WENDY DONIGER BOOK 'PULPING': THE RISE OF ILLIBERALISM IN INDIA?

Now that Penguin India has agreed to recall and destroy all remaining copies, due to the sustained protest against her book for reasons explained in the above mentioned articles, predictably, sections of the English language TV media felt the need to further
their pet 'Hindutva is Fascistic' & 'The rise of Hindutva is directly proportional to Illiberalism' narratives. Dopey, in several ways it might be, but fascistic, in its present mainstream form, it's certainly not. Distortion of facts to fit into a predetermined
narrative is not uncommon, and in the context of this 'controversy' it was the turn of the well-meaning, but perennially confused seeming Sagarika Ghose, to play that game.






A few points:
1) What is the pre-existing paradigm in India w.r.t. free speech and expression?
Illiberalism, Hindu or otherwise, in the Republic of India, has always existed. Individual Liberties of speech & expression have always been threatened &/or curtailed by various religious & political groups from diverse (Read 'All') ideological backgrounds.

2) How have free speech & expression been threatened and curtailed in India?
Through illegal or/and legal methods. If someone is 'offended' at a claim or a book, there exist legitimate and illegitimate ways of protesting. To kill, thrash, loot, vandalise, riot,
ban or block based on Kangaroo court judgments, would fall into the latter category. To sue, debate, respond coherently through articles and books, or demand a ban or block from the government on constitutional grounds, to demand a ban through the legal process, all constitute legitimate responses. Even though the morality of asking for a ban - unless someone justifies a clear-cut crime &/or calls for their supporters to indulge in criminal activities, for example, a justification of, or call to, murder apostates - is questionable. This, is not too difficult to understand. Unless of course, one doesn't wish to or pretends not to! Bill Maher understands the difference all right.
Even the most annoying civilised people, tend to go through the legal route in these situations.


3) Is Hinduism/Religion threatened by free speech/expression?
A wonderful way to finish the legitimacy of an idea or set of ideas, is
to convert it into a laughing stock. This, is the role that is played by ridicule of the pompous John Cleese kind. Religious people know this better than anyone else.

Note that, practically everywhere the following two conditions are satisfied -

a) The state is largely separate from religion

b) A relatively high amount of freedom to criticise, ridicule, mock and question religion exists

- Religion, in its classical form, is dying.
Hence, to ask questions like "Is Hinduism threatened by a book?" is not particularly bright. Of course, religious ideas & beliefs are threatened by largely free criticism or/and mockery.

4) Continuing now from point 2, does this controversy include a legal or an/illegal response from the 'offended' parties? If it is
clearly, a legal response, what makes this legal crushing of Individual liberties possible? Was this a ban?
The Nehruvian secularists (as opposed to real secularists, who of course, are practically non-existent in Indian politics) are hell bent on portraying it as a 'ban', but the fact is, it (the book in question) was withdrawn. Yes, we may rightly disagree with the decision by Penguin India, but it was completely theirs i.e. a management decision. They had a choice to go to the upper court, but didn't. Books have indeed been 'banned' by the government in India to calm religious and political offence-takers. Not this one!

How and why, can this lamentable situation have legal sanction? Doniger makes at least one excellent point in the BBC report provided earlier in this post. Indian law criminalizes 'causing deliberate offence' to any religious group. This is sad, and true! 295A in the Indian Penal Code & clause 2 of Article 19 (1) of the Indian Constitution, together form the shield that religious offence-takers can use to protect their beliefs. These have to go. Religious Ideas/Beliefs must be subject to scrutiny/ridicule. These sections, render criticism, questioning, ridicule/mockery of religious beliefs on a grand scale, impossible. Religion in its classical form, a failed science and a failed ethical theory, is protected from questioning and ridicule. IPC 295 A is to relatively free speech what Sanjay Bangar was to an 8 RPO required rate, run chase!



5) Did Modi play a role? If no, why does he get linked to this by sections of the media?
CM Modi's total contribution, positive or negative, to this issue, amounts to tumbleweed. He didn't make this worse or better & had
diddly squat to do with it.
How does he get linked to this, then?
Mr. Ruchir Joshi (seen in the linked CNN IBN discussion) and other assorted Modiphobes, see CM Modi as a Fascist. Hence, if one were to endorse, support or associate with CM Modi in any particular way, from the standpoint of the average Modiphobe, you immediately become Anti-Freedom of Expression/Speech as of course all Fascists tend to be. The problem with this line of thinking of course, is
that it fails to distinguish between a form of democratic cultural nationalism and fascism, and furthermore, moderates and hardliners or extremists that subscribe to this form of nationalism.

