Modi's Election Speeches are 'Immoral, Unethical, Unacceptable', He Owes Indian Muslims Apology
Summary
TLDRIn a recent interview on The Wire, Mr. N. Ram, the former editor-in-chief of The Hindu, discusses the implications of Prime Minister Narendra Modi's speeches during the election campaign. Ram asserts that Modi's remarks, particularly those made in Rajasthan, which targeted Indian Muslims, were not only in violation of the Model Code of Conduct and Section 123 of the Representation of People Act but also morally and ethically wrong. He emphasizes that political morality, or constitutional morality, should be a priority and that Modi's statements are unacceptable. Ram also addresses the Election Commission's lack of response to multiple complaints regarding Modi's speeches, suggesting a loss of independence and a failure to uphold the principles of democracy. He calls for the Prime Minister to apologize to Indian Muslims and for the Election Commission to take appropriate action, viewing the current situation as a low point for India's democracy.
Takeaways
- 📜 The Rajasthan speech by the Prime Minister of India is described as immoral, unethical, and unacceptable by Mr. Ram, a highly regarded former editor-in-chief of The Hindu newspaper.
- 🗣️ Mr. Ram suggests that Prime Minister Modi should apologize to Indian Muslims for his remarks, which were perceived as divisive and against constitutional morality.
- 🚫 The speech is believed to violate the model code of conduct and Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, which prohibit the promotion of enmity and hatred between citizens.
- 📉 Mr. Ram criticizes the Election Commission for their silence and inaction following complaints about the Prime Minister's speeches, which he sees as a sign of a compromised and non-independent body.
- 🤥 It is asserted that Prime Minister Modi's claim about the Congress Manifesto was a lie, and such disinformation is strategic despite being easily fact-checkable.
- 🈲 Under Section 124 of the Representation of People's Act, deliberate dissemination of false information that impacts elections is considered a corrupt practice.
- 📉 The Prime Minister's alleged nervousness and desperation are inferred from his divisive rhetoric and untruthful statements regarding the opposition's manifesto.
- 📉 Mr. Ram connects the Prime Minister's actions to a broader pattern of communal hate and appeals to religious sentiments, which are seen as breaches of both law and political morality.
- 😶 The Election Commission's lack of response to multiple complaints against the Prime Minister's speeches is viewed as a significant concern and a sign of a failure to uphold democratic principles.
- 🏛️ There is a call for a campaign to change the current state of the Election Commission and to hold it accountable to the principles of independence and impartiality.
- 🌐 The discrepancy between the Hindi and English versions of the Prime Minister's speech on the PMO website is seen as an attempt to target different constituencies with varying messages.
Q & A
What was the main concern raised by the speaker regarding Prime Minister Modi's Rajasthan speech?
-The main concern was that Prime Minister Modi's speech was deemed immoral, unethical, and unacceptable as it was believed to have breached the model code of conduct and section 123 of the Representation of People Act, which prohibit the promotion of enmity and hatred between citizens.
According to the speaker, what should be the Prime Minister's course of action after delivering the Rajasthan speech?
-The speaker suggests that the Prime Minister should apologize for his remarks, acknowledging that they were inappropriate and recognizing the public discourse around them.
What does the speaker believe the Election Commission's silence on the matter indicates?
-The speaker believes the Election Commission's silence is eloquent and indicative of its lack of independence, suggesting a failure to act in accordance with its constitutional duties.
How does the speaker view the Prime Minister's claim about the Congress Manifesto in Aligarh?
-The speaker views the Prime Minister's claim as a lie, stating that it is completely false and falls under the category of disinformation.
What is the speaker's opinion on the Election Commission's role in the current political scenario?
-The speaker is critical of the Election Commission, stating that it has failed to act independently and has not taken prompt action on complaints against the Prime Minister's speeches.
What does the speaker suggest is the appropriate punishment for the Prime Minister's actions?
-The speaker suggests that the Prime Minister should be barred from campaigning for an extended period, possibly for the remainder of the election phases, due to the severity of his breaches.
Why does the speaker believe the Election Commission's response to the Prime Minister's speeches is a test of its credibility?
-The speaker believes that the Election Commission's response is a test of its credibility because it has a constitutional duty to ensure fair elections, and its failure to act promptly and independently in this case raises questions about its commitment to that duty.
What is the speaker's view on the Election Commission's lack of action in previous instances?
-The speaker expresses disappointment and a lack of confidence in the Election Commission's past actions, citing instances where it failed to penalize politicians for hate speech or false information.
