Mr. Singh’s crime? To have absolved Jinnah from some of the blame for partition and instead criticised Nehru and Vallabhai Patel. Not that this was a one-sided book, as the British, Jinnah, and Congress rightly all come in for plenty of criticism. Mr Singh bemoans the failure of all sides to step back from the detail and take in the bigger picture, which is fair to a certain extent, but fails to take into account that at this point the devil really was in the detail.

The book was well sourced and contained some material I hadn’t come across before. It calls for both India and Pakistan to have a greater understanding of one another’s ‘growing pains’ in the immediate aftermath of partition. It is written in a nice style, but I was disappointed with his reluctance to only briefly touch on the impact Jinnah has had on India’s psyche today. As we have seen with the treatment of minorities in India (such as the Sikh massacres of 1984), India in some senses still hasn’t come to terms with minorities who are aggressively or confidently pushing for reform or more autonomy. Somewhat of a generalisation perhaps, but with ongoing conflict in areas like Kashmir and the Naxalite heartlands, it is still an important topic.

What does the reception to the book say about free speech and enlightened debate in India? The effigy-burning mob has become somewhat of a cliché, and Jaswant Singh isn’t the first BJP grandee to lose his head over Jinnah, with L. K. Advani becoming a pariah after praising Pakistan’s founder a few years ago. Other writers, artists and intellectuals have suffered (such as M. F. Hussain) as a result of this general atmosphere. Yet underneath the public reaction, the book just reinforces the notion of the strength in depth of Indian researchers and thinkers, given the vast numbers working in areas from history to science and the amount of research which they produce. Nor, as in most cases, does the vocal minority reflect the silent majority (at least not in actions).

It is a shame that the impact and legacy of Jinnah can’t be discussed more calmly, but as the scars of partition fade over time, the material for such a debate will already be out there.

Many thanks to Suki Dusanj of Newzevents for inviting me along, and to Daunt Books for hosting it.

I’ve just got back from pleasantly warm Amritsar to wet and cold London. Yet the sights and sounds linger on in my mind, the early morning prayers from the temples coupled with the noise of stray dogs barking. And the visit at night to the Darbar Sahib (Golden Temple), making an unforgettable impression that no words can describe. I witnessed first hand how efficiently it manages to feed as many as 40,000 meals a day to people of all faiths.

I sensed a degree of nervousness in the country though. There had already been an attack on a German Bakery in Pune, killing 10 people and then the devastating news of two Sikhs in Pakistan, who had been taken hostage by the Pakistan Taliban, were beheaded. Others including Hindus, remain at the mercy of their captors. Rumours were afloat in Amritsar that the two Sikhs refused to convert to Islam, and that after they were executed in true 18th Century style, their severed heads were thrown into a Peshwara Gurdwara. Whether it’s religious based bigotry or plain thuggery, as in the case of the recent abduction of five year old Sahil Saeed, one can’t help feeling that the Pakistan is spiralling out of control.

In a newly built Shopping Mall in Amritsar, Shahrukh Khan’s new movie, My Name is Khan arrived. It had earlier opened in Mumbai amid protests by the hard right Shiv Sena, who opposed Khan’s remarks that he regretted that no Pakistani cricketers had been picked for the upcoming Indian Premier League. Hardly controversial but to Hindu bigots, any sympathy for Pakistanis is deemed unpatriotic.

Its timing cannot be underestimated. If you’re into the usual ‘dancing around tree’ movie then this movie is not for you. My Name is Khan takes us into a journey through the eyes of an Indian Muslim, Rizwaan Khan, an Asperger’s Syndrome sufferer, who moves to the US. While it is easy to make comparisons with Khan’s character and Dustin Hoffman’s ‘Rain Man’, it delves into issues rarely dealt with in the West, ie. how Middle Eastern and South Asians in general and Muslims in particular have become victims in the post 9/11 backlash. This issue has not only affected westerners but also some Sikhs and Hindus into believing all Muslims are the problem. Khan also attempts to confront extremists whose misinterpret their sacred text for political means.

Its overriding message is that despite all the atrocities extremists have carried out, the main divide in the world is between good people and bad people, not between different faiths and peoples. I would highly recommend people watch it.

Sahgal was asked for specific evidence of anything Begg has ‘said or advocated for specifically that would suggest he supports violent jihadism’.  The answer given was the usual actions and words of other Cageprisoner members, specifically Asim Qureshi whose words on BBC Newshour are misinterpreted by Sahgal.

