Skip to content

A note of protest to Aditya Sinha, editor, DNA

July 16, 2011

To: asinha at dnaindia dot net

Aditya Sinha,
Editor,
DNA, Mumbai.

Dear Sir,

I have long been a fan of your column, tweets and have admired The New Indian Express and DNA under your editorship. I am, however, saddened to se that you chose to publish Subramanian Swamy’s column that is Islamophobic in the extreme, presumes the people behind the Mumbai blasts were Muslims without evidence, and in hardly veiled terms calls for violence against Muslims.

It is not simply a point of view once can publish even if one disagrees with. I write to lodge my protest with you that publishing views like these is NOT okay. A column like this may get you paper some attention, your website some hits but it takes away a lot more in terms of your paper’s credibility.

Publishing views like these only leads to more hate in society, and more excuses to bigots to place bombs in market places. Such are the views that the “Indian Mujahideen” (whoever they are) cite in their long emails (when they send those) as justification of their acts. For contributing to an environment of hate, retribution, communal disharmony and violence, once cannot be grateful to your newspaper. Rather than break the cycle of hate, you are helping fuel it. This cannot be justified in the name of diversity of opinion.

I urge your newspaper to apologise for publishing such bigoted views.

Best regards,
Shivam Vij
Delhi

51 Comments leave one →
  1. July 16, 2011 7:47 PM

    Sinha has graciously replied that he has received many such protestations and is publishing two of them tomorrow. However, I think that is not enough, a lot of the damage can’t be undone.

    • A DNA Staffer permalink
      July 16, 2011 10:04 PM

      Dear Mr Vij,
      Two days ago we carried a picture on page one. Next day one of the DNA staffers protested and Mr Sinha gave her space in the paper to express her viewpoint. If Swami has written something atrocious, anybody can protest. I’m sure Mr Sinha will carry it in DNA. No sincere debate can cause any damage which can’t be undone and everybody is entitled to have his/her opinion.

      • July 17, 2011 12:05 AM

        I suggest you to read the Swamy article again. And take a deep breath. And think. Is that what we really want to debate about? Think, think.

        • A DNA Staffer permalink
          July 17, 2011 7:00 AM

          Please read DNA Sunday P-6.

        • Murshad Khan permalink
          July 17, 2011 7:56 AM

          Well, you cannot deny the fact that Swamy’s views are unfortunately held by many people in this country. I have myself come into contact with such individuals, and I believe it is a very essential point of debate indeed. I would personally like to face Swamy in a debate one day on these matters. There is no point in brushing such views under the carpet, they should be brought out and shown to be nonsense.

          • captainjohann permalink
            July 20, 2011 9:04 PM

            I agree with you

    • Sheeba Aslam Fehmi permalink
      July 17, 2011 11:38 AM

      Agree with Shivam Vij, a lot of damage can’t be undone!
      Sheeba

  2. July 16, 2011 9:17 PM

    True, Sinha and DNA have been most irresponsible publishing this.

  3. July 16, 2011 10:35 PM

    At a time when facts rather than presumptions and speculation should dominate the discourse on Mumbai’s recent blasts, the biased comments from Swamy can only vitiate the already volatile atmosphere. The anger on the streets calling for Kasab’s and Afzal Guru’s blood thinly veils the barbs directed at Muslims and anyone inflaming passions is the real anti-national. Sadly the stoking of passions has also come from tv channels like Times Now ans sadly CNN-IBN where impassioned war cries dominate over human stories. Here I commend NDTVs Vasu Rajan’s program where he covered the bereaved of both communities. I think civil society now more than ever needs to rate tv programmes on content,balance and sensitivity rather than TRPS.

  4. July 17, 2011 12:23 AM

    Shivam, thank you very much, for drawing my attention to this vitriolic column. I had missed it. Shivam, I agree with you 100,000%.

