Yes the sedition case against Amnesty International India was waiting to happen, solely due the world view of its executive director Mr. Aakar Patel carries. Mr. Patel does not leave out even a remote chance, however unconnected it is, to tarnish Mr. Modi, Hindus, Indian culture and India in general. Here are a few instances when he did exactly that.
Why is India doing badly in Olympics? It is because of our culture, says Mr. Patel. Is this reasoning based on a scientific study?
Mocking NRIs who revere Mr. Modi, Mr. Patel wrote “The frenzied following of rock stars comes essentially from their charisma. It does not come from their humanity or their higher qualities, but a fake heroism which is a creation of their public image. It is a cosmetic and superficial love. It is not a thing to be desired in serious statesmen. … For all of the tamasha about these meetings of Modi and the videshi desis, the reality is that they are just entertainment”. Jealous of tea seller becoming a Prime Minister?
According to Mr. Patel, Hindutva is based on hate and it offers nothing positive to Hindus, it has only anger and bitterness against Muslims and Christians. More over he agrees that he is paid to appear on TV debates and toe the anti India view! He also wrote “All of us, whether analysts or politicians or citizens or cricketers or housewives, must see the other side as an enemy and must reject everything it says or does even if we gain nothing from it. I am no longer able to subscribe to this stupidity. This makes TV appearances difficult for me. The clever ones will ask why I continue to do if I hate it so much or at least find it unpleasant, which I do. The reason is of course that I am paid to do this work“.
Criticizing Mr. Arnab Goswamy, Mr. Patel writes “anchors (read Arnab Goswamy) may become self-important and lapse into dangerous personal attacks, as we are seeing these days against Barkha Dutt and others who are being called Pakistani agents. … For a few years now the government has had to trim its policies and actions in line with what anchors like Arnab demand. This should be a matter of grave concern because the television anchor has no higher interest than popularity and ratings. He or she may believe that this popularity coincides with national interest, but it is indisputable that on some issues this may not be so”. Really? Is Arnab equivalent of Sonia Gandhi of UPA? Whether the freedom of expression is applicable only to Amnesty, but not for nationalist journalists?
Criticizing nationalism, Mr. Patel writes “I think nationalism as defined in English is quite accurate for us Indians. We are concerned mainly about ‘our superiority over others’ and our emphasis is ‘on the promotion of our culture and interests as opposed to those of others‘”. Has he understood nationalism properly till date?
Declaring “We seem to be unable to treat Kashmiris as Indians “Mr. Patel wrote on Kashmir “In the first, the problem is that the Muslims of the Kashmir Valley feel they had no say during Partition. … Later the state was integrated into the Indian Union through a series of steps that many Kashmiris did not accept as legitimate. The United Nations was pulled into the matter early on, but the Cold War and a divided Security Council left matters opaque. Not being able to accept the reality, Kashmiris rebelled violently just under three decades ago. … The Kashmiri separatist violence did not leave the state. No bombings and no attacks by Kashmiris happened in Mumbai or Delhi all these decades. Those Kashmiris who took up arms did so in their state and against the Indian armed forces“. See how Mr. Patel justifies the armed struggle in Kashmir. He even appreciates Kashmiris for not spreading the violence out of Kashmir to the rest of India. He further wrote “Lakhs of Kashmiris and North Easterners live in urban Indian centres where they work. They come into the news every now and then when they are refused a house on rent or when they are attacked because of their race. They have left the conflict of their land behind them. It is as if all that killing and exploitation is happening in someone else’s country“. Isn’t this instigation and abetment of violence by Mr. Patel? He conveniently forgets the genocide against Kashmiri Pandits. What all he says regarding this is “And the Hindus of the Kashmir valley were sent packing“. This is all he cares for the victims of terrorism in his opinion piece.
Mr, Patel terms the ban on inaccurate maps as a paranoid law! What a patriotic person he is!
Mr. Patel opines “Modi is wrong, terrorism is not our gravest threat today“! Terrorism “is essentially an upper-class anxiety [that] becomes a global threat because it is elevated by Modi’s endorsement” according to Patel! He advises “When Modi chases after the ghost of terrorism, it damages us. … Our media needs to be weaned away from the silly idea that terrorism is in any way significant as a national issue, leave alone a global one, and focus on more serious things. We are damaged as a nation when our leader sets our global priorities in as wrong-headed a manner as Modi is doing”. If terrorism is an upper class anxiety and should be ignored, why does Mr. Patel care for human rights of terrorists? Would you believe Mr. Patel when he says terrorism is not a threat or United Nations, which says [terrorism] “constitutes one of the most serious threats to international peace and security“?
While writing a piece on “Why Yakub Memon is being hanged“, Mr. Patel quoted his friend R. Jagannathan of firstpost.com as “Now consider how the same Centre, states and courts are keen to “uphold the law” when it comes to another category of killers: Ajmal Kasab, Afzal Guru, and, now, possibly, Yakub Memon. All Muslims, and their only common link to the hangman’s noose seems to be that they lack political support“. Further, Mr. Patel says that “I agree and it is for this reason that I think Memon will be hanged”. So, according to Mr. Patel, Memon was hanged because he was a Muslim, so much faith he has in Indian judiciary!
