Kemarin dpt kiriman email dr temen, di attachment-ny ada file dengan format .mdi. Selesai download, wew, kok ga terdeteksi program default untuk membukany. Pertama, kucoba buka pake Ms picture manager -karena seingatku mdi itu m-ny Ms i-ny image- tp ternyata ga bs di buka T.T. Kedua, coba buka pake winrar, klo ini asal coba aj . Ketiga, akhirnya ku keluarin jg jurus andalan, tanya mbah gugel, hehe.

Dan ternyata, mdi itu ms document imaging , yg merupakan format ms untuk dokumen hasil scan dan hanya bs dibuka dengan tools dari ms jg. Pada ms office 2003 tools ini sudah disertakan langsung dalam instalasi namany modi (ms office document imaging), bs dilihat saat kita akan mencetak ms document pada pilihan printer tersedia pilihan ms office document image writer.

Sekarang, bagaimana klo kita menggunakan ms office 2007? Karena program ms office document imaging writer ini tidak terinstal secara default pada saat instalasi office. Maka, solusinya adalah dengan menginstal program tersebut tentunya. Berikut langkah-langkahnya (studi kasus dg OS windows7) :

• buka ‘control panel’ kemudian pilih ‘programs and features’
• pada list program pilih ‘ms office 2007′
• pilih ‘change’, ada di bagian atas dr list program
• setelah window ms office 2007 muncul, pilih ‘add or remove features’ terus pilih ‘continue’
• pada ‘installation option’ pilih ‘office tools’ dan cari ‘ms office document imaging’ dan ubah menjadi ‘run all from my computer’
• pilih ‘continue’
• tutup window jika instalasi selesai

Sekarang file .mdi dapat langsung dibuka dengan klik-dobel, jika ternyata masih belum bs coba untuk me-restrart komputernya.

Poojaneeya Sarasanghachalakji

Pranaam

BJP’s president race is important because it will provide contours of post LK Advani BJP. Among other it will indicate who will be the top gun.

BJP and the wider Sangh Parivar suffer from serious ailments which ZIM had covered in election analysis LS 2009.  Its  serious situation is an outcome for which essentially intent to placate congentially hostile elements, lack of discipline, poor understanding of money power and its influence on media are responsible. Above has resulted in among others perceived loss of credibility – serious handicap in electoral arena. As was pointed, rapid reorganization rollout is what will revive BJP rather than piecemeal approach.

ZIM believes that the thinking that a single person as president, even if fully empowered will be panacea for BJP ills is short sighted. What BJP needs is a triumvirate:

• Public face – potential PM candidate
• Organizations lead – someone that can crank up the organization
• Alliances Lead – who can convince alliance partner

These three roles call for differing focus and teams. Its better for BJP if all the three are announced one shot in umambiguous terms – persons capable enough to pull the organization as a team. New President may be the person who is first among the equals.

While there is clamor among some well meaning individuals for organization elections culminating in new leadership, present situation in BJP precludes rigorous US type primaries. In the short term we have to live with a well thought out decision. It can be said with good confidence that potential BJP voter (not just the core) would prefer NaMo should he put his hat in the ring. BJP and the wider Sangh Parivar would be fool hardy to ignore what its followers think. Among the names that did/are doing rounds, Manohar Parrikar too has quality backing.

Among Advani acolytes, Arun Jaitley has some credentials, but his credentials appear weaker compared to NaMo’s/Manohar Parrikar’s. (See below for why). AJ does have his strengths.

Nitin Gadkari, whose name is doing rounds in Delhi seems rather weak on the credentials.

Proposal: ZIM believes NaMo alone has the gravitas to be first among equals. Potential BJP face for PMship.  Manohar Parikkar can be the organization man and Arun Jaitley – lead for Alliances.

Other important aspects include following:

• Visible female faces:  In Vasundara Raje, Kiron Kher, Smriti Irani, Sushma Swaraj and prospective Uma Bharati, BJP can proffer a galaxy of competent women. Vasu’s imperiousness and her caste background are serious assets and unless there are compelling reasons publically articulated, she should remain the face of Rajasthan BJP and the leading BJP female light. Deploying Smriti Irani or Kiron Kher on media would be wiser than Prakash Javdekars.
• Uttar Pradesh: Swinging UP is crucial for BJP. A strong and charismatic leader who can pull BJP on a strong development agenda is important.
• Inorganic Growth: Integrating synergistic entities.

What to look for when top job is decided:

1. Credibility
2. Tack record
3. Ability to inspire
4. Decisionmaking
5. Managing disagreements

Parivar should be mindful that ‘Good consensus’ person as leader may turn out to be ‘good for nothing’ person. When I analysed credentials of the short listed candidates, it looked something like this:

CREDENTIALS:

Arun Jaitley: 57 years old, Delhi based, old ABVP hand is a seasoned BJP hand involved in strategising victories in many state elections. His weakness is he has not seen failures unless one attributes 2004/09 LS failures to him. He is also perceived as a factional player and there are allegations of his using media plants to undermine some of his party colleagues. He is a top lawyer, extremely articulate, well networked.

Manohar Parikkar: 54 year old RSS Man and IIT Mumbai alumnus, Manohar Parrikar has outstanding credentials – leading BJP to victory in Goa in the face of hostile islami-isai forces. Goa is a state where BJP was absent. Though a small state, politics there is complex. Manohar was responsible for enhancing Goa’s infrastructure remarkably.

Narendabhai Modi: 59 year old RSS man is a cult hero for native Indians. Someone known for cutting islamic extremism and evangelical deceit in Gujarat and making it the unofficial Hindu Rashtra. His contribution on development – infrastructure, job creation, social initiatives have resulted in native Indians across the spectrum backing him as India’s future Prime Minister. He has an added advantage of being from politically decisive middle castes of India. His weakness shared to an extent by both Manoar Parrikar and Jaitley’s is that he has not seen many failures.

Nitin Gadkari: 52 year Nitin Gadkari is known for improving road infrastructure in Maharashtra: through bridge constructions in Mumbai, Mumbai-Pune highway and initiating worli-bandra link. His inability to deliver Maharashtra to NDA despite woeful governance by UPA, known MNS factor, 26 November islamic terror attack remain serious albatross across his neck.

What will Revive BJP

1. Coherent definition of Ideology elements such as Hindutva, Big Ideas that will have resonance in minds of voters.
2. Social Engineering to expand its voter base on social and economic criteria. Execution done by enabling the Organization machinary, effectively synergising with like minded organization/groups/opinion makers.
3. Inspiring and credible leadership of a proven performer like Modi who can bring in the incremental votes (something that Advani 2009 could not achieve on account of compromised credibility post 1998). Credibility of leadership is important. Image should match reality. (Sickular muck throwing if effectively countered on ground will help shape ecosystem, aid BJP credibility, help potential BJP voter mobilisation)

Above three conditions in conjunction are necessary. A two legged or a one legged seat is never stable and unlikely to sustain BJP.