    Roomy Naqvy

  5. madrasi permalink
    July 17, 2011 12:53 AM

    1. Swamy is a fascist.
    2. It was an op-ed. A fit response is to debunk his vitriol by writing another op-ed.
    3.Subramaniam Swamy did not write any article. Subramanian Swamy did. Please correct this.

    cheers.

  6. kshitij permalink
    July 17, 2011 1:34 AM

    hi, I read swamy’s article and honestly speaking you would do well to oppose it point by point rather than this letter to the editor espousing muscular secularism..freedom of speech is to be countered with more freedom of speech and not with a call for curbing the voice of an alleged extreme POV. what swamy says, many have said before and if one doesn’t address it intellectually and / or refute it with an alternate perspective/facts then for a neutral person the issue is trivialised..my personal take is that there maybe 300 or more sites where temples might have been destroyed by political islam but today’s muslim should not suffer because of some misdeed of his ancestoral wrong doing..and similarly hindus of today should not do wrong because they wern’t treated right in the past…but you can’t cry foul when a hindu expresses his concerns about his alleged victimisation and not when a minority feels allegedly marginalised…would welcome counter views : )

    • July 18, 2011 12:28 PM

      Totally agree.
      Depressing how so many people in our country follow the ‘freedom of speech so long as it doesn’t offend me’ school of thought.
      Freedom defined is freedom denied.

      @Shivam: You would have done far better to publish a pointwise rebuttal to Swamy’s article here than call for censorship.

  7. Inasu Thalak permalink
    July 17, 2011 3:58 AM

    It is unfortunate that Aditya Sinha published Swamy’s comments about the blasts in Mumbai and the Islamic terrorism. Because, his are not dispassionate and well reflected
    opinions tenable in the lights of India’s long cultural “becoming”. Who of us in India, regardless of our caste or religion, can agree with his blanket assumptions and summary
    judgements? If I have read my Vedas, Upanishads, Puranas and Itihasas well enough
    (am born in India, not of the ‘hindu’religion, but knowing sufficient Sanskrit along
    with Hindi and my mothertongue only too well), India is a civilization in perpetual ‘becoming’.
    It has been thus from the time immemorial. To reduce this process to ‘hindutwa’ is
    ignoring history itself. Swamy is obviously confounding hinduism with brahmanism; India
    existed long before Manu promulgated his “Code”. As Eric Pinto ponts out, the media
    responsible for creating public opinions on crucial issues and events, might well abstain
    from publishing such biased, blindly onesided views, even if if they originate from public
    figures.
    Inasu Thalak in Paris/ poetinasu@gmail.com

  8. suresh permalink
    July 17, 2011 5:32 AM

    I disagree. I am happy that DNA chose to publish this article because now I know where Subramanian Swamy stands without any doubt. The nice thing about this article is that there is no way for Mr. Swamy to wriggle out by saying things like “This is not what I meant” or “I was misquoted.” (Think of Ghulam Nabi Azad’s recent remarks on homosexuality and his “defence.”)

    Yes, there is a downside to publishing such remarks but if a politician submits an article to an editor which reveals her/his bigotry with no room for doubt, I would say “Go ahead, publish it. But do not publish anything by this person again.”

  9. vijay permalink
    July 17, 2011 6:42 AM

    Shivam vij,
    The way you have got upset reading the article by Subramaniam swamy, sorry to say but there are many who get upset listening to UPA,NDTV, CNN IBN, Digvijay and the whole of corrupted lot.
    whilst many get enlightened by their views(probably includes you) many loathe them like you did against Dr Swamy.
    Vijay

  10. Amarendra permalink
    July 17, 2011 6:46 AM

    Shivam Viz is preety right in pointing out that the said is certainly not a debate. From the first word on the article went on to delegitimize the founding principles of Indian nation state.

