Those scoundrels who benefitted from defaming CJI through that Hit-Job must be held accountable!
After facing massive backlash for initially ignoring the Indian flight captain's heroic act, this propagandist finally made a video because he could no longer afford to face the backlash. It was obvious already. For the first two minutes, he did exactly what everyone expected him to do. He praised the captain initially, because when the whole world was praising the captain, Dhruv had no other option but to praise him. But right after that, he started bringing up internet rumours to make sure people are not fully convinced about the captain's heroic act. Dhruv Rathee is someone who always pushes a one sided narrative in his videos. But this time, when India is being praised worldwide, he suddenly remembered 'the other side', and that too, based on online rumours.
This is the same son of a gun whose blind followers say that he makes fact-based videos. Now, everyone can see for themselves what he is doing in his latest video. Even now he is being an arrogant to push his anti-India bias for what India is receiving worldwide praise. This was his only agenda behind making this shorts. Such youtubers need to be called out for their anti-India content.
Dipke wants to engage in public activism without letting anyone question him about his own activism. To avoid such questions, he turns the discussion into a conspiracy theory or resorts to whataboutism. Ask them where they get funds for activism, their reply is PM CARES. Ask him to show his own degree, his reply is "What about PM's degree?". Somehow all of this is a masterstroke for Dipke's fans.
CJP's School Theek Karo campaign is interesting for various reasons. The entire campaign is focused on school infrastructure and Govt school buildings. Now when CJP is going to different states, they can also go to Aam Aadmi Party-ruled states to show that CJP are questioning everyone. That makes it much easier for CJP to give the impression of being neutral. But we can also look at who benefits from this particular topic. AAP already has plenty of school buildings and infrastructure to show in its PR. So when CJP runs campaign for particularly school infrastructure, AAP has a ready answer, i.e. show the buildings and say, "Yes, we are doing this for the young people." Earlier, when examination issues, paper leak issues, exam-centre failures and security problems were being discussed, this brought the government under scrutiny. Keeping this in mind, CJP has particularly started this School Thik Karo cmapaign this time. The same campaign which can create political pressure for other parties would not hurt AAP in this case because AAP already has something to put forward. How convenient, is not it?
But then comes the real question about Punjab's youth. Punjab's youth is suffering from a serious drug crisis. When the conversation comes to the this condition of Punjab's youth, especially how the youth is rotting in the drug crisis and how this crisis is destroying families and lives of young people, CJP-AAP are no more ready to stand with the youth. Their response would suddenly change to, "Why should we do this? We are not here to stand for the youth. Why are you asking us? Why don't you do it then?" If this is your attitude toward youth issues, then what happened to all the "youth ke liye" campaigning now? Why is talking about youth so easy when you have school buildings to show, but the moment their serious problems come up, you don't even want to talk about them? This is exactly how youth has become a useful tool for PR for AAP-CJP nexus. They drag youth into the campaign when youth can be used for AAP's PR image and leave them aside when it comes to the problems our youth are actually facing.
CJP's campaign is about school buildings, AAP has school buildings to show, CJP can still look neutral and AAP gets a chance to build its positive image with its PR campaigns. But Punjab's youth cannot be reduced to just buildings and PR. The moment the conversation moves to drugs and the actual condition of young people, their whole narrative starts falling apart. People can see what is happening. They can see what is being shown and what is being avoided. Stop trying to fool the public with fake PR campaigns. You cannot keep showing a few buildings and expect people to believe that this means you are standing with the youth. If this is the best way you have found to show your concern for Punjab's youth, then the public can very easily see what this whole PR stunt is really about.
CJP's School Theek Karo campaign is interesting for various reasons. The entire campaign is focused on school infrastructure and Govt school buildings. Now when CJP is going to different states, they can also go to Aam Aadmi Party-ruled states to show that CJP are questioning everyone. That makes it much easier for CJP to give the impression of being neutral. But we can also look at who benefits from this particular topic. AAP already has plenty of school buildings and infrastructure to show in its PR. So when CJP runs campaign for particularly school infrastructure, AAP has a ready answer, i.e. show the buildings and say, "Yes, we are doing this for the young people." Earlier, when examination issues, paper leak issues, exam-centre failures and security problems were being discussed, this brought the government under scrutiny. Keeping this in mind, CJP has particularly started this School Thik Karo cmapaign this time. The same campaign which can create political pressure for other parties would not hurt AAP in this case because AAP already has something to put forward. How convenient, is not it?