Raz went on to say:

But Begg has never said any of these things, I’m wondering if this is just guilt by association.  This is someone who has publically said he created a girls school in Afghanistan, he worked to bring to light the abuses of the Taliban in Afghanistan when he was living there as a volunteer.

Sahgal then answers by talking about Begg’s autobiography and her condemnation of Begg because of the titles of the books he sold in his bookshop.   This ’evidence’ obviously makes him a violent jihadi.  I just checked on Amazon and they don’t currently stock Defense of the Muslim Lands but they do stock Mein Kampf in several different versions including the ‘official Nazi translation’.  Guess that’s them fucked then – the evil fascists should obviously be sent straight to the ghost prisons of Afghanistan! 

I was impressed though with the way Sahgal managed to falsely link Begg directly to Abdullah Azzam (who died in 1989) and the horrible Mumbai attacks of 2008.  Such skillful conflation hasn’t been seen since the HUAC hearings.

As Sahgal says, the Mumbai attacks are believed to have been carried out by Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), a splinter group (formed in 1990 and active since 1993) from Markaz ad-Dawat wal Irshad to fight against India in the Kashmir conflict.  LeT are widely believed to be supported by Pakistan’s ISI, whilst being officially banned by the country.  Sahgal made a politically astute choice to highlight this ‘evidence’ of Begg’s terrible terrorist activity as LeT are current news following recent testimony from American ‘Intelligence’ about how they ‘could pose a serious threat to U.S. interests.‘   

Other recent impressive media appearances by Sahgal include her interview with DNA in which she repeats the hack Kerbaj’s rubbish in the Times in which it was reported that ‘Sam Zarifi … thought the relationship with Moazzem Begg was a mistake, which Amnesty International should admit.’   Sahgal’s fansite, Human Rights For All, hasn’t bothered to publish Sam Zarifi’s subsequent letter to the Sunday Times.  They also reject comments on their post which republished Kerbaj’s Second Amnesty chief attacks Islamist links, but the rest of us have read the letter and haven’t failed to note that Zarifi clearly said:

Your recent article (‘Second Amnesty chief attacks Islamist links’, 14 February) mischaracterizes my views.

I have been a part of the internal AI debate surrounding the issue of AI’s collaboration with various groups as part of its campaign to close down Guantánamo. My opinions have been heard, considered, and where appropriate, implemented.
I do not oppose our current initiative working with Moazzam Begg in the recent European tour seeking to convince European states to receive more of the Guantánamo detainees who cannot be repatriated because of the risk of further human rights abuses.

And then of course there is Sahgal’s interview in The Wall Street Journal with the line that made me laugh out loud: ‘Then, when the Sunday Times story broke, everything I uncovered was deemed ‘innuendo’.  Almost as funny as Sahgal’s story about all the human rights lawyers refusing to represent her in an employment case – I wonder if they pointed out to her that a call to an employment lawyer would be a more appropriate choice?  Perhaps it’s time for Sahgal to concede that she IS peddling innuendo, and that using and abusing the high-profile name of Moazzam Begg to promote whatever agenda she really has is a step too far.

Oh and I almost forgot the best bit from yesterday’s interview.  Gita Sahgal said:

I don’t feel safe at Amnesty International

Bit like she doesn’t feel safe talking at the BBC then.  I wonder if Sahgal has received the death threats that Moazzam Begg and members of Cageprisoners have.

What next?  Fox News?

Original version posted at Earwicga

In this case Weissman is appalled that White wrote something he didn’t like. And so, “Amnesty UK have a right to voice their opinion on East Jerusalem, but hiring Ben White to speak for them makes no sense.” — yeah I’m sure. What he means is: I can’t believe Amnesty is working with someone I don’t like, it just goes to show how much they love Islamists blah blah froth froth.

Perhaps he could form a committee so that they could approve in advance who Amnesty should be allowed to work with. Oh wait, their mate is already trying that.

It’s not only an attempt to shut down voices he doesn’t like – but is also very hypocritical. The same Joseph Weissman (under his pseudonym Seisemic Shock, I’m assuming) earlier wrote on Harry’s Place an article promoting Patrick Sookhdeo. The very same who contributed to a book titled ‘The Myth of Islamic Tolerance’, which was put together by Robert Spencer of the notoriously bigoted Jihad Watch and Dhimmi Watch blogs. And yet he’s now offering advice on human rights and dodgy connections.