  11. S. Anand permalink
    July 17, 2011 7:48 AM

    Vinod Mehta, too, allows Balbir Punj and his ilk to rant in Outlook just perhaps to say it is for ‘balance’ etc. But surely, such blatant Islamophobia, where Swamy gets to ask every Indian Muslim to acknowledge their ‘Hindu ancestry’, has not been seen in Indian print media in a long time. And to allow such views in the name of ‘diversity’ and ‘liberalism’ is bullshit. We must also remember that N.Ram and The Hindu have always given a lot of prominence to the Harvard-educated Swamy; every squeak Swamy makes is diligently reported by The Hindu and he gets to write whenever he wants in that paper. But perhaps even N.Ram passed this one by Swamy and it landed with DNA. But while we question Sinha we must also ask why and how the likes of Ram have legitimised Swamy—the two have have shared public platforms and make common cause with their views on Tibet and Tamil Eelam. (In this picture they even seem to look alike: http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Chennai/article1165578.ece)
    Anand

  12. Ammu Abraham permalink
    July 17, 2011 8:03 AM

    Publishing it has left a record of Mr. Subrmania Swamy’s Hindutva views. Especially of what he thinks should be done to the Muslims and Christians citizenry in India. (He does allege that some speeches are being made in ‘churches’). His article contains all the main elements of the Hindutva assertions, including the eqation of religion and race; and the ‘marking’ of Muslims and Chistians among the religious minorities.
    To that exent, its good that someone published this aspect of Mr. Swamy, since many do not seem to know about it.
    For those who are ‘marked’ by Mr.Swamy and his ideological bretheren, only the Constitution of India is their protection. Its not surprising that Swamy’s article violates its spirit.

  13. asdfvvr permalink
    July 17, 2011 10:14 AM

    I disagree with both the content and the tone of the op-ed in question, but have some conflicting thoughts (some related to the op-ed, some especially #4 and #5 to be taken more generally):
    1. Freedom of speech and expression must be protected at all costs, even (in fact especially) when it is most extreme, hurtful and offensive.
    2. An Op-Ed does not reflect the views of the paper that prints it.
    3. Subramaniam Swamy makes it clear repeatedly that he is referring to “Fanatic muslims” and “Islamic terrorism,” and not in general who he terms as “the Muslims of India.” It is very significant that he draws this distinction, and it is equally significant that readers of the piece recognize it. I don’t of course support his prescription that Muslims must “acknowledge their Hindu ancestry” or that non-Hindus shouldn’t vote etc.; but it’s important to note that while his solutions are obnoxious, we do need to recognize that “Islamic terrorism” (and this is Swamy’s term) is a problem and that the terrorist groups generally claim to be religiously motivated. Recognizing and addressing the fact that there is a form of terrorism that (in its own terms) associates itself with Islam, is not “Islamophobia.”
    4. “Islamophobia” is a false term, more appropriate would be “Muslim-phobia.” The former means a fear or hatred toward an ideology/ belief system and the second means a fear or hatred toward a group of PEOPLE. It is perfectly legitimate and justified to fear or hate a belief system/ ideology, of any type including any religious one. It is NOT legitimate or justified to direct hatred toward the PEOPLE that may subscribe to those beliefs. For e.g. one can legitimately militate against capitalism on ideological terms, but cannot legitimately militate against people one believes are leading the “capitalist lifestyle.” I understand that there is a slip between the two, and often criticism of an ideology is a thinly veiled (and perhaps inevitable) attack on the people that subscribe to it. But the fear of crossing that line gives religious views (all of them) unwarranted privilege in our culture. The terms and ideologies of these belief systems cannot be freely debated without being termed “bigoted” or a “hater.” This virtual shield from criticism (not afforded to any political ideology, or any other form of discourse apart from religious discourse) allows religious influence to grow unchecked, and its more dangerous forms to fester. Kid-gloves have to be worn, we have to dance around issues, and cannot call a spade a spade because someone might be “offended” or get “provoked.”
    5. It’s ironic when the Left rushes to “defend” Islam (again, I mean the beliefs not the people), perhaps out of its concern for all minorities and the marginalized, when many of its principles (some mandated, some practiced) are in direct conflict with much of what the Left stands for: secular democracy, women’s rights, reproductive rights, gay rights, freedom of speech etc.