Vote:

At a time when the bjp is going through its worst existential crisis, the man with the walrus moustache and a mischievous glint in his eyes has become the most sought-after oracle in town. Mohanrao Bhagwat, the 59-year-old boss of the rss, plays the role to perfection, and every word of his continues to be worthy of Page 1 nowadays. The media savvy Bhagwat’s ascension as the head of the House of Saffron has marked a generational as well as cultural shift in the organisation. He is the moderniser, the 21st century face of the rss. As the bjp seems to have abandoned its core ideology for the sake of coalition politics, Bhagwat has brought Hindutva back to the national agenda. As the bjp suffers from the absence of a leader who can take the party out of the wreckage of defeat, the sixth sarsanghchalak has become the supreme guide and the wise counsellor. As the party retreats from the national mindspace, he styles himself as the last apostle of the nationalist cause. As its ambitious but discredited leaders struggle for the spoils of a lost war, he tells them: behave or be damned. Still, the Brahmin bachelor from Chandrapur in Maharashtra finds time to read the new Dan Brown. Like the symbologist hero in The Lost Symbol, Bhagwat too has to think smart and act fast to save the Parivar he heads. In a candid conversation with Editor prabhu chawla for the Seedhi Baat show on Aaj Tak channel at the rss office in Jhandewalan in Delhi, Bhagwat talks about subjects ranging from the future leadership of the bjp to Vande Mataram, from Chidambaram to Modi, from Pakistan to China—and more. Excerpts.

Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi has been diagnosed with swine flu. A panel of doctors has been formed to treat him. Dhirendra Pray for Chief Minister Narendra Modi’s Good health. God give him speedy and safe recovery.

We all love you our CM Narendra Modi. GET WELL SOON SIR.

BJP, if it has to get out of its morass of the past decade, will need following:

1. Coherent definition of Ideology elements such as Hindutva, Big Ideas that will have resonance in minds of voters.
2. Social Engineering to expand its voter base on social and economic criteria. Execution done by enabling the Organization machinary, effectively synergising with like minded organization/groups/opinion makers.
3. Inspiring and credible leadership of a proven performer like Modi who can bring in the incremental votes (something that Advani 2009 could not achieve). Credibility of leadership is important. Image should match reality. (Sickular muck throwing if effectively countered on ground will help potential BJP voter mobilisation)

Above three conditions in conjunction are necessary. A two legged or a one legged seat is never stable.

A committed dharmic battle fought in the mindspace, resolutely over a period of time is the way to go. There should be a will to win backed by killer instinct (Krishna Neethi) to win. Perseverence will be the key. While the election campaign is culmination of the fight, the war to root out totalitarian dynastic evil congress I (islami-isai) is continuous and it should continue with full vigor.

(This section is from more extensive analysis that was done earlier post 2009 LS Elections)

Rogue professor Ram Punyani is back with his Goebellsian lies and shibboleths fittingly this time in Muslim India. 

Punyani cites what he calls Hindu mal-treatment of women. Censors the fact that in native Hinduism alone feminine as divine is accepted and celebrated, so unlike islam. 

It is indeed laughable that Punyani’s vehicle for feminst stand is an islamic medium. In every sense Hindu women in India are better empowered than islamic women. 

Punyani pretends as if in islam, Talibs alone are anti-women. Typical of leftist deceit, he censors islam’s position on women: quran/mohummad institutionalized inferior status of women. Quran, Verse 4:34 howsoever muslims spin it, is quite categorical on this count. Watch the video below for elaboration on quran’s position on status of woman – property of man, fit to be beaten up.

Native Indian beliefs are essentially non dogmatic. Manu Smriti hardly has the dogmatic perception Hindu’s mind unlike the position koran has in a common muslim’s. Punyani of course tries to do better than Don Quixote. He regurgates the nonsense on slavery of Shudras. He surely cant be ignorant of the historical fact that Shudras like Shivaji, Narendrabhai Modi, Sanghi have been in the fore front defending native Indians and their traditions. And the so called upper caste Hindus never have any problem being led by Shudra leaders like NaMo, Shivraj Chauhan. 

Contrast this with institutionalised tribal heirarchies and approval of tribal incompatibility as valid reason for divorce in islamic law – shariah. Islamic equality indeed! Far from equality, Inequality is institutionalised in islam. 

With their chosen red fundamentalist friends like Ram Punyani, muslim Indians dont need enemies. After working to undermine native Indians, their beliefs, their unity, muslim victimhood cries will be hollow, if their actions similar to the ones in Godhra, result in hostile native responses.  Muslim hypocritical cries will be rejected with the disdain with which native Indian Gujaratis have been rejecting them.

Some Gyaan for Ram Puniyani and fundoos of muslim India: 

• Rashtriya Sevika Samiti is an autonomous organisation with a separate charter which includes inculcating leadership in women. Sangh does not micromanage it. 
• Unlike muslims and communists, Sanghis worship Indian Nation as a Feminine Manifestation, Bharat Mata. 
• Sangh Recently awarded Guruji Award to Ms Kom, India’s boxing champion. 

Ms. Kom India’s Boxing Champion being Feted by Sangh’s Guruji Award

Suppress the truth is among first cardinal principles of totalitarians. NDTV with close connections to communists has repeatedly practised this principle.

Here one can see how they have influenced Vanity Fair magazine to suppress the truth of their dirty role contributing to casualties/placing in danger innocents during Mumbai terror attacks of November 26, 2008 carried out by islamic terrorists.

Vanity Fair carried an article by Marie Brenner, Letter from Bombay capturing the related events. Original Version had following contents highlighting NDTV barkha dutt’s dirty role enabling islamic terror.

Once the truth was pointed, NDTV got to work, got the original version of Marie’s post censored. Now the Doctored Version alone can be seen at Vanity Fair site with the reference to Barkha dutt removed.

Barkh Dutt’s deceits for islamofascists and against Indian natives is not new. It can be seen as NDTV abused Native Indian God Durga, abused Native Indian Gujaratis and undermines India through disinformation. Major chunk of Indian media has long been a roguish one dealing directly in deceit. The interplay of connections, by no means exhaustive that monopolise mass manufacturing falsehood is presented here. India is incidentally a strange place where all the totalitarian dogmatic trinities islam, communism, xianism converge.

There is no short cut but citizen vigilance which can defeat the above forces of totalitarian dogmatic evil.

Update: November 26, 2009: On the first anniversary of Islamic terror attack, Chief chef of Taj Hotel referred to rogue media’a islamic terror boosting role.

Ex Proctor and Gamble Executive Shri Gurcharan Das these days has been evangelizing (and pontificating) on Dharma and Mahabharat(MB) a lot. He has authored a book  ‘The Difficulty of Being Good: On the Subtle Art of Dharma’. It appears his native father’s native spirit’s calling was tough for Gurcharan to resist. 