This ’smear by twisted quotes’ is unfortunately becoming a trend on HP. Another common target is Mehdi Hasan – subject of a disgusting smear attempt last year. A few weeks ago ‘Lucy Lips’ wrote:

Instead of Bright, we get Mehdi Hasan: a man who believes that non-Muslims are “kafirs” and like “cattle”, and who both praises and takes a face value the Supreme Leader of Iran’s ersatz anti-nuclear rhetoric.

The first part of that smear has become predictable. The second part – criticising him for “praising” the Supreme leader of Iran – is even more idiotic. All Mehdi did was point to a fatwa by the Iranian leader against nuclear weapons. And even if he did “praise him” for being anti-nuclear, what the hell is wrong with that? I’d praise any nutjob who was against nukes.

And these people set themselves up as defender of human rights. The mind boggles. All they see are Islamists under every bed and won’t stop criticising Amnesty unless it stops working with any whose views they find politically inconvenient.

The text:

That this House notes with deep concern recent newspaper speculation that the BBC is considering closing its 6 Music and Asian Network radio stations; believes that both radio stations offer outlets for independent and non-mainstream music; further notes that both 6 Music and Asian Network reach out to audiences not otherwise well served by the BBC; congratulates 6 Music and Asian Network for acting as a source of talent for the BBC and other media; recognises that the BBC has a duty to represent and give a platform to minority interests that need a mainstream platform to develop and grow; and calls on the Government to encourage the BBC to continue its support for 6 Music and Asian Network for many years to come.

There are also stories flying about with me named in them about Asian Network. I’m also working on a letter to be sent to BBC Trustees. Hopefully, will get tons of people to sign that.

38 Degrees have launched a petition against it too. IDeally, they need to get people to write to their MPs to support EDM 963.

But BBC Asian Network’s survival is important, and there are several reasons why. Here are some…

1) It would reduce competition
With the buyout of Club Asia radio by Sunrise Radio late last year, closing Asian Network would leave no other real alternative to Sunrise. This is especially the case in London, where 40% of British Asians reside.

All the main radio stations in London (niche offerings such as Panjab Radio aside) are owned by the Sunrise Group: Sunrise, Kismat and BuzzAsia (the re-branded Club Asia). This would also apply to other parts of the country that were only served by local Asian stations or a feed of Sunrise radio from London.

2) A source of talent for the BBC and rest of the media
Along with the now defunct Asian Programmes Unit, the BBC Asian Network has been a stepping stone for scores of presenters, producers, journalists and actors across the media industry.

It’s arguable that Asian talent would be picked up by other parts of the BBC anyway but so far the rest of the BBC and broadcasting industry has been terrible at spotting and developing new Asian talent. If Asian Network were to shut down there is every possibility that levels of diversity at the BBC would fall in coming years.

3) It would create ‘parallel lives’
The BBC Asian Network is, for many Asians across Britain, a gateway into mainstream British culture. The station has gone further than any other Asian radio station in combining mainstream pop culture and news with British Asian culture.

Without that, many Asians would retreat to alternatives that would make them less open to popular culture. That would also raise the prospect of ‘parallel lives’ – where different communities consume different media outlets without much overlap.

4) It would abandon Asian license fee payers
The BBC still does appallingly bad in representing minorities (apart from on soaps) in doing ‘Asian stories’ outside narratives of terrorism and crime. The Asian Network has frequently brought stories to the rest of the media that its mainstream news journalists would be unlikely in covering.

The BBC’s Charter itself states the corporation will aim to:

Represent the different nations, regions and communities to the rest of the UK.
Across the range of its network output, the BBC should portray and celebrate the range of cultures and communities across the UK at national, regional and local level.

That is consistent with the view that it should seek to represent British Asian culture to not only serve that demographic but tie it with popular culture.

5) Remove a vital platform for British Asian culture
The station has not done enough to differentiate itself from commercial competitors, but the same argument could be made of other BBC radio stations such as Radio 1 and Radio 2.

Axing Asian Network would kill off vital media space for a lot of British Asian content and culture (documentaries, fusion music) that does not get represented on commercial alternatives. It is within the BBC’s remit to represent and give a platform to minority interests that need a mainstream platform to develop and grow.

———–
cross-posted from Asians in Media

However I’m amused to see that Rod Liddle’s mate is wailing about it over at Guardian CIF. Aww diddums Tim Luckhurst – you probably missed out on some cushy commissions. That’s too bad eh?

