This week on Hafta, Newslaundry’s Abhinandan Sekhri, Manisha Pande, Raman Kirpal, Jayashree Arunachalam, and Anand Vardhan are joined by former Chief Election Commissioner Dr SY Quraishi and cartoonist Rachita Taneja.
The show starts with a detailed discussion on the controversy surrounding the USAID funds allegedly released to “increase voter turnout in India” and an Indian Express fact-check that found that the said amount was meant for Bangladesh, never India.
“The Election Commission is allergic to the thought of taking money from anyone outside India…We had enough funds and enough self-respect,” says Dr Quraishi, adding that he is also “very confident” about his successors.
On Donald Trump cancelling USAID funding for several projects, Jayashree says, “What he’s doing is terrible…but there is a tendency to paint US aid as US generosity.” The US has used aid programs as part of its foreign policy, she points out.
The panel then moves to discussing the midnight notification issued to appoint Gyanesh Kumar as the new Chief Election Commissioner. “If you need to be bipartisan, you have to have someone who is not a politician,” Raman says about Kumar’s appointment.
On the selection process, Dr Quraishi says that India has the “most defective system of appointment” despite having the “most powerful election commission in the world.”
The panel also discusses the Indian government blocking Tamil news website Vikatan after it published a critical cartoon depicting PM Narendra Modi and Trump.
Rachita, who runs the popular page Sanitary Panels, says: “I don’t know where to draw the line between censorship and self-censorship. If you are being given threats or being told that you can land up in jail, is that not part of censorship itself?”
This and a lot more. Tune in!
We have a page for subscribers to send letters to our shows. If you want to write to Hafta, click here.
Check out the Newslaundry store and flaunt your love for independent media.
Download the Newslaundry app. Contribute to our latest NL Sena here.
Song: I Like To Move It
Timecodes
00:00:00 - Introductions and announcements
00:02:57 - Headlines
00:09:19- USAID controversy
00:34:30 - CEC appointment process
00:53:06 - Blocking of Vikatan website
01:30:14 - Recommendations
References
Support NL Sena - The Hindu Rashtra Project
India's Experiment With Democracy by Dr. SY Quraishi
An Undocumented Wonder by Dr. SY Quraishi
$21 million did not go to India for ‘voter turnout’, was for Bangladesh
Why I Agree With Bill Maher’s Views On Islam
Recommendations
SY Quraishi
India's Experiment With Democracy by Dr. SY Quraishi
An Undocumented Wonder by Dr. SY Quraishi
Rachita
Manisha
Charlie Hebdo Is Heir to the French Tradition of Religious Mockery
‘You’ve Blown a Hole in the Family’: Inside the Murdochs’ Succession Drama
Jayashree
A former GBS patient on the facts and sensationalism surrounding the outbreak
My experience with Guillain Barre Syndrome
Anand
Abhinandan
The vast and sophisticated global enterprise that is Scam Inc
Raman
Pratap Bhanu Mehta writes: BJP’s Delhi challenge and the Capital’s future
A Gentleman in Moscow
Check out previous Hafta recommendations, references, songs and letters
Produced and recorded by Priyali Dhingra and Ashish Anand.
This episode is outside of the paywall for now. Before it goes back behind the paywall, why not subscribe? Get brand-new episodes of all our podcasts every week, while also doing your bit to support independent media. Click here to subscribe.
Manisha: [00:00:00] This is a Newslaundry Podcast. And you're listening to NL Hafta. Angreze apna lagaan
Anand: aur Newslaundry apna Hafta kabhi nahi chhodte. Welcome to another episode of NL Hafta. On the 21st of Feb, Friday at 11am is when we're recording this hafta. We have, uh, an episode where we'll have Two subject experts who we're very keen and excited to speak with, but before I introduce them and the panel, I would just like to remind you that we just have a very little left of the Hindu Rashtra project.
It is an NL Sena funded investigation where, uh, three of our reporters, that is Anmol Preetam, Pratik Goyal, and Basant will be traveling to at least four states, if not more, with producers. And there are several instances of a Hindu Rashtra being declared in Villages and government buildings in Gujarat, a school in Madhya Pradesh that fired a Muslim teacher after communal clash, Uttarakhand billboards boycotting non [00:01:00] Hindus and many such instances.
Uh, we're going to get to the bottom of is like, what is the Order behind this chaos. In fact,
Manisha: we have the first set of stories from Madhya Pradesh already ready and one of our subscribers who had written in to us last week with the for subtitling help is helping us with it. Oh, we bounced on that opportunity and sent her a video already.
Please. Can you thank her? so much. But yeah, so yeah, it's looking at not just declarations of Hindu Rashtra, but how it works within government, within the state apparatus and how it aids these fringe elements on ground.
Anand: So as you can imagine, traveling across the country, this project costs a total of 7, 70, 000.
We've already collected 6, 70, 000, about 1 lakh short. I do hope you will contribute. Here's a QR code. We are an ad free news platform and we have been doing that for 13 years, zero ads only because you support us. This QR code will flash now and then. do support us and pay to keep news [00:02:00] free. Uh, also participate in the fight to breathe campaign.
We have to have a sustained year long campaign, make people accountable, hold them accountable across five states. Again, I'm the center of this entire patch of bad in North India, which is also now moving to the South, by the way, Bombay and Bangalore also getting hit. You got to stop this now. And unless you and I.
Raise our voice. No one else is going to. So on that note, let me introduce our panel in the studio. Manisha
Raman: Pandey. Hello.
Anand: Raman Kirpal. Hello. Soon we'll be joining us Anand Vardhan. He's a little late and joining us on zoom is, uh, our colleague from Chennai. And joining us from his residence in Gurgaon is Dr.
S. Y. Qureshi, the former CEC of India, and also the author of two books. The links to both books are in the show notes below. In fact, I have done an interview with Dr. Qureshi. On one of those books, so you can order them by clicking on the link and get to know a little [00:03:00] more about the election because there is just so much information out there and we don't know how much is accurate and how much is not.
On that note, let's get the headlines and get straight into the discussion.
Jayashree: Yes, so here are the headlines for the week. In Delhi, Rekha Gupta was sworn in as Delhi's Chief Minister in the presence of Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Five ministers, I think, also administered oaths yesterday.
Anand: After
Jayashree: 18 people were killed during a stampede at New Delhi railway station last Saturday, a railway's inquiry is underway.
The ministry said it's prepared to take strict action regardless of rank. At the Mahakumbh, there is trouble afoot because a Central Pollution Control Board report has said the water is unsafe for bathing. It found fecal coliform levels which are 13 times over the safe limit. However, in the Assembly, Yogi Adityanath says these reports are misleading and the water is fit for both bathing and drinking.
He should do a demo of drinking it.
Raman: Demo and, uh, besides UP board, their report is, uh, showing [00:04:00] different levels and the central board is showing a different level. Both of them have submitted their reports to NGT and there is, uh, the central, uh, board, uh, report shows 30 times more than, uh, you know, the level that UP board is showing.
Jayashree: No, but the UP board, then they found out that they've collected the water samples before the cum started. Like, I think. No, no. Uh, but, but which is.
Raman: But if you look at the report, it is on the same day. We are working on this story.
Jayashree: Right. Then Gyanesh Kumar takes charge as chief election commissioner. This was notification was issued at midnight.
Rahul Gandhi, who was part of the selection panel has urged the government to delay his appointment because the Supreme Court will be hearing the legality of the new selection process. The Supreme Court, however, deferred its hearing this week. After the Trump administration canceled a string of projects, including USAID funding of 21 million allegedly for voter turnout in India.
The BJP then accused the Congress of using external influence in India's election [00:05:00] process. However, an Indian Express report this morning says this 21 million was actually allocated to Bangladesh in 2022. India actually hasn't received funding for this since 2008.
Manisha: But there's just been crazy amount of discussions in typical news channels.
Crazy. DG News, Republic and all saying that this is a plot to destabilize Modi.
Anand: And the thing is people are quoting it. I mean, I'm on a group which has Allegedly educated people and they said 21 million. How can I said? What is the allegation? What who got this 21 million? No, no trump said I said trump also said that uh hamas got 100 million for condoms
Yeah,
can you and then you show me it is people are so stupid.
It is amazing
Jayashree: But that's the thing that we'll see a lot of now, because if you report what Trump is saying, you also have to then fact check it. Because half the time he just started shooting off his mouth. And
Manisha: Elon was asked about it, and he said, some of the things I say can be wrong. They will be wrong, and I should be [00:06:00] corrected.
Finished.
Jayashree: That's just life. Right. Next, the website of Tamil media house, Vikatan, was blocked on February 15th. This was after it published a cartoon of Modi and Trump. The state BJP had filed complaints over the cartoon, but Vikatan wasn't informed of the blocking. I think the INB ministry sent it a notice two days later.
Yeah,
Raman: I think INB sent it first to the To, to, to the, uh, Google or wherever, uh, I mean, the website was being hosted. It went
Jayashree: through the Department of Telecommunications.
Manisha: So, for example, I think the Airtel, uh, folks were giving this kind of thing that it's been taken down because of an INB order. So that's how everyone figured that it's probably an INB order.
Jayashree: And the INB notice still hasn't said why the website is taken down. It just says emergency blocking orders will remain. In the latest in the Beer Biceps case, the Supreme Court has protected Ranbir Agarbathia from arrest, but it also slammed him for making very dirty and depraved comments.
Anand: Really, man.
It's crazy. Some of those observations are
Manisha: [00:07:00] And I think not allowing him to do anything else is a really bad precedence.
Jayashree: Yes, he had to submit his passport and he can't perform in shows.
Manisha: You can't ask a person who's accused of, who's not convicted of anything so far to not work. How is that okay? And why is this not being challenged?
Jayashree: Yeah, and issues with morality cannot be a crime. You already, I mean, already, I don't, I don't like the guy, but you can't file multiple FIRs for the same thing across states. It's just idiotic. The Supreme Court also questioned the Center on Provisions to Regulate Content Online. The INB Ministry has now issued an advisory to OTT platforms.
Meanwhile, the Jio Hotstar has blurred a bit of the episode of White Lotus that came out because it showed a man cursing at the Buddha and they were like, we cannot show this to Indian audiences. So, it is obscene. Also in the Supreme Court, the Apex Court stayed a Lokpal [00:08:00] order that brings High Court judges.
Under his jurisdiction, it said the top anti corruption ombudsman interpretation was very disturbing.
Anand: And
Jayashree: in Karnataka, the Lokayupta police have said there's no evidence against Karnataka Chief Minister Siddharam Iyer or his wife in the Muda scam. In Odisha, a Nepali student died by suicide at Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology.
This has now spiraled into an international incident. Odisha has taken strong note of physical assault and racial behavior by staff against Nepali students. And has promised Nepal that justice will be served.
Raman: Today, the government summoned the owner. So, for the first time, he has issued a public apology in this case.