This post an outcome of two responses to his blog posts, acts as a reality check – both on the merit of his recent work and its relevance. 

On September 27, Gurcharan blogged: “Is the middle path the way to peace with Pakistan?”. In the blog Gurcharan wrote MB would advocate middle path of negotiation”. The following responses are not limited to his blog posts but the  wider positions he has taken elsewhere as well.

Gurcharan

Mahabharat as we native Indians know is an engaging text. So any synthesis/analysis based on it is bound to be interesting. 

There are errors in your allegorical references to Mahabharat. You have tried retro fitting Yudhishtr within cages of your contrived conception. Such an effort howsoever interesting it might sound is unlikely to be an effective vehicle for propogation of Dharma. One needs to be careful that they dont end up violating Taittriopanishad’s basic Dharmic dictum – ‘Satyam Vada’.

Dice game in Sabha Parv was not rigged. MB explicitly points Yudhishtr’s love for game of dice and his competence in the game (Shakuni of course was better. As an aside MB naive folks will be surprised to realise that in Vyasa’s MB, Shakuni was not in favor of Duryodan’s dispossessing Yudhishtr. When first consulted he in fact recommends harmonious coexistence)

In MB Yudishtr manifests the intent to be anointed Chakravarthin (Some might call this intent Greed). Hence his Raja Suya Yagn. He voluntarily enters the game and one of his motivations is he can win Duryodhan’s assets (again some might call this motivation greed). On these considerations, it is tough to blame either Yudhishtr or for that matter Duryodhan for his intent to dispossess Yudhishtr of his kingdom considering the conception of kshatriya dharma. One cant blame China for wanting to be the middle kingdom, nor US for formulating strategic containment of China. 

You have referred to Yudhishtra’s deploying his commitment to “Vaak” as to why he should not immediately fight it out. In the Yudhishra-Draupadi-Pandav Sambhashan in Van Parv, one of the reasons Yudhishtar does not immediately opt for war is because of the strength of Duriyodan’s mobilisation potential. It was not just the word. He wanted to build capability. And as we know in Dron Parv, Yudhishtr and Bhim indeed short sell Dharma. 

Pandits have their own reasons why Yudhishtr was not the right person for receiving Gitacharya’s message. There in lies your possible mistake in depicting Yudhishtr as hero for voicing pragmatic position.     

In the Udyog Parv when confabulations happen on sending emissary to Duryodhan’s court, Balaram takes the position “Once Yudhishtr has gambled away his assets, he cant demand them back by right, or by coerceive threat of violence”. So neither the case for war nor the outcome can be interpreted in digital terms. Duryodhan’s last General ensured Pandav victory was pyrrihic. 

Interpreting native concepts from a western perspective is not a crime. But usually the spirit of the work is better carried and reflected when the perspective is inside out; Paul Brunton, Edwin Arnold et al. worked from the inside-out perspective and made meaningful contribution. The outside in perspective from the likes of Stuart Mill, Macaulay, Nehru introduced Vishama into the native soceity. It makes one think you could have saved yourself and the reader time, and delivered superior output by investing a bit of your time by learning what makes Dharma from native Indian sources. While skepticism on assertions by natives is not necessarily an error, bypassing them possibly is a serious mistake considering the nature of subject -Dharma. Tendency to interpret native texts for non natives usually necessitates confirming to one sine qua non – thorough understanding of native traditions on the text.

Check out the outcome of an effort based on native traditions which strikes the heart of the matter and provides  superior guidelines on practicing art of Dharma than your verbose effort. 

Your amateurish effort articulating Dharma can be a stepping stone for interested readers towards understanding Dharma. For that to happen, you/reveiwers should desist from presenting your work on Dharma from an authoritative perspective. It can at best be a kindergarten’s source for learning about Dharma – work in progress understanding Dharma. Your penchant to articulate “Mahabharata/Bhisham Pitamaha says do this…do that”..is best avoided on account of your clear inadequate acquaintance on the subject, lack of subject matter expertise. There in lie concerns about your book, its narrative. 

This is not to denigrate your amateur’s effort. ZIM believes that while there are serious shortcomings in your narration, by affirming the current relevance of native Indian tradition and alluding to its superiority over dogmatic totalitarian ones, and by connecting your corporate experience to Yudhishtra’s challenges, you seem to have made your book relevant.

ZIM

Food for thought on your blog post: Just as Hastinapur/Indraprasth/Gandhara shenanigans was fixed by someone from Dwaraka, should Indians again need to look at Gujarat for solution as Ratan Tata, other nationalist Indians assert?

Gurcharan also blogged on what he called “The Dilemma of a liberal Hindu“

ZIM’s response is provided below. 

Gurcharan

Namaskar

There are people offended by this innocuous word Namaskaar, especially the ones that believe Diwali is pollution causing wastage of resources while xmas is celebration of greatest thing that ever happened. 

This is an outcome of the xian/islamic civilisational assault that goes on against native Indian beliefs under the garb of secularism. You are perceptive enough to understand that the above assertion is not untrue. Indian Government’s selective targeting of temple control, temple property, attack on Karnataka priests by communists in Nepal are some of the manifestations of this assault.

When someone equivocates between seculars and Hindutvavadis, s/he is probably guilty of the 1/4th sin that Mahabharat apportions to the silent accomplice to the crime that cites “Hamaam Mein Sab Nange Hain” and refuses to take a dharmic position. The blog post on Radha Krishna speaks out why the costs of absence of moral clarity on this issue will remain high. 

Common natives instinctively seem to understand the moral position and ground realities better than the intellectuals. There are chowkidars of apartments that see with perspicacity, RSS is one force standing between complete islami-isaisation of India/undermining of native traditions. 

Heart of the issue in India is that Dharma has a higher chance of success with RSS/BJP on the reins rather than congress I (islami-isai). Ratan Tata et al. instinctively seem to grasp this as they publically batted for NaMo, BJP.

હેપી બર્થડે-મોદીજી

આજે આપણા કોમન મેન નરેન્દ્રભાઇ મોદીનો જન્મ દિવસ છે, રૂબરૂ તો કંઇ મળી શકવા
ના નથી માટે, આમ જ શુભેચ્છા પાઠવી દઇએ.

જન્મદિવસ ની હાર્દિક શુભકામનાઓ. આશારાખી એ કે તમે ધણું જીવો અને ગુજરાત માટે
સારા કામ કરતા રહો.

Billionaire Bhupendra Kumar Modi, who made his fortune from mobile-phone services in India, is planning to invest $100 million in distressed assets including the island resorts on Batam and Bintan neighboring Singapore.

Modi, chairman of Singapore-based Spice Global with interests from telecommunications to financial services, said he is in talks to buy stakes in all the resorts on the Indonesian islands and wants to transform them into entertainment hubs, flying in Bollywood stars and eventually adding casinos.