6) Does this controversy prove the 'Hindu radicalism/Illiberalism in India is increasing' narrative?
This entire chain of events, was both encouraging and depressing. That the more intolerant and easily offended organisations and groups claiming allegiance to an ideology, have graduated from typically endorsing a sound thrashing of 'offence-causers', to pursuing a more civilised approach of responding to perceived attacks on their beliefs, is encouraging. So the behaviour of these Hindutva
groups when they find themselves in these situations, has demonstrably improved from even a few years in the past, leave alone a decade or two ago. That they still seek out bans on what should be considered non-criminal behaviour, is depressing. That they do this through the legal process and not through threats of violence and vandalism, or through their buddies in the government, is encouraging.

7) Continuing from point 6, if Hindu radicalism/Illiberalism is not increasing based on the Donger-Penguin India controversy, what does this say about the doyens - in sections of the intelligentsia and the media - that felt the need to push the above mentioned narrative?
We saw no violent protests/threats/vandalism in this case, like in the aftermath of the Danish cartoon publishing. And that was a cartoon. Now imagine what the Islamist response to a Doniger like book on & named ''The Muslims'', would have been! A recent controversy from the UK should suffice to illustrate this difference. Maajid Nawaz, a former-extremist & now counter-extremist, author & Liberal Democrat British-Muslim candidate, tweeted a picture of Jesus and Muhammad. I haven't linked to that picture for the simple reason that it undoubtedly constitutes a criminal offence in India. All hell broke loose over that harmless picture. Maajid's response was refreshing. A cursory glance at the comments on his facebook page post-controversy, helps to understand the mindset of the hardliners. And these are British citizens, mind you, with generally greater access to information, better literacy & education levels than their Indian brethren of all kinds. They're upset at a cartoon of two of their most revered prophets(Jesus & Mo) literally saying 'hello' to each other. Upset enough to demand Maajid's sacking & threaten to kill him[Edit - Watch this & make sure to read the links provided in the 'About' section of the video]! How many death threats did Doniger get?
Sadly, it suits some in sections of the intelligentsia & the media, to consistently poke at half-full hornet's nets instead of full ones as is explained here.
Nehruvian secularists are rattled by the fact that even the more intolerant of the Hindutva organisations have won this battle in a far more civilized manner than the former ever thought. Not by issuing fatwas & not through violent processions as the highly intolerant hardline right-wingers such as the Islamists they are happy to co-opt into their ranks, are so fond of doing! This, is also what is upsetting them. It's inconvenient for the Nehruvian secularists that the more intolerant Hindutvavadis aren't nearly as intolerant as the rednecks in their ranks. That hardline & radical Islam, is much more dangerous and odious than hardline versions of Hindutva. To not acknowledge or understand this is dangerous. If the importance of prioritisation is understood, the reasons for acknowledging the far greater threat from a certain type of religious radicalism, is too. We have finite attentional & financial resources and they must be directed at the greater/greatest dangers to the global community.
It's also inconvenient for the assorted Nehruvian secularists that Hindu rednecks aren't thrashing people for causing offence, nearly as often as the same Hindu groups used to, even a few years & especially more than a decade ago.


Several writers that felt the need to moralise on this have been & still are, associated with Penguin. Yet they first spontaneously choose to primarily or exclusively blame, surprise surprise, Hindutva groups. The source of this behaviour is the need felt by them to describe all of their Hindutvavadi political opponents as freedom-despising fascists or/and 'communal' & hence claim tolerance and pluralism for themselves. As if they themselves have loved & promoted individual liberty. As if all Hindutvavadis are the same. As if Vajpayee's coming into power resulted in him immediately changing the constitution to compel non-Hindus to walk into the sea!
In conclusion, instead of making this a discussion predominantly (though not exclusively) about our flawed constitution and penal code, sections of the media have chosen to further predetermined illogical narratives, exclusively due to their prejudice against certain political ideologies & individuals. Either that, or they're exceptionally good at missing the point!

