady comes up to you. Obviously you want to create a good impression, you don't want to look a fool, do you? So she starts asking you some questions: Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the number of young people without jobs?"

Bernard: "Yes"

Humphrey: "Are you worried about the rise in crime among teenagers?"

Bernard: "Yes"

Humphrey: "Do you think there is a lack of discipline in our Comprehensive schools?"

Bernard: "Yes"

Humphrey: "Do you think young people welcome some authority and leadership in their lives?"

Bernard: "Yes"

Humphrey: "Do you think they respond to a challenge?"

Bernard: "Yes"

Humphrey: "Would you be in favour of reintroducing National Service?"

Bernard: "Oh...well, I suppose I might be."

Humphrey: "Yes or no?"

Bernard: "Yes"

Humphrey: "Of course you would, Bernard. After all you told you can't say no to that. So they don't mention the first five questions and they publish the last one."

Bernard: "Is that really what they do?"

Humphrey: "Well, not the reputable ones no, but there aren't many of those. So alternatively the young lady can get the opposite result."

Bernard: "How?"

Humphrey: "Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the danger of war?"

Bernard: "Yes"

Humphrey: "Are you worried about the growth of armaments?"

Bernard: "Yes"

Humphrey: "Do you think there is a danger in giving young people guns and teaching them how to kill?"

Bernard: "Yes"

Humphrey: "Do you think it is wrong to force people to take up arms against their will?"

Bernard: "Yes"

Humphrey: "Would you oppose the reintroduction of National Service?"

Bernard: "Yes"

Humphrey: "There you are, you see Bernard. The perfect balanced sample."

So, you see, just as Sir Humphrey’s questions are motivated by his own policy beliefs most opinion polls in India have similar motivation. Now you will be explained the methodology and how scientific it was and all that. That doesn’t mean the questionnaire used for the ballot itself was scientific. Did you get to see the questionnaire? I did not and then there are direct discussions with respondents that can be safely left to your imagination.

Opinion polls not only need to provide options but also need to take into account realistic probabilities of someone being a real candidate for say, the prime-minister post. By what logic does the survey consider A.B. Vajpayee to be a candidate? The man has retired from politics, has decided not to contest elections again and yet he is an option. This is tom-foolery at its best. In a lesser way L.K. Advani also falls into the same category. I doubt he is considered  a PM candidate even by the BJP or NDA.  In contrast Nitish Kumar, after his great victory last year in Bihar was being touted as a PM candidate by CNN-IBN, is missing from the list. Was he there on the list and did he poll zero votes? If there is some stupid logic in Vajpayee being on the list then I am quite certain even Amitabh Bachchan or Rajnikanth would have polled some votes if they were included. So just like in real elections some candidates are put up just to divide votes, maybe ABV and LKA might be those candidates in this particular poll. Very clever. Now I wonder what the questionnaire actually contained.

Then, having concluded Rahul Gandhi is going to be the most popular choice for PM (whether by secret ballot or just verbal interaction is not clear now) there are other questions kept ready for the respondents. You will find them in pic 2 and 3. Is he trustworthy and pro-poor? What one thought of his Bhatta-Parsaul adventure and even if he is ready and should become PM straightaway. Okay, but when it comes to a poll for candidates from within the BJP itself there is no Advani. So now we should be convinced that LKA is not a preferred candidate within the BJP itself but according to the pollsters is good enough to be a candidate for popular vote by the general public respondents.

Now, if they had these questions about Rahul Gandhi ready for the respondents what about similar questions about other candidates? Nothing? It would be really interesting to see the pro-poor or trustworthy votes for at least one more candidate from the list. If not, I doubt the pollsters even measured all the candidates on the same parameters in the poll.

So all of us Bernards can now see how the perfect balanced population sample was used, with the best questionnaire and with the best and realistic options for PM candidate. Why go through all this painful trouble? CNN-IBN and CSDS should just listen to Digvijay Singh! He declares Rahul Gandhi PM almost every fortnight, doesn’t he? We could have been saved the pranks.