    • qwerty permalink
      July 20, 2011 8:02 PM

      Amazingly incisive comment. Especially point #4

  14. anuroop permalink
    July 17, 2011 11:42 AM

    I accidentally came on KAFILA assuming this blog will be in Hindi, but got stunned to see it in english. i could not see what Swamy has written in DNA, but reading the comments on the letter I can guess about the content of Swamys article. Not going into deep, if we recall the statements of most responsible persons of the country, which is unfotunately in such hands, we can understand that how our patriosim is keeling by these neta jis. Aiiready we have lost our sanskar to the easy foreign money and now in a conspiracy our nationalism and patriotism is being crushed by some wellknown agencies. Announcing an aid of mere two lakhs rupees to the family of victim of recent bomb blast in Mumbai, by Honorable PM, reveals every truth of the total episode. Why they are not treated as martyr? In India a human life has only 2 lakh value? The amount of corruption done by his cabinet colligue can not be put in a powerful calculator, then who has empowered him to equalise the live of an Indian to be mere two lakhs rupees?

  15. July 17, 2011 12:44 PM

    Swamy is nuts but what excuse does DNA have?

    • July 18, 2011 12:38 PM

      That this is allegedly a democracy with supposed freedom of speech? Oh, I’m sorry, I didn’t know that my ‘freedom’ of speech only extended as long as it didn’t offend your sentiments.

      • voyeur permalink
        July 19, 2011 1:12 AM

        Freedom of speech is subject to reasonable restrictions. I would like to bring out here Section 153 B of the IPC

        “153B. Imputations, assertions prejudicial to national-integration.

        (1) Whoever, by words either spoken or written or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, –

        (a) Makes or publishes any imputation that any class of persons cannot, by reason or their being members of any religious, racial, language or regional group or caste or community, bear true faith and allegiance to Constitution of India as by law established or uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India, or

        (b) Asserts, counsels, advises, propagates or publishes that any class of persons shall, by reason of their being members of any religious, racial, language or regional group or caste or community, be denied or deprived of their rights as citizens of India or

        (c) Makes or publishes any assertion, counsel, plea or appeal concerning the obligation of any class of persons, by reason of their being members of any religious, racial, language or regional group or caste of community, and such assertion, counsel, pleas or appeal causes or is likely to cause disharmony or feelings of enmity or hatred or ill-will between such members and other persons,

        Shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.”

        Subramanian Swamy’s article seems to be a clear violation of this provision on several counts. Why has no one filed a complaint yet?

        I feel like such a coward for not initiating legal action now. If you’re reading this and feel that the provision is applicable here please do something. Don’t be a coward like me.

  16. rohit permalink
    July 17, 2011 12:59 PM

    Wow, that’s one hell of a fascist rant. makes BJP look like a centrist party. Seems like Swamy was on the precipice and 13/7 finally pushed him over into loony-land. I’m sorry but DNA should NEVER have published this: it incites violence and legitimizes unconstitutional ends in the name of security. And of course, as you say, without any evidence to link the blasts in Mumbai to any Islamist group, let alone Muslims at large.

    Rohit

  17. Rahul permalink
    July 17, 2011 4:38 PM

    Freedom of speech and expression does not work only in one direction. If you want Swamy banned, why shouldn’t Ms Arundhuti roy be banned also? The lefties with their totalitarian ideology, masquarading as liberals, is taking India down the dangerous path of picking and choosing what should and should not be banned, based on arbitray criteria set by them. No wonder they love the fanatic muslims so much and always side with them in any conflict! Their ideologies are actually the same! So Taslima Nasreen is banned, Salman Rushdie is banned, Da vinci code is banned which of course leaves the door wide open for the Hindu fanatics to want to ban what they deem to be “anti-Hindu”. Freedom of speech (not defamation) has to be absolute for it to have any real teeth. I have the right to write or say anything offensive and you have the right to be offended but YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO CURTAIL MY RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH.