I’m not going to go over again the stupidity of an argument that says making yourself heard about the unsuitability of Rod Liddle being editor of the Indy – a newspaper I like and buy – is censorship. In fact the depth of that feeling was big enough that over 3000 people emailed Alexander Lebedev to make themselves heard, and we raised over £700 in 48 hours (target was only £500) to take out an ad against him. The money for the ad will now go to various women, immigrant and climate change charities (deliberately).

That’s the great thing about living in a liberal democracy – people have the right to make themselves heard. And if enough of them do then media owners or corporations have to listen. It’s not censorship it’s called people power.

What Tim Luckhurst is angrily railing against there is the destruction of the old order – where the media has become so incestuous that no one even dared to ask Liddle in the MSM whether he had posted those comments on the Millwall website. As soon as he railed against the “metropolitan elites” (as Luckhurst is doing now), all the wimpy lefties backed away. The last thing they want to be associated with is being metropolitan!

The reason the left is so weak in this country is because they’re too scared of saying what they believe in, in case the Daily Mail or some other smug idiot calls them ‘metropolitan elite’. And now Luckhurst has invented “liberal bigotry” for people who disagree with what my mate has to say.

There’s another point, that Anton Vowl makes very well here.

Perhaps the reaction to Liddle’s possible appointment, the Facebook group, and all of that stuff, wasn’t a bunch of nasty liberal bastards bullying the Indy bigwigs into rejecting the stellar candidate. Maybe it really was the case that Liddle would have been a liability, and a business decision was taken, rather than a hysterical “hiding behind the settee because of those ghastly lefties and their supreme power” decision that we’re supposed to imagine has taken place, if you believe what some are saying.

It’s important to bear this in mind because there’s a danger in all this that liberals inevitably end up getting painted as fascists by the kind of people who view them with nothing but contempt. Look at the censorship-happy liberals, they will say. First they tried to ban Jan Moir because she just spoke her mind – we didn’t, but thanks anyway – and now they’ve banned a brilliant genius from being the best Indy editor ever – we didn’t, but thanks anyway. The left only gets made to look powerful when it’s being wrongly blamed for clamping down on freedom. The narrative is a familiar one, though, one in which the hypocritical liberal-left fascist scum are the real anti-freedom people out there, and it’s only brave souls like Liddle who are battling for freedom and truth, and de dah de dah de dah, you get the general idea. We encounter it so often it’s wearying.

Read the whole article – it also spot on. I’m sick of lefties standing by and doing nothing while insufferable idiots take over the establishment. It’s time to fight back. This was merely the first shot in what is going to be a long war. Luckily, there’s more of us.

“Young, Angry and White” showed the trained and experienced young racist Kieren in an extraordinarily positive light, allowing him unchallenged to insist on the “racial purity” of his girlfriend, accuse his friend of “genocide” because he had a black girlfriend and was therefore guilty of “racial mixing”, and to introduce his masked, far-right associates, who spoke about the “filth flooding through our streets” – non-white people.

But was he some angry Tory voter who wanted to go further and vote BNP? No, he was actually the national organiser for the youth wing of the extreme right National Front.

And yet the entire programme apparently missed out this teeny weeny fact. I’m going to watch it tonight to confirm this, and if true complain to Ofcom.

The National Front website in fact loudly proclaims that a documentary would feature him. In fact it adds:

He is looking for a home in the BNP but is unsure that it represents his views. Having been a fervent nationalist from the age of 15, he is concerned that the BNP is losing its radical edge and selling out its racial policies.

So in fact he thinks the BNP is too moderate, while it looks like the programme is inferring he is becoming extreme after rejecting mainstream politics. That’s the opposite of what happened.

I don’t have a problem with C4 featuring such nutjobs but why hide the person’s background? Why not point out he is part of the National Front?

Right on cue, here is Melanie Phillips:

The true intolerant, illiberal, unjust face of the ‘human rights’ industry has been on graphic display in recent days in the case of Gita Sahgal.
…
The point is that her real crime has been to expose the extraordinary sympathy by white ‘liberals’, committed to ‘human rights’, for Islamic jihadists — who are committed to the extinction of human rights. This love-in by white ‘liberals’ for theocratic totalitarianism is then further reflected by the totalitarian manner in which they themselves deal with anyone who opposes them.

Ergo, Amnesty are also committed to the extinction of human rights.
And what might be the reason for Mel Phillips’ ire?

