*Hindu today Complaints…..allegations by A Paneerselvam:* *A discussion on two different complaints against the paper*
In my columns, I generally explain how I handle a specific complaint. In this column, I am compelled to break this norm and discuss two different complaints. This is because I had to skip writing a column on October 25, Ayudha Puja, as there was no edition on October 26. While addressing complaints, I see whether it is within my remit to do so or if there would be an overreach in my doing so. *Advertisement policy* A complaint about an advertisement fell in the grey area between remit and overreach. Some readers, including K. Balakesari, former member, Railway Board, asked about the newspaper’s policy on accepting advertisements. They were uncomfortable with the publication of a full-page ad on behalf of the People’s Republic of China celebrating its national day on October 1. Mr. Balakesari asked: “Was it necessary for the paper to needlessly wade into a controversy by accepting an ad at this juncture from a country with which relations at present are far from normal, also knowing fully well that hardly anyone has the patience and time to wade through what is essentially propaganda?” He further asked: “Will the paper publish an ad from Pakistan on the eve of its national day extolling its achievements? Will you accept an ad from the RSS on the eve of its founding day?” I must also record the fact that Mr. Balakesari’s mail came on October 18, and subsequent mails complaining about the Chinese ad that was published on October 1 came after October 19. As my remit ends with the editorial content of the newspaper and does not extend to advertisements, I am not familiar with the advertisement policy of the newspaper. I will talk to the management team and find out the advertising policy in place and share it with the readers as early as possible. In a polarised political environment, the dominant ideology always seeks to not only suppress other views but also obliterate the inherent nature of a plural society. In its desire to become exclusive, it tends to create a frighteningly monochromatic imagination that erases the multiple hues that make a society inclusive. With the series of electoral successes of strong leaders across nations, the binary between ‘an exclusive society’ and ‘an inclusive society’ becomes stark and the information ecosystem is not immune to this virus. Mails from a reader from Tiruchirappalli, S. Pushpavanam, are always critical and the tone and tenor of his missives are generally harsh. *Misogynism in texts* Mr. Pushpavanam did not approve of the report “VCK buoyed by response to ‘ban Manusmriti’ campaign” (Tiruchirapalli edition, October 29). He asked what happened to the fact-check which I often mention in my column. His other arguments were: “This correspondent has not cited a single quote from the other side. It seems he is oblivious to the fact that there is another side. This is, by no standards, balanced journalism. The so-called buoyancy is from his own party men and from a Professor who is unheard of. The VCK leader’s speech has created disgust and aversion among the reading public. The correspondent has acted as a PRO of VCK. This is shoddy journalism and it could be a planted news item.” I am not sure what is the other side Mr. Pushpavanam is referring to. If he means representing the votaries of Hindutva, which is vastly different from Hinduism, what he suggests is a false equivalence. Feminist scholars over the last five decades have documented the overt and covert patriarchy in the texts of various religions — be it Hinduism or Christianity or Islam. There is rich literature about the misogynism in the theocratic texts. I was puzzled when he attached a letter in Tamil by a person whose opening line was: “I know neither Sanskrit nor Manusmriti” and who then cited Tamil translations of verses about women in the Manusmriti. Mr. Pushpavanam must realise that Dr. B.R. Ambedkar burnt the Manusmriti on December 25, 1927. The erudite scholar who gave us our Constitution read multiple translations of the text before coming to the conclusion that the “Manusmriti dehumanised the Sudras, untouchables, and women, ruled the Hindu psyche for centuries and created the greatest obstacle to any serious attempt at eradicating the caste system.” [email protected] A P: Q: I am not sure what is the other side Mr. Pushpavanam is referring to. If he means representing the votaries of Hindutva, *which is vastly different from Hinduism,* what he suggests is a *false equivalence.