What does the speaker imply about the different versions of the Prime Minister's speech on the PMO website?
-The speaker implies that the omission of offensive content in the English version of the Prime Minister's speech on the PMO website suggests a strategic attempt to target different constituencies with different messages.
How does the speaker describe the current state of India's democracy in light of the discussed events?
-The speaker describes the current state as a low point for India's democracy, indicating a significant concern over the erosion of constitutional morality and the rise of authoritarianism.
What is the speaker's call to action for the viewers regarding the program's editorial independence?
-The speaker calls on viewers to support the program to ensure it remains bold, independent, and defiant, suggesting that viewer support is crucial for maintaining editorial independence.
Outlines
🗣️ PM Modi's Rajasthan Speech: Unethical and Unconstitutional
The first paragraph discusses the controversy surrounding Prime Minister Narendra Modi's speech in Rajasthan, which was criticized as being immoral, unethical, and against constitutional morality. The speaker argues that the Prime Minister's remarks were unacceptable and that an apology to Indian Muslims is warranted. The discussion also touches on the Election Commission's lack of response to the speech, which is seen as a violation of the model code of conduct and section 123 of the Representation of People Act, both of which prohibit the promotion of enmity and hatred between citizens.
📜 Misrepresentation of Congress Manifesto: A Desperate Move?
The second paragraph focuses on the Prime Minister's alleged misrepresentation of the Congress Manifesto, accusing Modi of lying about its contents. The conversation suggests that Modi's actions were unwise and possibly indicative of nervousness or desperation. The discussion also addresses the legal implications of Modi's statements, including potential breaches of section 124 of the Representation of People's Act, which deals with deliberate false information that can impact elections.
🚨 Election Commission's Inaction: A Reflection of Desperation?
In the third paragraph, the discussion shifts to the Election Commission's lack of action following complaints about the Prime Minister's speeches. The speaker expresses concern over the Election Commission's silence and suggests that the commission's inaction is a sign of desperation. The conversation also highlights other instances where the Election Commission has taken action against politicians for hate speech, contrasting with the current situation.
🤔 The Election Commission's Credibility on the Line
The fourth paragraph delves into the Election Commission's credibility, questioning its independence and its failure to act promptly in response to the Prime Minister's speeches. The speaker calls for political pressure and public awareness to potentially influence the Election Commission's actions. The discussion also touches on the potential consequences if the Election Commission fails to act, including the need for a campaign to change the commission's approach and uphold constitutional morality.
📉 Democracy's Low Point: The Need for Exemplary Punishment
The fifth paragraph discusses the implications of the Prime Minister's actions on India's democracy, marking it as a low point. The speaker suggests that the Prime Minister's position demands a higher standard of conduct and that any punishment should be exemplary. The conversation also addresses the potential for the Election Commission to impose a ban on the Prime Minister's further campaigning and the importance of this as a test of the commission's credibility.
🔍 The PMO's Omission: A Strategic Message Control?
In the sixth and final paragraph, the focus is on the discrepancy between the English and Hindi versions of the Prime Minister's speech on the PMO website. The speaker interprets this as a strategic move to convey different messages to different constituencies. The discussion also returns to the idea of an apology from the Prime Minister to Indian Muslims, emphasizing the importance of a genuine and heartfelt apology as a step towards rectifying the situation.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Immoral
💡Unethical
💡Constitutional Morality
💡Apology
💡Election Commission
💡Model Code of Conduct
💡Hate Speech
💡Disinformation
💡Secular Democracy
💡Representation of People Act
💡Political Strategy
Highlights
The Rajasthan speech by the Prime Minister of India was deemed immoral, unethical, and unacceptable by the interviewee.
The Prime Minister's speech was considered to breach the model code of conduct and Section 123 of the Representation of People Act, which prohibit the promotion of enmity and hatred between citizens.
A suggestion that Prime Minister Modi should apologize for his remarks, not as a forced act but as a genuine acknowledgment of the mistake.
The Election Commission's silence on the matter has been described as eloquent, shocking, and indicative of a lack of independence.
The Prime Minister's alleged misrepresentation of the Congress Manifesto is labeled as a lie, and a breach of Section 124 of the Representation of People's Act.
The interviewee expresses a lack of confidence in the Election Commission to act appropriately on the complaints filed against the Prime Minister's speeches.
The Prime Minister's strategy of dividing Hindus and Muslims and lying about the Congress Manifesto is seen as a sign of nervousness and desperation.
The interviewee calls for a campaign against the perceived packing of the Election Commission and a push for it to fall in line with constitutional expectations.