Jayashree: And finally, two non Brahmin priests at a temple in Tamil Nadu's Trichy have alleged that hereditary priests have not allowed them to enter the sanctum sanctorum of the presiding deity. They've filed a petition with the state government, saying that equal rights are being denied. Sorry, one more headline, which I have missed, is that finally, in a big U turn for the [00:09:00] USA's pro Ukraine policy, President Donald Trump has blamed Zelensky for the Russia Ukraine war.
He called him a dictator without elections and that he'd better move fast or he's not going to have a country left.
Anand: Yeah, rather And those are the headlines. Yeah. So with one more appeal to pay to keep history, Anand Anand, uh, let's get straight into the election commission and election related stuff. So let's first get this whole USA thing out of the way.
Today's Indian Express has a fantastic story, here it is being flashed, on what this alleged fund was. First of all, people, of course, most Hafsa listeners are well informed, um, and I use the word educated responsibly, you know, media literate people who know what to consume. Just because Trump says something doesn't mean it's true.
So if you're saying, oh, this happened, how do you know Trump said? That's not very smart kind of thing to say, uh, but, uh, the two contrasting front pages of the Times of India and InExpress today tell you the state [00:10:00] of our journalism as well. Manisha, what is the allegation? And then, uh, Dr. Qureshi can tell us exactly how ludicrous the allegations are and how elections actually work so people know, because it was really an eye opener for him to also inform.
And we got a lot of good feedback on that. Machines are sealed, how their, that signature is taken. So, you know, fixing an EVM is not a joke. It is, you know, there may be other voter suppression and all, one can have other theories. But the EVM you. So maybe you can also shed some light on that, but after Manisha gives us context.
Manisha: So the basic thing was Doge saying that we're going to stop, cut down funding for USAID. One among the points they mentioned is that 21 million for voter turnout. And we don't know where, what, which year, but that was picked up typically, uh, by BJP and friends of BJP in the media, that 21 million was somehow used against the state to destabilize India [00:11:00] and against Modi.
Trump also in the meantime has been, you know, marrowing his throwaway statements that why do we need to give this money to India? Can you believe it? Or why are we doing this? And Friendly media, of course, has been picking up on that and alleging that it's the, uh, opposition or it's, you know, anti Modi brigade that has been, you know, using this money to get people to, uh, not vote for Modi.
I don't know how that happens because anyway with, I don't know how you can correlate voter turnout to voting against Modi, but that's the central allegation and today's Indian Express very clearly puts it out that This money went to Bangladesh. Uh, we don't know what has come to India for voter turnout or not.
Jayashree: Also that, um, this was, India hasn't received any money under this thing since 2008. It's under this thing called the Consortium for Elections and Political Process Strengthening. That is the group through which this money was assigned to whatever. But India never got money under it. But also while Indian Extras story came out today, Trump has doubled down this [00:12:00] morning, I think.
He said that there was a kickback for this 21 million that was given to India for voter registration. Also, before Dr. Qureshi gives
Anand: us the technicality, it's just one thing that, you know, I have attended a lot of conferences in University of Michigan, in Columbia University, where because I've spoken about news, I have given examples of Trump and in fact, some of the events I've attended overseas, including UK.
Where, and I think that time Boris Johnson was sitting prime minister, where I have taken a political position, which conferences had some funding from local agencies, some Indian sponsors.
Yeah.
They're not to destabilize any country morons. It is how discourse works. So I'm shocked that one has to explain this.
You know, I was listening to. A bunch and reading a bunch of articles in economic times on this whole Doge thing. 7 trillion is the amount US spends. Musk says he will cut 2 trillion in a year. Out of this 7 trillion, 70 percent he can't touch because [00:13:00] that is social security, pension and health insurance, et cetera, for war veterans.
Statistically, none of it is even possible. But people are quoting it as if it's because Trump has said it, it must be true.
Manisha: No, and USAID, we know Smriti Rani has worked with them, Reliance Foundation, governments across states and center have worked with them. So it's not like some shadowy organization.
Anand: Anyway, so, so tell us about this because I, I, I saw that there was something you were also dragged into this. How were you dragged in and why?
Dr Quraishi: Yeah, you know, it's a little complex issue. The first thing which happened was a tweet. By India Troll in chief, uh, who dragged my name into it, that, uh, election Commission signed an MOU with the IFES, which is International Foundation for Electoral Systems, which is a Washington based organization, which, uh, is working for democracy in, uh, almost one 50 countries of the [00:14:00] world.
And it is largely funded by U-S-A-I-D and the US government, and recognized and acknowledged all over the world. Um, in 2011, yeah, 2000, sorry. So 2012 on 17th of May, we signed an MOU with the IFES. For a technical collaboration for training of, uh, foreign election managers, you see what had happened was in 2011, we had set up an Institute in under the Election Commission of India called India International Institute of Democracy and Election Management, primarily to train our election managers, which were 12 million and since we were ready with the infrastructure and we had good quality Uh, training and the whole world, uh, acknowledged India as a superiority in conducting elections.
They were showing interest in getting trained by us. So we threw the doors open to them. [00:15:00] Now the, this is the MOU was that, uh, we will train the foreign election managers also South Africa, Kenya, Nigeria, that and the other. And we will give them free training and we have given, we have trained almost 140 countries, which is the biggest, uh, uh, contribution of election commission to India.
Soft power, 140 countries, election managers, including a chief election commission, have got training from India for free. Now, the issue there was, look, if Nigeria comes, South Africa comes, we will train them for free, but we cannot bring them to India. We cannot, uh, spend on them. So, uh, it was for IFS to get them over.
At their expense, we didn't care how, how they were, uh, bring them. But once they came to our training institute, we will train them for free. Now, the [00:16:00] One was getting them over. Secondly, obviously when these countries are coming, they are not coming to learn India's election. India's election is of course a backdrop.
But we cannot teach South Africa uh, Indian elections. We have to train them about conducting elections in South Africa, in Nigeria, in Kenya. So therefore it has to be customized. The training program has to be customized for those countries. The second, the input that's for coming from IAPS. Was to the sit with us and bring in the one or two experts to develop, uh, the training modules, uh, customized for those countries.
This was the entire, uh, the collaboration that you were asked to do. There was no voter turnout, there was nothing else, just this and not once, but twice in a four page MOU. It was mentioned that this MOU does not have any financial or legal obligations.
Anand: Normally
Dr Quraishi: in a 4 [00:17:00] page thing or in a 40 page document, you write this thing.
You are not repetitive, you don't repeat something. But in this case, we repeated it in two different paragraphs specifically, that there is no financial implication. Two, immediately they jumped to this conclusion because they found an attractive name to drag into, uh, the first announcement which came.
They my name because my name is, uh, interesting. . Yeah. Dr. . Yeah. So , and then, and mind you, uh, 23 days after that, IUI retired. So what happened after that? I don't know. And like you, I even, I would like to know. And like any political party, BJP has demanded, Congress has demanded, and I'm demanding, let there be an inquiry because we would like to [00:18:00] know whether actually some money came later on under some other thing.
There is no reference to the specifically. There is never any reference
Anand: to anything specific, ever. With this government. Yeah, yeah,
Dr Quraishi: exactly. They just brought in, in a hurry, to be the first and, uh, seeking the promotion as, uh, some of these guys always are. They just, uh, made a story around, uh, something. And for which I'm sure they will, uh, be blushing.
Unless, uh, they do not have sensitivity for that. So, they just, uh, dragged this MOU for nothing. Now, whether there was another MOU? What was it with the election commission? Could it be that some other NGOs got some money from USAID, um, uh, in the name of voter education or whatever? We don't know. And it is for the government to come out and very, very soon.
They have all the information, they can find any information within half an hour from Election Commission, from any source, from [00:19:00] FCRA, let them find it out and we would like to know, I would like to know, because I was the guy who was dragged into this controversy. But sir, who
Anand: was the trolling chief who dragged you?
Manisha: Amit Malviya,
Anand: obviously. There is
Manisha: no other trolling chief.
Anand: Anyway, we'll come to that, but yeah, tell us about this. I was
Manisha: actually, I had a question of Dr. Qureshi. Just for clarity for our audience, does election commission ever take any money directly for any program? Or is it that you, like you said, you have a program and you would do it for free and for whatever else that you require support, you have an NGO, you have a tie up.
I mean, does money ever come to the commission directly for any of its programs?
Dr Quraishi: We are allergic to the thought of taking money from anywhere, anybody else outside the country. We are allergic to it. For instance, I would also like to mention, you know, we signed in my time, uh, an MOU with UNDP. Dp, an organization will belong to all of us.
They're [00:20:00] also, we made it very clear because, uh, uh, I and I, exactly. These are the words that I used to my officer. Look, the, we should make sure that what we write in the MOU clarify that we are not receiving anything from them except for international knowhow and international experience, which they have.
We don't, and I, you know, even I give an analogy. What they will do is they will give you 10 computers and in their annual report, they will say we supported, uh, democracy in Ethiopia, uh, Timbuktu, which is there in India, because they gave us 10 computers. We were conscious of that fact. He said, we will not take any money from anywhere, from any country ever.
We had enough funds and we had enough self respect. More than that. So there's no question of an election commission, and I am very confident about my successors, whatever may have been the controversies in their time, that they would not have, uh, done anything which will, [00:21:00] uh, embarrass the nation.
Anand: No, and also this whole narrative, you know, Alfred Irwin Cagewell, he shoots and scoots.
He makes allegations and then doesn't prove them. And, you know, many senior journalists will write editorials about that. He does it about one time for each 10 times that the BJP with all its media apparatus does it like this entire narrative is such a dumb and like you said odious narrative but people of responsibility will shout it from the Rooftops and media, of course will echo it and you know, like you said in DD
Manisha: news Why is DD news running such propaganda man?
This is our money that they're using. It's a taxpayer run No,
Raman: the moment BJP accused Congress of running this campaign with USAID money, everybody started talking about it. I mean, look at the print media today, excepting Express. Express had just the allegation in one single small column, but Times of India has it as a second headline.
Anand: Yeah, as if it's some press [00:22:00] thing. So,
Raman: so, so they have already, I mean, everybody started.
Manisha: And how can you repeat an allegation? I mean, it's such a vague thing anyway. 21 million dollars, there's no clarity on where, what, how. That's the first thing we
Raman: said in our newsroom. Also, I highly recommend
Anand: this entire USAID narrative that started from America.
And of course, uh, now that Trump has hinted that it was to keep Modi out of power, these guys will lap up anything that Trump says. Um, do read, uh, and listen to the articles and podcasts of NPR and The Economist where they have actually gone into USAID and all these cuts that I'm just do or trying to do.
Just to give you an idea. Some of it that USAID was also funding a lot of agricultural research which also meant they do agricultural procurement. So if they do that, their farmers will get pissed off. So what they're doing is that entire segment will now be funded by the another government department.