* *Feminist scholars *over the last five decades have documented the overt and covert patriarchy in the texts of various religions — be it Hinduism or Christianity or Islam. There is rich literature about the misogynism in the theocratic texts. *I was puzzled *when he attached a letter in Tamil by a person whose opening line was: “I know neither Sanskrit nor Manusmriti” and who then cited Tamil translations of verses about women in the Manusmriti. Mr. Pushpavanam must realise that Dr. B.R. Ambedkar burnt the Manusmriti on December 25, 1927. *The erudite scholar who gave us our Constitution read multiple translations of the text before *coming to the conclusion that the “Manusmriti dehumanised the Sudras, untouchables, and women, ruled the Hindu psyche for centuries and created the greatest obstacle to any serious attempt at eradicating the caste system.” [email protected] Dear Mr A Panneerselvam Your expression read quite interesting without any substance and lacking in details but trying to patch up because HINDU purchases are going down. If translated in Tamil in para 2 above, puzzled you, I wonder, how you were not sure “which side” did puzzle me. If you think the Tamil translator is not an erudite but only Ambedkar, then I have to quiz which side are you, opposites of Hindutva and dravida leanings? And Dravida leanings are not for votaries amuse me and puzzled me to measure your sense of humour. And it was a joke you wanted to throw on us perhaps to teach that the constitution was rendered only one by Ambedkar. And who said that Ambedkar is erudite and a scholar? If you mean representing the votaries of the Ambedkar parties then, that is vastly different from the aptitude and the attitude of a scholar sir. You could also be a scholar of that standard. This commendation or the article said what HINDU is (even though released only to defend the action) really today, totally differing from KasturiAyyangar. It is in wits end today which you defended poorly. To day name HINDU for the magazine is a misnomer and distorted for the advertisement in whatever form it may be and the anti-Hindu write-up terrorism. I know Sri N Ram as a communist even during the college days but never knew that he will become a non-existent Dravidam. If Hindu even if not a Hindutva, cannot be so unpatriotic to receive the advt income from Hindi-cheeni bai bai. You as that tamil translator, did not either define the Hindutva and Hinduism nor has the knowledge of the Hindutva and Hinduism. One line striking out only a king can do remaining one sided, and not the democratic resident Mr A P. You never even said the “vastly different from’. If Hindutva is not the Hinduism, then why Hindu opposes the central Govt policy as a THAT GOVERNMENT? Have you done any original independent research or just adopted the secondary versions ‘out (-) of print”? Who are the “feminist scholars” whom you never mentioned? Wendy Doniger? Romila Thaper congress sleuth? Who? What is that overt and covert patriarchy? What are the MULTIPLE TRANSLATIONS OF TAT MANU SMRITI? Did you mean west translation who started the labels, HINDUISM, SHUDRA, CASTE, ASIATIC SOCIETY, JONES SMITH, MAX MULLER, EDGAR THURSTON, G BUHLER NOT DEFINITELY Gangadhar Jha or Sirvani. /? What is that, “rich literature about the misogynism in the theocratic texts”, concerning Manu dharma? Have you read al Sanskrit, English Hindi of all the versions and appraised about all of them or simply nodding your head in the political non-Hindutva conference? Burning some thing is ma master piece and revealed the truth according you and if so, many paper burnings reported in your past issues and what about the conclusions over them? If I Burn a copy of the HINDU, will it mean, HINDU is a shit? You say so. That burning made Ambedkar an erudite? And other than him, there was no other erudite in this vast nation, except the “feminists scholar”?. The use of the phrase, “the greatest obstacle to any serious attempt at eradicating the caste system”- how many undefined terms? 1 what is the greatest obstacles in the Indian history of 10000 years?; 2 any serious attempt at eradicating- so was there any normal attempts in the past 10000 years and now it had to be increased seriously?; the caste system- who introduced that?; since how long it is creating a revolutions in the past Indian History?; ok, let Brahmin be a caste assuming but not admitting, then who created the reddiar, Mudalyar, chettiar, paraya, palla, vellala, etc etc which is not mentioned in Manu?; there is shudras in manu but is there pallan, paryan etc that one finds in todays, Govt registry/; then where the greatest obstacle lie and who shall eradicate?; why EVR, Ambedkar etc did not do it? Did 2% Brahmin blocking their paths or other than the brahmins were in the way which Manu did not advocate? Please never reveal thy ignorance with the bias attitude. Your taste and adoptions may have a different perception but that does not mean the atheism proves the non-existence; your individual perceptions cannot be projected in public speech or in a pubic medium where all are into it. And never put the cart before the horse. Thank you I have an article of 21 pages as an authentic reply to your views an if interested I shall email you if you are going to publish without editing as a neutral newspaper. K Rajaram IRS dated 2/11/20 {from: *Rajaram Krishnamurthy* <[email protected]> to: [email protected] date: 2 Nov 2020, 10:49 subject: complaints...allegations today 2/11/20 by A Paneerselvam mailed-by: gmail.com Hindu today Complaints…..allegations by A Paneerselvam: *A discussion on two different