  18. Anuj permalink
    July 17, 2011 6:10 PM

    Swamy has every right to express his views. As long as it does not directly incite violence, it is within the legal limits, even if it proposes fundamental changes to the constitutional ideas. Even DNA is entitled to publish Swamy’s article. It is not the paper’s view, but Swamy’s. Even if it were to be the paper’s (editor’s) views, it would have been fine. It is for the reader to decide what they want to read. If they are so disappointed, DNA’s readership could go down, and DNA will obviously want to look into that. Besides this, the benefit of publishing the article is that at least the intention of Swamy and his party (here it can be safely assumed that Swamy’s views are similar to his party, and other Hindu-agenda parties, he refers to) becomes crystal clear. The voter would be better-informed.

    Instead of urging the media to not be a bridge for such communication, the objectors to the content should come up with a befitting reply countering Swamy on both facts and policy.

    One more thing that strikes hard is that fact that how, for their registration, these political parties make such blatantly false resolutions that they would function in accordance with a certain principle of the constitution, viz. secularism. There should be a re-look into this requirement under the Representation of People’s Act. Its namesake fulfilment does not serve any purpose.

  19. Ron permalink
    July 17, 2011 7:13 PM

    I just read the first stanza of that DNA column. and i am shocked and disgusted.
    What a load of non-sense.

    Bomb blasts (by some misguided individuals) kill some people . Very sad indeed. But those blasts are in no way a threat to the unity and integrity of India. BUT this kind of ugly atrocious bigotry is by far the greatest threat to our society and nation since they create divisions among the people.

    Shame on them.

    Thanks Mr.Shivam for writing this letter of protest.

  20. July 18, 2011 8:32 AM

    Guys,
    Please read DNA Sunday P-6. Also have a look at Monday’s DNA front page anchor and page 13.
    Tx

  21. July 18, 2011 10:18 AM

    Dear “DNA staffer”,
    Firstly, don’t you think it is unbecoming of you to comment anonymously as a “DNA staffer”? Secondly, instead of asking people to look up the paper, shouldn’t you make the effort to give links (and they could be epaper links)? Is that how lazy you are? Thirdly, so you have printed enough rebuttals and anger to Swamy’s column by now; my question is, what did you achieve? How did this “debate” (as you said above) help us in any way?

    Lastly, would you admit, at least personally, that the paper erred in publishing the Swamy column?

    best
    shivam

    • July 20, 2011 10:14 AM

      Dear Mr Vij,

      Names hardly matter. And It also doesn’t matter how I feel ‘personally’ about the article. And as you are free to call others lazy, other people are also entitled to have their opinion about you.
      Finding a specific DNA page on the internet is not a big deal, only a lazy person like you needs a link for that.
      Thanks

  22. S Das permalink
    July 18, 2011 3:47 PM

    Good lord… somebody should tell Mr.Swami, that he has put his foot big time in his mouth that the actual meaning of Hindustan is — anybody who lives on the other side or bank of Handu, persian for Sindhu. So everybody living in this land is actually an invader, probably even his ancestors… apart from the ancient tribals of middle India, every body who came here, came from the other side of Handu. :-)

    Strategy: Remove the masjid in Kashi Vishwanath temple and the 300 masjids at other temple sites. GOOD HEAVENS… Another Advani in the making… WHY DIDN’T HE MENTION TAJMAHAL? Will he be able to sit quietly if the Taj is broken down?

    Strategy: Implement the uniform civil code, make learning of Sanskrit and singing of Vande Mataram mandatory, (FASCIST SWAMY)

    and declare India a Hindu Rashtra in which non-Hindus can vote only if they proudly acknowledge that their ancestors were Hindus. (I am a hindu but my ancestors were not Hindus, they were pagan tribals, from central Asia … Read more History Mr. Swamy

    Rename India Hindustan as a nation of Hindus and those whose ancestors were Hindus.
    (actually my genetic brothers are living in Persia :-D and Russia and East europe… maybe even Mongolia…)

    Strategy: Enact a national law prohibiting conversion from Hinduism to any other religion.
    ( thus change the secular mood of the constitution, impinging on my right to convert to Buddhism, if I want….)