So that money hasn't been killed. Now it's going to be spent from another pocket, but [00:23:00] the morons will say, see, see, he's killed that department. It's done.
I
mean, there's so many things that are also his claim of the numbers that he will cut down. It is statistically impossible to achieve those, but yet just like in this age of misinformation by leaders.
Anything goes.
Yeah.
Have you read the piece today expressed on the USAID thing and where this money went apparently to destabilize India?
Yes, I read. I think it's a developing story. Nothing can be said with such degree of certainty as of now, but I cannot say people can say.
Dr Quraishi: USAID has been, uh, supporting India's programs over health and, uh, Um, education of various programs since 1960.
Anand: Yeah.
Dr Quraishi: And only for the last one week, they will become a dirty word. According to one, uh, small time economist and a pseudo historian of the, of the history of India for [00:24:00] the last 10 years, this is the biggest scam in history. So now, now what is the, now what is the, uh, it will be, you know, it will lead to the, uh, it will have a serious diplomatic implication.
For the last 64 years, the USAID has been supporting India in various programs and billions of dollars would have come. Of course, now it should all be listed. It should come out, uh, openly when, what, uh, sector they are working. I would like to remind you, I was, uh, in 19, uh, uh, 2004 or 5, I was the D. G. of NACO, National AIDS
Anand: Control
Dr Quraishi: Organization.
AIDS was one of the U. S. aid funding programs. And, uh, besides many other countries, besides about 28 other countries, there were, uh, who were supporting. Uh, AIDS program, so was USAID. Domingo Fidel took a very sensible decision because we had by now become, uh, much richer and more self respecting. [00:25:00] They threw out all the countries, all the donor countries, get lost, we don't need you.
But with two exceptions. USAID and DFID. So, and the money used to come through Government of India, through Finance Ministry, not to India, not even to NACO. It will come there. So, that was the program of USAID. That was our relationship. And suddenly, the Uh, something becomes the biggest scam in history. So I'm surprised and I would like to understand the details, how it is the biggest and what other funding has come and whether it comes under the definition of a big scam or a small scam.
Jayashree: I just want to comment on one thing on USAID. I was wondering if I should say it or not because I feel like, but I, I think there's this tendency, I mean, I completely think that what Trump is doing is terrible. This entire banning of all foreign aid. I agree that USAID has supported a number of incredibly important programs across agriculture and healthcare and [00:26:00] investments and research and things.
But also I feel like there is this tendency to sort of paint USAID as U. S. generosity across the world. And I, I have a big issue with that because aid programs are strategic tools. They're not purely humanitarian ones. And I think. The U. S. has used its aid programs over decades, as Dr. Krishnan said, but it's used these programs as part of its foreign policy, as part of its military work, and so on.
It's never just stand alone, we have decided to help X to do something. Yeah, it's in self interest, for sure. Exactly. So, and I think, like, until now, the U. S. has followed this sort of carrot and stick policy, and now they're taking away the carrot and we'll only have the stick. And we've seen this in how the U.
S. took a very strong role in Bolivia, it, uh, funded democracy building campaigns. That is when there were sort of nascent socialism movements. They use it in Paraguay for, to finance micro agriculture, I think because they want to dissuade peasants from supporting insurgent groups. They poured millions and millions of dollars into Haiti.
They poured the same amount of money into Chile. So [00:27:00] there is patterns. There is also, there is a reason why a lot of people also are very resistant to the idea of USAID because it sort of signifies this kind of soft imperialism that exists now. But that said, what Trump is doing is, yeah, but
Dr Quraishi: we had a very, very good point in our supplemented, you know, and then continue on my USAID and DFID support to HIV program.
I remember the representative of DFID at the drop of hack used to say, oh oh, British tax money, British tax based money, although their contribution was potence,
Anand: and
Dr Quraishi: I told her repeatedly, look, we're accepting your potence only because of diplomatic reasons. Because if we ask you to get out also, it will be a great insult to you.
Therefore, I mean, don't talk of your money. We don't need your money. 99 percent was our own money with 1 percent they thought they were running our show. So they needed to be shown their place. But at the same time, let me tell you as USAID never used this kind of language. They were very, very graceful.
[00:28:00] And I don't know how much money they gave to government of India. But, uh, we had very friendly relations and she's absolutely right. It is not charity that they're giving. They're doing it for diplomatic reasons. For foreign policy reasons, because the world listens to them because they have to give them money.
And if you stop giving them money, they will also start losing their loyalty or respect of the country.
Anand: Yeah, there's leverage, of course. In fact, you know, this whole funding thing, it's, there's complexity there. And the simplistic way with which, and I think social media is responsible because Twitter Slogans work, you know, uh, in fact, uh, the, uh, on this USAID NPR podcast, that is a stated objective.
It is not hidden.
Yeah. That it
is to ensure that people have a favorable view of America. One is that also if they are fed in their country, they will stop coming to us. And it is basically that whole soft power thing. So that is stated objective. [00:29:00] The BBC had a really heart wrenching story. This woman who goes to USAID center.
That is working on AIDS. In fact, they are doing this thing on AIDS for medicine, medication for newborns because I don't know how many thousand newborns die in Africa of AIDS every year. And since this was stopped without any planning, people showed up at those centers and the centers closed.
And
this woman is almost in tears.
She says, I don't know where to go. My life depends on this. So many infants, they're saying have already died. Because they did not get. So a death warrant has been signed like this. And in many of the other cases, there are thousands of quintals of grain lying, which will now rot because the distribution channels are shut overnight.
I mean, anyone who's celebrating this, I will say with certainty is an idiot. They are uneducated idiots who do not understand how this works. And we're talking about complexity of funding. Let's talk about the media rumble. We had got criticism and Facebook used to [00:30:00] Facebook was a sponsor of media rumble.
From the stage of media rumble, Maria Reza took Facebook to the cleaners. She says they have killed democracy in my country.
Maria Ressa: What we saw was that the social media campaign machinery that helped President Duterte win was pivoted a month later and essentially was used to, to hit and target specific people like me, uh, uh, perceived opposition.
And we were targeted with hate and I'll show you how much the top news group said, I blame Facebook for political division. I did more than that. I said, Facebook, you're responsible for this. Hi Facebook. Who is, who is also part of one of the sponsors of our conference,
Anand: did Facebook even once call me and say, don't please call Maria Ressa one, I will not name the department.
A government [00:31:00] department said, we will also fund one panel, but our monthly will come and make the opening statement. This is the answer you will read. This is a question you will give. This is what you'll say. I'll say, keep your money. I don't want it. So as someone who has hosted events, I can tell you. I would rather take money from Google and Facebook because they do not have the guts to call you and say you will not say this.
You can take money from them, sit on stage and trash them. Which is what Michael Moore said how he makes his documentary films. He makes his documentary films taking money from corporate America and trashing corporate America. But here one 10th of that government will give you and you will sing songs about their minister.
I said, thank you.
Manisha: All the media conclaves. What are they? Yeah. So, so, you
Anand: know, when people first understand what you're talking about, understand the complexity and the moral ambiguity in taking funds and how it works and what is a win win or a zero sum game, et cetera, et cetera. But I really am disgusted at how prime time anchors and we will do a story well enough.
And you have been warned, who of you have got [00:32:00] land for what purpose? For what studio? By which government? And you are Pelu Ingyaan. Have some fucking shame, man. We should do that story. Let the country know who has got land, from which government, for what purpose, and if you are that Uh, you know, confident, put out the numbers who are your prime advertisers, how much take from Patanjali, how much take from the Kumbh ads that they don't want to tell us, but they will give us gyaan about so and so's taken this much million and half it is also nonsense.
That's my rant. But sir, about the CEC.
Dr Quraishi: Just one second. Before you move to the CEC, one more major issue which may in fact be a, uh, become a major, uh, problem. Wham for you. Uh, foreign funding of elections, foreign donations to, uh, political party has been an issue for a long time. In 1969 by an acro parliament, it was banned.
Later on 2010 and 2016 and 18, uh, this ban was removed. Uh, the [00:33:00] ban continued. Uh, no foreign donation can come to you and me. If you put hundred dollars in your account from your cousin in the USA. You'll be put in jail. Mm. But political parties were exempted . Why? And they were exempted with the, the, um, the, um, anti dated 1969 with 40 that any donation received in the last 42 or how many years?
was exempted by political parties are exempted from the political donation to a donations of political party. This is a serious issue, uh, which needs to be investigated and you will find many parties, uh, getting in, uh, roped in into this. Yes. Now, if you want to, we can move on.
Anand: Yes. But before that, here's the QR code again, support ad free news so that we don't have to either, you know, turn to Facebook or X or comb ads or up ads or KCR [00:34:00] ads.
In fact, During KCR's term, his ads dominated in Delhi. Uh, so here's a QR code, pay to keep news free.
Manisha: Lots of Chandrababu Naidu ads I see now, these days.
Anand: Really? I'm not getting those. Now sir, regarding the CEC, uh, the, uh, Supreme Court has again deferred the hearing. In your view, uh, Is it unusual for the notification to be issued so late in the night?
Uh, is there any, um, I mean, would it be better for optics that if it is done in a way, in the day, you know, Rahul Gandhi's dissent notwithstanding? And is there, in your view, because you have run the election commission, is there still room, even in this polarized political environment, for there to be consensus?
If not so and so, okay, here's a second person, a third person, or you think that ship has sailed, that cannot happen anymore?
Dr Quraishi: I think you've used the right word, optics, and the whole question is about optics or perception. You know, we must remember that for [00:35:00] 60 years, 65 years, the practice was the government of the day.
Unilaterally could appoint us and I was one of the beneficiaries of that, uh, system, highly defective and I remind you as CEC on my chair and several interviews, particularly one, uh, which is still available online. Uh, asking me about the system. I said, I feel very awkward and embarrassed about the system of unilateral appointment and there should be a collegium.
So the way he always clarified, he said, you mean you would have been happier if the leader of opposition, Sushma Swaraj had also signed. I said, definitely. Because that will create the perception that I am acceptable across our party. I said it while I chair. It is not, uh, don't, uh, don't let somebody drag me into today's politics.
I've been saying it. I've written about it in many articles and my predecessor, Mr. Gopalaswamy, Mr. BB Tandon before him, they've all said the same thing, that [00:36:00] there should be a collegium
Anand: system.
Dr Quraishi: Now, another statement which I have often made, that the most powerful election commission in the world, which India is, has the most defective system of appointment.
Now, we had that defective system of appointment and later on, uh, although the, the case went up to the Supreme Court and Supreme Court had, uh, the case only was that the appointment has to be transparent and bipartisan. And the court said that, uh, article 324. 2 had, uh, mentioned then in the beginning of the constitution that the appointment should be done according to an act of parliament.
