Dear Sir, Appreciate your reply to AP of The Hindu, sorry, 'The N Ram' The Hindu is now His Master's (N Ram's) voice. It is saddening that The Hindu reporting is biased and one sided of late; Unfortunately we are addicted to `The Hindu' for long and could not come out of its shackles. God save the paper. Regards, Satagopan.KS.
On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 10:55 AM Rajaram Krishnamurthy <[email protected]> wrote: > *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 > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CAL5XZor7ZTKvu3trac3NNjC5814miakoLue%2BFPezGk9dvEoziQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- 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/CAHvQej30WQXSoFKsMNAt2BY%3DoRJ_JpJDcTvLf5DMS8Tts_PBLQ%40mail.gmail.com.
