India Today Matches Khurshid's Bad Behaviour

There are some who believe that the two reporters from the India Today (IT) group, particularly Deepak Sharma, who had conducted a supposed sting operation, put up a great spirited fight and a gutsy performance against Union Minister Salman Khurshid (SK) during his Trust scam press conference on Sunday, October 14. This is nothing but poor understanding of certain codes. A press conference is not a boxing match. I have long observed reporters behaving like uncouth, uncivilised people at press conferences. They shout over each other, they scream, they heckle, even throw footwear and worst of all, they ARGUE with the one who is holding the presser.

Those watching might get a thrill out of the drama but reporters do not have this license. (Hey, even I enjoy the drama). There is a line reporters cannot cross. Reporters don’t have the right to interrupt, right to scream or right to argue no matter what the provocation. They are not entitled to keep poking till they believe they have got the answer they want. Not done. This is where the two IT reporters at the presser came out poorly and seemed to have lost their sense of decency. Frankly, reporters are not even entitled to a Q&A if the speaker so desires. He can just make his statements, say thank you and walk away. Media cannot demand vociferously for him to answer questions, especially not answers they want to hear.

Mind you, there are some who might construe this as a defence of Salman Khurshid. Far from it! SK behaved like a barbarian, like an animal and for all his claims of ‘Oxford education’ he appeared to have been educated in some sewer. He was terrible in his choice of words and a third rate character for threatening reporters with some action or the other. Considering SK is involved with some educational institutions he demonstrated what one should teach children not to do. As a lawyer, if SK had done the same thing in a court of law he would be cooling his heels in a small prison cell.

This was neither a court nor a trial. Therefore, no matter what the speaker at the presser does reporters do not, I repeat, do not have the right to badger or argue with him. Even if they don’t get answers, they don’t have a right to argue. Even if the answer is not satisfactory they don’t have the right to fight or argue. Even if the speaker refuses to answer any question at all they do not have the right to argue. All that reporters can and should do is ask decently and listen to the answer or the silence. They may get the chance to ask a follow up question but they have no business to indulge in arguments. SK would have been well within his rights to just make his statements and walk off and not even take any questions at all. That is the practice and norm. Watch this video of Obama talking to reporters from June 2012 (1.07 minutes). One unruly reporter heckled him:

Obama was right in what he said. He even said “I didn't ask for an argument”. After the exchange Obama didn’t answer any questions and left. He is within his rights to do so. Here’s what the American press generally reported about the incident:

In a remarkable display of unprofessionalism, Daily Caller reporter Neil Munro heckled President Obama as he delivered remarks in the White House’s Rose Garden regarding a shift in immigration policy Friday afternoon. Munro’s angst is apparently connected to comments the President made in March of 2011… Munro, the video indicates, was attending the remarks with a temporary press pass.

Obama was simply far more polite than the stupid SK. Reporters can go back and report their interpretation and rant in their newspapers. In this case India Today has a channel that can condemn SK and rant about it all day and night. Let’s deviate a bit. In the US, since 1966 it is mandatory for law enforcers to read out a suspect his Fifth Amendment rights. This is popularly called the Miranda Rights. You may have heard the statement prior to an arrest or custodial interrogation: “You have the right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be held against you in a court of law”. Simply put, the “accused” has the right not to answer. The Fifth Amendment provides that an “accused” can choose silence instead of answering any question that may have the potential of “incriminating” himself in a crime or trial. If this right is not read out to a suspect, he cannot be prosecuted. The onus to prove guilt is on the prosecution and not on the accused. In this case, the onus of proving guilt is on IT and Arvind Kejriwal through demands of investigation followed by prosecution. They can fight for that. But they are not entitled to fight “their accused” at his own presser. In this case the presser is not even a trial or a court. Although the presser wasn’t a trial, SK was there to defend himself not incriminate himself. He has the right to answer what he wants and how he wants (doesn’t include bad behaviour). The media can dissect his responses in their reports. Let’s see a few clips from this presser (1.30 minutes):

Evidently, the media has shown SK’s bad behaviour but they have chopped out the agitated reporters of IT group. Not surprising. The agitated and animated behaviour of the IT reporters and the general ruckus by all the reporters is shameful to say the least. AT one point Deepak Sharma even waved papers at SK and said: “You are the law minister, you MUST answer”. Who the hell is this guy? Is he a judicial interrogator? In the process he didn’t even allow other reporters to grill SK fairly. In India, media is routinely allowed access to suspects in police vans when they are arrested. They are allowed access even into cells inside police station. The police even parade them in front of the media and make them answer questions. This is simply a gross violation of their right to silence, even if we don’t have the equivalent of the Miranda Rights. No accused owes any answer to the media or even to his interrogators. He can choose absolute silence as defence. It is for the prosecution to prove their case and not the accused to prove his guilt or innocence. Of course, the accused is entitled by law to defend and argue for his innocence.  