    Re-conversion will not be banned. Declare that caste is not based on birth but on code or discipline. Welcome non-Hindus to re-convert to the caste of their choice provided they adhere to the code of discipline. (Caste of their choice… excuse me and who sets the discipline code… the high handed high caste priests of the temple is it….)

    What is Mr. Swamy’s caste I want to …. It is of course not very high, cause as far as I know Hinduism, a caste Hindu is supposed to be non-violent.

  23. Rajarshi Roy permalink
    July 18, 2011 5:17 PM

    Swamy has lost it completely. One can be forgiven to assume that this op-ed appeared in one of the mouthpieces of the numerous right-wing Hindutva organizations. One really wonders how it got it into a mainstream publication. My earlier impression about Swamy’s writing was that he’s tilted towards the right of Hindutva nationalist type. But in this article, he has taken things to an extreme, to the extent that his ideas and “strategies” are laughable e.g. annex Bangladesh. (and no doubt dangerous as well. We need not even bother about the consitutional validity of his assertions). For all his Harvard education, this just shows how formal, liberal educational credentials have no bearing on a man’s ideas and open-mindedness.

    Unfortunately, there are many liberally educated people like him who will not only support his assertions but will get into long diatrabes to explain the merits of their religion (while conveniently forgetting the darker aspects). These guys have little idea what Hinduism is or is not. They take their conclusions on ‘Akhand Bharat’ and ‘Bharatiyata’ as starting points of their arguments and try to arrive at this same starting point (which then becomes the conclusion) by irrational justifications.

    There seems to be little difference between Harvard-educated Swamy and madarssa educated cadres of JuD. Both spew hatred to people who are different from them.

    I agree with Shivam that such articles shouldn’t be published in the name of diversity of opinion. They don’t encourage debate because there is nothing to debate. These guys are beyond all reason, debate and arguments.

  24. iqbal husain permalink
    July 18, 2011 5:39 PM

    As a muslim i would say that we now dont care about such things, these things against islam and muslims are common in india, but i appreciate that majority hindus are not like this and i also assure to hindus that even majority muslims hate terrorists.people like swami are just trying to make their living by propagating hatred against muslims but they wont succeed till we have good people in this country. if we want that india should be a strong country we should provide education, security , justice, jobs to all without exception.

  25. neerja permalink
    July 18, 2011 6:02 PM

    can aditya sinha graciously let us know why this same vitriol appeared under his editorship at the new indian express in december 2008?

    http://expressbuzz.com/Opinion/Op-Ed/a%20strategy%20to%20deter%20terrorism/30085.html

    for those who may not manage to get through the entire article (it is a severe test of tolerance, not of the hindutva kind), here are some excerpts:

    “Challenging Islam in the realm of ideas, without diluting the debate with secular platitudes, jamming the brain of terror and destroying its human infrastructure embedded in India, is the core of a strategy to deter terrorism. This means sanitising Pakistan and truncating Bangladesh.”

    “And since the Hindu is the target, Hindus must collectively respond as Hindus against the terrorist…In this response, Muslims and Christians of India can join the Hindus if they genuinely feel for the Hindu. That they really do so feel cannot be believed unless they acknowledge with pride that though they may be Muslims or Christians, their ancestors are Hindus…That realisation of oneness with Hindus would also dilute the religious fervour of their faith and create a mental option for their possible re-conversion and return to Hinduism.”

    This was already a rehash of the an ‘article’ by him that appeared in the december 2006 issue of ‘organiser': http://www.organiser.org/dynamic/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=159&page=31

    so once again, the question is…why? a little introspection could help sinha at this point in time.

    thank you for kafila for allowing us to collectively introspect as well.