When pondering the extraordinary obsession with Israel by the ‘human rights’ industry and the way in which it ignores real human rights abuses in the third world…

Well that was a surprise wasn’t it? Damn those people at Amnesty for not publishing a statement about Congo in the last 6 weeks! Also, apparently, it is Amnesty and HRW that are to blame for why the world hasn’t heard much about Congo over the last decade. Nothing at all to do with the media industry and prominent newspapers that Mel Phillips writes for. The Daily Mail and Spectator are of course known for their unparalleled humanitarian coverage of atrocities around the world.

To put it another way, Amnesty is living in the make-believe world of a phoney war, where it thinks that liberals are free to form alliances with defenders of clerical fascists who want to do everything in their power to suppress liberals, most notably liberal-minded Muslims.

Oh wait – that was Nick Cohen – sounding exactly the same. The agenda here is so blatant that you’ll forgive me for being so gung-ho about cheering them on.

And to make an obvious point: this doesn’t mean I’m hating on Gita Sahgal. I’ve had the utmost respect for WAF and SBS from day one. I just don’t agree with them here, and don’t want to get sucked into Nick Cohen and Mel Phillips’ agenda. But I expect such a nuanced position will be hard for some to understand.

Also, Louise is spot on.

And it’s easy to see why this is a campaign to Amnesty and its work. On 14th Feb the journalist who kicked this all off – Richard Kerbaj – published another article titled: Second Amnesty chief attacks Islamist links.

But actually that wasn’t quite correct because Amnesty’s Asia director Sam Zarifi says the article “mischaracterizes” his views.

I do not oppose our current initiative working with Moazzam Begg in the recent European tour seeking to convince European states to receive more of the Guantánamo detainees who cannot be repatriated because of the risk of further human rights abuses.

As I told my programme staff in the internal email leaked to your paper, my concern has been that AI’s campaigning has not been sufficiently clear that when we defend somebody’s right to be free from torture or unlawful detention, we do not necessarily embrace their views totally. [emphasis mine]

So will the Sunday Times and the blogs that quoted Zarifi initially issue a retraction? Fat chance. This is a straightforward campaign to malign Amnesty, and I’ll explain why.

Firstly. Gita Sahgal was not suspended for voicing her concerns in Amnesty’s internal debates – it was for going to the press. And it now looks like that there were lots of debates held internally at Amnesty to discuss Moazzam Begg so the organisation did not suppress any debate or ignore it.

Secondly Let’s also be clear about the situation here. I spoke to an Amnesty spokesperson last night who confirmed that Amnesty has no relationship with CagePrisoners at all.

As part of their ongoing campaign against closing Guantanamo, various Amnesty national sections (Ireland, Germany etc) have hosted talks with Moazzam Begg speaking merely to keep the issue alive. The events were organised in conjunction with Reprieve and the US Center for Constitutional Rights. In other words – there isn’t a lot for them to distance themselves from.

Third To reiterate, the events with Begg were purely around the issue of Gunatanamo Bay. They have no impact any other research. And given that most of Amnesty is split up into fairly autonomous national sections – that would be very difficult to achieve anyway.

A spokesperson told me: “We have campaigned hard and strong on those issues [around women's rights, especially when dealing with the Taliban] and nothing is compromised – he’s not been convicted of anything himself.”

Fourth Amnesty has also highlighted its recent research on the Taliban:

Most of our statements on [International Humanitarian Law] address both sides to the conflict, while explicitly recognizing that the Taleban are responsible for about 2/3 of all civilian casualties and that the Taleban, unlike NATO troops, pursue a systematic policy of targeting civilians (see, most recently on 2 December 2009, , in which we said: “Amnesty International said that it recognises that anti-government groups, including the Taleban, are responsible for the majority of civilian casualties and injuries. The organization said that this does not diminish the responsibility to offer support to those injured by Afghan and NATO/US forces and to bring those suspected of violations of international humanitarian and human rights law to justice.”

Does that sound like an organisation influenced by Moazzam Begg to tone down its criticism of the Taliban? No it doesn’t. So the idea that Amnesty is run by white liberals too scared to criticise Islamist terrorists is frankly a pile of steaming horseshit.

Let me repeat that. Nick Cohen’s column in the Observer was a pile of horseshit.

Lastly Amnesty is right to say that as the highest profile British ex-Guantanamo detainee, they have a right to use him to continue highlighting the issue. I agree. Since coming back from Guantanamo he has said nothing (that I’ve seen) that he is lobbying for the Taliban to be recognise as a force for good.