MODI & THE REUTERS INTERVIEW

Yup! That's CM Modi reading Tolstoy(surprise, surprise) from the Reuters interview(interview links provided below)

Modi & the reuters interview -
So CM Modi decided to speak to Reuters(Watch - Here & Read - Here)  & our wonderful English language Media unsurprisingly starts hyping it up negatively by calling it 'explosive'(Times Now) & 'Controversial'(IBNLive) -

Obviously from ibnlive.com's facebook page

Indian Express didn't want to be left behind in the race for 'hits' on their website

Why is this controversial?
Let's cross check what was actually said, then!

This is what he actually said(Capital letters, Captions, bold letters, italics, inverted commas etc are all mine. Bold letters do not imply a loud tone, capitals on the other hand, do) :

*On which of the 2 he was, a Hindu Nationalist or a development man:
I'm born a Hindu. And I am a patriotic person. So you can say I am a 'Hindu
Nationalist'. As far as progressive, work-o-holic, development-oriented, whatever
they say, that is there. So there is no contradiction between the 2.

*Speaking about those who claim he was linked with the 2002 Gujarat riots, he said:
People have a right to be critical, (since)We are a democratic country.
Everyone has their own view. I would feel guilty if, I did something wrong.
Frustration comes when you think - 'I got caught, I was stealing and I got caught' -
But that's not what happened in my case.
Up till now, we feel that we used our full strength to set out to do the right thing.

*When Asked if he regretted the violence:
If SOMEONE ELSE is driving a car and we're sitting behind, EVEN then if a puppy comes under the wheel, will it be painful or not? Of course it is!
If I'm a chief minister or not, I'm a human being. If something bad happens anywhere, it is natural to be sad.

*On secularism & religion in politics:
We do believe in that(in secularism) … But what is the definition of secularism? For me, my secularism is, India first. I'm not in favour of dividing Hindus and Sikhs. I'm not in favour of dividing Hindus and Christians. All the citizens, all the voters, are my countrymen. Religion, should not be an instrument in your democratic process.

"CONCLUSIONS -

1)He did claim to be a Hindu Nationalist, part by default & part by choice. He claims he is a Hindu by birth & a Patriot - [which he confuses with being a nationalist as seen in the video when he uses the 2 words interchangeably.Perhaps this confusion b/w the 2 in Modi's mind is due to his poor English language skills, since patriotism & nationalism are NOT the same. Orwell famously distinguished between patriotism & nationalism. ] - by choice. Hence, Hindu patriot/Nationalist. He isn't apologetic about being Hindu. Why is this 'controversial'?
What was he expected to say? That he was a hartaal-loving, 'The internationale-singing' communist? He does represent the BJP which claims to support a certain form of Nationalism. Cultural-Hindu-Nationalism. This nationalism comes with a certain kind of secularism, which Modi later in another part of the interview refers to(refer to conclusion #4 here for a little look at the same). The Congress's brand is Nehruvian secularism. Both are constitutionally valid, by their definition.
The SC of India in 1995 re-emphasized that by definition, it(Hindutva) was not directed against 'others'. The idea of Hindutva itself has evolved over a century & what was said a century ago is not what is said now.
We as Indian citizens are faced with a choice b/w 2 ideologies of the national opposing political parties that are both constitutional & both claim to be secular. But are they, really(Secular)?
Actions are a better indicator of beliefs, than claims will ever be.
Ex PM Vajpayee & Varun Gandhi both claim to be Hindu Nationalists ie. Hindutvavadi. They have almost nothing else in common.
Stalin claimed to be a socialist, so does Nitish Kumar. Again, they are hardly similiar.

So, let's look at action, rather than claims or definitions -
One ideology comes with Beef bans, 'Fraudulent conversion' bans & Kailash Mansarovar subsidies. The other, with Nationalisation of the shrines of only one 'religion' (while leaving the other religion's holy places alone), Sharia derived civil law for one religious group[while other religious groups are subjected to(& rightly so) humanistic, 21st century laws], Haj subsidies & religion based affirmative action/positive discrimination schemes.
It is left to us to decide which is the lesser of the 2 evils, since all politics is about relative strengths & weaknesses and doesn't take place in some vacuum.

2)He understands the difference between criticism and abuse & welcomes the former as an integral part of democracy.

<<This picture from "The Unreal Times" is rather an appropriate one.