In the case of SK’s presser the IT reporters may not be satisfied with the answers. They have no right to badger. SK may have issued stupid threats. Reporters have a right to go back and report the misdeed as graphically as they want. Most of all, if the reporters were unhappy they have the right to walk out in protest or disgust. They do not have the right to ‘demand’ answers. They cannot ridicule the one who is holding the presser, no matter what. It is simply not done. Our media folks are known to poke mics into the faces and bodies of their targets. Even that deserves condemnation. They should keep a safe and clear distance from the person they want to question. In short, they are not allowed to behave like a lynch mob.

Some folks choose to condemn or condone bad, uncivilised behaviour by media depending on which side of the political aisle they are or on which side of an issue they are. It is worth remembering that no matter who the person, what the issue or what the case, bad behaviour by media when it crosses the line deserves nothing but severe condemnation. Even barbaric behaviour by SK cannot be a justification for media to misbehave. They should walk out if something is unacceptable to them. They are not entitled to a slanging match. That’s how they can prove they are different from politicians and criminals. Unfortunately, times are such that it’s hard to distinguish the two. Narendra Modi did the right thing when he walked out of a Karan Thapar interview when he found it disgusting. Mamata Banerjee walked out of a public interview with Sagarika Ghose when she was angry. Both sides have the right to do that.

If you were invited to a party where the host behaves badly, what would you do? Fight and argue with him? You might express a polite dissent and at worst you might say thank you and goodbye. It’s his party, he can cry if he wants to. That’s the code for the media too. If they come across a badly behaved savage, they cannot behave like him too, they should simply walk away. That would have been a bigger slap for Salman Khurshid. 

My Sore Pak

I once again took a break, this time a longer one and was happy to get back on the day Osama Bin Laden was taken down. I have lost count of the number of posts where I have mentioned that Pakistan is a failed state with nothing to offer to anyone and surviving on misdirected aid. The only ones who think Pak is a great neighbour are the likes of Shahrukh Khan and Mahesh Bhatt. A few weeks ago our PM even wanted cricket to be played between India and Pak. Manmohan Singh cares two hoots about realities as events as shown over and over again. Friendship with Pakistan is not only impossible but not even desirable.

The idiots who have coined the term ‘people to people’ contact as an excuse to seek peace are the greatest enemies of India. You cannot have peace with a nation that has an army and outfits partly involved in terrorism. It took nearly a decade but the US finally got Osama. His hole just outside Islamabad proves what the Pak establishment was and is really up to. It might take a decade to get the perpetrators of 26/11 and other terrorists but instead our stupid government wants us to play cricket with those assholes.

We need not hate Pakistanis. Ordinary Pakistanis are not evil. But the way our media keeps promoting Pakistan and campaigning for relations with that country is sickening. The worst crimes on this count come from Bollywood itself. With an abundance of talent in India they still need singers and dancers from Pakistan and cite such cultural imports as a way of improving relations. Moron-in-chief of this theory has to be Mahesh Bhatt. And he is now in the Congress. Is that any surprise? And then there is still that Slime of India, with its ‘Aman Ki Asha’ crap. Do we need traitors?

What is the best question that Rajdeep Sardesai and others ask P.Chidambaram when Osama was killed? Hmmmm, when are we going to go after the Dawoods and the Saeeds!!! It takes spine to go after criminals. Do our politicians have any? In the tragedy of the 1999 Kandahar hijack the media turned it into an emotional drama and soap with the families of those hijacked to force the government to barter terrorists for hostages. And then Chidambarm tells the world India and US are the not the same when it comes to Pakistan. Well that is some comfort. Time to learn from tiny Israel on how to survive with cutthroat criminal rulers surrounding you all the time.

