Ram Yadav - Mehdi Hasan controversy on "YOUR ISIS"

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
...We'll worry about Kashmir, you worry about YOUR ISIS: BJP's Ram Madhav tells Al Jazeera journalist Mehdi Hasan

If the ISIS claims to be the prepresntatives of the muslims, whose protest against ISIS atrocities - are mere lip service, then Ram Madhav clubbing Hasan with ISIS is not far-fetched.  All their protests against ISIS atrocities dont compare with  the Muslim protest against quron burning - at best 1/100th.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:If Al-Jazzera stands for "freedom of speech" then Ram Madhav has every right to his own freedom of speech. So what is the biggie in this ?

Hellsangel wrote:Wasn't Nirmala Seetharaman the spokesperson? This guy will provide more ways for the RSS to shoot itself in the foot.

southindian wrote:If RSS feels that India, Pakistan, Bangladesh can become one through dialogue then what's wrong in that? He quoted Germany, Vietnam. 

I don't get why Kerala Loin is upset?

** Knowing fully well Pakis and common religion of Pakis, Bangladeshis, Ram Madhav's comments had me in splits . These Hindus are too naive. **

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:Ram Madhav didn't say anything that is objectionable. It so happens that Sikularists don't like him because he is from RSS. I thought Natasha Kaul (in the debate) suffers from capture-bonding (Stockholm syndrome). She is simular to Rashmun (Aurangajeb was a good guy because he worshipped Kafir lingams and Modi is bad for no reason).

Compared to the posts of Merlot, Rashmun and CD, Madhav's utterances are not bad. :-).

Merlot Daruwala wrote:

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:Ram Madhav didn't say anything that is objectionable. It so happens that Sikularists don't like him because he is from RSS. I thought Natasha Kaul (in the debate) suffers from capture-bonding (Stockholm syndrome). She is simular to Rashmun (Aurangajeb was a good guy because he worshipped Kafir lingams and Modi is bad for no reason).

Compared to the posts of Merlot, Rashmun and CD, Madhav's utterances are not bad. :-).

C'mon Unkil, you're just defending him because he's a chaddi from AP.

Actually the "your ISIS" bit was just some drama by the interviewer. The bigger scandal was his pathetic performance overall.

He came out looking silly and inappropriate so many times, I lost count - on the matter of using taxpayer money to distribute free Bhagavad Geetas and other religious texts, on Golwalkar's statement that India's three threats are Muslims, Christians and Communists, his inability to list any action taken against party leaders who made outrageous statements, on his reiteration that a minority can only survive at the goodwill of the majority, on his insistence that there is one single Hindu culture and Taj Mahal is also Hindu culture, on his refusal to acknowledge there is any problem in Kashmir, on how 96% of citizens' complaints against the army being dismissed as flimsy, on how anyone who returned their awards was defaming the country etc.

truthbetold wrote:VP,

Congress would not be happy with akhand bharat for a good reason.  Why does anybody need a middleman when the religious numbers change dramatically?
Congress will be irrelevant in such a situation.

Akhand bharat would have about 390 "hindu" majority (MP) constituencies and about 260 muslim majority (MP) constituencies.  Guess who would be calling shots on different sides of this political equation. Pseudo secularists would not be pandering anymore, they would be slaves to Hafiz Saeed from pak, some nut in b'desh and Owasi from Hyd, India. But this is all academic as akhand bharat would have crushed democratic system long ago.

Ram Madhav and RSS should shut the f'up and thank their good fortune for the historical blunder of partition and move on.

Merlot Daruwala wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
...We'll worry about Kashmir, you worry about YOUR ISIS: BJP's Ram Madhav tells Al Jazeera journalist Mehdi Hasan

If the ISIS claims to be the prepresntatives of the muslims, whose protest against ISIS atrocities - are mere lip service, then Ram Madhav clubbing Hasan with ISIS is not far-fetched.  All their protests against ISIS atrocities dont compare with  the Muslim protest against quron burning - at best 1/100th.

Haha..this inept and arrogant loudmouth is the BJP's chosen spokesperson?? He talks like Appu from the Simpsons. Talk about a talent deficit!

He must have imagined that his nightly shouting matches on Indian talk-shows qualify him to face a seasoned international interviewer.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:If Al-Jazzera stands for "freedom of speech" then Ram Madhav has every right to his own freedom of speech. So what is the biggie in this ?

Aunty, nobody deprived him of his freedom of speech. In fact, he got a megaphone to shout out to the world how ill-equipped he is to deal with the challenge of defending this government and his party.

The Article wrote:
6. International forums have audience members whose questions are better informed and smarter than many of our Indian prime-time star anchors. Do not let your Indian experiences be the reference points of what to expect overseas or the base line where you draw your practice runs from.

7. Don’t expect “unbiased” or “agenda-free” chats. ....Don’t go to a gunfight armed with a garland expecting the same at the other end (unless you have fixed it already).

9. Don’t defend the indefensible. I have read Golwalkar’s A Bunch of Thoughts (even interviewed Madhav about it) ... ...A Bunch of Thoughts has some pretty bigoted crap, which cannot be defended, so why try? Set it aside with something like things-from-the-India-of-the-early-1900s-does-not-hold-true-for-India-of-now. That’s true for literature and even for science across nations. Even if you value Golwalkar’s spirit and what he stood for (which according to me is hard), you don’t have to defend his every word. He’s not Modi.

11. Don’t attack the interviewer after an interview (or encourage your supporters to). Nothing makes you look more loser-like than that. Discrediting an interviewer or journalist who you think is compromised is okay, but to do that in response to a battering on his platform is more loser-like than saying the umpire cheated because you lost. No one buys it (except the extreme fringe loyal to you, which is not the target group for you in any interview) and it is not relevant to the immediate.