Seems Rajdeep Sardesai was called
upon to comment upon what he refers to as the “Arnab-Barkha war”. RS must have realised this would mean “Monkey Balancing” between two former
colleagues. So he wisely chooses not to speak. He writes “Why I will not speak on the Arnab-Barkha 'war'”. Though it
fails my intelligence why he should even write the article if he did not want
to speak about it. This is quite similar to Barkha saying “I don’t give a toss” about what
Arnab says but keeps on ranting. Here’s part of what RS wrote in his
inconsolable grief on having to MB between his two friends:
“If you talk
of the pain of two wasted generations of Kashmiri youth living under a
draconian law like AFSPA, then you are an anti national, pseudo liberal. If you
scream about the agony of Kashmiri Pandits becoming refugees in their own
country, then you are a 'nationalist' and a patriot. If you speak of both
tragedies, then you are, as some of us are lampooned, a 'monkey balancer'. If you report on the travails of our soldiers
facing stones in Kashmir and land mines in Naxal areas, you are a desh bhakt
and nationalist; if you expose the human right violations in the valley or
tribal India, you are anti national. If you report on both, you are, well,
considered a 'monkey balancer'….
Well, here is my take: journalism is actually often about being a 'monkey
balancer', of diligently seeking the truth….”
Deah Oh Dear! After reading the above
I had to scratch my head. Despite coining the title “Monkey Balancer” for him I now realise I did not explain the concept
properly to RS at all. I guess I'm a bad teacher. Because RS claims monkey balancing is
the right approach to journalism and seeking the truth in his article. Alarming!
I should have explained to RS that “Balanced Reporting” and “Monkey Balancing” are two different
things. When you FAIRLY report two sides of a coin on the same issue or event or
incident one could call it balanced reporting. But when you try to connect and
equate two unrelated issues, events or incidents to cover up for one, I call it “Monkey Balancing”. For instance, he
refers to KPs and AFSPA. If you were to fairly report the situation on both in a given context that would be
considered balanced. Also, if you want to report tribal conditions and travails
of our jawans in Naxal areas then both have to be in a given context. One
cannot report either as a stand alone issue and claim balanced reporting. So
let me make a second attempt at educating Rajdeep on what constitutes Monkey
Balancing and I hope I succeed this time.
First, let’s start with some others.
None better than the legal-saint of wrong causes, the one called Indira Jaising, who is also accused of FCRA
violations in her NGO:
Get it? There is a petition in SC
against triple talaaq but the woman
talks nonsense and equates it with discriminatory practices in other religions
including Hindu law. Is there a petition against any Hindu law? NO! On the
contrary, the SC is on record stating govts have only reformed Hindu laws. And
the beauty? Jaising is actually defending triple talaaq in the SC. It’s not
just monkey balancing but brazen hypocrisy and lying in public. Next, let’s
take up “Wheeler-Dealer” royale of Luyens:
Congress had released some 25 Pak
terrorists secretly. When the party was slammed Shekhar Gupta equates it with the release of a terrorist during the
Kandahar hostage crisis. Is there any equivalence? Azhar Masood was released
during the Kandahar situation to
save Indian lives under great pressure from the families and, yes, the media
too. So this bogus equation by SG is to defend his darling Congress in their
inexplicable decision which has no reason whatsoever. Okay, so who should I go
to next? Ummm… why not Rajdeep’s very own?
The great Indian economist states
economy is tanking and people are yelling Malda
and Jallikattu. Really? So because
the economy is supposedly bad we should not talk about other things? Especially
Malda? Let’s see, we shouldn’t talk
about Malda because it involves Muslim violence. And she lies too. Malda never made any noise in the media; they mostly blacked it out. What if it were to be
about Hindus? Both Rajdeep and Sagarika would be jumping up and down like kids
and screaming their lungs out – economy tanking or not. It is like, there are
severe floods in Assam but PM is on a tour to Africa. This is stupid monkey
balancing and not even an intelligent one. But hold on! Sagarika is not the
type to disappoint us. Let’s pick on her very good friend whom she slyly defends:
Now, these were concocted allegations against some Saheb (A reference to Narendra Modi, I
guess) and there was trash galore in the media somehow trying to taint him. So
what does C5M do? She washes the sins of her good friend Tarun Tejpal (accused of rape) with a false equation. Even
otherwise, Saheb was not even alleged to have been in any rape incident or
anything. So you see, how cleverly this monkey thing works Rajdeep? Now, let’s
go to the Master himself – Rajdeep, the Chief
Monkey Balancer of Indian media:
I really laughed when I first saw
this. TheJaggi was talking about how
Islam itself has to cure Islamic militancy but Rajdeep jumps in with militant
Hindutva. He stuns even TheJaggi. First, there is no such thing as militant
Hindutva. It’s as much a nonsensical creation of Hindu-hater Rajdeep as was “Saffron
terror” by his Congi bosses. Whereas, Islamic terror is universal. This is why Rajdeep is a MONKEY BALANCER of
the worst kind. This has nothing to do with BALANCED REPORTING. Best part
of the above image is – TheJaggi asks why did Hindutva come into this, and the
guy below answers “Because you’re talking to Rajdeep”. That’s how
much Rajdeep is identified with hating Hindus. I like Rajdeep, so let’s roll
some more…
Damn! Somehow because some cleric
called for a beheading our monkey balancer has to bring in some Hindu Mahasabha
leader. Well, he would have a point if the acts were equal. The Muslim calls
for BEHEADING and Rajdeep wants it
to be equated to some hate speech by
a Hindu leader. Where is the equivalence? Are the crimes similar? No! Even if
they were, why should the two be equated without the context of the crime? I was about to close class but I heard
Rajdeep begging for one more chapter. Here you go:
That one is really the best in this
list. Chief Monkey Balancer equates RSS
relief work with Mother Teresa’s
work with the poor. MT’s work with the poor is in reality a lot of myth. She just helped the poor and sick die as
Christians. Secondly, as my narration in the image says – Did RSS seek to convert people they save? The Mother Teresa types and other Christian
relief works do it primarily to seek more goats to convert. There is no
equivalence. This is Monkey Balancing of the WORST kind by Rajdeep that is
intended to belittle the Hindu organisation that has saved many lives over the
years without any selfish motives. The opposite is not true for Jesus-Salesmen.
In case Rajdeep still doesn’t get it,
I derived Monkey Balancing from the old Panchatantra
story. In the story two cats find a Roti and fight over it. Monkey comes along
and promises equal share for both but keeps dividing the Roti unequally and
keeps eating up the excess portion from each. In the end there is no Roti left.
The cats are fooled. The Monkey is a
clever cheat. That’s why Rajdeep “don’t pride
yourself in monkey balancing”, it is the attribute of a cheat. That’s why
you got that title.










