Narendra Modi may have a few problems he needs to sort out, such as responding faster to atrocities against Dalits and minorities, but the obsession of the Leftist media with one particular brand of secularism also needs to stop (“Why Modi’s 50-day speech did not include the word ‘mitron’ – nor mourn the demonetisation deaths”). It just seems as though certain sections of the media are dead set against Modi and the BJP and are unwilling to give them a fair chance. Can the secularists also explain why the Sachar committee report showed that Muslims had fared badly in over 60 years of secular and democratic India? Something tells me that secularists might find a way to blame the Hindu rightwing for this too. – Aakash
I read this article with great interest and it is well written. Of course, being a seasoned journalist, Ajaz Ashraf will not be naive enough to expect any reader to agree 100% with his views. But the undertone of communalism brooding in his mind seems to have been transferred to a third party – in this case to Modi – as it is easy to label someone on whom a label has been stuck by your fellowmen in the media. So, Ashraf has seamlessly incorporated the following sentences in his article which, to me reflects his mindset better than that of Modi’s.
Ashraf says: “By contrast, Muslims, by and large, do not vote his party – and, therefore, he didn’t feel the need to take a morally correct position.”
He adds. “In other words, Modi’s is an ever-changing moral universe, dependent on whether it is conducive to being used instrumentally for acquiring votes and power.”
Happy journalism and Happy New Year – Anirudh
I was surprised to see people enjoying New Year’s Eve. Clubs were full , airplanes were full I went to receive friends at Bangkok airport and saw many who had come for the holidays. It prompted me to wonder, where is the shortage if money and is it made-up? – Shiv Narayan Khare
It is a great pity that all you can do is regurgitate what has already been spewed so many times and in so many variations already. We all know the ilk of all the politicians. When has India ever voted for the best? They’ve only ever voted for the vilest or at best among the worst.
If anybody, including the writer, whom I presume is a patriot, has some fixes for the myriad problems that face every Indian from birth to death, please present it and seek our criticism of it bravely.
Here is someone who has broken from the status quo and has taken it on his chin.
Own up and show what positive and radical change you are prepared to take and share that with the English and non-English speaking population of India for comment. – Manoj
Oh my! So the political debate in the country should centre on whether or not the word “mitron” has been used? You have a bright future in political philosophy. Keep it up. – Bhadrakaali
It is easy to criticise Modi. But does Ajaz Ashraf wish for Modi to behave like MaunMohan Singh? Every leader, even Obama, can be criticised for what he did or did not do. 2014 elections were a reflection of what the people wanted. When 2019 arrives, we will see what the majority thinks! – Kalburgi Srinivas
I couldn’t finish this article because it is poorly written (“The demonetisation policy feeds on a divide, and that says something about Narendra Modi”) Do away with headlines and then a ton of lines with a back story template. It’s ridiculously long. Keep it to the point please. – Ishan
Our government perhaps intends to introduce Rs 1,000 notes with a new design and don’t want hoarders of old notes to confuse or cheat innocent public by circulating the same along with new notes (“Why is there now a 4-year jail term for keeping demonetised notes (that are worthless anyway)?”). – Nagesh Bhandarkar
You mean you actually want to preserve banknotes with the signature of Raghuram Rajan, which the government is working so hard to remove? – Kamal Lodaya
Because of errant bank workers, the government has somehow failed to show the expected results of the demonetisation exercise (“Demonetisation: Kotak Mahindra bank manager arrested for helping Paras Mal Lodha exchange old notes”). Actually, people of India and the entire process should give the government support and only then things will change. – Sanjay
Right to secrecy
The RBI is correct in not disclosing the reasons for the demonetisation exercise (“RBI refuses to answer RTI query seeking reasons for demonetisation of Rs 500, Rs 1,000 notes”). The safety of the country is very important. The applicant has ignored his responsibility to the nation.
I am also an RTI activist but I am very responsible while asking for information.
Information pertaining to the president and his office, the prime minister and his office, the armed forces, the CBI, RAW, chief justices and Supreme Court judges are beyond the purview of the RTI. – Siddhu Jonnalagadda
The long run
Remember, in the words of John Keynes, “In the long run we are all dead” (“Demonetisation meant for long-term structural transformation, not for short-term gain: Narendra Modi”). – Jawahar Mohamed
Most teachers in Delhi University don’t appreciate the significance and importance of accreditation (“No DU college got the NAAC’s top grade in its latest round of accreditations”). Every teacher feels that what they do is best. Academics at DU are teacher-centric. Most teachers don’t know what the best modern teaching and learning practices are. As a former dean of DU, I know that the university gets very good students and its academic system is reasonably good, but implementation by teachers is severely lacking. Student assessment system is out-dated, no emphasis on student learning and continuous improvement. Students do well because of the environment, academic facilities and competitive culture prevalent in the university. – PS Grover
Rajesh Khanna’s popularity was not on the wane in 1974 – in fact that was the year had three big hits (“The rediscovery of Rajesh Khanna the actor in ‘Aavishkar’”). It is only post 1975 that he lost his stardom, despite which he was always referred to as a superstar.