If all he’s doing is highlighting human rights abuses and he’s ditched his previous radicalism, like many others, then I have no problem with that. If anyone wants to claim he is advocating terrorism then let’s see the evidence. Something that may sound like a call to arms if twisted around adequately and under the assumption he’s a liar is not good enough.

I think the statement by Sam Zarifi, who many were quick to jump on, says it all really.

[hat tip Earwicga]

The political and media consensus appears to be that the way to tackle the BNP is to meet it half way, by talking up tough anti-immigration measures and airing this racist party’s lies. This conventional wisdom must urgently be challenged.

says James Macintyre of the New Statesman, and he’s right.

And to reinforce that point, here is Simon Darby, deputy leader of the BNP:

Dealing with the press on a daily basis it is hard not to develop a healthy disrespect for the people who quite rightly can be blamed for the state this country is in today. However, certainly over the last year I am not the only one here at BNP Towers that has noticed a distinct thaw in the attitude towards us from some aspects of the media.

It has occurred to such an extent that the latest move by a small gaggle of z-list journalists to deliberately spike coverage concerning the BNP looks almost prehistoric. I used to worry about these things a few years ago, but now I welcome them safe in the knowledge that many within their own profession will find this sinister, clumsy or just plain comical.

Come and hear me (and others) listen. I’m going to be talking about strategies to tackle the media’s love of the BNP.

A reader emails in to say:

Hi there Sunny
Love the ad for The Inde to try to prevent the ghastly Liddle being inflicted on us. Thank you for this campaign. I am very impressed that a possible donation may be made to victims of domestic violence and abuse.

May I suggest an addition to the reasons why he shouldn’t be editor and to the list of his vile statements, please? I haven’t seen anyone pick up on something he said at the same time as the ’smoking at Auschwitz’ quote, which reveals him to be not only grossly racist, sexist and misogynist, but bigoted against disabled people.

He remarked that the concentration camp was ‘festooned’ not only with no smoking signs, but with disabled access ramps.

Irony, or what? Given the fate of countless disabled people at the merciless hands of the nazis … there was equality there, for sure – being considered equal to other categories of humanity deemed worthless – ‘useless eaters’ – and therefore unworthy of life.

This man is so stupid, so arrogant, so egocentric – words fail me. Keep up the good work!

Sincerely
*******

Fair comment I’d say… no?

After watching last night’s Newsnight, I can only come to one conclusion: the BBC has become this country’s most pernicious climate-change-denying media outlet in the UK.

There is simple reasoning behind this grand statement. While the assorted commentators who regularly spout ill-informed propaganda across the media are usually taken with a pinch of salt, the BBC is broadly trusted as an impartial and trustworthy reporter of news. It sets the agenda. Which makes the rubbish it has been producing lately on climate change even more dangerous.

Let me start by saying I believe that man-made activity is the prime driver behind global warming. I don’t have time for tinfoil-hat-wearing conspiracy nuts who think it is one big plot by scientists across the world. I do believe CC deniers are no different to 9/11 Truthers. But that point is moot while we focus on the country’s biggest culprit.

Read the rest here. Predictably the comments followed in four strands:

1) WTF? Don’t you know global warming is bullshit?
2) WTF?! BBC showing right-wing bias? You’re smoking crack
3) Why do you deranged, lunatic, tax-raising, commie loving, hippy-loving, oil company-funded bastards use such nasty, polarising language against us? Why??? You should be strung up!
4) Me and my tinfoil-hat wearing commenter mates think your credibility is shot to pieces. No one will ever employ you again!!

I was baiting them all evening but unfortunately the CIF crew closed the thread. Perhaps we can continue here?

Update: Mehdi Hasan at New Statesman piles in:

There is nothing more infuritating than the BBC’s earnest and often misplaced quest for “balance” on settled issues like climate change, which often has the effect of tilting its coverage to the right.

Yup.