But then comes the real question about Punjab's youth. Punjab's youth is suffering from a serious drug crisis. When the conversation comes to the this condition of Punjab's youth, especially how the youth is rotting in the drug crisis and how this crisis is destroying families and lives of young people, CJP-AAP are no more ready to stand with the youth. Their response would suddenly change to, "Why should we do this? We are not here to stand for the youth. Why are you asking us? Why don't you do it then?" If this is your attitude toward youth issues, then what happened to all the "youth ke liye" campaigning now? Why is talking about youth so easy when you have school buildings to show, but the moment their serious problems come up, you don't even want to talk about them? This is exactly how youth has become a useful tool for PR for AAP-CJP nexus. They drag youth into the campaign when youth can be used for AAP's PR image and leave them aside when it comes to the problems our youth are actually facing.
CJP's campaign is about school buildings, AAP has school buildings to show, CJP can still look neutral and AAP gets a chance to build its positive image with its PR campaigns. But Punjab's youth cannot be reduced to just buildings and PR. The moment the conversation moves to drugs and the actual condition of young people, their whole narrative starts falling apart. People can see what is happening. They can see what is being shown and what is being avoided. Stop trying to fool the public with fake PR campaigns. You cannot keep showing a few buildings and expect people to believe that this means you are standing with the youth. If this is the best way you have found to show your concern for Punjab's youth, then the public can very easily see what this whole PR stunt is really about.
An individual flew from the US to India and mobilised a crowd to publicly protest against the Indian government. It is reasonable for anyone to look at their actions and understand CJP based on them.
Earlier in July, CJP organised a protest against the Indian government over the NEET paper leak. There is more to this issue that we are going to look at. There is a misleading premise being pushed that because CJP protested in one case against the BJP, it can automatically call itself a public interest group. That conclusion does not follow in this case. A protest against a political party proves only one thing: that they protested against a political party. A group cannot call itself a public interest group simply by doing a protest. If they claim that their activism is truly about youth or public issues and not political, then they have to maintain their standard elsewhere too. They should adopt the same standard against a government led by another party when a student concern arises. Only then can one say that the concern is genuinely about the public and students.
Right after the CJP protest, students in Jharkhand protested over paper leaks in JPSC and JSSC, a genuine student concern demanding accountability. After days of social media users questioning why CJP was absent from the Jharkhand protest, CJP's response was limited to a few online posts on social media rather than the active protest it carried out for NEET. Their previous protest against the BJP government gives us the basis to understand their standard toward the Jharkhand student protest. This is how people realise there is a double standard or selective activism. Bringing their previous standard becomes evidence that there is selective activism. CJP claimed to be a student group and this claim was the basis on which CJP carried out its protest. Their hypocrisy shows why their earlier premise (that CJP is a student concern group) was misleading. The previous standard is at the core of the issue. If they are changing the standard, then it no longer looks like concern for the students.
Calling out hypocrisy is not deflection when hypocrisy is the subject here itself. A CJP supporter calling this whataboutery is actually the one deflecting, because they are trying to reframe the comparison as a distraction when it is the evidence itself. When they resort to replying like, "Tum log khud kyu nahi jake protest kar dete?", this is an attempt to shut down the question that arose because of their own selective activism. Others' protest will not disprove CJP's double standard. Only CJP can disprove that by acting genuinely on student interests and proving its relevance. People are now speaking up against CJP because they have opposed CJP's protest from the beginning. People have now seen CJP's hypocrisy and its selective activism, which tells why they were right to not support CJP's campaign from the beginning.
Moreover, a criticism does not become political simply for calling out CJP's selective activism. Their selective activism itself speaks about the political motives behind their protest. Outrage means they choose to publicly protest, mobilise the public and demand a response. Selective outrage means they were only using the students for their protest against one political side.
Finally, we are discussing CJP. If the criticism is directed at CJP, then it is directed at CJP. This is the group that mobilised the crowd, made demands and organised the protest.
There has been a lot of discussion around this controversy and people have taken different sides. Some were talking about the outfit, some on the festival setting and some on the comparison made in an influencer's video. So it is important to understand the issue in its proper context before coming to a conclusion.
A comparison that people made was with a temple priest, but that comparison does not fully fit. The comparison would be more accurate if it was made between two equally sensitive areas of the two persons. It misses the context of what is actually being discussed, because we are talking about whether the presentation was appropriate for a religious and festive setting. When a setting carries a cultural meaning, people naturally expect certain decorum. That is why this should not be reduced to sexism. If people feel uncomfortable with something that is less modest in a sacred or public environment, that discomfort is not automatically discrimination. In this case, the issue is modesty and respect for the occasion.