“There’s nothing near Singapore as beautiful as these two islands, but they are distressed,” the 60-year old said in an interview at his 63rd-floor penthouse overlooking the casino- resort being built by Las Vegas Sands Corp. “There are a lot of situations emerging where the actual asset is good, but it is distressed because the situation around it is not right.”

Modi, who last year moved from Beverly Hills to Singapore, is aiming to fill a gap left as firms such as Blackstone Group LP and Och-Ziff Capital Management Group LLC scaled back plans to buy distressed Asian assets. He has set aside $100 million for special situation investments, which seek to profit from events such as spin-offs.

He plans to invest with distressed specialists, including hedge-fund firm 3 Degrees Asset Management Pte and former traders from Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. who are opening their own shop to take advantage of rising Asian corporate defaults.

3 Degrees

Modi earned 21 billion rupees ($434 million) selling his stake in Noida, Uttar Pradesh-based Spice Communications Ltd. to Idea Cellular Ltd. last year. He said he has a net worth of $1.5 billion to $1.6 billion and cash of $700 million to $800 million.

Spice Global is planning a $1 billion initial share sale, Modi said in June.

He plans to invest $20 million in a private-equity fund managed by 3 Degrees to buy a stake in a resort in Bintan through the Singapore-based distressed asset manager.

Modi said he seeks management control of the companies he invests in. He became chairman of the board of MediaRing Ltd. and replaced its chief executive officer and chief financial officer after agreeing to buy as much as 20 percent of the Singapore-based Internet telephony firm for about S$60 million ($42 million) last month.

The billionaire said he expects returns of more than 100 percent if he can change the way Bintan and Batam, 45 minutes from Singapore by ferry, are being run. He will engage policy makers in Singapore and Indonesia to develop infrastructure and promote more visitor arrivals there, he said.

Supply-Demand

About $1 trillion of corporate debt is stressed and distressed in Asia today, with only about 10 “substantially capitalized” distressed investing firms chasing it, according to Robert Petty, New York-based co-founder of Clearwater Capital Partners LLC, which manages a $1.7 billion fund of Asian distressed assets.

“The supply-demand mismatch is interesting,” he said. “Today is an extraordinary market opportunity if you have the depth of team to be able to do all dimensions of distressed.”

Bonds are termed distressed when they yield at least 10 percentage points more than similar-maturity government notes. Near-distressed or stressed bonds have yield premiums of between 7 percentage points and 10 percentage points.

Asia-focused distressed and event-driven hedge funds and private-equity firms manage about $67 billion in assets, according to Eurekahedge Pte, a Singapore-based data provider.

Record Defaults

Standard & Poor’s expects “record levels of defaults” in Asia as the global recession hurts the region’s export-dependent economies and leveraged industries, it said in a June 1 report. Nine rated borrowers defaulted in the first five months of the year, matching the peak of the region’s 1998 financial crisis, S&P said.

“There will be a shedload of money to be made in Asian distressed over the next 18 to 24 months,” said Michel Lowy, former head of Asia-Pacific Strategic Investment Group at Deutsche Bank AG, who has been investing in distressed assets for 13 years.

Lowy is starting SC Lowy Financial (HK) Ltd., a Hong Kong- based distressed investment business which will focus on the region, and will seek “all asset classes within the illiquid value investment space” including special situations and distressed. Investment opportunities in this area will likely peak in one to three years, he added.

Lowy said his most successful deal while at Deutsche Bank was the German firm’s investment and reorganization of Spice Communications. He declined to say how much the bank made because the information is private.

SSG Capital

Hedge-fund managers investing in Asian distressed debt returned 1 percent in the first eight months of 2009, according to Eurekahedge. Asia-focused event-driven funds gained 16 percent.

Edwin Wong, an ex-Lehman managing director, set up SSG Capital Management with former colleagues including Andreas Vourloumis to start a fund to invest in distressed assets in Asia outside Japan. Modi said he plans to co-invest with Vourloumis, who made money for Lehman investing in Spice Communications. Vourloumis was not immediately available for comment.

The Huffington Post
Posted: September 11, 2009
By Sanjeev Bery

Following growing public criticism, the Financial Times magazine fDi has withdrawn its recent “Asian Personality of the Year” award to Narendra Modi, the Chief Minister of the Indian state of Gujarat.

fDi had stunned human rights advocates when it announced the original award in late August. It was under Modi’s government that Hindu mobs in 2002 slaughtered over 2,000 Muslims and drove thousands more from their homes. The Modi government has been accused of allowing the violence to continue, encouraging state police participation, and even obstructing attempts by victims seeking justice. Evidence suggests that Gujarat government officials may have directly encouraged the slaughter, perhaps for political gains among the Hindu electoral majority.

The fDi honor was announced in late August as one of several 2009 awards intended to highlight those who brought significant foreign investment into their local economies. (The magazine fDi itself stands for “foreign direct investment.”) In its original web announcement, which has since been taken down, fDi credited Gujarat’s Chief Minister for a large influx of foreign investment into Gujarat in recent years. Setting aside the economic rationale for the award, which itself is subject to debate, there is a bigger issue at hand.

Modi’s government in Gujarat has been linked to one of the bloodiest episodes of violence in recent Indian history.

The 2002 anti-Muslim pogrom occurred in the aftermath of an attack on a train carrying Hindu pilgrims that had stopped at a Gujarat train station. The pilgrims were returning from Ayodyha, a region that many Hindus consider to be the birthplace of Ram, an ancient king and incarnation of God. In Ayodhya, a Hindu nationalist movement had organized activists to demolish a Muslim mosque and erect a Hindu temple in its place. The mosque itself was considered by Hindus to have been built 500 years ago on the ruins of another Hindu temple.

At the time, it was reported that more than 50 Hindus died in the train fire at the Godhra train station. However, circumstances surrounding the alleged attack have been contested, including even the religious identities of the victims.

In the aftermatch, Hindu mobs went after Muslims in several Gujarat cities. Large numbers of Muslims were driven from their homes, attacked, and murdered. Muslim women were especially targeted for brutality, as noted by Amnesty International:

Violence against women and girls was a key feature of the violence. Scores of Muslim women and girls were sexually violated – raped, gang-raped or mutilated. Many saw their family members killed and their homes and businesses destroyed. After these traumatizing events many women victims were left to care for their family’s survival, often in makeshift relief camps with inadequate support, conditions and reparations.

Many Indian and international human rights advocates have directly pointed the finger at Gujarat law enforcement for allowing, aiding, and even coordinating the violence. As Human Rights Watch reported in April of 2002:

In some cases they were merely passive observers. But in many instances, police officials led the charge of murderous mobs, aiming and firing at Muslims who got in the way. Under the guise of offering assistance, some police officers led the victims directly into the hands of their killers. Panicked phone calls made to the police, fire brigades, and even ambulance services generally proved futile. Several witnesses reported being told by police: “We have no orders to save you.”