One dancer said it all: “I tried to watch. I don’t mind them being critical of ‘Incredible India’, which does not look after its poor. But these guys were clueless, flying in and taking over our stories and realities. I object to that.”
…
We now have black and Asian newsreaders but note that after 30 years Newsnight has had no black interrogator. Multiracial casting in soaps and drama is now common and top roles do now go to black and Asian actors – Adrian Lester in Hustle, Nina Wadia in EastEnders. Yet watch The Bill and Midsomer Murders – two very different worlds – and almost all the actors are white.
…
Black and Asian Britons are still not considered good enough when it comes to witty shows. The same old, same old white comedians appear on Never Mind the Buzzcocks, Argumental, QI, Mock the Week. Omid Djalili, Shappi Khorsandi and Shazia Mirza do gain entry and maybe a couple of others, but night after night after night, like Alan Davies? Of course not. Go on the comedy circuit and you get the many faces of our laughing nation, from hilarious Sikhs to outrageously un-PC Muslims and Zimbabweans.
…
Why are we still having to bang on about the obvious? Laziness, nepotism, a self-limiting circle of contacts and information, lack of curiosity and humility and most of all the hubris that defines and holds back British TV.

The last bit is true, and applies to the media industry as a whole, but it is also what will kill the industry. So while Y A-B is spot on about most of the stuff in that article, she still has too much regard for the TV industry in a way I don’t.

I sometimes watch news television, which is now also very formulaic – but the idea that the next generation is going to be defined by this closed industry no longer holds true. Oh and the bit about the Indian Winter is bang on too.

But I admit I can’t be as funny or spot-on as Charlie Brooker, here on Newswipe which is now on BBC4. You have to ffwd about 2 min in)

It is Iran’s answer to Cannes, Venice and Berlin rolled into one. The cinematic and cultural highlight of the Islamic republic’s calendar, the annual Fajr festival in Tehran is a 10-day extravaganza of film, drama, poetry and literature. This year’s event, which opens on Monday, ought to be a magnet for the country’s artistic elite and a host of international stars.

But Ken Loach and the British theatre director Peter Brook are among leading Western artistic figures who have informed the Islamic regime they are pulling out in protest at its brutal crackdown on the opposition, which includes torture, prison rapes, countless killings and Stalinist-style televised show trials of reformists.

Ken Loach, of course, did the right thing. But I can just imagine certain blogs on either sides of the spectrum where heads will asplode in trying to figure out how to deal with this.

I respond:

Catherine Bennett made the same accusations, and I replied to her here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2010/jan/19/twitter-mob-rules-people-power

Being liberal doesn’t mean you can’t campaign against or for anything. No one is taking Rod Liddle’s free speech away – he still blogs away at Spectator and writes for the Sunday Times.

If they want to legitimise and help such an obnoxious misogynist and racist – that’s their problem: I don’t buy them.

But to say that liberals (I’m a left liberal, the name of the site is meant to be ironic) cannot campaign or criticise anyone because it somehow takes away their freedom of speech isn’t an argument. I’m not like the Chinese authorities. I’m not calling for him to be imprisoned.

This is like saying Rock Against Racism and the Anti-Nazi League marches shouldn’t have happened because they restricted the right of the BNP and National Front to say what they want.

To which Hari responds with:

@ Sunny – I don’t think you’re answering my point at all. I’m not saying the same thing as Catherine Bennett. I’m asking you to think about the limits of campaigning. When does legitimate campaigning become something else? I’m not saying you’re the Chinese government. It’s a silly comparison. I also don’t buy the RaR analogy. Rod Liddle is an individual, not an ideology (afaik). You’ve already won the point about Liddle’s unsuitability to edit the Indie – this is very much in the public domain. What’s the end/purpose of your campaign now? How ‘non grata’ do you want his persona? I’m not saying you can’t campaign or criticise.

I’m saying that beyond a certain point, mass campaigns have a chilling effect on free speech. Is this the case with Liddle? Possibly not – as you say he’s robust, and has plenty of media outlets and allies. But it’s something that needs to be thought about if you care about freedom. Would you be more circumspect if he was weaker or less well-known? You’re in the trenches right now (judging by an fb post you made today) and I wonder if your exhiliration at breaking the Millwall stuff is overtaking a sense of proportion. How do you respond, for example, to my charge that this is potentially damaging to your own politics – beyond a certain point isn’t this trivial? Doesn’t it risk delegitimising the more important stuff you campaign about?

Frankly I don’t really care if criticising Rod Liddle means there is less casual racism and misogyny in public life – I’d welcome that, thanks. Is the fact there is now much less overt anti-semitism in public life a bad thing?

The purpose of the campaign is to say that Rod Liddle’s views go against those of the Indy’s principles and it’s readers. He is a troll and is only being considered because Simon Kelner thinks what the Indy really needs is someone who can make it talked about.