In Hinduism, our festivals are not celebrated only for human interactions. They have historical and religious contexts. Holi is linked to Holika and Dussehra is about the defeat of Ravana. Similarly, Raksha Bandhan is linked to the sacred story of Draupadi and Krishna. The idea is also present in temple visits, where we keep a modest appearance. When the setting is sacred, we are expected to dress appropriately. So, when a festival has a sacred meaning, modesty is expected naturally. It is a matter of respect for an occasion so closely associated with Hindu history and tradition.
So, we should look at this controversy with its religious and cultural context to understand why modesty and appropriateness matter.
There has been a lot of discussion around this controversy and people have taken different sides. Some were talking about the outfit, some on the festival setting and some on the comparison made in an influencer's video. So it is important to understand the issue in its proper context before coming to a conclusion.
A comparison that people made was with a temple priest, but that comparison does not fully fit. The comparison would be more accurate if it was made between two equally sensitive areas of the two persons. It misses the context of what is actually being discussed, because we are talking about whether the presentation was appropriate for a religious and festive setting. When a setting carries a cultural meaning, people naturally expect certain decorum. That is why this should not be reduced to sexism. If people feel uncomfortable with something that is less modest in a sacred or public environment, that discomfort is not automatically discrimination. In this case, the issue is modesty and respect for the occasion.
In Hinduism, our festivals are not celebrated only for human interactions. They have historical and religious contexts. Holi is linked to Holika and Dussehra is about the defeat of Ravana. Similarly, Raksha Bandhan is linked to the sacred story of Draupadi and Krishna. The idea is also present in temple visits, where we keep a modest appearance. When the setting is sacred, we are expected to dress appropriately. So, when a festival has a sacred meaning, modesty is expected naturally. It is a matter of respect for an occasion so closely associated with Hindu history and tradition.
So, we should look at this controversy with its religious and cultural context to understand why modesty and appropriateness matter.
An individual flew from the US to India and mobilised a crowd to publicly protest against the Indian government. It is reasonable for anyone to look at their actions and understand CJP based on them.
Earlier in July, CJP organised a protest against the Indian government over the NEET paper leak. There is more to this issue that we are going to look at. There is a misleading premise being pushed that because CJP protested in one case against the BJP, it can automatically call itself a public interest group. That conclusion does not follow in this case. A protest against a political party proves only one thing: that they protested against a political party. A group cannot call itself a public interest group simply by doing a protest. If they claim that their activism is truly about youth or public issues and not political, then they have to maintain their standard elsewhere too. They should adopt the same standard against a government led by another party when a student concern arises. Only then can one say that the concern is genuinely about the public and students.
Right after the CJP protest, students in Jharkhand protested over paper leaks in JPSC and JSSC, a genuine student concern demanding accountability. After days of social media users questioning why CJP was absent from the Jharkhand protest, CJP's response was limited to a few online posts on social media rather than the active protest it carried out for NEET. Their previous protest against the BJP government gives us the basis to understand their standard toward the Jharkhand student protest. This is how people realise there is a double standard or selective activism. Bringing their previous standard becomes evidence that there is selective activism. CJP claimed to be a student group and this claim was the basis on which CJP carried out its protest. Their hypocrisy shows why their earlier premise (that CJP is a student concern group) was misleading. The previous standard is at the core of the issue. If they are changing the standard, then it no longer looks like concern for the students.
Calling out hypocrisy is not deflection when hypocrisy is the subject here itself. A CJP supporter calling this whataboutery is actually the one deflecting, because they are trying to reframe the comparison as a distraction when it is the evidence itself. When they resort to replying like, "Tum log khud kyu nahi jake protest kar dete?", this is an attempt to shut down the question that arose because of their own selective activism. Others' protest will not disprove CJP's double standard. Only CJP can disprove that by acting genuinely on student interests and proving its relevance. People are now speaking up against CJP because they have opposed CJP's protest from the beginning. People have now seen CJP's hypocrisy and its selective activism, which tells why they were right to not support CJP's campaign from the beginning.
Moreover, a criticism does not become political simply for calling out CJP's selective activism. Their selective activism itself speaks about the political motives behind their protest. Outrage means they choose to publicly protest, mobilise the public and demand a response. Selective outrage means they were only using the students for their protest against one political side.