Some go further, arguing that the Gujarat Chief Minister actually encouraged or orchestrated the violence to boost political support in Hindu communities. The accusations were enough to lead to a visa denial for Modi when he attempted to visit the U.S. in 2005. Under the U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act, entry is prohibited to foreign government officials who are “responsible for … particularly severe violations of religious freedom.” In 2008, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, a body mandated by Congress, recommended that Modi again be denied entry.

It is within this context that the Financial Times subsidiary’s decision to honor Modi seemed especially out of place. Though the original fDi announcement is no longer available online, it received coverage in the Indian media.

One Indian friend in New Delhi reacted strongly to the news. Because she works for a prominent international technology company, she asked that her name not be published. She herself is of Kashmiri Muslim background, and she had this to say:

Why is this surprising? Hasn’t the business community, the great Indian elite, long admired Mr. Modi for his progressive thinking? He’s won awards before, and accolades aplenty. When you are talking to the man about the location of your factories, doesn’t part of your brain relay those indelible images of 2002? What do you tell yourself to continue having that conversation?

In the U.K., the Council of Indian Muslims issued a statement criticizing fDi for “being insensitive to the victims of anti-Muslim riots in the western Indian state of Gujarat in 2002 and encouraging Hindu extremism in India.”

In the U.S., academic voices Mira Kamdar and Vijay Prashad led an effort to urge Marjorie Scardino, chief executive of the Pearson Group, to direct her Financial Times subsidiary to drop the award. Together with cosigners from inside and outside the U.S., they stated, “This award gives Mr. Modi, whose human rights’ reputation is most troubling, a huge boost of legitimacy where he deserves none.”

The signatories had picked a responsive target with prominent affiliations. Scardino serves on the board of directors for the MacArthur Foundation, as well as the board of trustees for the Carter Center. Together with others who emailed fDi directly, they succeeded in encouraging the magazine to retract its award.

In the words of the magazine itself:

Following a review prompted by the ongoing investigation into the 2002 Gujarat riots, fDi has decided to present its award to Gujarat state, rather than Mr Narendra Modi, the state’s chief minister…Mr Modi was chief minister of Gujarat at the time of the riots. Mr Modi’s alleged role in connection to the riots is under investigation but he denies any responsibility.

Though the Financial Times subsidiary should never have granted the award to begin with, fDi did the right thing in retracting the award. Narendra Modi’s government aided and abetted a terrible massacre. Modi should not be receiving congratulations today.

Modì di MoreDesign

Modì di MoreDesign

Modi di MoreDesign

Passare da un divano a una dormeuse,  da un daybed a un canapé d’angolo. Il tutto con un unico set di pezzi. E’ la nuova proposta di Moredesign per Myour che ha ripensato al classico divano come al gioco delle costruzioni, sulla scia del successo degli arredamenti modulari che già da tempo conquistano chi è alla ricerca della massima flessibilità nell’arredare.

Il sistema si chiama Modì e si compone di quattro moduli: una seduta, uno schienale/poggia-braccio, un angolo e una base di vetro che possono essere assemblate in svariati modi per formare una poltrona, pouffes, divani sconfinati oppure tavolini. L’idea è fresca fresca di presentazione, a Parigi, in occasione di Maison & Object.

La trovate qui.

Its been a few weeks since the last installment, but we here at Eighty Second & 2nd have snapped up a fresh crop of photos for our favorite Monday tradition: Lobby Life!

D.C. Benny catches up with Angry Bob with Pat Dixon and Ross Bennett share a conversation in the background.

Dan Naturman, Joe Matarese, Lee Camp, Ray Ellin, J.R. Ravitz and Modi enjoyed a meeting of the minds this past Thursday.

After a pair of hilarious sets, Jon Fisch and Marina Franklin spend some time by the podium.

Bill McCarty, Ross Bennett, Lenny Marcus, Nore Davis and Mike Vecchione huddle around the podium while Dan Allen comes out of the green room.

This past Friday night, star of NBC’s 30 Rock and Saturday Night Live, Tracy Morgan came by the club to see friends (pictured here with club booker, J.R. Ravitz)

Thanks to Vijay Prashad for the use of this graphic

Thanks to all those who sent in their protests against  the ‘Asian Personality of the Year 2009′ award being given by fDi magazine (a subsidiary of Financial Times) to Narendra Modi. This was a minor victory – offset by the magazine’s decision to give award the ’state of Gujarat’. This is problematic because the period they are awarding Gujarat for includes the 2002 carnage. In addition, Modi, as Chief Minister, will probably still be the person to receive the award.

Courtney Fingar- fDi publicity photo

2. From fDi editor Courtney Fingar to those who wrote in to protest the ‘Asian Personality of the Year 2009′ award to Modi:

Following a review prompted by the ongoing investigation into the 2002 Gujarat riots, fDi has decided to present its award to Gujarat state, rather than Mr Narendra Modi, the state’s chief minister.

fDi would like to clarify that the criteria of the award has always remained focused on rewarding the success of a region in attracting foreign investment.

The award is in recognition of Gujarat state’s ability to attract an outstanding volume of inward foreign investment. Gujarat increased that volume by more than 50% over the past year for a total of 10.3% of all foreign investment into India.

Mr Modi was Chief Minister of Gujarat at the time of the riots. Mr Modi’s alleged role in connection to the riots is under investigation but he denies any responsibility.

fDi has also decided to highlight the geographic regions of all the other winners. The magazine is keen to maintain its primary focus on reporting on the effectiveness of different economic regions and rewarding innovative and effective promotional strategies.

Courtney Fingar
Editor
fDi – Foreign Direct Investment
Financial Times Business
www.fdimagazine.com

3. Press Release from activists, September 1, 2009.

When we heard that FDI magazine had chosen Narendra Modi, CM of Gujarat, as Asian Personality of the Year 2009, we were shocked. FDI is run by the Financial Times, whose reporter, Edward Luce covered the aftermath of the Gujarat riots of 2002, and had a very strong condemnation of Mr. Modi in the paper. The Special Investigative Team is getting ready to investigate Mr. Modi as we write this press release. And yet, this publicity. We hastily drafted the letter below, and asked our friends to sign. Before we knew it, hundreds of people sent us notes of support. We have a number of their names below, but there are more. Of those who have signed, there are several luminaries. Well-known academics such as Arjun Appadurai, Gayatri Chakrovarty Spivak, David Ludden, Sheldon Pollock and Sanjay Subrahmanyum. Well regarded artists such as Anand Patwardhan, Meena Alexander and Mallika Sarabhai. Human rights activists such as Teesta Setalvad and Rasheed Ahmed. Journalists such as Beena Sarwar and Amit Sengupta. These are just a few of the people who signed on.

Our letter was sent to Dame Marjorie Scardino, who is the head of the Pearson Group, which owns the Financial Times and the FDI. We hope to hear from her soon.