But that won’t bring it loyal readers and it will only herald the demise of Britain’s only other left-liberal newspaper. I don’t see that as a good thing. Hence the campaign. That’s how citizens roll.

This airy-fairy liberal thinking that if we’re nasty to poor old Wod Widdle then it’s going to make life difficult for others is frankly horse-shit. In the US, Colour of Change ran a campaign against Glenn Beck for his on-air racism. Was freedom of speech in the US curtailed?

Sorry, I’m not buying this argument at all. Sarah Ditum covered this quite well too – this liberal intelligentsia penchant for mixing up criticism and campaigning with censorship really should be ignored.

Sonia Deol was forced to delete her page on the Facebook website amid a barrage of criticism from fellow Sikhs over her film about the Indian army storming the Golden Temple in Amritsar, one of the faith’s most holy shrines, in 1984.

Documentaries like this were always going to inspire strong emotions, but some of the criticism has been strange:

Dr Sadhu Singh, chairman of the Council of Sikh Temples, said many viewers were angered that ‘the BBC showed him [Bhindranwale] looking like Bin Laden’.

He said: ‘They used pictures of him wearing a turban and holding a gun. To someone who doesn’t know what Sikhism is about, it would be very misleading.

He was a leading Sikh militant. It would have been odd to portray him as non-violent, especially as he and his followers took over the Harminder Sahib (Golden Temple), and were armed. Whatever you think of the rights and wrongs of the Khalistani conflict, you can’t deny that both sides resorted to violence.

‘Some people are very upset that the documentary also showed Sonia Deol dancing with Hindus as if there is no problem between Hindus and Sikhs.

‘The feeling is still there that people who were responsible for 1984 have not been brought to justice.’

I agree with the latter bit, as will most people who know about 1984. But criticising her for dancing with Hindus who weren’t involved in the massacres (presumably)? Bizarre.

For an different view that stays well clear of Khalistan, I would recommend The Widow Colony, which focuses on the women whose men folk were murdered, and who now struggle to live while still fighting for justice.

(Hat-tip: Kulvinder in the comments)

Yet could an ‘Indian season’ ever be created which is representative of India as a whole? Take Britain, a country with around 6% of India’s population. Could a ‘British season’ be made which reflects Britain? Would it involve binge drinking and chips, the X-Factor and Facebook, the Queen and Churchill? There are always going to be problems with trying to do such a series, as choices will inevitably involve some sort of stereotyping, or else be so eclectic as to not be representative at all. Channel Four made mistakes by focusing too much on slums, and in the way it advertised the series (with stereotypical Indian images), but it never would have been perfect.

I know that Slumdog Millionaire was a good film, though it didn’t deserve to win that many Oscars, but I never thought it would encourage slum-fetishism.
Here’s some dude called Kevin McCloud in the Telegraph telling the government: ‘Forget eco-homes and look to the Mumbai slums‘.

“I’ve come back with a sense of renewed hope about how we can do that,” McCloud said. “If I have one message for developers and the Government, it’s to focus less on eco-housing and green buildings – because, frankly, we know how to do that. Let’s start focusing on the social stuff, on how we can make people happier.” His words are likely to dismay the Government, which is pressing ahead with the plans to build 10 sustainable “eco-towns” by 2020.

No, actually the government probably isn’t dismayed because only a complete idiot would tell people they should think about living in slums than eco-towns. But I suspect this is more down to the Telegraph’s own agenda against ZaNuLabour and anything ‘eco’ related.

Further commentary from Stroppyblog:

You know what won’t make people happier, Mr McCloud? 1 toilet for every 1400 people. No hospitals or public sanitation programmes. Typhoid, maleria and cholera. McCloud also brings women’s oppression into his praise of the slums: “Because women don’t have huge kitchens, they rinse their pots in the street. That has to be the most civilised, sociable way of doing the washing-up – outside in the sun, chatting to your neighbours.” Women engaging in arduous domestic labour in the streets; what a pretty picture indeed!

Do people even think before they write up these news stories or give these interviews?

That interview is actually part of Channel 4’s Indian Winter of programming, which takes this fetish to another level.
Neha says:

Of the six programmes, four are somehow or the other based on slums. And the one film is Om Shanti Om. Ugh.

Damn straight. Now, I realise India has lots of slums but there’s no need to turn them into a fetish; there’s plenty more interesting stuff to the country. This just looks like cheap, lame programming. And there’s no need to start worshipping people who live in slums – 90% of them want to escape the poverty and live somewhere with proper sanitation.