  26. July 18, 2011 10:38 PM

    Hi Shivam

    Wow, that DNA op-ed was so awful I couldn’t bring myself to finish it. I would suggest, though, that in future rebuttals, to not include the link to the original piece (so as to not drive additional traffic to it) but to quote from it in your post itself. My two cents.

    Jayati

  27. Nomis Hubris permalink
    July 19, 2011 2:40 PM

    I do not at all see anything rational in Shivam Vij’s call to protest against DNA, which is simply the medium which carried those views opposed.

    Get to the message, not the medium !

    If Shivam Vij (or anyone exhorted by him) would express a counter view and refute Swamy’s article point by point, that would be far more in the progressive spirit than calling for banning the book, so to say.

    It would be even better if it could be proposed, as persuasively as possible, that “Islamism” can be a unifying factor which helps the community of India to “bond”.

    I say, why not make an attempt ?

    I request Aditya Sinha of DNA, if he is reading this, to come forward and invite Shivam Vij to write a rejoinder and offer to publish it. (Or, have a thousand people write a rejoinder, if that could somehow be pulled off).

    • QAZI SHAFIQURREHMAN permalink
      July 25, 2011 8:32 AM

      u have publish the views of a political person now it is u r responsibility to publish or give room to publish articles clariyfiing the issues raised by a person who do not know Islam and muslim i invite not to protest but to give reasonable answer to such people. Qazi Shafiqur rehman

  28. Sameer permalink
    July 25, 2011 2:57 AM

    Incidentally, what’s even more interesting is that delhi police refused to accept a complaint against the article from a law student. I’m tempted to compare this with the alacrity with which complaints from Sangh activists are accepted (remember hussain)

  29. QAZI SHAFIQURREHMAN permalink
    July 25, 2011 8:36 AM

    WE HAVE TO PROTECT SECULARISM IN OUR COUNTRY. MOREOVER IF SOME PEOPLE DO THE WRONG THINGS WHICH ALSO WRONG INISLAM WHY ALL MUSLIN AND ISLAM SHOULD BE BLAMED. THESE POLITICIANS ARE MAKING DHANDA OF THE BOMB BLAST THEY HAVE NO MERCY FOR DEAD OR VICTIMS

    • unohu permalink
      August 2, 2011 11:41 PM

      Qazi Sahib, we need people like you to write thoughtful, sane answers in simple language for people, but especially Hindus, to see how wrong someone like Swami is. I am sure that if you write an article in English or Hindi then Kafila should by all means post it and distribute it widely. Ramzan Mubarak.

  30. August 9, 2011 4:38 PM

    Freedom of speech in this country is a joke anyway – anyone can claim that something or the other ‘hurts their sentiments’ and call for it to be banned (and succeed on a depressingly large number of occasions). At least that’s what Shivam and a large section of commenters both here and on DNA seem to want.
    If you have to be politically correct always and think before you speak, sorry, you don’t have free speech. By that definition, India fails the free speech test. Free speech includes the right to say things that others will find offensive -and the offended party is perfectly free to either ignore what is said, or post a rebuttal.

    Freedom defined is freedom denied.

  31. Another DNA Staffer permalink
    August 14, 2011 6:43 PM

    I admit that DNA is a very irresponsible, publicity-hungry, desperate-as-running-huge-loses so called news paper.

    Stop reading DNA.

    This settles the rant that, “Names hardly matter.” ;)

Trackbacks

  1. How to wipe out secularism in India « Meena Kandasamy
  2. Does DNA terror column amount to ‘incitement’? « sans serif
  3. Swamy, Diggy & the stereotyping of the innocent « churumuri
  4. Four on Friday: Mumbai on my Mind « EST / IST
  5. Dr.Swamy’s Op-Ed strokes furore at Harvard « Tamilbrahmins
  6. How to wipe out secularism in India « SEASONSALI
  7. Harvard does the right thing: drops Subramanian Swamy « Kafila

We look forward to your comments. Comments are subject to moderation as per our comments policy. They may take some time to appear.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 53,944 other followers

%d bloggers like this: