Why is it so boring?



Why are most panel discussions on Indian television so boring? I’ve been racking my brains to try and figure out why we get it so wrong and Americans get it so right. Of course, this is not to say that all Indian discussions are dull. I have been on a fair number of interesting ones myself. But I don’t think anyone seriously disputes that the average standard could do with some improvement.

Here are some thoughts. There are broadly two kinds of guests who work on such shows: the players and the commentators.

That is to say, if we are upset about why the government included a reference to Balochistan in the joint declaration, we would like to hear from one of the following: the Prime Minister, the Foreign Minister, the National Security Advisor or the Foreign Secretary.

Not one of these people will agree to appear on a TV discussion programme. In the case of this government, none of these figures even believes that he owes the people of India an explanation.

It was not always so. In the early days of TV substantial figures were willing to come into the studio and explain themselves on panel discussions.

In 1997, I once had Inder Gujral (who was then Prime Minister) in the studio in Noida. Around the same time, as the BJP was ascending to power I had Jaswant Singh, George Fernandes, Murli Manohan Joshi, Pramod Mahajan from the NDA  and such major Congress figures as Narasimha Rao (he had just stepped down as PM) Pranab Mukherjee and P Chidambaran in the NDTV studio in Greater Kailash.

This was no reflection on my standing. In those days, important people were willing to come to TV studios and engage with their critics.

No longer. I doubt if I could get any of these people to a studio these days. (Though I have to say that I was impressed to see Chidambaram on the Buck Stops Here.)

So who do you get now?  Well, basically, you get the punks. Each party has three or four spokesmen who are fielded on every channel. They are rarely figures of any consequence, they don’t know anything and they go from studio to studio and channel to channel saying the same things.

Worse still, few of them are very bright. Some are actually morons. For every Abhishek Singhvi or Rajiv Pratap Rudy who will engage with you on an intellectual level, you have to put up with ten buffoons. So no interesting debate is possible.

In the West, they choose independent commentators who are witty and articulate. Here we invite print journos many of whom are pompous bores. I can count the articulate TV-friendly print-journalists on the fingers of one hand.

But the same bores are called night after to make up the numbers.

The anchors and producers are to blame too. They make many basic mistakes.  None of them watches TV. A guest on NDTV may just have come off CNN-IBN but nobody at NDTV will have seen the competition. So the guest will be asked the same questions and will give the same answers.

Then, most of them do no research at all and have very little in the way of political background. The veterans (Karan Thapar, Barkha Dutt, Rajdeep Sardesai etc.) will know enough to remind guests that they have changed their positions. But many anchors have no clue.

Too many producers are frustrated or thwarted anchors. I was recently a guest on a discussion show on NewsX where the poor anchor could not hear a word that the guests were saying because some harridan of a producer kept shouting things in his ear. Finally, the anchor had the sense to take off his ear-piece.

Also, there is a danger of an anchor’s ego taking over. Whenever I’ve anchored a show with guests, my guiding principle has always been: viewers tune in to see the guests; the anchors’ job is restricted to getting the best out of the guests.

The problem is that too many anchors are too full of themselves. They think that guests tune in to see them. They believe that it is their job to lecture viewers or to harangue or interrupt guests.

No real discussion is possible under these circumstances. So why then do we have so many discussion programmes on Indian TV. Simple. They are cheapest form of TV to produce. That’s why they proliferate.

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (32 votes, average: 4.75 out of 5)
Loading ... Loading ...
  • amit

    India@9.00 with Sagarika Ghose is an example of how a TV discussion should NOT be conducted

    [Reply]

    Pranav Dixit Reply:

    Hehe! It’s funny how 2 of the 3 comments here name Sagarika Ghose! :P

    [Reply]

    saurabh Reply:

    Hit the nail on the head!

    [Reply]

    jayant Reply:

    of course vir is definitively one of the best i have seen, both on print and tv ( as a guest as well as anchor).

    [Reply]

  • Anil

    Simple reason is that hosts have an agenda and they invite same set of their freinds. Any voice that doesn;t agree with the host gets cut in the middle on pretext fo break or giving opprtuntiy to someone else..

    To em likes of Barkha dutt lost all credibility the day she changed her tunes by 180 degreee within hours..

    I vididly remember how she camp thumndering with phrase like hindu-terror despite all and sundry asking these people to not associate any religion with terror they didnl;t listen.. Whiel they were on with this nonsense 26/11 happened and within hours Barkha Dutt herself started preaching how islam should nto be associated with terro despite terrorists insisiting on the same..
    Such is the the depravvity fo these hosts mind they would spew any nonsens as long as theat serves their agenda..

    recently there has been riot in Sangli Meraj in mahra all channles have virtually blocked that news .> reaons is simple ti paints their favopurite party whcih is in power in bad light and eleciton is near..

    By contrast even skirmish in Gujarat gets media attention for weeks..

    Again go to encounter killing..

    Time and again maharashtra and andhra topped the list of encounter killing both conghress ruled states but for some reaons Gujarat which is near bottom in the encounter killing gets alked about whenevr enocunter wuestion comes and states which rule this chart never find any mention..

    These sort of nosnese gets rpepeated again and again and people have limited to be fed same nonsense aagain and again hence they find it boring..
    Moreover what is this with ivitign 10 poeple in slot of half an hour porgram where everyone gets to say one sentence before host cuts the perosn off

    [Reply]

    Dr alok anand Reply:

    You are absolutely correct Anil.Perhaps every interview with narendra modi ends with a quesion ,Modiji when you are confessing your so called crime ?Its a pity that all his good works are being washed in moments and he is projected as the biggest terrorist/mass murderer time and again by tv anchors.
    But coming to original theme of this post i think vir sanghvi is correct to some extent.Parties are not sending their best orators and well equipped leaders on a given issue in tv interviews.what makes more pathetic is biased attitude of anchor towards a particular party .
    For this reason in our home we hardly see any political debate/interviews done by rajdeep,sagarika,barkha and arnab goswami.
    Media is also playing political untouchability and is losing its readership and viewership day by day.

    [Reply]

    Altamash Reply:

    “Choop rahegi jo zabaan-e khanjar
    Lahoo pukaarega aasteen se”

    All the development mr modi is doing in the name of hindu terrorism. All sins can not be washed away by the means of development, if ur father, mother, sister, son, daughter are killed horrendously.

    [Reply]

    Dr Alok Anand Reply:

    My point is ,its true that sin of killing innocent lives cant be washed away and thats the reason he has faced so many probes ,commisions and still facing SIT enquiry and will be prosecuted if allegations are proved.So if he has committed sin then at other hands he has also improved the lives of people of his state by bringing prosperity,electricity,and growth rate which exceeds the national growth rate .So you criticise him to hilt for alleged killings its ok but he must be praised for his development works also .A society cant grow and develop if you continue to see only negative aspect of your leader but for that you must see positives also.I can understand that for a family who has lost its member its hard to see positives in alleged leader like modi but why not others can do that ??Why media continues to show only one face of the coin ?? Is the media representative of only one community ??Basically if media continuously crticises him ,it adds in number of hardliners .
    Just a question to you ,why in india sikhs(punjabis)are among richest religious class , christians , most literate class although they are minorities whereas the muslims are at bottom end ???what other non bjp parties have done is only use and throw game with muslims do you agree ??What you want ,just crying for justice , sympathy ,OR prosperity ,development also ,.AND wait you you wont be denied justice but also have the guts to say well done for someone who is performing..,,

    Naaari Reply:

    I do not have to say anything more because starting from Anil, Alok, Akilesh & Rajeev comments described most of my thoughts, anger on NDTV bias views & their negative attitude which made me so happy.

    I was feeling sick after election and I have stopped watching NDTV. No matter how many awards Barkha Dutt or Nidhi Rajdhan get but both are irritating me. I feel sick after watching both of them. Both are expert in cutting ppl off while they are expressing their view but their cutting stick never apply power politician or spoke person. if you ever noticed Nidhi keep sayin, “I am from Kashmir”…. so what? you are not represting Kashmir on your talk show. Both of them have no manner..They think insulting politician made them great but they do not know their this kind of attitude made them small. Oh & Barkha never missed an opportunity to show sympathy(may be fake ) to Muslim. Because if you true care for someone then tell them nicely, “you are not doing right”.

    NDTV news channel only for Congress forgetBJP or others but they do not agree or let speak to other poltical parties. Winning horse pai to mai bhi baith javu to jeet kar aaju…Since Congress in power NDTV think they are covering wining horse.. ahhuhhhh..

    [Reply]

  • Pranav Dixit

    Say ‘harridan’ and the one name that instantly springs to my mind is Sagarika Ghose!

    [Reply]

  • http://incorrectpolitically.wordpress.com/ Akhilesh

    Dear Mr. Vir,

    A helath warning : I am a self confessed Right wing fanatic. So I am expressely opposed to most of the views you take on subjects.

    Now the issue in your blog :

    For once, I agree with a position you have taken. There has been a great degeneration in the quality of the debates that take place on TV. Consequently so has the interest levels of the public gone down as also their abilities in deducing anything informatory from these debates.

    Although you quote instances from the nineties, I remember even as late as the 2004 general elections, I used to watch all these debates with great fascination. Then of course, there was only one English Channel and the “We the people” and The Big Fight” were two of my eternal favourite programmes. There always used to be heavy weights on these debates and thus their debates were worth watching.

    Apart from the diagnosis you present, I think a few other things have happened as well. Here is my take :

    1. Due to the profligacy of the channels, the competition for eyeballs has increased. Now, it is very difficult for all these anchors on all these channels to be amongst the brightest and the best. And thereby engage the guest on any intellectual level. Thus they adopt the easiest way out – shout over the top in a garrulous way, so as to be seen intimidating and presumably by implication, neutral and putting the politician ( or any other guest) in his place.

    2. The other great unintended consequence of this proliferation of channels has been the dumbing down of anchor quality. And the most potent example of this is – that as a rule, almost every anchor revels in calling the politicians as scoundrels and thugs and leeches and such other names. Now many politicians are these and more. But equally, there are politicians who are good and with integrity too. But why take the trouble of researching, doing the homework and thus confronting the politician at an intellectual level – when it is so much easy to call him a scoundrel and the let him defend himself !

    This is the biggest malaise afflicting present day anchors. Rookies in their twenties, with God knows what level of education, or any real understanding of issues, but who look good and can talk on camera become anchors. They have seen thier heroes ( read the Barkhs Dutt’s) berate politicians on camera – they follow their lead, indeed go one step ahead and start pontificating the moment they have a camera and mike in front of them.

    3. This brings me to the third issue afflicting TV journalism. The almost maniacal zeal to pontificate. I have seen the BBC and CNN report international news. If, rarely ever, the correspondent comes in the frame at the end of the story – then its is with a one liner of sorts, to give that one final human punch that say the camera might not have picked.

    But in India – almost always the correspondents are in frame at the end of the story. And always pontificating or dishing out holy advice and sermons. So whe they are reporting in say swine flu deats in Pune, the story will end with camera zooming on the reporter and the politician being asked why is he sleeping when India is dying ( never mind the fact that India possibly has the best track record in containing swine flu).

    Just think about it. If someone passes by your office every few hours with an unrequisitioned advice in hand. I am sure in no time you would be scratching your head in disgust and would soon ensure that person never passes by your office again.

    The politicians have to endure this on every channel, from every rookie reporter, through the day. And then he is asked to bear some more grandstanding in the evenining during the debates with the big shots of TV.

    Do you really blame the politicians of consequence for avoiding this spectacle, and date I torture. ? I don’t.

    Why would a Shiv Shan Kar Menon speak with say a Natsha Jog on NDTV, when she barely knows what to ask? He would rather speak to Karan Thapar once in a year.

    Finally you named some good spokesmen of parties and some good anchors too. Wonder why you skipped naming the absolutely horrible ones. Maybe not wanting to ruffle feathers in the fraternity.

    I have no such qualms – so here is my list of “harridan” anchors in descening order of disgust !

    1. Sagarika Ghose – Once I actually used a timer to count the time she speaks in her show ( at 10 PM on CCN-IBN) and the time guests get to speak – Sagarika Ghose for 11 minutes and all guests combined 13 minutes ( in a 22 minute programe – rest of the time in breaks, etc).

    2. Bhupendra Choubey : His entire mannersim is so negative.

    3. Nidhi Razdan : I wonder if she has any real understanding of any issue. She just rotes the question to be asked and keeps on repeating those, no matter what the answers.

    And lastly, I think you were one of the best anchors that Indian TV has seen. The mistake that you made – my view – is that you anchored too many programmes on too many channels, thereby letting your brand identity dilute. The only other print editor of comparable repute on TV has been Shekhar Gupta. He has stuck to NDTV for now almost 7 years now. And see, he still gets good guests and good news making stories.

    Although I disagree with most of your views, but as an anchor you best quality – my view – was your great powers of succinct summary of a guest’s viewpoint and thereby affording the viewer to get a feel of what the guest is saying, as well a chance for the guest to have is say to his satisfaction.

    Are you going to be back on TV?

    Regards,

    [Reply]

    Rajeev Reply:

    I totally agree with you on quality of Anchors in Indian media. Most of the anchors both in English and Hindi media lack manners and always cut short the guest either to silence him or to give chance to their favorite guest.
    I think there are two important attributes on which HOST (Anchor) should be judged.
    1. Etiquettes: Most anchors from IBN (both Hindi and English), NDTV (both Hindi and English eccept prannoy and debang) lack manners. They simply don’t know how to listen. Most irritating person is Rajdeep, his wife, Barkha, Ashutosh and Sandip Chaudhary. I must say Mr.Sanghvi as well as Shekhar Gupta come out polished compared to these howling anchors.

    2. Neutrality: This is the area where our most of the anchors including Vir Sanghvi disappoint us badly. Most of the anchors look like agressive version of Manish Tiwari (His smirk while discussing serious topic can make anyone sick) and Abhishek Manu Singhvi. I am not sure if most of the anchors are pro-government or pro-congress however after 2009 election I have realised that majority of them are working for congress and not UPA (look at the way they rubbish Laloo and Sharad now).

    I have always maintained that BJP has not learnt the art of managing media. They should realise that media is corrupt and only understands the language of money.

    [Reply]

    deepa virk Reply:

    so true..either they are screeching or shouting with no basic manners
    as for mr rajdeep,his attitude is so conceited as well for barkha, i lost respect for her the day
    she asked an old man,who had lost everything in the gujrat earthquake to share his “experience”.
    mr shekhar gupta is the only saving grace

    [Reply]

    Rajeev Reply:

    But Nidhi Razdan is very pleasing to eyes so I usually mute voice when she is talking.

    [Reply]

    Blogger Reply:

    I agree … one of the best looking hosts..

    I wonder why no one mentioned Barkha Dutt – she is all about herself, never lets anyone speak, her point of view is final and when one has to play neutral she seems to just press hard to press her views and thats it – pathetic and I just change channels the moment I see her no matter a show or just an interview!

    [Reply]

  • Nutsure

    Aptly summarised. ” CHEAPEST FORM OF TV PRODUCE”.

    [Reply]

  • Satyam

    Mr. Vir,

    There is no point putting comments on your blog. You never care to reply. May be you are extremely busy or like the pompous TV anchors, you dont feel the pulse of your readers.

    thnx

    [Reply]

    Rajeev Reply:

    He has time to ask his staff (chaprasis) to delete any cricism of his.

    [Reply]

    Indu Shekhar Reply:

    Hi Vir!
    So there are many who are thinking along the lines I have been . Good.

    Once upon a time ( 15 years back may be ) , when Vir Sanghvi used to write articles , I used to
    like them for their content, honest approach.

    The English TV media with its obvious glaring bias – lost all the credibility of being neutral media.
    In the process, those like Vir Sanghvi who are associated with this medium are not trust worthy any more ( for their journalistic views).

    I have noticed many families watch how this biased media is “projecting” news.
    And as slowly this section of media has lost is news worthiness, people stopped believing them.
    Thats why these media buffoons get it wrong.
    In the polls. In getting the pulse of of the people. In representing the common man.

    They failed in the eyes of viewers. But because of their connections,
    they make their money thru Ads.
    So finally it all about money. News, who cares. So do people.

    -Indu

    [Reply]

    Ankit Reply:

    Statutary warning to all of you who think media is biased in favor of the establishment. Since you are speaking out against the media and its party, please be prepared to be labled ‘fascist’, ‘bigot’, ‘fanatic’, ‘nazi’, ‘communal’, ‘chaddiwallah’ and various other such phrases that do not come to my mind right away. Having heaped such adjectives upon you, there will be a program where the guests shall analyze your behaviour. As Vir correctly predicts, that discussion will be quite boring :)

    Indu Shekhar Reply:

    My guess is, they may not respond to every comment . But they are likely to go thru these comments. This is one of the ways, they can get a raw criticism of their works. And a good public opinion maker wants to know what different sections think. Blog comments are a good source.

    [Reply]

    zachk Reply:

    They think they are the be all and the end all of all discussions.. Nidhi Razdhan lacks gravity and is so shallow , she doesnt even realise that they have put her up on the show not for her grey matter but for the gravy a .. Burkha shouts and shouts ..

    [Reply]

  • jayant

    sagarika ghosh should definitely keep up what she does, she makes a great case study for younger anchors as to what should NOT be done. :-)

    and god! will somebody pick up the guts to tell her to variate her pitch and tone or maybe the sound dude handling the program could just really dip the volume to compensate it :-) )

    [Reply]

  • (Dr.) B.N.Anand

    Dear Mr. Sanghvi

    I am one of your many admirers and I do like a bit of your neutrality on your part when these discussions are always centred aroundGujarat and especially Modi bashing. You have made immense contribution to both print and electronic media. Your column “Counterpoint” in HT and food articles in Brunch are always a treat on every weekend.
    The current discussions on NDTV revolves around Ishrat Jahan case. The theme is always the fake encounter in which she is alleged to have ben killed by Gujarat police. Do you think she is the only one who is alleged to have been killed in such an encounter in the whole country? The answer is simple no. Why then to jump to the opportunity to induldge in Modi bashing ? Yes, fake encounters are reported in Jand K , are reported to have occurred in Punjab and even Batla House encounter is very much under cloud. Besides, every one has seen the real fake encounters in Manipur through video clips carried by all the TV channels. At least no such video exists in case of Ishrat Jahan case. Yes, the media should talk on the subject of fake encounters but not only the fake encounter supposedly to have occurred in Gujarat simply for the sake of Modi bashing. All the anchors right from Prannoy Roy, Barkha Dutt, Nidhi Razdan are doing this in some way or the other. May be they have been given this project by the vested interests for political reasons. When the renowned journalists and news anchors on such a channel have a single track agenda to bash Gujarat govt. and Modi, it indeed becomes very monotonous and boring. That is one of the reasons we have stopped watching this channel . Besides, people like Mani Shankar Iyer are provided a platform on this channel to call openly all the BJP leaders as thieves. I know Mani Shankar does not enjoy high reputation as a leader of any value and he got his due when Lord Meghnad told him that he was speaking complete nonesense. Mani Shankar in return made the same charge against Lord Meghnad but the Lord retaliated more strongly by repeating his charge. By the way, since when the media has become so fond and sympathetic to Jaswant Singh? Because it gives tthis channel another opportunity to derive sadistic pleasure for the obvious reasons.

    If that sort of people make such a pannel, and the anchor is a mute spectator, who will like to watch such discussions? It is time journalists like you also introspect for once and find out reasons why panel discussions on tv are becoming boring . We are even skipping such discussions.

    [Reply]

  • Dr Alok Anand

    In cash for vote scandal in loksabha ,Rajdeep denied to show the video clip of the sting operation done by his channel in which SP and Cong were allegdly offering bribe..to BJP mp.
    It also gives a glimpse on neutrality of our great indian media.That is why they are so boring and disgusting.In race of TRPs and poliical backing they have tore apart the principles of ethical journalism.
    In my views Prabhu chawla is probably the best and very much unbiased .

    [Reply]

  • Ankit

    i read about fake encounter today in your daily . in my opinion this is right way to curb terrorism. sometimes police haven’t a clue about terrorist but they know that he is a terrorist . so fake encounters r right way to curb all these. even government has a ” maun sahmati” about this ( what r u feeling about kashmir & north asten parts?) . u can take example of sahabuddin ( another gujarati ) . he had 32 terrorism cases so our police did a fake encounter. so plzzzzzz don’t criticize it( okay not in sensitive case of terrorism)

    [Reply]

  • Awadesh

    Dear Vir,
    why dont you please come back on your best job ?

    [Reply]

  • Chirag

    HAD IT NOT BEEN THE PUBLICITY MONEY, OFFICIAL BRIBE, GIVEN BY GOVT ( CONGRESS ), THE DEBATES WOULD HAVE BEEN INTERESTING.
    CONGRESS HAS INSTITUTIONALIZED BRIBE AS IN NREGA AND NOW AS PUBLIC SPENDING ON ADDS.
    SLOGAN OF MEDIA ” BASH MODI BASH “.

    [Reply]

    Sam Reply:

    I think this is the first phase of TV interviews.

    Hopefully in phase 2, there will more intellectually honest and appreciation of a different point of view.

    Currently it is just entertainment, rather than serious discussion.

    Maybe a format like “Charlie Rose Show” in USA where a full hour (most of the time) is given for the guest to put forward their ideas and take criticism or answer questions..

    they go very deep into issues (as much as a tv interview can go) and it is truly nice to hear major people speak at Charlie Rose show.

    [Reply]

    Shyam Sethi Reply:

    The question was, Why panel discussions on Indian TV are so boring?
    The quality of discussions would obviously depend upon the calibre and background of the panelists, on whether at least the the majority of them are independent minded academics, legal experts , impartial senior journalists, or others eminent in areas relevant to the topic of discussion. This is most often NOT the case , with the discussions mainly featuring well-known spokespersons (the “usual suspects”) from both the ruling party and the opposition. THe “discussions” thus usually degenerate into mere rehashing of well-known ” party lines” and political blame games. This is no doubt very convenient for the TV channels( they don’t need to do any great research on the topic) and the politician-spokespersons ( they get abundant prime time exposure and free publicity ) .. But the ones who suffer are poor TV watchers, as the shows seem to produce only ” sound” and no “light” or understanding. No doubt the audiences reach for the remotes as soon as these progammes get under way.
    , No doubt, the TV audien reach for the remote as soon as such a discussion gets under way.

    [Reply]

  • anuj

    Mr. sanghvi ,though i firmly believe that every Indiian deserves an explanation for the actions and decisions of our politicians, lets not forget that there are a million issues at hand for which people expect an explanation.
    Clearly the senior members of our polity or those in power have more important daily agendas to keep pace with.
    secondly, those who actually appear on TV like abhishek manusinghvi ,arun jatley , kipal sibbal,jayanthi natrajan are prominent figures of their respective parties.
    hence i dont entirely believe that cabinet ministers can appear on TV to address every single issue .

    anuj.

    [Reply]

  • ripal mehta

    Afzal Guru is patriot , Baghat Singh/Sadhvi are terrorist

    Afzal Guru ko maafi Sadhvi ko faansi

    Allah is god ,Ram is a fictional character.

    SIMI ,IM are social service org ,RSS,VHP are terror org.

    Kerala CPM declared 4000 Rs/- pension for madrasa teachers from temple funds

    genocide of tamils= srilanka’s internal problem

    Great sivaraj patil compares azfal hanging with common Indian (Sabarjit singh ) in pak. Afzal is human ,Sabarjit is traitor.

    Godhra Train carnage is accident ,gujarat riots are preplanned .

    15% muslims are human ,85% hindus are insects.

    Supporting Majority (80 crores hindus) is Communal ,20 crores muslims are minority (lol population of USA)

    Malegaon blasts are only blasts ,other blasts are not at all blasts , they are just diwali crackers.

    5 muslims died in malegaon are important ,1000s died in other blasts are not important.

    reservations for muslims ,bomb blasts for hindus.

    crores of money for Haj pilgrims, nothing for amarnath pilgrims ,allotting 2 acres of land in kashmir is blunder.

    supporting islamic terrorist is secularism ,killing Indians is patriotism .

    babri masjid is issue(which is actually a ram temple) , 100’s of hindu temples demolished is development.

    If muslims die it is killing ,if hindu dies it is fate.

    hindus should follow rules ,muslims no not need to obey common civil code.

    according to congress

    Sikhs getting slaughtered in thousands = A MISTAKE.
    hindus getting killed in Kashmir = Political problem.
    muslims getting killed by a few hundred = Holocaust.
    Poor protestors getting shot in WB under Left Govt = Misunderstanding.

    Banning Parzania in Gujarat = Communal.
    Banning Da Vinci Code and Jo Bole So Nihaal = Secular.

    Kargil Attack = Government failure.
    Chinese invasion in 1962 = Unfortunate betrayal.

    Reservations in every school and college on caste lines = Secular. Reservations in Minority institutions = Communal.

    Fake encounters in Gujarat [Sohrabuddin] = BJP Communalism.
    Fake encounters under Cong-NCP in Maharashtra [Khwaja Younus] = Police atrocity.

    Talking about hindus and hinduism = Communal. Talking about muslims and Islam = Secular.

    BJP freeing 3 terrorists to save 100 Indian hostages = Shameful
    Congress freeing 4 militants to save just a life of one daughter of I Home minister in Kashmir [Rubina Sayed] = Natural Political dilemma.

    Attack on Parliament = BJP ineptitude. Not hanging Afzal Guru the mastermind despite Supreme Court orders = Humanity and Political dilemma.

    BJP questioning Islam = Communal. Congress questioning Lord Ramas existance = Clerical Error

    These are just few examples, list can go on and on.

    Its time for hindus to wake up or perish.

    At the time of partition 18 % population of Pakistan were hindus, now its not even 1 %, and 8 % population of Afghanistan were hindus now its 0 %. Where have they all gone.

    Tamil hindus are being discriminated and slaughtered in srilanka, no body including India says anything, when muslims were killed in Yugoslavia the world attacked Yugoslavia.

    Rajiv Gandhi sent ipkf ( Indian peace keeping force ) to kill tamil hindus in srilanka.

    Hindus being tortured and discriminated in Malaysia, and Indians happily tour Malaysia.
    Hindu Temples demolished in kazakistan, Russia.

    Hindus call them self educated and they vote for congress, because congress says ( our prim minister actually ) “ muslims have first right on every resources” , hindus are terrorists , armed forces are communal because they say “ram ram”.

    [Reply]

  • Kirti

    In complete agreement with every word of this article. Anchors like Rahul Kanwal and OMG, arnab goswami touch my last nerve.

    [Reply]