From today, we start a daily bulletin commenting on the most obnoxious, planted news stories and commentaries of the day. R. Jagannathan’s “The Modi factor and the fake outrage over Ishrat Jahan” wins the fake honour of appearing in the inaugural bulletin. Here are some gems from the article.
“The truth is Modi makes us all insecure and uncomfortable. Not because of who he is, but because of who we are.”
Yes, he makes us uncomfortable because we are decent human beings. Don’t try to psycho analyze us. And don’t try to lump yourself with us.
“If the man hadn’t existed, none of this would have happened. Fake encounters would have gone on as usual…”
Er, what would not have happened? Fake encounters would have gone on if Modi wasn’t around? Meaning he has asked them to be stopped now that they are no longer politically expedient?
“One should ask: is the cause of justice served by spending crores and crores and hundreds of manhours of legal time trying to get one man? Or are the courts supposed to try and deliver justice for everybody? How come the courts happily spend a month or more on vacation if they were so concerned about the cause of justice?”
Yes, how dare they go on vacation and then talk of justice? The courts should be shut down just for that. Either don’t go on vacation or don’t dare to talk of justice. There.
And go deliver your justice elsewhere. There should be justice for everybody and not just the people of Gujarat. They don’t need justice. They have Modi.
“Clearly, there is something about Modi – or rather, our response to him – that makes everyone act out of character.”
Ok. What exactly does it mean, “Our response to him makes us act out of character.”
No, lets try and figure it out again sequentially. A) First, there is Modi; B) there is our response; C) Everyone starts to act out of character. (What’s the difference between B and C?)
But we have been told in the opening bit that our response to Modi is not because of Modi but because of us. So, we come even before Modi? Heck, who the hell cares whether the chicken came first or the egg. But couldn’t you please get a better sub editor to clean up the copy and cut out the teleology.
“Delays enable inspired leaks about “white beard” and “black beard” – presumably veiled references to Modi and Amit Shah, his close aide. The charge-sheet has nothing to speak about the colour of anybody’s beards.”
Oh what a pity. We were hoping for some reference to Vanzara’s red beard. What a let down, this CBI. Spoilsports.
“Communal riots anywhere else do not outrage us – not in Assam or UP. Encounters in Kashmir, the north-east, Punjab, Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh and all the states affect by the Maoist insurgency do not outrage us beyond a day or two.”
Yawn. Have you been napping all these years?
“Even in the Ishrat case we are missing one thing: nobody has bothered to tell us what benefit Modi might have seen in the elimination of the girl or the other three who were killed in that fake encounter, assuming he was even told about it.”
No? No one told you yet? Oh, horrible people. Tell him someone how he used the encounter killings to demonize a community and how this Hindutva icon used the dead bodies to poison the polity further. Mr. Editor, do you remember at all the election rally he addressed asking the crowd, what should be done with people like Sohrabuddin, and they screamed back in crazed frenzy: death. No, he didn’t stand to benefit from the series of fake encounters at all. Poor, innocent Mr. Modi.
“Modi comes into the picture not because of what he’s done, but because it is easy to pin all our guilt on one man and forget all about it.”
Oh no. Why should a couple of thousand deaths make him come into the picture? It’s all about “our guilt”. We are not feeling particularly guilty either. Having not presided over death, rapes or destruction. Sorry to disappoint you.
“It suits everyone to hang him without a conviction.”
Um, by any chance do you mean to refer to Advani ji?
See you holding forth soon on another feku, oops fake issue.