If you have any further questions, please write to vprashad@trincoll.edu.

Mira Kamdar
Vijay Prashad.

——————

Dear Marjorie Scardino,

We are writing to inform you of what we consider a shocking action taken by one of the publications under the Pearson Group umbrella, an action that begs for your attention. The magazine FDI, of the Financial Times Group, has selected Narendra Modi, the chief minister of the Indian state of Gujarat as its Asian Personality of the Year (2009). This award gives Mr. Modi, whose human rights’ reputation is most troubling, a huge boost of legitimacy where he deserves none. We thought it important that you, as Chief Executive Officer of Pearson Group and as someone associated with organizations that work hard to promote peace and security, including the MacArthur Foundation, know of the damage to FDI’s credibility, and thus to the Pearson Group, this award has caused.

India’s National Commission on Human Rights as well as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have demonstrated the responsibility of Mr. Modi and the government he continues to head for a pogrom against Muslim citizens in his state in 2002 that left some 2,000 men, women and children dead and several hundred thousand citizens homeless. (See the Human Rights Watch report “We Have No Orders to Save You” http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2002/04/30/we-have-no-orders-save-you). On the basis of these and other reports, the U. S. government denied Mr. Modi a visa to visit the United States in 2005. The United States Commission on Religious Freedom subsequently recommended that he be denied a visa when he applied for one again in 2008, at which point Mr. Modi withdrew his application.

Furthermore, Mr. Modi and key members of his administration are under active current investigation by India’s Special Investigation Team (SIT) under the direct supervision of India’s Supreme Court for criminal charges relating to his direct responsibility for killings perpetrated during the 2002 pogrom. Here is link to an article in the Times of India from July 29, 2009 reporting that Mr. Modi’s petition requesting a stay on the investigation: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/news/india/SIT-free-to-quiz-Modi-in-post-Godhra-riots-case-HC/articleshow/4815592.cms. A simple web search will demonstrate that the ongoing investigation into Mr. Modi’s role has been widely reported in the Indian press. It is astounding that FDI magazine had no knowledge of Mr. Modi’s current legal woes in India, or, if it had knowledge, decided to confer the award upon him anyway.

In terms of Mr. Modi’s financial leadership, FDI magazine seems to have missed the many stories that show how despite the consistently high claims about foreign direct investment into Gujarat, the economy has failed to deliver any significant improvement in the lives of the majority of the people who live there. From 1996 to 2006, despite all the hullabaloo about the economic miracle Modi engineered, Gujarat’s position in India’s human development index actually fell in the categories of education, health, child mortality, infant mortality and in the weight of children. Moreover, and this is relevant to the award, the 2002 pogrom led by Modi had a direct effect on investment in Gujarat, which fell from 14.45% of all investment capital in 1995 to 8.78% in 2002, and by 2005 to 7.67%. In addition, one should bear in mind that less than 21% of the memoranda of understanding signed by the Modi government have been acted upon. Writing in Mint, the Wall Street Journal’s publication in India, Salil Tripathi notes: “It is odd, therefore, to credit Modi with Gujarat’s vibrancy. And it is hard not to blame his government for the colossal failure to protect civilians during the anti-Muslim violence in 2002.” The entire piece bears reading: http://www.livemint.com/2009/01/21220308/The-real-Modi-story.html

Given the above, we are naturally stunned with FDI’s decision to confer upon Narendra Modi, of all people, the Asian Personality of the Year award of 2009.

We are fully confident that you had no role in this decision. But we hope that you will, in your capacity as CEO of the Pearson Group and as someone whose presence on the board of the MacArthur Foundation indicates you to be someone dedicated to high ethical standards, take immediate action to insure that this award is rescinded and a public statement of regret is made by the responsible publication.

Sincerely,

Mira Kamdar, Author, Senior Fellow, World Policy Institute, New York
Vijay Prashad, Professor, Trinity College

cc. Robert Galluchi, President, MacArthur Foundation.

The list of signatories to this letter is below:

Abha Sur, Professor, MIT
Aditya Nigam, Centre for the Study of Developing Studies.
Akhil Gupta, Professor, UCLA.
Adley Siddiqi.
Adrien Rebello.
Ajay Skaria, Professor, University of Minnesota.
Ajit Saldanha.
Ali Kazimi, Film maker, Professor, York University, Toronto.
Alliance for South Asians Taking Action, San Francisco.
Allwyn D’Souza.
Ameena Saiyid, Oxford University Press, Karachi
Amit Sengupta, Hard News, New Delhi.
Amitayu Sengupta.
Anand Patwardhan, Filmmaker.
Angana Chatterji, Professor, California Institute of Integral Studies.
Anirvan Chatterjee, Founder, Bookfinder.com [an Amazon.com company]
Ammu Abraham, Feminist and anti-communal activist, Mumbai.
Amrit Wilson, South Asia Solidarity Group, London
Anne Murphy, University of British Columbia.
Anu Mandavilli, San Jose Peace and Justice Center, CA.
Arindam Datta, Associate Professor, MIT.
Asad Jamal, Advocate, Lahore.
Ashwini Hardikar
Ashwini Tambe, Professor, University of Toronto.
Badri Raina, Professor, University of Delhi.
Balmurli Natarajan, Assistant Professor, William Paterson University.
Beena Sarwar, journalist, Karachi, Pakistan.
Bindu T. Desai, neurologist.
Amrita Dhillon, University of Warwick, UK.
Anchita Ghatak.
Andy Nazareth, Bangalore.
Anirudh.
Anju Lavina.
Anuja Gupta.
Arjun Appadurai, Goddard Professor of Media, Culture, and Communication, New York University.
Arvind Gopal.
Asad Hussain.
Asad Jamal, Advocate, Lahore.
Ashutosh Singh.
Ashwini Rao.
Barbara Foley, Professor, Rutgers University.
Biju Mathew, Professor, Rider University.
Bipin Trivedi.
Bishakha Datta, Executive Director, Point of View, Mumbai.
Brajesh Satya.
Carl W. Ernst, William R. Kenan Jr. Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies, UNC, Chapel Hill.
Caterina Guenzi, Researcher South Asian Studies, Paris.
Chinmoy Banerjee, SANSAD, Vancouver.
Chukka Srinivas.
Clarissa D’Lima.
Clive Nihal D’Lima.
Col. (Retd.) Dr. M.J. Shamsi, Lucknow.
Corinne Lefevre, EHESS, Paris.
Cyril D’Lima
David Lloyd, Professor, University of Southern California.
Daya Varma, Professor, McGill University, Montreal.
Deepti Misri, Assistant Professor, University of Colorado, Boulder.
Douglas Haynes, Professor, Dartmouth College.
Dr. Anees Ahmad, Associate Professor, Universiti Sains Malaysia.
David Ludden, Professor, New York University.
Devaki Singh
Devaki Singh.
Dolphy D’souza.
Douglas E Haynes, Dartmouth College
Howard Spodek, Temple University
Ghanshyam Shah.
Dr. A. R. Mookhi
Dr. Wasim Khan, Network of Progressive Muslims.
Durba Ghosh, Professor, Cornell University.
Elisabeth Armstrong, Associate Professor, Smith College.
Fatima S. Alloo, UC Davis.
Felix Padel.
Firoz Vohra, Chicago.
Fr. Cedric Prakash, Director, Centre for Human Rights, Justice and Peace, Ahmedabad.
Fredric Landy, University of Paris X, CEIAS, CNRS-EHESS, Paris
Garga Chatterjee, Harvard University.
Gautam Babbar, New Delhi.
Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, University Professor in the Humanities, Columbia University.
Gopika Solanki, Carleton University.
Hari Sharma, SANSAD.
Howard Spodek, Temple University.
Hyder Khan, MD.
Imteyaz Ahmad.
Indranil, ANWESHAN, New Delhi.
Irfan Engineer, Director, Institute for Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution, Mumbai, India.
J. Manjrekar, Baroda, India.
Jehangir Merwanji.
John Demmery Green, Canada.
John Ishvaradas Abdallah, World Without Borders.
Justin Podur, York University.
Kamayani Bali-Mahabal, Human Rights Activist, India.
Kanishka Goonewardena, Associate Professor, University of Toronto.
Karthik Ramanathan.
Kasim Salt, Chennai.
Kasturi Ray, Assistant Professor, San Francisco State University.
Kavita Philip, Professor, UC Irvine.
Khalid Azam, IMC.
Kushru Misstry.
Lalit Batra, CUNY.
Lalit Vachani, Filmmaker.
Leena Ganesh, Researcher, Architect, Activist.
Leya Perpetua D’Souza, Bahrain.
M. V. Ramana, Princeton University.
Manu Bhagavan, Assistant Professor, CUNY.
Marika Vicziany, Professor, Monash University.
Mario D’Penha, Rutgers University.
Mehru Jaffer, Writer.
Milan Moudgill.
Minal Hajratwala, author, Leaving India.
Minni Menon.
Mitu Sengupta, Assistant Professor, Ryerson University.
Nadeem Akhtar.
Nandini Majrekar, Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai.
Nasir Abid.
Nasr Sadruddin.
Eric P. Meyer, INALCO, Paris
Erwin Lazrado, Gujarat.
Faisal Hussain.
Fauzia Minallah, Artist.
Feroze Mithiborwala.
Firoz Vohra, Chicago.
Gopika Solanki, Carleton University.
Hasan Kazi, Schaumburg, Illinois.
Hussein Tayabbhai.
Imteyaz Ahmad.
Ines Zupanov, CNRS, CEIAS-EHESS, Paris.
Iqbal Akhtar.
Irfan Engineer, Institute for Peace and Conflict Resolution, Mumbai
Isobel Nazareth, Bangalore.
J. Manjrekar, Baroda.
J. S. Bandukwala.
Jaffer Ahmed
Jagdish Parikh.
Janaki Andharia.
Jaswant Krishnayya, Systems Research Institute, Pune.
Javed Iqbal.
Jayati Vohra.
Jesse Knutson, University of Chicago
Jyoti Gulati
Jyoti Punwani.
Kabi.
Kadeeja Arif, BBC World Service, New Delhi.
Kalim Irfani.
Kamani Bali-Mahabal, Human Rights Activist
Neville Lobo
Kanika Satyanand, New Delhi.
Kedar Satyanand, New Delhi.
Khozema Mohamed.
Krishna Satyanand, New Delhi.
Kulamarva Balakrishna, Vienna
Kunda Pramila Nilakantha, People’s Media Intiatives, Mumbai
Kushru Misstry.
Laila Halani, Institute of Ismaili Studies, London.
Lena Ganesh, Researcher, Architect, Activist
Lynette Gomes.
Lynette Viegas.
M. Usman Baki.
Mallika Sarabhai, President, Darpana
Mariamma Michael.
Marie Fourcade, EHESS, Paris.
Marika Vicziany, Monash University.
Marina Budhos, Author, Assistant Professor, William Paterson University.
Mary Ganguli.
Masud Sheikh
Mathilde Damoisel, Documentary Film Maker, Paris.
Meena Alexander, Distinguished Professor, CUNY.
Milan Moudgill
Jacques Pourchepadass, CNRS/EHESS, Paris
Moazzam Siddiqi.
Mohit Satyanand, Chairman Board of Trustees, Liberty Institute, New Delhi.
Mona Alam Sheikh.
Mona Karim, MD, Morristown, New Jersey.
Mriganka Sur, Professor, MIT.
Mrinalini Sharma.
Nagesh Rao, Assistant Professor, College of New Jersey.
Najia Alavi.
Najid Hussain, Son-in-Law, M.P. Ahsan Jafri, murdered in 2002 genocide, USA.
Nalini Vishvanathan, Silver Springs, MD.
Nancy Lobo.
Nasir Abid.
Nataniel Roberts, USA.
Naveen Qayyum, Thailand.
Nazia Kazi, CUNY.
Neelanjana Mukhia.
Neville Lobo.
Nida Kirmani
Nikhil Aziz, Grassroots International.
Nishaant Choksi, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Nivedita Menon, Professor, Jawaharlal Nehru University, India.
Noreen Celine D’Lima.
Nurul Kabir, Cambridge.
Nuzhat Kidvai, Teacher, Karachi, Pakistan.
Omar Ali, Assistant Professor, Medical College of Wisconsin.
Omar Khalidi, Professor, MIT.
Onaiza.
PA Nazareth, Bangalore.
Padma.
Pamposh Dhar
Pankaj Shah.
Pankil Shah.
Patricia Uberoi, Professor, Centre for Developing Societies, Delhi.
Paula Chakravartty, Associate Professor, UMASS, Amherst.
Pei Wu, California Institute of Integral Studies.
Philomin Raj, Advocate, Madurai.
Pierre Lachaier, École Française d’Extrême Orient, Paris.
Pierre Rousset, ESSF, France.
Poornima C. V.
Porrna.
Prachi Patankar, South Asia Solidarity Initiative.
Prathim Maya Dora Laskey.
Pratima Narayan Chabbi, Southern University of Illinois.
Premila Nazareth Satyanand, New Delhi.
Prerana Reddy, Director, NY Arab & South Asian Film Festival.
Priyadarshini Ghosh.
Puja.
Purnima Mankekar, Associate Professor, UCLA.
Radhika Chandiramani.
Rahul Roy, Filmmaker.
Rajagopal, Researcher, Chennai.
Rajeev
Rajeev Talwar
Rajesh Mishra, Arch Vahini, Gujarat.
Raju Rajagopal, Kuala Lumpur.
Ramki Ramakrishnan, Tiruvanathapuram.
Ranjan Pal, Director, Intercedent Asia.
Rasheed Ahmed, President, Indian Muslim Council, USA.
Raza Mir, Professor, William Paterson University.
Rita Kothari.
Ritty Luokse, Associate Professor, New York University.
Rohit Barot.
Rudolf C. Heredia, Indian Social Institute, New Delhi.
Rukmani Ramani, MSSRF, Chennai, India.
Rummana Fakih.
Rupa Viswanath, Assistant Professor, University of Pennsylvania.
Rishab Malik.
Rita Kothari, MICA, Ahmedabad.
Robin A. F.Viegas.
Rohan D’Souza, Professor, JNU.
Rohini Hensman.
Rohit Barot, Bristol University
Rohit Prajapati.
Ruchi Chaturvedi, Assistant Professor, Hunter College, CUNY, New York.
Ruchi Shroff.
Rudolf C. Heredia, Indian Social Institute, New Delhi
Rummana Fakih.
Rupal Oza.
Ruth D’Souza, management consultant.
Saachi Bhalla.
Saadia Toor, Assistant Professor, CUNY.
Saba Dewan, Filmmaker.
Sabeen Mahmud, Director, PeaceNiche, Karachi.
Sadanand Nanjundiah, Professor, Central Connecticut State University.
Sahar Shafqat, Associate Professor, St. Mary’s College of Maryland
Sandeep Vaidya, India Support Group, Dublin, Ireland.
Sangay Mishra, Drew University.
Sangeeta Kamat, Professor, UMASS-Amherst.
Sanjay Subrahmanyam, Professor, UCLA.
Sanjna Singh, Producer/Director, Out of Status.
SANSAD.
Sapna Gupta, Paris, France.
Sayan Bhattacharyya, Ann Arbor, MI.
Shabab Danish, Angelique International, India.
Shahed (Robin) Khundkar, Huntington Beach, Ca.
Shahid Ali, M. D.
Shalini Gera, Hayward, CA.
Shashwati Talukdar, filmmaker.
Shazia Hashmi.
Shishir K. Jha, Professor, IIT Bombay.
Saibal Chatterjee, Film Critic and Writer, New Delhi.
Sam Merchant.
Sameera Khan, Journalist, Mumbai, India.
Samir Sur, Professor, Boston University Medical School.
Samira Sheikh, Vanderbilt University.
Sandipan Dhar.
Sankaranarayan, Bhubaneswar.
Shabab Danish, Angelique International, Delhi.
Shabnum Tejani, SOAS.
Sheldon Pollack, Ransford Professor of South Asian Studies, Columbia University.
Shyam Bahadur Namra.
Siddhartha Kaundinya
Simona Sawhney, Associate Professor, University of Minnesota.
Snehal Shingavi, Assistant Professor, University of Texas.
South Asia Solidarity Initiative, New York.
Sreekala MG
Sriram Ananth, Editorial Board Member, Elaan.
Srirupa Roy, Associate Professor, UMASS Amherst.
Subhanil Chowdhury, ICRIER, New Delhi.
Sujani Reddy, Professor, Amherst College.
Sukla Sen, EKTA, Mumbai
Sunil Deshmukh, Miami, Florida.
Sunita S. Mukhi, Director, Wang Centre, SUNY Stony Brook.
Swastika Ghosh.
Teesta Setalvad, Citizens for Justice and Peace.
Thomas Bärthlein, Deputy Head of South Asia Service, DW-Radio, Bonn, Germany.
Thomas Bärthlein, South Asia Service, DW-Radio/ DW-World, Bonn.
Tina Shrestha, Cornell University.
Umber Khairi, Journalist.
Usman Kazi
Uttara Rajgopal
Uttara Shidore.
Venkatesh Athreya, Professor, Chennai.
Veronica Fernandes
Veronique Benei, Professor, London School of Economics, London.
Véronique Dupont, IRD, Paris.
Victor Edwin, University of Birmingham.
Vinay Gidwani, Professor, The Graduate Center, CUNY.
Vinay Lal, Professor, UCLA.
Vinayak Chaturvedi, Professor, UC-Irvine.
Vinod Mubayi, New York.
Vipool Kalyani, Editor, Opinion, London.
Vrijendra.
Walter Fernandes, Director, North Eastern Social Research Centre, Assam, India.
Waquar Ahmed, Professor, Mt. Holyoke College.
Wasim Khan, MD, MPH.
Yasmeen Lari.
Zafar Iqbal, Washington, DC.
Zafar Iqbal.
Zafar Siddiqui, Minnesota.
Zafar Siddiqui.
Zainah Mustansir
Zubin Shroff