He remained the highest paid star till 1979 and shared the honour with Amitab Bachchan till 1983.In 1983, he did make a comeback with three hits, among which Avtaar was a super hit.
Rajesh Khanna was a miracle born out of an affair with destiny itself. He had a charm that even fate could not resist. The biggest difference between him and all other stars was that he had devotees whereas others had fans.
He came into existence as a reel god – perhaps that was the real god’s intention. – Kannan
This is a brilliant article, thank you so much (“Modi ‘miscalculated the Indian ability for jugaad’: Statistician Pronab Sen on demonetisation fiasco”). It answered some of the many questions and concerns that I have had over these past months.
I am an Australian and was in India for the Pushkar Mela when demonetisation was announced. I like to experience this festival every year, staying sometimes for three months, and it has been very hard to see the devastating effect of demonetisation on the poorer people of this area in Rajasthan. It has also been difficult (and sometimes distressing) for me to understand the psyche of Indians, how so many are happy to see this as a positive move without looking at the overall picture. – Sandy
This is a thought-provoking article (“Immanuel Kant said sexual desire is morally wrong – he may have had a point”). I didn’t study much about Kant’s philosophical discourses, but the way his views on sexual desire have been presented here, it looks like his arguments were based on the sexual objectification of a person. There is a clear distinction we often tend to forget, between objectifying anyone’s body and anybody.
When a person lusts for another person’s body, he or she objectifies that other person’s body, not the other person. That other person, subject to consent, then, can act as a medium to fulfil the first person’s sexual desire by offering his or her body for sex. And the matter of consent comes in because we own our bodies, not because we are our bodies.
This assumption of objectification of a person happens only when we tend to identify ourselves too much with only our bodies. We can take the examples of a lot of performing arts and sporting activities too here. People often get infatuated with somebody who has a very beautiful singing voice or exceptional dancing skills etc. But this infatuation doesn’t really objectify the musician or the dancer, instead it objectifies their specific gifted talents.
So the solution lies in a) not associating ourselves with our bodies, b) controlling our desire to a level that does not end up exploiting another person and more importantly, respecting the consent from the other person as well, and c) balancing our desire for sexual pleasure with the sense of fulfilling the partner’s desire though sex. Interestingly many of these points have been discussed in many religious philosophies as well. – Srijan Acharya
Sexual desire, like any desire, can be seen as morally wrong only if one accepts some moral standard against which it is to be judged. The desire during sex is not inherently objectifying but can become so when the person is no longer attuned to the other.
In contrast it is the living, breathing, person that brings a dimension to sexual encounter that is absent in masturbation and squelched to various degrees in prostitution. It is with effort that we de-humanise others so as to act in ways foreign to our true agency.
The fact that we begin to lose those personal boundaries and come as close to conjoined, unified beings during sex is not in itself wrong or bad.
It is impossible not to desire. Even Buddha, desired to be free from desire. The desire is not the issue. The proper type, degree, and context of that desire are justified only in relationship to some higher purpose.
In Christian Theism, sex is seen as a gift from god that functions to reflect his unity and completeness of being in the trinity. It is complete between (here comes the unpalatable part) one man and one woman in the context of lifelong, committed monogamy through which they go from being in love to learning how to love, from novelty to deeper knowledge of the other, from submission-domination against which the feminists rightly railed to mutual submission through servanthood (this is a choice to submit my will for the benefit of my partner, an active receptivity that brings something to each they cannot produce for themselves – and this is what protects from objectifying my partner).
Being lost in ecstatic pleasure is the reward for the fullest appreciation and desire toward the whole of his or her being and actually is a form of worship. Only when removed from those constraining and defining marital boundaries of permanent allegiance do we begin to lust and objectify our partner. For there is no standard of goodness, or love, or commitment, or worship involved when we cut ourselves free from that god-centred anchor. Without this, we cannot even be sure of what we desire or when it is perfected or perverted. – Thomas Weeston