It didn’t take the Osama killing to expose Pak. Everyone knew it, everyone knew the Pak ISI and army are crooks and everyone knew Pak was playing host to Osama. The US finally decided not to be led up the garden path. But will our Manmohan Singhs, Mahesh Bhatts, Barkha Dutts and Shahrukh Khans learn? No they will not! The government still maintains talks will go on. Talks on what? To discover that Pak is a safe haven for another hundred criminals for crimes against India?

Right now Pak is sore. It is scab infested. Forget Pakistan, it’s good riddance.  Let’s get on with moving India on.  Pak should also learn a lesson from it’s friend Osama. You can run but you can’t hide forever. Pak will one day meet the same fate that Osama met. Hopefully, it will be at the hands of India.

Obama: "Yes we CON"

Among pathological Presidential liars who have visited India, Barack Obama probably has only one predecessor in Richard Nixon.  Obama, has misled his country in his election campaign and continues to do so on various fronts. It is, therefore, not very surprising that he and his party received a drubbing at the recent US elections.

His silence on the Pak involvement in terrorism may be a political compulsion. Staying at the Taj Hotel in Bombay with the area virtually a fortress hardly makes any bold statement to terrorists. But his worst lies were saved for a response to a young college girl’s question on ‘Jihad’ at the St.Xavier’s College in Mumbai. Obama’s response:

"All of us recognise that this great religion, in the hands of a few extremists, has been distorted... The religion teaches peace, justice, fairness and tolerance. All of us recognise that this great religion cannot justify violence...”

Distorted? In what way? Those who choose to kill and die, commit suicide bombings and beheadings swear by the inspiration derived from the Koran. They read verses from it to support their crimes. And yet it is distorted?

Justice, Fairness, Tolerance? Stonings, amputations, death to apostates, death to homosexuals, inequality of women, suppression of freedoms, free speech. All signs of fairness and tolerance? Countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan etc. fall into the category of Islamic countries with Islamic laws and practice the worst violation of human rights and the worst punishments. Do these countries fall into the “distorted” category? And these countries are fair and tolerant of other religions? And each time a crime is committed and claimed to be inspired by the Koran, the apologists don’t hesitate to say it was “misunderstood” or “distorted” by “few” extremists.

The greatest uprising against Islam today is in Obama’s own home country, the USA. Does he ever bother to understand why? Dismissing it all as Islamophobia is one thing, but to seek to understand why so many Americans are up against Islam is a question any serious President would ask. It has gone far enough for the state of Oklahoma to ban the use of Sharia law in a preemptive legislation.

The list of sites dedicated to a watch on Islamic Jihad is growing. Not only radical Islamists but even scholars from Islamic universities and Imams are overt in their call for implementation of Sharia law across the world. They make no secret about their goals.

There’s a good chunk of the population in the US that believes Obama is a muslim owing to his words and actions ever since he was elected president. His words actions in India seem to follow that pattern. In a Hindu majority country the most important shrine he could find to visit was Humayun’s tomb? And following that he will visit the largest mosque in Indonesia. Surely, Manmohan Singh, Sonia Gandhi, the Congresss (I) and its allies couldn’t have found a greater “muslim-appeaser” as a guest than Barack Obama.

After listening to his answer to her Jihad question, the student must have muttered under her breath “what a load of bullshit”! Obama’s real line has to be “Yes we CON”

Dog says "My Name Is Khan"

Muslims in Mumbai are up in arms against a United States military sniffer dog allegedly with name tag of 'Khan' that has landed in the city as part of President Barack Obama security arrangements. On Tuesday, the German Shepherd arrived in the Mumbai airport from a Hercules C130 transport plane. The German Shepherd allegedly had a tag around its neck which read 'MWD Khan.' MWD stands for Military Working Dog. Khan is alleged to be the name of the dog. Angry Muslims in the city and the state are threatening to protest this 'insult' to the community.

The issue became a rage when a tabloid had reported the incident and quoted veteran actor Raza Murad objecting to the dog being named 'Khan.' Though noted lyricist Javed Akhtar had been quoted to ignore the issue and focus on welcoming the VIP guest. Maharashtra Samajwadi Party leader MLA Abu Asim Azmi also threatened to undertake a protest. He said that the US deliberately wants to incite the Muslims through such acts and the party would stage a protest on the issue.