complaints against the paper* In my columns, I generally explain how I handle a specific complaint. In this column, I am compelled to break this norm and discuss two different complaints. This is because I had to skip writing a column on October 25, Ayudha Puja, as there was no edition on October 26. While addressing complaints, I see whether it is within my remit to do so or if there would be an overreach in my doing so. *Advertisement policy* A complaint about an advertisement fell in the grey area between remit and overreach. Some readers, including K. Balakesari, former member, Railway Board, asked about the newspaper’s policy on accepting advertisements. They were uncomfortable with the publication of a full-page ad on behalf of the People’s Republic of China celebrating its national day on October 1. Mr. Balakesari asked: “Was it necessary for the paper to needlessly wade into a controversy by accepting an ad at this juncture from a country with which relations at present are far from normal, also knowing fully well that hardly anyone has the patience and time to wade through what is essentially propaganda?” He further asked: “Will the paper publish an ad from Pakistan on the eve of its national day extolling its achievements? Will you accept an ad from the RSS on the eve of its founding day?” I must also record the fact that Mr. Balakesari’s mail came on October 18, and subsequent mails complaining about the Chinese ad that was published on October 1 came after October 19. As my remit ends with the editorial content of the newspaper and does not extend to advertisements, I am not familiar with the advertisement policy of the newspaper. I will talk to the management team and find out the advertising policy in place and share it with the readers as early as possible. In a polarised political environment, the dominant ideology always seeks to not only suppress other views but also obliterate the inherent nature of a plural society. In its desire to become exclusive, it tends to create a frighteningly monochromatic imagination that erases the multiple hues that make a society inclusive. With the series of electoral successes of strong leaders across nations, the binary between ‘an exclusive society’ and ‘an inclusive society’ becomes stark and the information ecosystem is not immune to this virus. Mails from a reader from Tiruchirappalli, S. Pushpavanam, are always critical and the tone and tenor of his missives are generally harsh. *Misogynism in texts* Mr. Pushpavanam did not approve of the report “VCK buoyed by response to ‘ban Manusmriti’ campaign” (Tiruchirapalli edition, October 29). He asked what happened to the fact-check which I often mention in my column. His other arguments were: “This correspondent has not cited a single quote from the other side. It seems he is oblivious to the fact that there is another side. This is, by no standards, balanced journalism. The so-called buoyancy is from his own party men and from a Professor who is unheard of. The VCK leader’s speech has created disgust and aversion among the reading public. The correspondent has acted as a PRO of VCK. This is shoddy journalism and it could be a planted news item.” I am not sure what is the other side Mr. Pushpavanam is referring to. If he means representing the votaries of Hindutva, which is vastly different from Hinduism, what he suggests is a false equivalence. Feminist scholars over the last five decades have documented the overt and covert patriarchy in the texts of various religions — be it Hinduism or Christianity or Islam. There is rich literature about the misogynism in the theocratic texts. I was puzzled when he attached a letter in Tamil by a person whose opening line was: “I know neither Sanskrit nor Manusmriti” and who then cited Tamil translations of verses about women in the Manusmriti. Mr. Pushpavanam must realise that Dr. B.R. Ambedkar burnt the Manusmriti on December 25, 1927. The erudite scholar who gave us our Constitution read multiple translations of the text before coming to the conclusion that the “Manusmriti dehumanised the Sudras, untouchables, and women, ruled the Hindu psyche for centuries and created the greatest obstacle to any serious attempt at eradicating the caste system.” [email protected] A P: Q: I am not sure what is the other side Mr. Pushpavanam is referring to. If he means representing the votaries of Hindutva, *which is vastly different from Hinduism,* what he suggests is a *false equivalence.