The Supreme Court asked, in 70 years, why have you not passed an act? Please pass an act. And till then, till then, mind you, this is something which everybody is missing in the media and in politics. Till then, they let the collegium, present collegium, which applies to CVC, CIC, Director [00:37:00] CBI, continue to oversee these appointments.
And that included the Chief Justice of India. Now the government went ahead and passed the act. And again, uh, media, forgotten media, very short memory. I must, uh, complain to all of you. Uh, the draft, which was first put up. Very clearly mentioned a collegium, including the chief justice, but it had, it had some other debate, like downgrading the status of election commission from Supreme court judges to cabinet secretary that would have weakened us internationally because all, uh, all over the world, uh, the, the judges and here we have been a bureaucrat.
So, as
Anand: of now, the CEC is a constitutional authority as is the CIC. Is that correct?
Dr Quraishi: No, no, no, no, no. See, incorrect. See, election commissioners are constitutional authorities. CIC and CBC are statutory [00:38:00] bodies, not even constitutional bodies. And for them, for them, you have a collegium because you thought it was important.
And, uh, director CBI is not even a, uh, the, uh, the statutory body. He's head of a department like director of agriculture. And because he handled important job, uh, the collegium was introduced, but the most politically important thing that he, uh, the election commission, uh, does not have a bi partisan and transparent system.
Which is why the matter went to court, the parliament passed an act, and, uh, now optics are important. I think the government was unnecessarily provocative, that prime minister and his appointed cabinet minister And leader of opposition. So Brahma Fisi, it is a ridiculous, uh, the collegium, which makes fun of the system.
Now, these two gentlemen on one side and leader of [00:39:00] opposition, what, uh, bipartisan, um, uh, selection are you talking about? And I think it is sheer optics and sheer, uh, you know. Thumbing the nose, uh, nothing more, nothing less.
Anand: Right. I had one question. Just want to go around on the panel because I mean, try to look at it dispassionately.
And I was wondering if there's any merit to it. Let me start with Anand and then move right towards, you know, uh, I think it was a vice president Dhankar who said that the. CJI should not be there because that will be a spilling of judiciary into executive. Isn't that what his, isn't that what his thing was?
Now, I'm just wondering, are there any other instances where the three pillars of democracy so to speak, which are equal and separate or whatever is the technical term for it, there is some overlap in one of them. Overseeing the work of the other, like for example, sometimes the court oversees the work of the police, which is the executive.
Is [00:40:00] that seen as interference? Um, you know, like, uh, an inquiry committee that will be guided by the Supreme Court or the High Court. Should that then, according to Dhankar's definition, be seen as interference of judiciary into the executive? Uh, the appointment of judges, at any level. Supreme Court, I know is a lot more robust, but at junior levels, isn't the government pretty much decide who is, who's the judge and who's not.
I didn't quite understand that logic of Mr. Dhankar is, is, are there any other instances
or do you think there is some logic? There are theories of separation of power and check and balances, but what is the, that, uh, when Supreme Court, uh, made this, uh, these guidelines for as an. Uh, as a stopgap arrangement till the parliament legislates on the appointment of CEC and the Coliseum and who will do that, who will be the constituent members of that.
Till then, uh, [00:41:00] So, uh, there was a strong view that it, it is also a case of judicial overreach, uh, that in certain quarters because, uh, also one must also remember that it was not a civil motor, uh, intervention. It, it Supreme Court did. So in, uh, while hearing, uh, I think, uh, Annu. So, uh, um, position I think is very simple.
There are, uh, four, five technicalities that can be summed up in four, five sentences. And then, of course, there is the moral aspect of it, the moral sentimentalism, which can lead to 5, 000 op eds, word op eds. So, uh, So, once you have a power, executive had this power of appointing a very powerful, um, um, say position, someone in very powerful position like [00:42:00] CEC, it will not let it go very easily.
So, uh, in the constitution, uh, uh, as Mr. Kobayashi mentioned that in, uh, from, uh, article 324, the Wordings are simple. The president will appoint, and that is to say the union council of minister, uh, that is prime minister and, uh, president will, uh, appoint on the advice of union council of ministers. That is also, you can say prime minister.
So,
It's, it's simple till the parliament comes up with a law. So parliament, uh, uh, executive majority there. So parliament will come with a kind of law that executive wants because it already has a majority that has a majority there. So,
uh, so it's, it's complex
when Supreme Court. frame these guidelines, it cited some, say, like Dinesh Goswami Electoral Reforms, uh, that was a committee [00:43:00] for electoral reforms in 1990.
And also, it cited some other things like 255th Law Commission Report, which is not very old. It was in 2015, I think. So, Uh, these they cited, there were very moral grounds for that, and they were solid grounds that you should have a bipartisan system, a diverse view, and, but the question is not very complex because Uh, the moral authority, if the executive does not wield it, and then the easy go is that we have this power, why should we let it go?
So, because the constitution is not a roadblock in that. Constitution has already been very, um, accommodative of executive's role in appointing CEC. So, uh, We should not let it go. Uh, uh, Mr. Kures is like, uh, Mr. Kures [00:44:00] predecessors, Naveen Chawla's appointment was very controversial. It was just before 2009, uh, Lok Sabha elections and, uh, the outgoing CEC, uh, N.
Gopalaswamy, had been asked for removal of Naveen Chawla because of his quote unquote political bias. I
remember that. The
BJP wanted him to be removed, protested. The Congress said that instead N. Gopalaswamy was batting for BJP, the outgoing CEC. So, uh, this has, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, been shrouded in some kind of controversy, but not, uh, Till, say, the second or, um, the first decade of this century, means, uh, earlier, it was, as Mr.
Qureshi said that for 70 years, it was taken for granted that, okay, the executive will appoint a CEC.
Right. Uh, so, but before we let Dr. Qureshi Goyal come around to the [00:45:00] panel once again, Dr. Qureshi, any closing thoughts and recommendations for our audience?
Dr Quraishi: You know, the coming back to vice president remarks, although he keeps making all kinds of controversial remarks, but I personally feel that there is some point in what he's saying.
And I'll tell you what, because if Chief Justice is a party to the decision making. For any post, say, election commissioner. And that, uh, uh, issue goes to the Supreme Court for Adjudication. Now, the, the first thing, uh, which will the government will take a look, chief Justice himself, party to it. Who, who, how can anybody question and which judge of the, the Supreme Court, uh, who would like to upset a decision where Chief Justice himself was a party?
Right? To that extent, and there is a answer also. So, to take care of this issue, get one of the retired Chief Justice. Yeah,
Manisha: I was just going to say, get a former Chief Justice.
Dr Quraishi: [00:46:00] He'll have the same credibility, and still not that technical issue, which might be raised, which has been pointed out by, uh, The vice president.
So that's the answer. So, you know, the bipartisan has to be in letter and spirit. And the government has really tried to insult the Supreme Court. Look, we don't care. And, uh, taking a history decision when the, in the earlier case there was a court was hearing it that day. Yeah. But, and overnight. But, but answering your question earlier, whether, uh, the overnight, uh, appointments are made, yes, they have been made because anything agenda has done, my appointment was done in two and a half days.
Now, could you call it in a, in a hate or hurry? Because since there was no controls here and the error around that, so it really did not matter. It could have been done in 15 days. So that is something, uh, which cannot be faulted, but in this case, when the case is in the, before the Supreme [00:47:00] Court and, uh, a midnight order comes to this, of course gives rise to the controversy, which, uh, we are discussing,
Anand: right.
Thank you for that. Dr. Qureshi, before we say goodbye, uh, would you like to give some recommendation that would enrich the lives of our listeners?
Dr Quraishi: Well, I, uh, think that, you know, election, uh, commission, uh, credibility worldwide is enormous. We, I have been, uh, you know, actually the, uh, my counterpart worldwide have called us Vishguru and, uh, Uh, therefore, we should do nothing with bring down our reputation.
We should strengthen the commission and everything, uh, which enhances our transparency and our credibility, uh, should be attempted and all the, uh, the mental, uh, judiciary. Uh, media, all of us together, because this is one of the, uh, biggest gifts of the framers of the Constitution to India, Election [00:48:00] Commission, uh, which by the way was, uh, born a day before India was born as a republic.
I see. That was the significance. And the articles which created the Constitution, the Election Commission were promulgated two months before they Uh, and the rest of the constitution, therefore, the importance of this institution should not be undermined by anybody.
Anand: Right. So I'll give the recommendation.
You can read Dr. Qureshi's India's experiment with democracy, the life of a nation through its elections. Uh, it'll inform you about the election. The other one is an undocumented wonder, the making of the great Indian election. Maybe these two books and of course, it's a great march of democracy will give you a lot more information about how elections are held, et cetera, but all of the pleasure Dr.
Qureshi. Thank you so much for making time for us. Really appreciate it.
Jayashree: Thank you. Thank you.
Dr Quraishi: very much.
Anand: Bye. Now, before we go on, we have our second guest who's joined us, Rachita Taneja. Many of you are familiar with [00:49:00] her work. She is a political cartoonist and the creator of sanitary panels that appears regularly Sister Concern platform, The News Minute.
Uh, she's a feminist, webcomic, and comments on society, culture, and politics. Rachita observes the mood of the country through her work and aims to challenge the myths and taboos around menstruation, mental health, and queer rights. So welcome, Rachita. Uh, but before we get to the discussion about the recent ban on a website or taking it down for a cartoon, regarding the, uh, you know, appoint for election and you know, what we were discussing, Raman sir, you want to weigh in on the whole spillover of executive into judiciary and legislative.
Raman: No, there is a spillover as you said, uh, and I also believe that one who wields power will call the shot. So if the Congress government is there, they're going to call the shot about these appointments. So, and it has happened in the past. So I think [00:50:00] as, uh, Mr. Qureshi, Dr. Qureshi was saying, uh, if you need to be bipartisan, you have to have somebody who is not a politician.
So right now the collegium that we have, we have. It, it is concentrated in such a way that the leader of operation will always yeah. Loose, uh, whether, whether, whether the Congress or the BJP will send a decent letter. So this is, this is given. So I think if you want to make it bipartisan, you have to have a known, uh, I mean not, not a politician.
And, uh, in that case, I mean anybody, the last, uh, retired judge, chief Justice of India. Uh, I think the, uh, the BJP should, can, can have him, you know, in the collegium. So, so I, I mean, the, the, the, the, the latest retired CJI should be part of the collegium. So I think this can be, this is quite possible.
Manisha: Although nothing will rid you of the charge of. Partisanship, even with [00:51:00] the former CGI. But yeah, at least for optics, then it's not just one Rahul Gandhi versus an Amit Shah and a Modi. Or like you said, if the Congress comes to power tomorrow, then one BJP guy versus two people in Congress in power.
Raman: Right.