3)He says he does, like any rational human being would & should, feel sad about what happened & uses the example of a puppy coming under a car to explain the same. 'Puppy' here, refers to the entire Gujarat 2002 carnage. So, ALL victims & the entire events of the Gujarat 2002 carnage(Muslims & Non Muslims) are being referred to. This has been CM Modi's (& the BJP's)stand forever. What happened in Godhra(Hindu Kar Sevaks being killed) & post Godhra(Largely Muslims, but also Hindus being killed in rioting and police firing) together constitute the Gujarat 2002 violence.  If CM Modi were to be asked what he meant by this, would he say anything different? Would he say that he felt bad ONLY for the Muslims killed in the Gujarat 2002 violence? Even his worst critic would disagree with that. Hence, it is fair to conclude that he most certainly didn't equate a puppy with 'muslims' through an example, as his frustrated political opponents are alleging. It is obvious as a CM, he meant all the Gujarat 2002 deaths.
He also often points out that in the eastern traditions, all life is valued & made the same point tweeting about this controversy. He claims, that in Indian culture, even the death of animals makes one sad, so why wouldn't the death of humans create the same feelings in him? While one may disagree with this idea of 'all life being valued' in our culture(as I do), it is easy to see he didn't equate a puppy with muslims.  Basically, the point is this - Even loss of animal lives is sad, so of course he feels sad about what happened in Gujarat 2002.
This, is not 'controversial'. Attempts are being made to manufacture this into something controversial by the political opponents of CM Modi & publicity hungry media agencies!

He says others(someone else), & not him, were behind the riots & responsible for 'driving' this car(the riots).
This, dear IBNlive, is not a 'claim'. It is a fact. Facts, are not disputed. Facts and claims are not the same.
It is a fact, that CM Modi has been investigated & questioned multiple times & been given a clean chit. Yes, one can split hairs and say there was found 'no prosecutable evidence' against him. Also, 'someone else' here refers to those found guilty of murder/conspiracy/incitement & have been convicted & sentenced.
The claim, is that he felt bad about the deaths. Unless he is a psychopath, as some rubes would like us to believe, this isn't wrong either.
He is sad about people dying but doesn't feel any guilt. Would this be a Contradiction? I'm afraid, not!
Being sad and feeling guilty are not the same.
The fact of having committed a specified offence/crime, is guilt. He is not guilty of committing a 'crime', as defined by the law & hence, isn't guilty. What reason exists for him to feel guilty? The counter to this often is - ''A thousand+ people died under his tenure as CM which makes him responsible.''  If he didn't do everything in his power to control them(riots) he would indeed be guilty, at the bare minimum, of inefficiency during the riots. I tend to think he did indeed do everything in his power with the limited resources he possessed to control the riots! Moving on, feeling 'unhappy' would amount to being 'sad'.
So it is possible to feel sad & yet feel no guilt. Most of us have the same feelings wrt the Gujarat 2002 violence. We feel sad, but not guilty! Picture this. Someone collapses in your apartment block. You do everything you possibly could with the limited resources available, to save this individual. He/She still dies. Are you guilty? You feel sad, like you do about the Rwandan genocide. But do you feel guilty?
He isn't defensive about the riots because he is convinced that he & his team, did everything possible to control the riots.

Has CM Modi expressed sadness?
Yes. On several occasions. I found a few examples of the same in less than 2 minutes of searching on the internet. Mr. Modi publicly expressed
sadness and appealed for peace and calm pointing out that riots were not any kind of solution, a day after the Godhra train-burning incident here on Doordarshan.
Second, in the Vidhan Sabha in March 2002 which he reiterated here. Not one Modiphobe has denied or refuted this.
Third, to Prabhu Chawla for "Aaj Tak" in 2002, which is a part of the "India Today group", read here on India Today. Aaj Tak was and still is, the most watched news channel in India.
Fourth, to Shekhar Gupta for NDTV's "Walk the Talk" seen here. Note, Mr. Gupta is also in charge of "The Indian Express". There was no CNN IBN or Times NOW & NDTV was 'the' English language news channel back then.
Fifth, in his "Sadbhavna Mission" where he made the statement ""Constitution of India is supreme for us. As a chief minister of the state, pain of anybody in the state is my pain. (Delivering) Justice to everyone is the duty of the state".

Clearly, he has expressed sadness several times.
But you see, "Why don't you express sadness over the 2002 Gujarat violence?" is a loaded question. Every time this question is answered by Mr. Modi - after he has already made clear what & how he feels about that whole issue - it gives his opponents another stick to beat him with. It serves as a wonderful diversion from any conversation about socio-economic growth and progress, and methods to accelerate the same. Those who dishonestly claim he has never expressed grief or sadness and keep asking him these questions based on that lie, want to pursue their fear-mongering agenda i.e.  "Don't vote for him because he will kill you" by projecting him as a psychopath who lacks all empathy.
Now as stated above, sadness and an apology are two very different things. He offers no apologies and states "If I am guilty, hang me" in an interview with Shahid Siddique, seen here. On a tangent, Siddique got fired from the SP, for merely speaking to him.
If he is guilty, why would an apology suffice? What difference would it make? While I oppose the death penalty(for reasons other than caring about the human rights of murderers), the fact is, he(Modi) is OK with being punished if guilt is established. What is wrong with this stance?

If you ask Mr. Modi why hasn't he apologised, you're implying that he is guilty?
He doesn't feel he is, and the courts don't prove him wrong.

If you ask Mr. Modi why hasn't he expressed regret, you're implying that he is a psychopath.
Which makes you prejudiced. And ...you're wrong either due to ignorance or dishonesty. Because he HAS expressed regret and condemned the violence on multiple occasions.



Back to the Reuters interview, the primary reason for media agencies hyping this up as 'controversial' is because they know there will be a public reaction due to the large number of CM Modi's supporters among the economic classes that have access to the internet in India(This is not to say that CM Modi has no support among the poor. We shall find out how much support he has among those economic classes soon enough).
"The Unreal Times" illustrates this - Here & Here!
The media reaction can be summarised with this Q & A -
[Question: Do you beat your kids?
Answer: I don't even beat my dog,.
Media's Inference & conclusion: For you, your kids are like dogs.]

Now, one may agree or disagree with the genuineness of his claim of feeling sad. But there can be no doubt that the claim was made. Which was that he felt sad about what happened.


4)Contrary to what Indian Express would want us to believe, he has a secular definition of secularism(India first). Not the most brilliantly worded definition, but good enough to be termed secular. The other statement, on religion not being a part of the democratic process, is actually the classical definition of political secularism. Though, easier said than done. Both, the BJP & the Congress claim to be secular. As established earlier, neither Hindutva nor Nehruvian Secularism is 100% secular based on action(in practise), though both claim secularism in theory. Ex PM AB Vajpayee was not ordering non hindus to walk into the sea when he was the PM. He's easily my favourite Indian politician. He was a Hindutvavadi, a hindu nationalist. I largely disagree with the same. But I know, he didn't want a nation only of hindus. I know he was in favour of a reasonably secular - ie. separate from religion - state. I know he spoke about & supported common civil law.
BJP President Rajnath Singh made it clear that 'Hindutva' & 'Ram Mandir' are not political issues anymore(Read here & here). He believes/claims the BJP is secular. Now, one may disagree with his claims, but it is important to acknowledge that these claims have been made. Again, we arrive at the conclusion that both the BJP & the Congress 'claim' to be Secular & particularly at this point of time.


Again, both the Congress & the BJP claim secularism in theory. If we like a secular state, it is up to us to decide, which party is more secular. The doyens of Nehruvian Secularism are yet to logically demonstrate how it's ideological opponent 'Hindutva' is, at this point of time in history, worse, either in theory or in practise.

Note, I am not saying any of the following -
a)CM Modi is the best politician in India
b)He has no flaws
c)He is the best choice for PM in Indian politics
d)He is the best choice for PM in his party
e)The riots he presided over(& did not 'mastermind', 'orchestrate', conveniently ignore like 'Nero') must be forgotten
f)CM Modi is a secular(in the classical sense) or an 'identity-blind' ie. 100% identity-blind, politician, since he claims to be one.

I do however believe that among those Indian politicians that have any chance of getting a(any) national role in the near future, he is the closest to identity-blindness & he may, just may, be the best choice for a(any) National role!
More on this in the months to come!

UTTARAKHAND DISASTER & MODI-BASHING

Excuse the poor English in the cartoon displayed here. This is from Manoj Kureel

So let us examine the claims made by the deluded 'We hate Modi' group that manage to embarrass every rational Indian or human -
1)Modi's propaganda has boomeranged- False! It wasn't his 'propaganda' or claim at all. The TOI reported this and have not mentioned their sources.
One counter to this, is to ask ''What stopped Modi from coming out with a denial?".
There are multiple things said about CM Modi & the Gujarat govt every single day on the self-proclaimed mainstream media.  Modi just carries on working & doesn't respond to the media. He talks with them on certain occasions, on specific topics, but not everyday ie. He is not completely inaccessible. The media I'm afraid, thinks too highly of itself. It is important, but not all important!
In a perfect world, yes, you would expect a denial but the differences even here are clear - Modi gets into controversies for the allegedly 'imperfect' good work he is doing, while Congress leaders get into news with their perfect wrong doings!

Also, what stops Sonia & Rahul 'Gandhi' from coming out and denying ANYTHING said about them that is factually untrue? Or even speaking to the media every now & then? They are inaccessible people as Kejriwal - someone I rarely agree with - points out at the 7 minute mark here.
In fact which political party comes out and denies every single rumour about them in the papers or on TV? Does Mayawati do the same? Mamata Bannerjee? Mulayam & Akhilesh Singh Yadav? Jayalalitha? Who?
The norm is for party spokespersons to make appearances on various TV channels at night & explain the party position. And the BJP spokespersons did exactly that. ON various channels.

Another typical tactic, is to point out APCO's(An American lobbying company) role in spreading this story. Ofcourse this is rumour mongering & there is no evidence to suggest the same but it's Modi, so anything goes. It was decided by a show of hands that the story was 'planted'.

I shall quote from Binoy Prabhakar's report in the economic times(9 Dec 2012) on APCO - "APCO muscled out a raft of PR companies, including the now defunct Vaishnavi Communications of controversial lobbyist Niira Radia, to win the contract to promote Vibrant Gujarat, the showpiece investment meeting of chief minister Narendra Modi that often sees dizzy pledges to do business and lavishes praise on Modi's administration.

Vibrant Gujarat has evolved into the country's premier investment meet - it is billed the "Indian Davos" - and as Gujarat goes to polls on December 13 and 17, Modi has frequently used the massive publicity around the event as a plank in his campaign.

Until Apco appeared on the scene in 2009 to sell the event, Vibrant Gujarat was a modest show. At the first three events, investment promises were worth no more than $14 billion, $20 billion and $152 billion.

Enter Apco and in 2009 and 2011, the promises grew to $253 billion and $450 billion. The 2013 edition - from January 11-13 - is billed as the biggest yet. The United States-India Business Council (USIBC), along with counterparts from the UK and Australia, is sponsoring the event."

Two things are clear.
First, that Modi, believes in spending to earn. Of course the speculated spending, is much lesser than the potential gains.
Second, that this APCO, is a lobbying giant we are talking about. Not some amateur company. APCO is a professional, well-organised company. To conclude that they would do something as masochistic as 'planting' an easily debunked story about one of their clients(the Gujarat govt), in the most widely read newspaper in India, is a bit of a stretch.

Next,
2)That this episode has made the 'wannabe PM' into a 'laughing stock' - Aah, the irony! The irony is lost on these simpletons. I would think it is embarrassing to make false claims. Perhaps I am old fashioned that way. Shouldn't this embarrass the TOI then?
3)His supporters are claiming that putting words in CM Modi's mouth was the work of ''congress stooges'' -
Partly true! Some of his supporters are INDEED making this claim.
But is this claim completely false?
Aren't some parts of the self proclaimed MSM largely anti-Modi or pro-congress to the extent that they are fine with hiring people like Nilim Dutta(http://www.mediacrooks.com/2013/02/nilim-dutta-new-feather-in-media-mafias.html) ONLY because they have a visceral hatred of Modi or even Advani(until Advani opposed Modi since when he has become their pin up boy).
I am embarrassed that these people are this daft even after receiving an education.
How much can one embarrass oneself and their observers?
Something has most definitely happened to the English language TV media after CM Modi was made the BJP campaign committee chief.  For a good part of the decade, no prime time discussion on CM Modi would be complete without someone or the other using terms like 'Fascist', 'Communal', 'Hate Monger', 'Anti Muslim', 'Nazi', 'Hitler' & 'Mass Murderer' to refer to him. This changed in the last 1-1.5 years until the day before CM Modi was elevated in the BJP officially as the face of their campaign. Every single media story on Modi since then has been poorly researched and almost completely in the vein of 'Big/Major Blow to Modi'(Google this for much comic relief) muck-throwing.

A few more points -

a)Why would the BJP 'PR bandwagon' plant an easily debunked 'story' when the much more easy & obvious thing to do is claim the truth ie. Modi & the Gujarat govt did indeed help many gujjus(for that matter even mallus and Bengalis) get out of that unsafe environment.
b)More imp, why would the English language media in our country which is notoriously anti BJP, cover what - on the surface - seems to be a Pro-Modi story & blow it out of proportion?
c)I'm not convinced it was a plant at all. I think the media just cocked up. As they do! They found something related to Modi and went full blast because he makes news.
But IF, this by any remote chance WAS a 'plant', it makes MUCH MORE sense for this to have been a Congress one. It takes attention away from the pathetic  failure of the congress govt to control the damage in Uttarakhand & evacuate stranded pilgrims safely.
d)The same columnists that were having a go at 'evil high growth & fast development models' for the tragic events in Uttarakhand, are now bagging Modi and his supporters for 'planting' hyped stories in the media.
Strangely the inefficiency & quality of the development and THE party or the govt in power at state and centre level, is not being questioned or talked about as much as Modi. Why?


4)CM Modi only helped gujjus -
Another false claim. This has to be some sort of record.
Bengalis are gujju now? - Read about this here.

Mallus are gujju now(can you read Malayalam? This is the original) - http://www.mathrubhumi.com/story.php?id=371061

The Translation vaguely is this - According to them a Gujarat govt booth exists in every nook and corner of the affected area and also they are providing non-stop bus service from Utharakhand to Delhi and this family also had used the service of the Gujarat govt.

5)Next, clutching at straws and shifting goalposts ie. They say that, since the claims around CM Modi made by certain media agencies and not by him are false, he(Modi) didn't help at all & deserves no credit -BS mongering and expected.
a)Manish Tewari or the TOI being false embarrasses them and the simpletons who buy into this on both sides & draw conclusions, no one else.
b)Modi's contribution is being acknowledged by people from different states and ofcourse from the Gujjus who received help from the Gujarat govt & have come out to openly declare the same. And this has also been reported by some sections of the media which are not cheerleaders for Modi, like firstpost(here) and rediff(here) & the economic times(here). As for media that is indeed Pro-Modi, we have right wing Niti Central(here, here, here) who also report the help that CM Modi and his team provided & the hypocrisy of the Congress party.
Hence, it is fair to conclude that a difference was made. That the Gujarat govt didn't bother counting heads & were more bothered about saving lives. And that a section of bumpkins don't have the decency to give credit where due ie. to the Gujarat govt for being proactive.

6)The Armed forces deserve credit and not the Gujarat govt -
Another childish claim which deserves the lambasting it has and will continue to receive. To give the armed forces credit for doing something that frankly does NOT even constitute part of their job & thanking them for doing what is generally a thankless job is the sensible thing to do.
However, this is not mutually incompatible with giving credit where due to CM Modi!! Note that this claim generally comes from people who complain about our armed forces and fail to trust them when they demand AFSPA. Now they love our armed forces. The same armed forces that this cottage industry built around outdated economic and political models(and hating a certain Gujju politician) absolutely hates at most times & refers to as being morally equivalent to terrorists of the Islamist or Maoist kind.

7)The Media is being nuanced & following a middle path -

More on the Uttarakhand tragedy and Rajdeep's pathetic games - http://www.mediacrooks.com/2013/06/rajdeeps-disaster-games.html

Also, more on the Anand Soondas 15,000 rescue TOI story here & here.
I don't mind people having biases The problems however are two.
1)Not disclosing those biases
&
2)Distortion of facts

Again, give credit where it's due instead of speaking for NaMo.
Fact: He helped people get out safely.
Fact: He was proactive unlike the flagging off nonsense by the Nehru-Gandhis rightly mocked by Ravinar in his 'Rajdeep's disaster games' media crooks blog post.
Fact: He didn't just help Gujjus. This is proved by the mallus and bongs who were helped by the Gujarat govt & are happy to give credit where due.
Fact: NaMo haters, continue to feed all the various stereotypes of them being dopey.
The 'Paid news' taunts aren't completely false either wrt the Indian Media -
http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2013/06/18/india-media-buries-paid-news-report/

The untouchability associated with CM Modi is such that Shahid Siddiqui gets sacked for merely talking to him(seen here).

More on NaMo and the economic & social indicator improvement COMBINED WITH improvement in provision/creation of basic infrastructure with sources & evidence for the same(from the planning commission, Professors and economists) along with my problems with his tenure will be posted on this blog in the coming weeks.