Mr. Patel reaffirms this opinion when he said “Even if Memon was guilty, and he was, the eagerness of the State to kill him was because of his religion“. Every patriotic person remembers, how much media coverage was given to hanging of Yakub Memon. As if “they” (who are “they”?) took revenge on Memon, The Indian Express wrote “And they hanged Yakub Memon“, which demonstrated the complete lack of faith in Indian judiciary. However, explaining why more than 8,000 Muslims gathered for Memon’s funeral, Mr. Patel feels that media was extremely hostile! He wrote “Television channels were openly hostile to the idea that he should not be hanged”. Really? Which channel was “hostile” other than Times Now? When he says “In that sense the blasts were part of a larger sequence of events and linked to violence in which communities were involved to a very large extent”, he justifies the March 12, 1993 Mumbai blasts! Isn’t Mr. Patel supporting terrorism here? Hanging of Memon was injustice according to Mr. Patel when he says “That then is the reality of being Muslim in India. There are moments, and the hanging of Yakub Memon was one, where all of the gathered injustices are crystallised“. So much faith Mr. Patel has in Indian judiciary!
Under a mis-leading title “Why terrorism can’t be delinked from religion“, Mr. Patel argues “If you are a Tamil speaking Hindu convicted of terrorism, for murdering our prime minister, you are not hanged … If you are a Kashmiri-speaking Muslim accused of terrorism, you are hanged … Afzal Guru was convicted of supporting the attack on India’s Parliament. The Supreme Court said “the collective conscience of society will only be satisfied if capital punishment is awarded” to Guru. Till we can think up similar justifications for hanging non-Muslims, I do not think we can delink terrorism from religion in our minds”.
Mr. Patel has a strange world view about Hindutva and Islamism, which is contrary to what a common man believes. According to Mr. Patel, “Hindutva is like status anxiety in reverse. It is anxious about lowering the lot of others. When its gaze is turned inwards it has nothing to say. This separates Hindutva from, say, Islamism“. Really? Islamists do not lower others? Who calls other than Muslims as Kaffirs then? He further writes “it is an observable fact that for the most part Islamism addresses Muslims and tries to reform their behaviour. What about Hindutva? Not so, as we have seen. It consists entirely of whining about others“. Islamism and reforms? Where on earth? Is this some kind of joke?
Elsewhere, Mr. Patel, repeated “Hindutva is an ideology of finger-pointing and blaming others. It assumes that others, not we, must act to make India a great nation again, assuming it ever was a great nation….Hindutva is mostly about culture. It has no contribution to economics …Hindutva has zero contribution to science, of course, and it has no contribution to anything of substance other than ‘culture’, where it insists that its narrative is the only right one. … It is interested, despite its name, not in Hindus, but in Muslims”. Is it clear, Mr. Patel hates Hinduism and praises Islamism? Of major religions on the world, Hinduism is the only religion which has transformed a lot and undergone reforms. Hinduism as evolved over a period of last 5000 years and is continuing to evolve.
“Getting Hindus, particularly the mercantile classes, to pay their income tax in full. Getting the upper classes to begin a Hindu tradition of philanthropy (currently missing) that will spread the wealth. Such things are to me substantial and meaningful Hindu issues and requiring the attention of the state” Mr. Patel says. Hindu philanthropy is a state issue, not a societal issue to Mr. Patel. However, “to get Indians to be clean is social reform, which has to be conducted from within society and by its institutions, like religious bodies, not by public officials and ministers“, this is not a state issue, not by Modi says Mr. Patel! Double standards?
Hindus are never tolerant and peaceful, according to Mr. Patel. This is clear from the very title he has given to one of his opinion pieces “Myth of the tolerant, peaceful, Hindu“. He says that the “idea that Hindus are peace-loving and reticent is modern“.
Mr. Patel has declared “As is obvious, most terrorists in India are Hindus, the ones whom we have conveniently labelled ‘Maoist’ instead of ‘Hindu‘”. However he doesn’t back his claim with statistics.
Mr. Patel calls India as a third-rate nation, nation of thieves and almost the entire middle class as anti-national. However, his hope lives on due to places like JNU. He wrote “If this third-rate nation can produce defiant, intellectually vibrant and throbbingly alive places like JNU, standing proud against the armies of Hindutva, hope lives on. … To me, in this nation of thieves where only 3% pays income tax — the majority here being salaried folks with no option of thieving — almost the entire middle class is anti-national“.
And our media supports such views? MSM keeps on publishing such articles from Mr. Patel! And all Indians should be shocked to hear that Mr. Patel was used for track – II diplomacy with Pakistan, wouldn’t he sell our country?
Mind you these are only few instances, one may write a book on his world view!
In view of his world view and mindset of hatred, one may guess that he will readily give a platform and chance to anyone who criticizes Hindus, Mr. Modi, Indian culture, or India. Hence, the sedition case against Amnesty International India was waiting to happen, with Mr. Aakar Patel as its executive director!