* *Feminist scholars *over the last five decades have documented the overt and covert patriarchy in the texts of various religions — be it Hinduism or Christianity or Islam. There is rich literature about the misogynism in the theocratic texts. *I was puzzled *when he attached a letter in Tamil by a person whose opening line was: “I know neither Sanskrit nor Manusmriti” and who then cited Tamil translations of verses about women in the Manusmriti. Mr. Pushpavanam must realise that Dr. B.R. Ambedkar burnt the Manusmriti on December 25, 1927. *The erudite scholar who gave us our Constitution read multiple translations of the text before *coming to the conclusion that the “Manusmriti dehumanised the Sudras, untouchables, and women, ruled the Hindu psyche for centuries and created the greatest obstacle to any serious attempt at eradicating the caste system.” [email protected] Dear Mr A Panneerselvam Your expression read quite interesting without any substance and lacking in details but trying to patch up because HINDU purchases are going down. If translated in Tamil in para 2 above, puzzled you, I wonder, how you were not sure “which side” did puzzle me. If you think the Tamil translator is not an erudite but only Ambedkar, then I have to quiz which side are you, opposites of Hindutva and dravida leanings? And Dravida leanings are not for votaries amuse me and puzzled me to measure your sense of humour. And it was a joke you wanted to throw on us perhaps to teach that the constitution was rendered only one by Ambedkar. And who said that Ambedkar is erudite and a scholar? If you mean representing the votaries of the Ambedkar parties then, that is vastly different from the aptitude and the attitude of a scholar sir. You could also be a scholar of that standard. This commendation or the article said what HINDU is (even though released only to defend the action) really today, totally differing from KasturiAyyangar. It is in wits end today which you defended poorly. To day name HINDU for the magazine is a misnomer and distorted for the advertisement in whatever form it may be and the anti-Hindu write-up terrorism. I know Sri N Ram as a communist even during the college days but never knew that he will become a non-existent Dravidam. If Hindu even if not a Hindutva, cannot be so unpatriotic to receive the advt income from Hindi-cheeni bai bai. You as that tamil translator, did not either define the Hindutva and Hinduism nor has the knowledge of the Hindutva and Hinduism. One line striking out only a king can do remaining one sided, and not the democratic resident Mr A P. You never even said the “vastly different from’. If Hindutva is not the Hinduism, then why Hindu opposes the central Govt policy as a THAT GOVERNMENT? Have you done any original independent research or just adopted the secondary versions ‘out (-) of print”? Who are the “feminist scholars” whom you never mentioned? Wendy Doniger? Romila Thaper congress sleuth? Who? What is that overt and covert patriarchy? What are the MULTIPLE TRANSLATIONS OF TAT MANU SMRITI? Did you mean west translation who started the labels, HINDUISM, SHUDRA, CASTE, ASIATIC SOCIETY, JONES SMITH, MAX MULLER, EDGAR THURSTON, G BUHLER NOT DEFINITELY Gangadhar Jha or Sirvani. /? What is that, “rich literature about the misogynism in the theocratic texts”, concerning Manu dharma? Have you read al Sanskrit, English Hindi of all the versions and appraised about all of them or simply nodding your head in the political non-Hindutva conference? Burning some thing is ma master piece and revealed the truth according you and if so, many paper burnings reported in your past issues and what about the conclusions over them? If I Burn a copy of the HINDU, will it mean, HINDU is a shit? You say so. That burning made Ambedkar an erudite? And other than him, there was no other erudite in this vast nation, except the “feminists scholar”?. The use of the phrase, “the greatest obstacle to any serious attempt at eradicating the caste system”- how many undefined terms? 1 what is the greatest obstacles in the Indian history of 10000 years?; 2 any serious attempt at eradicating- so was there any normal attempts in the past 10000 years and now it had to be increased seriously?; the caste system- who introduced that?; since how long it is creating a revolutions in the past Indian History?; ok, let Brahmin be a caste assuming but not admitting, then who created the reddiar, Mudalyar, chettiar, paraya, palla, vellala, etc etc which is not mentioned in Manu?; there is shudras in manu but is there pallan, paryan etc that one finds in todays, Govt registry/; then where the greatest obstacle lie and who shall eradicate?; why EVR, Ambedkar etc did not do it? Did 2% Brahmin blocking their paths or other than the brahmins were in the way which Manu did not advocate? Please never reveal thy ignorance with the bias attitude. Your taste and adoptions may have a different perception but that does not mean the atheism proves the non-existence; your individual perceptions cannot be projected in public speech or in a pubic medium where all are into it. And never put the cart before the horse. Thank you I have an article of 21 pages as an authentic reply to your views an if interested I shall email you if you are going to publish without editing as a neutral newspaper. K Rajaram IRS dated 2/11/20 {from: *Rajaram Krishnamurthy* <[email protected]> to: [email protected] date: 2 Nov 2020, 10:49 subject: complaints...allegations today 2/11/20 by A Paneerselvam mailed-by: gmail.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Thatha_Patty" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CAL5XZor7ZTKvu3trac3NNjC5814miakoLue%2BFPezGk9dvEoziQ%40mail.gmail.com.