Manisha: So yeah. I just
Jayashree: want to jump in quickly, which is, um, I think a good example of overlap would be death penalty because you give the president the, um, power of clemency. So that is an overlap. But also with respect to the Supreme Court here, I think, uh, I think it is shameful. The court was supposed to hear this petition on priority, but then, uh, they said that the bench, which was, I think it was Justice Suryakant, he was caught up with other cases.
And they said that Tushar Mehta is busy hearing another court. He's in another courtroom or something. And, uh, so Pratyashant Bhushan was the lawyer, right? He was representing, uh, Association of Democratic Reforms. So literally, I think they were begging them. They were saying that we just need an hour.
They said, one, we're just seeing an hour. Two, it's really important. Three, they said that Tushar Mehta doesn't have to come in person. There are, I think, at least 13 or 14 others who could have taken his place. You don't [00:52:00] need the Solicitor General to be present for it. But they just said no. And they said, oh, now we hear it in March, which means, I mean, and for me, this is baffling because the Supreme Court itself passed that judgment in 2023, which said that Giving the government a majority on this panel is bad.
Yeah, basically it's like
Anand: that Maharashtra case, no? That three years later you say, no, that was illegal. But now the government is formed, so it's formed. Now we can't undo, you can't unscramble the egg. But my
Jayashree: thing is, what is the point if the Supreme Court itself is functioning like an executive court?
And when you're having changing of rules, when you're saying it is undemocratic, when you're saying this is designed to consolidate power with one person or one party, and it's very boring to keep saying the same things, but if the Supreme Court itself has said it, then it should be here in this case. So
Anand: Right.
Anyway. I think, I think Supreme Court, I'm not predicting a judgment. We'll find it very difficult to strike it down because The cons Undemocratic. Yes. Not unconstitutional. Right, exactly. Because the constitution is clear that whatever parliament legislate just by the emergency was [00:53:00] constitutional. But uh, uh, it was also, also, yeah.
Uh, also a striking down the, you know, the cc, uh. can be removed by the same procedure that a Supreme Court judge is removed. In
fact, we'll discuss a little bit about that Lokayukth case after, but let's get the context for the political cartoon that has got one Tamil website in trouble. Will you just give us context of that Jayshree and then We can, uh, get Rajita in on that.
Jayashree: Yes, so basically, it is a very popular magazine called Anand Vigaran. I mean, my family has been reading it for decades. It is very popular, like it's one of the most widely read magazines. It does a lot of social commentary, it does a lot of politics, like a mixture of many things. So on, I think it was February 10th, they published this cartoon of Modi and Trump.
Uh, this is only in their digital edition. It showed Modi sitting next to Trump, chained. And it is obviously a reference to the Indian deportees who were chained when they were [00:54:00] sent away from America on a plane. So this happened on the 10th, nothing happened. Then on the 15th, Vikatan's magazine's website was blocked.
They said that officials from the Press Bureau of India, after it was blocked, visited their office and asked whether this had been published in print or if it had been published online. They said, no, we only did it online. Soon after, Annamalai, who is the president of the state BJP, he tweeted saying I have complained, and I will later tell you all the nonsense that he put into his complaints, because it is quite interesting.
And then on February 16th, this is a day after it was blocked, Vikatan reached out to the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. They said, why have you even blocked? We were not given any notice. We don't know anything what's happening. Instead, the ministry sent them a notice saying there is an inter departmental committee that's going to meet under the IT rules to review this, but the blocking order will hold.
And again, Vikatan was not told why.
Anand: So
Jayashree: yeah, they've been given time till the 20th to respond, until which emergency blocking will remain in effect. And meanwhile, the Hindu, I think, confirmed from multiple sources that the [00:55:00] website was blocked by the IND ministry through a referral to the Department of Telecommunications.
So. Right. That is where we start. And for me, the most exciting thing, though, is that, see, Wickedland does a lot of cartoons. It does a lot of political cartoons on both sides. The entire allegation is that, oh my god, it's pro DMK rag, and that's why. But the thing is, it would only have been seen by its co reader base in Tamil Nadu.
And even then, a lot of English speaking people would not have seen it. But now, as a result of it, every single person in India has seen this cartoon that they tried so desperately to block. So, I think that is fantastic. I
Manisha: thought it was a very clever cartoon.
Jayashree: Yeah, and that
Manisha: is, it is very
Jayashree: much in the style of the cartoons that they've been doing for decades.
Anand: So, but yeah. So Rachita, as a cartoonist and an illustrator yourself, how much do you self censor, you know, considering, because I mean, while writing, um, Gustakhi Maaf between 2003 2010, I didn't self censor that much, but [00:56:00] one ended up doing it because we knew here in India yeh nahi kar sakte, you cannot make a joke, uh, you know, that has certain kind of innuendo on people of power, uh, because it is not like, for example, Same Rehnas, you know, so what are your, you know, what is your approach when you are actually going out and creating something?
Rachita: Um, so I will just say that this cartoon is fantastic. Uh, it's by Haseeb Khan and uh, it's, it's just so clever. It's so well done. The Streisand effect is real. It's everywhere now because of the attempt to censor it and I also think it works specifically because there are no words to it. So I think that's that mass appeal is happening because it transcends language and transcends region and uh, and it's just, it's just a brilliant cartoon.
So I was fangirling over it a bit. Um, when I saw it, um, in terms of self censoring, like I don't know where to draw the line between censorship and self censorship, uh, because if [00:57:00] you are being given threats and if you are being told that this can land you in jail, or if you are going to, um, receive endless trolling, isn't that a form of censorship itself?
Um, And if a person is trying to protect themselves, their safety, their peace, um, are they self censoring? So I find it difficult to differentiate between the concept of self censorship and censorship plain and simple. That being said, I made a comic the other day where I was like, um, this is a spicy one, maybe I shouldn't put it out.
Um, and then I decided not to put it out. Um, and yeah, I don't know if that's self censorship or if it's censorship because I, I know for a fact that There is nothing I say in it that is technically illegal, but it can still land me in trouble.
Anand: So, um, you know, speaking of self censorship, I've written this in the piece on, I think when I had written about Bill Maher's view on Islam, uh, conceptually, I [00:58:00] had discussed this with Sumit, a fascinating cartoon would be, um, a comic book, like we've done Kashmir Amazing political stories told through comics.
You can order them on the News Laundry website. Please click on the link and get your copy. It's a fantastic gift, by the way. Everyone I've given it to has loved it. It was basically a political religious story which starts off as an invisible person who cannot depict, otherwise your head will be lopped off, which is Prophet Muhammad with a blanket, because you know, you just, he just has a blanket.
And the other character is Modi, who you can depict. And at the end of the comic, Prophet Muhammad appears in his full form, drawn, and Modi is just a beard, because now he has attained that status that you cannot depict him. But if we were to do that, You would get like, I would
Manisha: resign [00:59:00]
Anand: my own safety. I have nothing to do with these guys, but the thing is that even we'll go back to the hills, even the, even the law would not protect you.
Right. Because here it's both ways. So that is a form. So I have articulated my desire to do it, but it's something that I would just not be able to do right now. Oh, ever. And that's maybe I'm not So India, ever now you're being like, sing in India where no, this, this party's over. It's never gonna happen again.
Two years later it wins. Oh, it's over.
Manisha: Wait, I don't think in India it's gonna take a long time for absolutely happen.
Anand: Everything, dude. Did you ever in
Manisha: South Asia? Actually
Raman: no. In, in present time, this, there is a revision, revisionist, uh, approach. If you see one, um, museum, I think they were showing some, uh, two, two, uh, uh, you know.
Sketches of, uh, that artist, and somebody raised it in the court and those two were removed [01:00:00] and he wanted an FIR done against the, you know, the organizers.
Anand: But in the same week, they also, the court, I don't know if it was the same court in that same week, that court also ordered the quashing of an FIR, which had said that this is offensive.
So in the court, it was very unpredictable in the same week. It'll protect art and the same week it'll say get this down.
Jayashree: Yeah, but I mean, I, quotes are very inconsistent, right? Because even now, wasn't it this week that Uttarakhand High Court, when they said that, um, that interfaith couple had approached them saying that We're in danger.
Our private details are being leaked. People are coming after us. And they said, oh, well, then who asked you to go live together shamelessly? So, yeah,
Anand: shamelessly. No, not brazenly. Brazenly. You're living together brazenly. How do
Jayashree: you live together? Brazenly is the word. They are brazenness. But Rachida, I want to ask you, like, you also, you also had a case against you, right?
That contempt of court or something. Like, did it, is it still ongoing? Because I feel like it's been seven years. Give us some context
Manisha: also of the case for those who don't know.
Rachita: Yeah, [01:01:00] so, uh, in 2023 of my comics were, uh, you know, the Attorney General gave consent to start contempt of court proceeding against three comics that I had made, um, critical of the court.
Um, and I've just been waiting since December 2020 for it to be listed. Um, there was a bit of back and forth, like we filed an affidavit, like we replied to. Um, you know, the party that bought these comics, uh, before they were done in the first place. Um, and yeah, just waiting for Well, speaking
Anand: of censorship, let alone cartoons, factual videos of the stampede in Delhi, Platform X has been instructed, Twitter has been instructed to take them down, uh, as 285 tweets with videos from the newly issued under section 79.
3 tweet. Point B of ITAC and rule 3.1 point D of it rules. So that's the context we live in
Manisha: as if everyone's not shared [01:02:00] anyway on WhatsApp, all the videos and seen them.
Anand: No, but you know, just one thing I I, I get that people would not have seen this cartoon because this stre effect and didn't everybody, but I think that's not the point.
The point is no one will draw another think before you draw another Yes. So that is the, that is the impact that they're looking for. Even they understand that this will create more of a noise. But now people think twice before drawing it again. I
Rachita: think that I think it goes both ways that more people will feel encouraged to draw, given that there is outpouring of support towards Vikatan and towards the cartoonist because it is a brilliant comic and people, you know, like what happened when it Um, my case, uh, made the news, there were a bunch of cartoonists who came and like drew something similar that I had made that was alleged, that's allegedly contemptuous, um, in their own styles.
So I think it works both ways. Like it does silence some people, but it does also give, uh, people, um, courage to like make a comment as well. But
Raman: the [01:03:00] intention is to strike the fear. That's it. Absolutely. And for
Manisha: an organization to have its whole website being pulled down. Yeah, that's another. That is the
Anand: cartoon.
Exactly. Yeah. So you said, let's take down the cartoon. Yeah.
Manisha: Like, imagine for a news website to not be able to operate.
Anand: Yeah.
Yeah. Anand, go ahead. Then we come to this. I think in this is, this is all very anachronistic because you have a very, uh, uh, of high, means of higher degree, very offensive to the prime minister or cabinet ministers on the internet, on Instagram, everywhere.
Uh, and politicians have also realized it. I think it's more of a sidekick's way of getting favor of the political master. Political master, that I am this sensitive. to, uh, someone's prestige that Mamata, uh, Banerjee did one of Facebook post, there were, and there are other also, uh, politicians, uh, other state level politicians who do that, but I don't think Ms.