In the 1990s, the BJP was the “party with a difference” as it supposedly practiced value-based politics, internal democracy, and cadre-based organizing– all buzzwords that work well when one’s presence in Parliament is limited to a handful of seats. This was also the time when “intellectuals” such as Arun Shourie slowly gravitated to the BJP.

With the on-going saga within the BJP — Jaswant Singh’s expulsion over a book praising Jinnah and Shourie’s no-holds-barred interview — we can now officially bury the “party with a difference” tag. It is no more than another political party.

Shourie’s interview begs five comments:

1. If Atal Bihari Vajpayee is the leader with “moral authority” that Shourie fantasizes, he has wasted his years with the BJP.
2. Shourie was pained more with Vajpayee’s grief over the Gujarat riots than the riots themselves. He acknowledges his “inhumanity” in the same breath. I concur.
3. Vajpayee failed to get rid of Narendra Modi following the riots, presided over India’s largest intelligence failure culminating in Kargil, and squandered the opportunity to sign a key peace treaty with Pakistan by toeing the RSS line. What “moral authority?”
4. Advani apparently lied about “not knowing” of the Kandahar decision to trade terrorists for the hostages.
5. While Shourie’s comments against Advani’s BJP are probably justified, it also smells like a case of sour grapes. It is evident that Shourie was very close to Vajpayee, which probably never gelled with Advani and his coterie. This is perhaps a good time for Shourie to leave.

Sometime soon, hopefully, I would like to write a post entitled, “BJP. R.I.P.”

Advani (yes, i deliberately omitted ‘ji’) is not only opportunistic (recollect the indo-US civil nuclear deal),  very weak (remember Jinnah comments and return from Pakistan), but is also a liar.

He brazenly lied twice and in Jaswanth Singh’s own words, he completely knew of flying terrorists to Kandahar and also he is the one who stopped action against murderer modi.

To protect Party, Advani has undermined the country and its secular credentials. Rightly and justifiably people rejected the BJP party.

Jaswanth Singh: Thanks for revealing the facts, but why did you keep silient all these years? You would have still covered up these things for Adavni and may even have witnessed this Lal Salaam Advani (remeber Advani took the side of CPI & CPM during no trust motion against UPA w.r.t Indo-US civil nuclear deal. That is why i call him Lal Salaam Advani)) taking oath has PM, had BJP won elections. So, what should we call you?

–sri