Finally, we are discussing CJP. If the criticism is directed at CJP, then it is directed at CJP. This is the group that mobilised the crowd, made demands and organised the protest.
An individual flew from the US to India and mobilised a crowd to publicly protest against the Indian government. It is reasonable for anyone to look at their actions and understand CJP based on them.
Earlier in July, CJP organised a protest against the Indian government over the NEET paper leak. There is more to this issue that we are going to look at. There is a misleading premise being pushed that because CJP protested in one case against the BJP, it can automatically call itself a public interest group. That conclusion does not follow in this case. A protest against a political party proves only one thing: that they protested against a political party. A group cannot call itself a public interest group simply by doing a protest. If they claim that their activism is truly about youth or public issues and not political, then they have to maintain their standard elsewhere too. They should adopt the same standard against a government led by another party when a student concern arises. Only then can one say that the concern is genuinely about the public and students.
Right after the CJP protest, students in Jharkhand protested over paper leaks in JPSC and JSSC, a genuine student concern demanding accountability. After days of social media users questioning why CJP was absent from the Jharkhand protest, CJP's response was limited to a few online posts on social media rather than the active protest it carried out for NEET. Their previous protest against the BJP government gives us the basis to understand their standard toward the Jharkhand student protest. This is how people realise there is a double standard or selective activism. Bringing their previous standard becomes evidence that there is selective activism. CJP claimed to be a student group and this claim was the basis on which CJP carried out its protest. Their hypocrisy shows why their earlier premise (that CJP is a student concern group) was misleading. The previous standard is at the core of the issue. If they are changing the standard, then it no longer looks like concern for the students.
Calling out hypocrisy is not deflection when hypocrisy is the subject here itself. A CJP supporter calling this whataboutery is actually the one deflecting, because they are trying to reframe the comparison as a distraction when it is the evidence itself. When they resort to replying like, "Tum log khud kyu nahi jake protest kar dete?", this is an attempt to shut down the question that arose because of their own selective activism. Others' protest will not disprove CJP's double standard. Only CJP can disprove that by acting genuinely on student interests and proving its relevance. People are now speaking up against CJP because they have opposed CJP's protest from the beginning. People have now seen CJP's hypocrisy and its selective activism, which tells why they were right to not support CJP's campaign from the beginning.
Moreover, a criticism does not become political simply for calling out CJP's selective activism. Their selective activism itself speaks about the political motives behind their protest. Outrage means they choose to publicly protest, mobilise the public and demand a response. Selective outrage means they were only using the students for their protest against one political side.
Finally, we are discussing CJP. If the criticism is directed at CJP, then it is directed at CJP. This is the group that mobilised the crowd, made demands and organised the protest.
An individual flew from the US to India and mobilised a crowd to publicly protest against the Indian government. It is reasonable for anyone to look at their actions and understand CJP based on them.
Earlier in July, CJP organised a protest against the Indian government over the NEET paper leak. There is more to this issue that we are going to look at. There is a misleading premise being pushed that because CJP protested in one case against the BJP, it can automatically call itself a public interest group. That conclusion does not follow in this case. A protest against a political party proves only one thing: that they protested against a political party. A group cannot call itself a public interest group simply by doing a protest. If they claim that their activism is truly about youth or public issues and not political, then they have to maintain their standard elsewhere too. They should adopt the same standard against a government led by another party when a student concern arises. Only then can one say that the concern is genuinely about the public and students.
Right after the CJP protest, students in Jharkhand protested over paper leaks in JPSC and JSSC, a genuine student concern demanding accountability. After days of social media users questioning why CJP was absent from the Jharkhand protest, CJP's response was limited to a few online posts on social media rather than the active protest it carried out for NEET. Their previous protest against the BJP government gives us the basis to understand their standard toward the Jharkhand student protest. This is how people realise there is a double standard or selective activism. Bringing their previous standard becomes evidence that there is selective activism. CJP claimed to be a student group and this claim was the basis on which CJP carried out its protest. Their hypocrisy shows why their earlier premise (that CJP is a student concern group) was misleading. The previous standard is at the core of the issue. If they are changing the standard, then it no longer looks like concern for the students.
Calling out hypocrisy is not deflection when hypocrisy is the subject here itself. A CJP supporter calling this whataboutery is actually the one deflecting, because they are trying to reframe the comparison as a distraction when it is the evidence itself. When they resort to replying like, "Tum log khud kyu nahi jake protest kar dete?", this is an attempt to shut down the question that arose because of their own selective activism. Others' protest will not disprove CJP's double standard. Only CJP can disprove that by acting genuinely on student interests and proving its relevance. People are now speaking up against CJP because they have opposed CJP's protest from the beginning. People have now seen CJP's hypocrisy and its selective activism, which tells why they were right to not support CJP's campaign from the beginning.