Banerjee did that. It's a sidekick. It's always a sidekick who is [01:04:00] going to please the political master. Uh, now, uh, about political cartooning, uh, There is, uh, and also, uh, when you are cartooning corporate masters, now the law is that, uh, 19 to the exceptions to free speech, you have to either violate decency, morality, defamation, contempt of court.
So, these are the grounds where you would be disallowed. Now, Uh, uh, about satire and, uh, political cartooning, the courts have a different approach. Uh, uh, they say that exaggeration, which is a part of lampooning, exaggeration, distortion of certain facts can go if it's a fair comment and if it's in public interest, there are two.
uh, defenses that you have. So one case came a few years ago, Greenpeace versus Tata. So Tata was actually doing a joint [01:05:00] venture project in Orissa on a port and Greenpeace had this grouse that it would endanger a certain species of turtles. So they made an online game. Um, Turtle versus Tata and they use Tata trademark.
The Delhi High Court was of the opinion that see, trademark used here, of course, is an exaggeration that online game, Tata is going to kill turtles and this, but, but this exaggeration is a part of, say, a fair comment that the NGO feels. Uh, uh, that, uh, it, your project may endanger it. So they allowed it.
Then the political case, uh, important case was, uh, we say Kumar Singh versus the state of, not, not a state of ER, but Lalu Prasad Yadav. So there was a satirical show which, um, Mr. Yadav's family believed that they were, uh, Um, actually, I remember this, their [01:06:00] family. So the court was of the same opinion now
because the protagonist looked also like coming out of this.
So, so,
uh, so I disallowed it. So now since vulgarity, political cartooning, all this is in news, I cite a case, a very landmark. case in political cartooning and where there was a distinction made between a private citizen and a public figure when you are lampooning it. Uh, it is a case from 1988 in US. So there was this politician, uh, uh, protestant politician flambeau and, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, they were Um, the Hustler magazine, which is known for crude humor, uh, very, uh, crass sometimes.
So it had this, uh, kind of, uh, say comical depiction of, uh, uh, Flavel giving an interview when, where, and all this may, the content is offensive, but these are not my words, but, uh, [01:07:00] so he. Says that in the interview that he had sex with his mother. so this was a mr.
Flavel took it the magazine to the court and Actually, in the subordinate court, he won damages that some, I think 1, 00, 000, but the Supreme Court struck it down. He said that you are not entitled to emotional turmoil because of this incestuous insubordination because you are a public figure. I would, it would have been.
It would have been offered to a private citizen, but not you.
Manisha: Which kind of, yeah, if you're in the public eye, then you have to, your threshold has to be more.
Anand: Yeah, absolutely. And also I guess to protect people who [01:08:00] want to maintain their privacy and if they are not public figure. In fact, today's newspaper, I forget which the case was.
Today's front page, either in the Express or the Times, I don't know if we have a copy here, has, uh, one case been dismissed, I don't know by which court, of someone who had gone to court saying that I have been made fun of in such and such cartoon, and the court has said, dude, that's part of the deal. And I was very encouraged, uh, satire is okay, you know, I'll just check, it's in the front page of either today's Times or the Indian Express, and I was quite happy to see it today.
You know, uh, Jashree, you want to say something before I go back to Rathnakumar? Yeah,
Jayashree: um, so I have a couple of things. One is I think the Madras High Court also had one judgment in 2013. This is when Dinamalar had published a cartoon. I think it showed, um, Teja Karnanidhi as a monkey or something. I'm forgetting the, I forget the context, but then the Madras High Court complete, I think they went to court and then the Madras High Court said Well, you are being really touchy and hypersensitive and it's [01:09:00] such a great judgment to read because it gives you a lot of hope.
But then of course, this was 11 years ago and I don't know what stands today. Um, the second thing I want to say is just a little bit about Anamale. So, so Anamale filed two complaints against this cartoon. Okay. He said that it's deliberately putting a negative image of Modi. It says, um, freedom of speech does not give newspapers the right, the right to.
Right about things, even on a lighter note, he says that the cartoon jeopardizes friendly bilateral relationships. I mean, he puts so much weight on this one cartoon saying that it has done all these things. It has destabilized Modi's relationship with Trump. And now, of course, the thing is that everything, everybody has seen it.
So for me, this is the beauty of Annamalai. He is, and I say this as somebody who's wary of the growth of the BJP I want him to continue as president here because he fundamentally lacks political instincts. People like Modi and Amit Shah, like they are as. Annamalai may be as shameless as they are, but he does clown shit like this, like, [01:10:00] after the Anna University rape, he videotaped himself whipping himself with, you know, and then all his party leaders will come running, ayya, ayya, don't do it.
I mean, it is so idiotic. And then there is this current thing that's going on now in Tamil Nadu where Uday Nidhi Stalin in a rally, he said, go back Modi and go back Modi trends every time Modi is in the state. He has said go back Modi because Tamil Nadu has issues with the language policy. So Anamali got really pissed.
He was like, I dare you to say it again. And he said it again. So now he's like, Oh, because you've said it, I'm going to tweet, go back Stalin. And for me, it is this kind of buffoonery that The BJP is trying to sort of place itself as the better alternative to the DMK and Tamil Nadu, but this is pretty much doing the opposite, because this is not a man who you would trust the fate of a state in his hands.
So,
Rachita: yeah. In fact, I made a comic yesterday about Annamalai throwing a boomerang at Vikatan and it coming and hitting him back in his head, um, you know, as a result of this whole episode. Um, but because even the cartoonist, the [01:11:00] cartoonist himself said that, uh, you can't buy this kind of publicity. Annamalai is just doing it for us for free.
Um, so I think, yeah, it's, it's, it's, it does create a, an atmosphere of fear and censorship, yes, but I think it's also.
Anand: But before we wind up this, uh, issue, uh, there's something we've discussed briefly in the past, uh, when see satire, parody, et cetera, comes into the limelight when something like this happens, or when like Charlie Hebdo, those 10 employees who are horribly murdered by some lunatic bigot, um, and shortly after that, and I myself was very critical, people started talking about the aesthetics, of Charlie Hebdo's cartoons, which were not great.
I agree. Similarly, when AIB, you know, that entire, the roast was taken to court and people were, um, talking about how crass AIB humor is. I was like, sure, there's a time [01:12:00] to critique it.
Manisha: And what's happening with Sameer Aina and Bear Biceps today.
Anand: Yeah. So, you know, critiquing their aesthetic. But if they're not in the news for this reason, they're never in mainstream news.
It's never part of mainstream discourse, satire. So according to you, when is a good time to discuss the aesthetics? of someone's satirical work or humor. Uh, without sounding like an apologist for banning them, uh, you know, cause you can have like, I, I have very little regard for Charlie Hebdo's humor because I think it was, it was just, they were just being dicks.
Manisha: I don't think so at all, actually. I think there's some, there's a lot of misconception about what they were, what they lampooning within France. I think there's a context to what they were doing and my recommendation will be actually a piece that goes into explaining what they do.
Anand: Okay. So, but I would not talk about that on the eve of that incident.
Of [01:13:00] course. Of course. Similarly with, you know, somewhere else. But in a country like India, where satire is always under threat, is there ever a good time to talk about the aesthetics of anyone's cartoons? Or, or there's never a good time?
Rachita: I think it's always a good time to talk about it, except for when, uh, you know, you're siding with power, trying to ban or censor.
Like in the Charlie Hebdo case, I also made a comic in support of the team, even though I think they're pretty racist and Islamophobic. Um, so I think apart from then, I think anytime is a good time. But at any other
Anand: time, it's not part of mainstream discourse, right? Who's listening? That's a conundrum. I
Rachita: mean, because if you do try bringing it into mainstream, then the conversation will happen again.
Like, but then again, there will be more censorship against them. Correct.
Anand: Yeah.
Rachita: Um, I, I mean, I think the best way would be to keep making fun of, uh, you know, the likes of Samer Anand and Mira Lavadia because they have been like, they have been trending on Twitter when they've made ridiculous statements.
They have been told, um, uh, [01:14:00] for, for being idiots, basically, and unfunny idiots. Uh, so I think every time is a good time to talk about aesthetics. I don't think you can. Uh, talk about it with regard to a specific case, um, when you're talking about it in mainstream, I would say, because, because again, you have the risk of, uh, getting attention towards a potentially quote unquote vulgar obscene, um, you know, comment or joke, and then.
Uh, leading to its ban. Well, it's neither
Anand: vulgar or obscene. We were served a notice. In fact, the matter is still in court because we made fun of towering news personalities like Navika and Rahul Shivshankar. So, you know, that legal notice says that towering news personalities have been mocked and how can we make fun of towering news personalities?
Rachita: Yeah, they're towers. How can you do that?
Anand: Um,
Jayashree: and the greater, the greater joke is that they're news personnel. That's
Rachita: true. But I'm saying like, no one is actually genuinely offended, like, with the Ranveer Alaabadia thing. Like, everyone who is saying, oh, it has hurt my sentiment, I am offended, this [01:15:00] is obscene.
No one gives a flying About what he actually said, like the content, it is just an excuse to continue moral policing, um, you know, content creators in general, but also like to bring in a new version of the broadcasting and which we fought against when the draft came out.
Anand: Actually, there's this French movie called, uh, The Honeymoon Crashers on Netflix.
It's a, it's French film with English subtitles. It's, I mean, I don't know what to make of it. I didn't find it particularly funny, but it was also kind of funny. It was one of those that you can't decide. It's about this guy who gets dumped at the altar by his girlfriend. She runs off with her ex boyfriend and he goes off with his
Jayashree: mother, you know, for
Anand: mother to Mauritius honeymoon And of course everyone's got it's a honeymoon package.
So everyone else is a honeymooner So the organizers automatically think that they're a couple and it's a bit weird like you're saying are they actually going to get together? It's but it's on Netflix. No one's banned it yet. But yeah, Jessie was [01:16:00] saying
Jayashree: Yeah, see but that's the thing. No, oh That is Okay, you can hate something you can have strong opinions of it, but you don't in India You do not have a constitutional right to be offended.
That is not a thing Like there are definitions of speech of there are issues with free speech and there are definitions for that But you cannot say that this offends me and so therefore something must be done about it Like it can't work like that. So I think the Hindu had a very good piece this morning It was a conversation between Dushyant Dave and Some former judge whose name I've forgotten.
Apologies to him, but it is that you can have issues when people are saying things that are violent or whatever, but you cannot say that this has outraged me, or this has offended my sense of morality and therefore certain Shut it down. Why action has to be taken. Like, it can't work. So, and my thing about when is a good time?
I mean, most people are not engaging with that in good faith. I mean, it's like, they'll be like, Oh my God, yes, we support Israel because you know LGBTQ rights are so so poor in Palestine or [01:17:00] they'll say that something happens Oh, but you know what what about men's rights? It's I feel like when engagement on that isn't itself coming from a place where it is intentioned In a certain way then there's really no point.
I mean There will always be somebody who will say, yes, but this is bad or we don't approve of something else. So, I find it a difficult sort of conversation to have because any time is a good time to talk about something.
Anand: Those
Jayashree: conversations don't happen all the time.
Anand: Manisha, you want to say something? I think any
Manisha: time is a good time.
Every time is a bad time for nuance for most people.
Anand: So there's
Manisha: no point figuring out when you want to say something because those who want to misunderstand you will anyway. I think even right after Sameh's arrest, oh sorry, no arrest, hopefully he's not been arrested. Even right after the FIRs on Beer Biceps and Sameh Rana, it's fine to talk about their work because like I said, I mean, Those who want to misunderstand it will misunderstand it.
So you should. And, but I think it's important, even for example, Charlie Hebdo, I don't think it's wrong to critique their work, you know, [01:18:00] when they were murdered, but it's the quality of the critique. Like Joe Sacco, for example, at that point, I remember he had said that these guys were operating in a world which was blind to what was happening within France.
Uh, in terms of immigrants, you know, how the Arab immigrant was treated. And I think that's a fine point to make whenever he wants to make it. But to say that they were ODS, they were dicks, they were making fun of Muslims. No, they weren't. You have to come understand where that tradition in France comes from.
It comes from a deep hatred for religion that has its roots in the French Revolution. And Everyone was fair game. So those cartoons on the prophet were not an attack on on Muslim, it was on Muslims or Arabs. It was an attack on radical Islam, which I think is absolutely okay. And then you can discuss the finer points of why did they do what they did, but I think the quality of the critique matters.
It can come whenever it wants to come, but it has to come with some understanding of what the work really is all about.
Anand: Raman sir, do you have a take on this?
Raman: Yeah, [01:19:00] I'll say that anything you should discuss, debate, discard, but don't ban. So that's my philosophy, I mean, whether it is cartoon or any controversial thing that has been said, but do not ban it.
Anand: Is there a correct time or an incorrect time? For example, I mean, Often, some stand up comics are accused of Making fun of a tragedy. Like there are a lot of 9 11 related jokes, right? A lot of stand up comics do it. But I don't imagine any of them could have done it the week, the week 9 11 happened. So there is, that whole too soon.
Anand, you have a take on too soon? Or
Manisha: dead people also, like when you, when you, kind of. I
Anand: don't understand a stand up comic, I don't know the kind of people who go in a hall to laugh. So, um, uh, anyway, what, um, you see, uh, [01:20:00] the points that were made that there is a, this theory of cultural relativism to humor where you place it.
time and space. So, one case of the intersection, I think the statesman made an error of judgment there in 2009 and because it concerns media. 2009, the statesman, uh, who is also, he also the proprietor and editor in chief of Statesman, Ravindra Kumar. So, he reprinted a piece from the Independent, which was, A critical take on the profit.
So, uh, 2009 or 12? I think so. Uh, so the Ang Lane headquarters of the Statesmen, it was gear out by me, say Islamic, uh, what, whether they were radical or not, but, and you, you can say the offended crowd. So they. And they, [01:21:00] it was a law and order situation, they were locked inside the newspaper office and the editor in chief had to come and apologize.
And that, okay, we did that wrong. So, uh, why And I am sure that out of, um, the people who gathered none one, uh, I don't think they were, I'm not judging them, but they didn't seem like the kind of people who read a statesman, of course. Of course, it had been passed on to them. That's something like this has happened.
Just like the people protesting
satanic verses aren't exactly the kind who would read satanic verses.
So, uh, uh, this is, uh, I had a, uh, very long take on this Ranbir Elhabadiyya, the legal aspects and the cultural aspects of it in the church. Uh, I. I would, uh, spare you to you, then please check out the [01:22:00] discussion.
I would ask where you are not, not bored again. So, uh, if you want to be bored anyway, you can listen to church. So on that note,
Manisha: just as a thing, there was. I think this was fag end of the UPA era and there was this cartoon which was removed from the CBSE which was Nehru whipping Ambedkar. Not
Anand: CBSE what is in class 11th NCRT book and the book has been edited by Pallis.
Manisha: And it was removed and there was a lot of controversy around the cartoon whether you should have it in schools or not. And that was interesting. The cartoon was to depict that they were going slow on making the constitution and Nehru wanted them to kind of
Anand: hurry up on snail space. And he is depicted as a snail, Mr.
Ambedkar and Nehru is flogging him. And back then there
Manisha: was a lot of outrage among most journalists that how can you ban this cartoon? How can you take it out? It's against freedom of speech. But I remember S. Anand at the Indian Express had written a really He used [01:23:00] to run Navayana, he still runs Navayana, but he had written this piece on how you would trust your teachers with this cartoon, knowing how caste ridden our society still is.
Like, do you trust people to teach this in a way that you wanted to, rather than, you know, the same depiction of,
Anand: I
Manisha: thought that was an interesting,
Anand: but yeah, but that wasn't a ban, that was just taking it out of the NCRT book. I mean,
Rachita: not a ban, but kind of take it out. So, uh, but just, I think. Um, when I was saying everyone should be up for criticism, like Manisha said, yeah, radical Islam does, um, need to, like, should be open to criticism as well.
Um, but like you were just saying, I think that, uh, the outcome of the viewers who see the comic, um, and how it affects their behavior towards, um, Muslim people in, uh, France in their lives, um, I think that needs to be, Cartoonists need to be mindful about how their comics can be used to further, um, deepen whatever ism you [01:24:00] have.
That's one. Um, and second is, I just want to take a moment to say, I do feel a lot of joy that it's Ranveer Allahabadia that is going through this. Um, because of how much he had, how, how mean
Anand: of you, how mean spirited of you. Yeah,
Rachita: that's me. My mom was saying, my mom was saying, be careful about what you see.
I see this guy on the news and we are like, he's getting targeted. I was like, it does not matter what you say at this point. If they want to come off to you, they will come off to you. This guy was, uh, that cheerleader for the longest time. And now look where he is. So I don't think it really matters what's I
Manisha: think even Varun Grover had this little set, no?
Where he says, guys warning me against political comedy, now they are facing
Anand: me. But I think leadership has a lot to do with it. I've given this example in a different context in Hafta in the past. You know, when we used to do Gustakhi Ma from the Gradient Tamasha, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, we had started in 2003.[01:25:00]
He was quite a hasmukh, hasmizaaj kind of guy. So the first two puppets that were made were Uh, of course, Saddam Hussein, Tony Blair, Bush, and Osama Bin Laden, which is the first photo to go with because Even at that time, NDTV said, let's not go with Indian leaders, let's test the waters with these. For the first three months, we only wrote satire and the, the sets, the little skits were about that.
Then Sonia and Atal were introduced. No one reacted. In fact, Atal apparently made some comment internally. We used to get behind the scenes, where he was quite amused. Now after that, because the Delhi election, the Madhya Pradesh election, uh, and which was the third election, it was Uma Bharti, there was, uh, Sheila Dixit, Madanlal Khurana.
And there was Digvijay Singh, oh no, Digvijay Omar Bharti, and I saw Gehlot and Vasundhara. These three elections happened at the same time. They were made. After that, I remember, we were told by the senior reporter who [01:26:00] used to cover BJP, he was asked by, uh, Pramod Mahajan, why hasn't my puppet been made?
Because it became a sign of how important you
Manisha: are.
Anand: Because Vajpayee was cool with it. Now I'm not saying Vajpayee was the perfect person, but he was cool with the cartoon he found funny.
Manisha: Like on nuisance, some anchors feel very happy when they're featured.
Anand: Like Musharraf asked for DVDs of Gustaq e Maaf, uh, you know, when, when these guys, uh, when we had made it, when he came to Delhi and we were told through, you know, the media sources, he wants some DVDs to watch about the satire that you guys do on him because no one did it there.
But if your leader is a humorless, joyless, friendless,
Manisha: Maybe very joyful. How do you know he's joyless? Who am I talking about?
Anand: How do you know who I'm talking about?
Manisha: He who shall not be named.
Anand: But if there is no fun in your life
Manisha: No, maybe there's a lot of fun. This is a lot of assumption. All I'm saying
Anand: is that that is the shadow that is [01:27:00] cast.
That was my only point for this long. There's
Jayashree: that famous story also about Nehru, right? Where, um, Yeah, don't spare me Shankar. The India China war and RK Lakshmi drew something about him and then he Went to R. P. Lakshman and said, I really enjoyed your cartoon. Can I get a framed copy of it or something like that?
So that
Anand: famous quote of his, don't spare me Shankar, right? Shankar was a cartoonist at the time. Anand, you know, Shankar, he had told Shankar, don't spare me. That was a very famous quote.
But, uh, but the point also remains that, uh, from the criticism from the Chennai based crossword, Romesh Thapar, uh, owned that.
And the first amendment also came in his time. So That's right. Exactly. So, so, uh, also, uh, also, uh, also, uh, just, I, I thought that what was wrong with his standup comedy. So I taught a media analogy to it. It's like the third editorial in the times of India, which has a smiley and an instruction laugh.
[01:28:00] Okay.
But before we say goodbye to Rajita, uh, recommendation that you think could enrich the lives of our listeners.
Rachita: Uh, yes. So, uh, I was rewatching the rest in development. I would encourage everyone to watch that. It is a masterclass in comedy. Uh, and it's also extremely entertaining no matter how many times you rewatch
Anand: it.
Rachita: And if you are feeling sad again, like I did, I don't know why I waited so long, but I finally read the trial because someone was reading up on my case and they're like, have you read the trial? Um, and so I finally ended up reading it. And, uh, yeah, I mean, it, it, it's, uh, it captures the frustration that I think.
I feel right now in this moment. So those would be my recommendations.
Anand: Thank you so much. And also you can check out Rachita's work on her, uh, on, on the News Minute and also you have your own website, Rachita, you can check it out there as well. And you can also contribute to Rachita to keep her work going.
The link will be in the show notes. Uh, do please contribute because Rachita is also one of those rare voices that we [01:29:00] want more of and just like you have supported us and News Minute, you should also support individual artists and commentators like Rachita because we need to revive cartooning in India which seems to be bloody dying, man.
But have a great day, have a great weekend and thank you for joining us.
Rachita: Thank you so much, everyone. Have a nice day.
Anand: Thank you.
Rachita: Bye.
Anand: Bye.
And while you're at it, if you've got your scanning codes or credit cards out, you can also scan this QR code and contribute and pay to Keep News Free because when the public pays, the public is served.
13 years, no ads. That's news laundry for you. Let's make it bigger, better, and let's have more reporters, journalists out on the ground. Doing a lot more journalism because that seems to be reducing at an alarming rate. Uh, we shall not be reading mails today in the main hafta because we have got so many mails accumulated.
There's a hafta extra coming out this week as a separate one hour podcast where all the mails will be read. So do check that out. We will give you the recommendations, but if you want to mail us. [01:30:00] Podcasts at newslondon. com. I repeat podcasts at newslondon. com. We only entertain the emails of subscribers.
So please make sure to subscriber, or you can click in the link in the show notes and a, and a window will open out and you can give them your feedback and comments there. This week hafta extra has all the emails. Uh, but continue writing in. So the recommendations for the week, let's start with Jayshree.
Jayashree: Yeah, so this week I am only shamelessly self promoting in the recommendations. I will not be recommending anything by anybody else. So uh, basically I've been feeling a lot of rage recently because, um, as everyone knows there is that outbreak of Guillain Barre syndrome cases, it started in Pune, there are several clusters reported elsewhere.
And, uh, what I've come to re so I had Gain Barrier Syndrome, GBS, I had it seven this is 2025 I had it seven years ago. Um, I was in the hospital for 14 [01:31:00] days, I had to spend a ton of money, I had paralysis in my legs, I had to relearn lots of things. But most of all, I have realized that so people know very little about it.
And yet, they will very authoritatively write tweets and stories in newspapers and on news channels about it. So, I think there's a lot of sensationalism about it. So, Manisha told me to write about it for News Laundry and I did. So, one recommendation is what I wrote for News Laundry. It's called, A Former GBS Patient, on the facts and sensationalism around the outbreak.
And my second recommendation is a piece that I did for Mumbai Mirror in 2019. This was a year after my diagnosis. And this is on my entire experience with Guillain Barre syndrome, what happened, how it works, how you recover from it, if you're lucky, like I was.
Manisha: Yeah, in fact, I was very surprised to read some articles that were suggesting that it's contagious.
Jayashree: Okay. Yeah,
Manisha: so people keep saying that you can catch
Jayashree: it. The thing is, you can't catch it if you're triggered by a viral or a bacterial infection. And, and you cannot [01:32:00] catch a bacterial infection in somebody else either. So yeah, it's, so in Pune it is passing through a specific kind of bacteria that's been found in the water.
As to why there are so many cases is concerning. It should be researched. There is a great sort of mystery around. The way that Guillain Barre syndrome is triggered, but it is not contagious. If someone in your house has it, you will not catch it from them. So
Anand: yeah. Right. Thank you for the piece. The link is in the show notes below.
You can check that out. Manisha, your recommendation.
Manisha: So first recommendation is on Charlie Hebdo. I've recommended this twice before on Hafta, but since this keeps coming up, this one is a piece in the Wall Street Journal. It's called Charlie Hebdo is heir to the French tradition of religious mockery. The Paris magazine targeted by terrorists was part of a radically irreverent school of secular thought that goes back centuries.
I think in India and even in South Asia, most of us. you know, internalized this thing that we should not offend religion, you remove the fundos and the radicals out of it. We may want to reign supreme over [01:33:00] each other. We may want to kill, you know, each other over it. But a general Aam Aadmi's perspective is do not.
You know, insult anyone. It's, it's a touchy topic. It's an important topic. Faith is important. We must not offend anyone.
Maria Ressa: Okay. But
Manisha: that is not the reality of France and how religion is treated there. And I think it's important to understand where they were coming from, even if you critique them. Second recommendation is really fun.
It's a super read in the New York Times on the Murdoch succession drama.
Anand: You've blown a
Manisha: hole in the family. It's a really, really fun piece. And especially if you're fans of Succession, you really enjoy reading it.
Anand: Anand.
I recently re read Dostoyevsky's Crime and Punishment. So I am punishing you to read that. And what triggered you re reading it?
And what, what led you to re read it? Some specific reference somewhere? Or just No, I [01:34:00] mean Because usually re reading is triggered by something, na? It came up somewhere or
something because I live in 19th century So Second day and then did this say ordinary man's perspective.
It's a in fact, it is one of the tests for obesity that I, I mentioned it, uh, there are six, seven tests that, um, not only outrage over chattel obscenity, there is a, uh, like a heckling test, how ladies chattelies, uh, lover became mainstreamed later and how it is still, uh, not mainstreamed in certain societies.
And also, um, Jim Jo Ulysses. So, uh, uh, so one, one test is this ordinary men's test that, uh, uh, it is wrong to [01:35:00] presume that an ordinary French man, uh, in the English law had, uh, uh, that, uh, that ordinary Frenchman sees a women's leg in everything . So if, if, if, if, uh, if an ordinary man is not seeing it, you cannot presume that it's obscene.
So that's one. Anyway, that, that was my
Manisha: ordinary Frenchman does not see your leg.
Anand: Just my insights
Manisha: into the French society.
Anand: Maybe it's a stand up comic thing. I didn't understand. So, so, um, uh, uh, what, what is, uh, yeah. What is the, my secondary recommendation? I think one is enough. It's a fat book. Two recommendations.
Raman: One is, uh, an article written by yesterday, uh, about Delhi. Uh, now the new government is there and he has made, uh, he has articulated, uh, the, you know, the politics of Delhi [01:36:00] so well.
Uh, and the fact that Delhi has many dailies. Um, and how the middle class wants the, uh, you know, this working class. I mean, people who work at their home, they want them around, but yet they want them invisible. So,
Anand: so
Raman: it was very beautifully done and how, uh, the Sheila Dixit, you know, uh, captured the politics of Delhi and how Aam Aadmi Party captured it and how they conceded a self goal.
And now what is in store for the future. Uh, you know, present government. It very nicely done. But, uh, Pratap Anu Mehta's article yesterday and, uh, there is one, um, serial. I've just started watching it. Uh, gentlemen in Moscow, uh, at prime video. So I think it's a kind of story of a Often aristocrat, uh, during the, I mean, when the [01:37:00] revolution happened?
Yeah, just I was just kind of imprisoned, you know, in a five star hotel and, and then how he comes out, comes out of it. So I think it's, it's, it's pretty good. So I pretty interesting
Anand: I, and awful and awesome. We reviewed it. I didn't watch the show. I read the book. Yeah, I think it won the booker if I'm not wrong.
It won some big prize a couple of years ago. I think Jayashree is checking. Uh, and I was a little disappointed with the book. I mean, it was great. Okay, not good. It was good, but it wasn't great. I had heard like. Yeah, I didn't love it.
Jayashree: I got rave reviews, so I held off reading it for so long. And then I was like, okay, I'm going to read it now.
And then I was like, I mean.
Anand: Yeah, not just that. Basically, it was gifted to me by someone who I respect their judgment. Oh, this book, you haven't read it? I haven't heard of it. And then I read it and it was nice, but I, my politics got in the way of some of it. But it, but, uh, yeah, I
Jayashree: found it a bit soppy. I mean, I just, it wasn't the book for me.
Anand: I mean, I, I found that friendship [01:38:00] between the, the, what was his name, the count, and the girl. Interesting
Jayashree: Alexander. But
Anand: yeah. But, uh, anyway, so, um, yeah, my recommendation is this phenomenal like two podcast series. One is by the Economist called Scamming. Which I actually had put on the group also. What a phenomenal investigation.
Uh, I think it's a seven part series. All these, you know, phishing calls and these people trying to scam you on the phone, you know, take money from you. How they are basically In the investigation, this one is in, in, uh, Burma, uh, because they're, you know, the warlords have taken over areas. They're like cities, they're like call centers that are being run with bonded labor, trying to con people.
And our former colleague, Ayush Tiwari, has done a similar story in the Indian context for scroll, which is also quite interesting.
Raman: No, we, we, in fact, uh, it's very unfortunate and, uh, extremely sorry. We had, we had got this story quite [01:39:00] early, you know, we got it about five, six months ago, but there's so much work and there was so, uh, this is a new story.
We had interviewed six people. We have already interviewed them and, uh, there's tons of footage. So our. Production department is like a
Manisha: documentary of victims who have, who were kind of held in these camps.
Anand: Oh, then New Zealand is also doing.
Raman: Not just that, not just that. There's one particular case where, uh, which I think is going to be very dramatic because this woman, one woman's brother had gone there.
So she goes. all the way to Myanmar to get
Anand: him back.
Raman: And she paid bribe to get him back. So it's a, it's a beautiful story. So
Anand: the, so you can wait for News Laundry's investigation, but the economist investigation probably was done over a couple of years and they must have spent about half a million dollars on it.
Ours is a slightly sasta version of that, but still ours is [01:40:00] funded by you. So thank you for that. And the second is this phenomenal, I mean, I don't know whether I've ever mentioned or have that. When I was young, my, one of my One of my major ambitions was to climb Everest. I was very keen to do mountain climbing.
But it's
overcrowded now.
Yeah, you have to sunline. Yeah, that's why I'm not going. Otherwise I would have gone. We
Raman: can go to the base
Anand: camp. Yeah, base camp. People uptake 13 year olds for birthday party. It's called Xtreme. It's a BBC podcast. This is season 2, Peak Danger. Season 1 was about bodybuilders and the stuff that they put into their bodies.
But it is, uh, a really moving, slightly soppy also, one of the episodes goes into the love story, but fine, I think for the narrative building, that's good. Of this very famous case that happened in 2008, where, uh, uh, I think 15 people died on K2. And, uh, when small screen, when I Had quit news track in [01:41:00] India today.
The first project that Prashant and I did was the Chadar trek in Ladakh. And we thought that we'd do one major mountaineering documentary every year. Here I am going to the high court now and then. But, uh, I absolutely loved it. I haven't loved a podcast so much in years. So those are my recommendations.
Uh, you can check out the hafta extra for all the emails, but keep them coming in. Pay to keep news free. And we'd like to give a shout out. Today is the happy birthday of News Minute, Dhania, Vignesh and your team, happy birthday. So uh, do contribute, here's a scan, join subscription, support News Minute, it is their birthday.
Before we go, I'd like to thank the panel, our audience, and of course the sound recordist Anil, our producers Ashish and Priyali, and everybody else who makes journalism. What it is. Uh, so yeah, have a fantastic weekend. We'll leave you with the song and see you next week. Bye-bye. Move
Song: it. Move it. I like to move [01:42:00] it.
Move it. You like to,
I like to move it. Move it. You like to move it? I like to move it. Move it. I like to move it. Move it. I like to move it. Move it. You like to move it? I like to move it. Move it. I like to move it. I like to move it. Move it. Yeah. I like to for your subscription. You're changing the world by changing the way news
Manisha: is funded for the smoothest news laundry experience.
Download the news laundry app. It is the best way to
listen to our paywall podcasts, and you'll also get access to all free news laundry shows. Keep us ad free and subscriber funded. Help us grow. Tell people who listen to you to pay to keep news free. Subscribe to News Laundry. Keep journalism [01:43:00] independent.
Newslaundry is a reader-supported, ad-free, independent news outlet based out of New Delhi. Support their journalism, here.