Prominent Muslim religious heads have expressed anger and dismay on the information of a US dog being named 'Khan.' Maulana Syed Athar Ali said that it is a known fact that Muslims detest pigs and dogs.  "To name a dog a Muslim name by US security agencies is to deliberately incite the Muslim community. We would be meeting soon and devise a strategy to protest and seek apology from the US," said Maulana Athar Ali.

(Source: Rediff.com) 

I am waiting for Shahrukh Khan to comment on this. I suppose the Congress (I) government will now either ban dogs altogether or ban muslim names for dogs. Some muslims can be so stupid that they don't get it that Khan need not necessarily be a muslim name. Genghis Khan wasn't a muslim. And its possible the name was actually "Kahn" which is quite appropriate for a German Shepherd.

All over a dog !

Obama: "Yes We Canned"

The media, more than anyone else, is all excited about the US President's visit to India. None of them forgets to keep reminding you that this is the longest visit to a country by Barack Obama. Indeed, something to gloat about I suppose. Anyone with a decent understanding of this president's performance so far will have been quick to point out that this man is no friend of India. Some in the US even wonder if he's a friend of Americans themselves. The drubbing his party received in the recent mid-term US elections makes him a lame-duck president in many ways in his very second year itself.

I first heard an Obama speech in 2004, made at the Democractic convention. His oratory charmed everyone. That same oratory with catchy lines like "yes we can" endeared him to voters. Not just Americans, people across the world were charmed, and were delighted with the story of a black man being able to become the president of the US. It was a fairy tale everybody loved. Till he actually became president and his true colours started showing up. Much of his electoral oratory seemed to be just that - oratory and nothing else. He has turned out to be a man without any substance, harbouring deep resentment of Americans themselves, and actions that have led him to be taken for a muslim by some. Sample some of these:

1. He starts off appointments to his cabinet with many who were tax defaulters. Prominent among his appointments is Tim Geitner - incharge of treasury. He was the head of the NY Federal reserve while the collapse of 2008 was building up.
2. Starts off a policy of muslim appeasement (some Indian politicians will cheer that of course). Gives his first interview to Al Jazeera an Arabic channel. Gives a speech at Cairo University apologising for America. Sets an agenda for NASA to reach out to muslims! NASA? Is that their mission?
3. Bows to the king of Saudi Arabia, a first for any American president. Forgets that America was created in despise for such undemocratic kings and queens.
4. Holds Iftars for muslim community, claims "its the tradition of the white house" . A blatant lie that has been exposed all over. Frequent outbursts against Israel lends to suspicions of his being a muslim.
5. Claims muslims contributed a lot to the founding and growth of the US. Another lie nailed by thoughtful American historians and journalists. Muslims had nothing to do with America's founding or growth. Supports ground zero mosque and at the same time attempts to stop the Florida pastor from buring the Koran so as to not offend muslims.
6. Ignores the Tea Party movement as nothing more than a Right-wing backed movement.
7. Has alllowed himself to be misled by left-liberal writers, TV channels and comedy channels (like John Stewart's) as reflecting the pulse of American people's sentiments.
8. Continues his idea of big government, and ignores serious issues of economy and concerns of his own public.
9. Continues to fund the terrorist state of Pakistan despite severe resentment by Americans (and India too) Talks of pull-out deadlines from Afghanistan without a clear direction or victory. Supports talks with the Taliban.
10. Renames "war on terror" as "overseas contingency operations". Not clear if anyone understands this kind of nonsensical tactic.

Well, the Indian government and media even expected Obama to support them for a permanent Indian seat on the UNSC. For what? Of what significance is that seat anyway? This is the manner in which the Indian media fools the public, bearing similarities to the manner in which Obama fools the American public. The UNSC is a tooth-less body just as much as the UN itself. It is astonishing that a severely corrupt body like the UN sermonises the world on Human Rights, Climate Change and such other matters. In modern times the UN has become more of an extension of the OIC (Organisation of Islamic Countries) and proposes international laws on blasphemy. Is that the UN's job? It is time India pulled out of the UN itself instead of longing for a stupid seat on a stupid UNSC.

In short, let us welcome Obama as a state guest with honour in true Indian tradition and send him off with nothing more than our affection and best wishes. It would be foolish to expect any significant treaties with the man. Great orators do not necessarily make great leaders.

All the teleprompters probably just rehash many of his routine lines. He could now say:  "Yes We CANNED"