Moreover, a criticism does not become political simply for calling out CJP's selective activism. Their selective activism itself speaks about the political motives behind their protest. Outrage means they choose to publicly protest, mobilise the public and demand a response. Selective outrage means they were only using the students for their protest against one political side.
Finally, we are discussing CJP. If the criticism is directed at CJP, then it is directed at CJP. This is the group that mobilised the crowd, made demands and organised the protest.
An individual flew from the US to India and mobilised a crowd to publicly protest against the Indian government. It is reasonable for anyone to look at their actions and understand CJP based on them.
Earlier in July, CJP organised a protest against the Indian government over the NEET paper leak. There is more to this issue that we are going to look at. There is a misleading premise being pushed that because CJP protested in one case against the BJP, it can automatically call itself a public interest group. That conclusion does not follow in this case. A protest against a political party proves only one thing: that they protested against a political party. A group cannot call itself a public interest group simply by doing a protest. If they claim that their activism is truly about youth or public issues and not political, then they have to maintain their standard elsewhere too. They should adopt the same standard against a government led by another party when a student concern arises. Only then can one say that the concern is genuinely about the public and students.
Right after the CJP protest, students in Jharkhand protested over paper leaks in JPSC and JSSC, a genuine student concern demanding accountability. After days of social media users questioning why CJP was absent from the Jharkhand protest, CJP's response was limited to a few online posts on social media rather than the active protest it carried out for NEET. Their previous protest against the BJP government gives us the basis to understand their standard toward the Jharkhand student protest. This is how people realise there is a double standard or selective activism. Bringing their previous standard becomes evidence that there is selective activism. CJP claimed to be a student group and this claim was the basis on which CJP carried out its protest. Their hypocrisy shows why their earlier premise (that CJP is a student concern group) was misleading. The previous standard is at the core of the issue. If they are changing the standard, then it no longer looks like concern for the students.
Calling out hypocrisy is not deflection when hypocrisy is the subject here itself. A CJP supporter calling this whataboutery is actually the one deflecting, because they are trying to reframe the comparison as a distraction when it is the evidence itself. When they resort to replying like, "Tum log khud kyu nahi jake protest kar dete?", this is an attempt to shut down the question that arose because of their own selective activism. Others' protest will not disprove CJP's double standard. Only CJP can disprove that by acting genuinely on student interests and proving its relevance. People are now speaking up against CJP because they have opposed CJP's protest from the beginning. People have now seen CJP's hypocrisy and its selective activism, which tells why they were right to not support CJP's campaign from the beginning.
Moreover, a criticism does not become political simply for calling out CJP's selective activism. Their selective activism itself speaks about the political motives behind their protest. Outrage means they choose to publicly protest, mobilise the public and demand a response. Selective outrage means they were only using the students for their protest against one political side.
Finally, we are discussing CJP. If the criticism is directed at CJP, then it is directed at CJP. This is the group that mobilised the crowd, made demands and organised the protest.
Kathavachaks are known for teaching certain ancient methods and traditional practices that are still relevant today. That is a big part of what a kathavachak is supposed to do; preserve this knowledge, teach it to people and explain why these traditions still have value in today's world. You don't have to agree with everything he teaches, but his role should atleast be understood here. Some people are trying to use his personal medical treatment to question everything that he teaches. They are questioning him for going to another medical system for treatment, as if that somehow proves that he doesn't believe in the traditional methods he teaches. Following or teaching a traditional system does not mean a person is forbidden from using another medical system when they need different medical care. Different systems have different methods and people can make different choices depending on their circumstances.
These people are taking some part of the incident, removing it from its context and using it to create a negative narrative around a Hindu kathavachaks. The problem here is that such misleading posts can influence people who are not aware of the truth. This can create distrust toward people who are devoted to preserve and promote Hindu traditions and ancient methods. These tactics of dividing Hindus against each other need to stop.
Wonder why Rahul Gandhi is so eagerly justifying the term andhbhakt but not andhnamazi with the same passion? Because he knows doing that could collectively upset the entire Muslim vote bank of Congress. In fact, he does not even want to risk explaining to Muslims why he justified that term. But it is much easier for him to do the same against Hindus because he can always get away with claiming that he was not attacking Hindus.