The situation is described as a low point for India's democracy, with the potential for a serious campaign to address the issues raised.
The discrepancy between the Hindi and English versions of the Prime Minister's speech on the PMO website is highlighted, with the English version omitting controversial statements.
The interview concludes with a strong call for the Prime Minister to apologize to Indian Muslims for his remarks.
The interviewee emphasizes the importance of constitutional morality and its role in guiding political behavior, especially from the Prime Minister.
The discussion points to a Supreme Court judgment that provides a broad interpretation of Section 123, which could encompass the Prime Minister's speech.
The Election Commission's past actions against politicians for hate speech are contrasted with its current inaction, raising questions about its credibility and independence.
The interviewee suggests that the Election Commission has the power to impose severe penalties, including banning the Prime Minister from further campaigning.
The potential ramifications of the Election Commission failing to act are explored, including the need for political and moral pressure to ensure justice.
Transcripts
you're saying to me Mr R and forgive my
Interruption yes you're saying to me
that the Rajasthan speech by the prime
minister of India was immoral it was
improper absolutely
absolutely so the word it was immoral is
correct the word that is immoral
unethical and against
all everything that constitutional
morality means I think that's that's
absolutely it's unacceptable
okay immoral unethical
unacceptable would it not be honest and
proper for the prime minister to
actually say I'm sorry I made a mistake
I apologize yes that would be the right
thing to do not not a forc apology but
an apology on your own seeing what what
is being discussed out there and I think
uh that would be the that would help yes
so the Prime Minister owes Indian
Muslims an apology yes absolutely many
apologies the silence is eloquent this
is it just speaks to it's being a surval
Election Commission it's got worse and
worse over three
elections in this situation the silent
is shocking it's uh and we can't find
the word strong enough to deplore and
condemn
[Music]
[Music]
hello and welcome to a special interview
for the wire how should we view prime
minister Narendra modi's election
speeches and what should we make of the
fact that even after three days the
election Commissioners had absolutely
nothing to say about them those are the
two key issues I shall raise today with
the do of Indian journalism the
well-known and highly regarded former
editorinchief of the Hindu newspaper n
Ram Mr Ram in the speech he delivered in
Rajasthan on Sunday speaking
specifically about Indian Muslims Prime
Minister Modi referred to them as those
who have more children and he called
them infiltrators in your eyes does this
breach the model code of conduct as well
as section 123 of the representation of
people act both of which prohibit the
promotion of enmity and hatred between
citizens yes
indubitably it it violates the modal
code of conduct
specifically uh Clauses one and three
under General conduct the first Clause
saying no party or candidate should
indulge in any activity which may
aggravate the existing differences or
create Mutual hatred or scause tension
between different casts and communities
religious or linguistic and then three
clause three says there shall be no
appeal to cast or communal feelings for
securing votes so clearly does that and
as for
section23 I think it's uh very clear and
current there is an important Judgment
of the Supreme Court in 2017 which
should be be brought to people's
attention abiram Singh versus CD
kachan where the where seven bench seven
judge bench of the Supreme Court of
India held by a four 4 to3 major 4 to3
majority that se section
123 three brackets three ought to be
interpreted and given meaning in a
purposive manner in a broad and
purposive manner in other words it's not
just the particular candidates religion
or the religion of the of the candidates
opponent
that would fall under this section but
any any any attempt to to appeal to this
and uh there's an important statement
here by then chief justice takur and I
quote an appeal in the name of religion
race cast Community or language is imp
permissible under the representation of
people act 1951 and would constitute a
corrupt practice sufficient to annal the
election in which such an appeal was
made regardless whether the appeal was
in the name of the candidates religion
or the religion or the election agent or
that of the opponent or that of the
voters so this I think uh gives us the
sense of the thinking of the Supreme
Court and this is the law of the land as
it as it exists tell me Mr Ram beyond
the laws beyond the rules that the
rajasthan's speech clearly breaches do
you also believe that in a 21st century
secular democracy it's immoral to speak
of fellow citizens in the way Narendra
Modi spoke of Indian Muslims so this is
not just a question of law it's also a
question of propriety and morality yes
absolutely I agree with that in fact
that's even more important than the law
Pol constit political morality what Dr
edar used to call constitutional
morality which I think is above
everything else and
if you if you use that the art stick
this is completely impermissible but
then this is not this cannot be seen in
an isolated way because there are number
of incidents the whole lead up to the
bjp's rise uh I I think has been built
on this platform communal hate appealing
to religion and that violates not just
the election laws not just the modal
code of conduct which really
has you know it's doubtful whether it
what you're saying to me Mr R and
forgive my Interruption yes you're
saying to me that the Rajasthan speech
by the prime minister of India was
immoral it was improper absolutely
absolutely so the word it was immoral is
correct the word that is immoral
unethical and against
all everything that constitutional
morality means I think that's that's
absolutely it's unacceptable
okay immoral unethical
unacceptable now 24 hours after the
Rajasthan speech in aligar Narendra Modi
said the Congress Manifesto states that
a congress government and now I'm
quoting will investigate who earns how
much owns how much wealth and how many
houses and the government will take
control of your property and distribute
it among everyone then he added they
also want to survey how much salaried
persons have invested in fixed deposits
how many vehicles they own how much land
they own they will conduct this survey
and seize your property the truth is
that the Congress Manifesto says
absolutely nothing of the sort so does
that mean that the Prime Minister when
he claimed that the manifesto was making
these charges was in fact
lying yes it is completely untrue
uh there is a famous phase used in the
House of Commons terminological inex
inexactitude the old days so it's
clearly false and it it falls under the
category of
disinformation terminological
inexactitude with a churchan euphemism
would you accept this was an outright
blatant lie yes it is
false a lie
would you use that word a lie yes I
would now the Congress Manifesto is a
written document available to anyone who
wants to see it so how wise or foolish
is it to lie about its contents when you
can be easily revealed to be lying so
was this a wise strategic move or was it
foolish and
silly yes I think it was very unwise
because you know people have called call
called him out on this fact checks have
been published but then they don't care
the whole point about disinformation is
you speak to a
section your bucks and they they're not
going to consult all this and even if
you publish or bring to their attention
on television or whatever or social
media or in print that this is
completely false uh they they're not
going to believe it that's that's that's
the premise on which thisinformation
operates and so on but yes it was unwise
for those who follow these things for
those who care about facts but for the
bucks one further Point Mr R not only is
this untrue and a lie but I believe and
I'm told that under Section 124 this
time of the representation of people's
act deliberate false information which
can have an impact on the elections is
also deemed to be a wrong corrupt
practice so once again Mr Modi in lying
and doing so deliberately is in breach
of section 124 of the representation of
people act yes I not looked at that but
from what you say this clearly the the
speech clearly falls under that uh under
that section and uh I hope the courts
will render Justice when this matter
goes before them now before I come to
the election commission what as a
leading journalist of this country is
your explanation for the prime
minister's speeches does this attempt to
divide between Hindus and Muslims this
attempt to deliberately lie about the
Congress Manifesto suggest a certain
nervousness in Mr modi's part does it
suggest a sort of creeping hint of
desperation yes it does because uh if
you ask the rational question why why is
he doing this did he need to do it if
he's so confident if they are so so
strong he says we must get 400 seats and
so on that's if that's the goal where is
the need to do it so it does raise that
question in any rational person's mind
and it does suggest that this is an act
of
desperation uh and so on yes it does and
it's not just once that he's done it he
did it in Rajasthan he did it in aligar
and today Wednesday I believe he's done
it again so clearly this is in his find
a deliberate strategy and you believe
that this deliberate strategy is a
reflection of actual nervousness it's
not confidence it's not just an attack
on Congress it's nervousness about his
own party's
prospects yes and in fact something
happened before all this at nvada and
biar on April 7th uh and he he spoke at
and then in ajir in Rajasthan on April 6
uh he he made SE several references
appeals to relig incitement of religious
sentiment against a political opponent
by saying certain parties particularly
the Congress and the
rjd were against the were opponents of
the ram temple they're being against
Lord Ram they're insulting Lord RAM and
so on and he clearly uh appeal to the
election I mean the religious symbol of
the consecration of the idol the idol of
ram laala in in aoda on January 22nd so
those also
fall foul of the model code of conduct
and possibly sec in fact certainly
sections of the Indian penal code in
particular 153a sub Clause A and B and
section 55 of the Indian Penal Code so
those also have to be brought in uh when
we talking about uh uh you know does it
reflect desperation uh why is he doing
it's not just desperation that is
reflected in what you just told me but
also further aggravating breaches of the
model code of conduct of the
representation of people act and as you
pointed out the Indian Penal Code as
well all three are breached here yes um
in fact
Karan okay we'll come to that if you
have questions let me put it like this
election commission's resp respon
yeah hi I'm Karen taper over the last
few years I hope you've been watching my
program the interview on The Wire during
that period I've interviewed doctors
politicians businessmen scientists
authors and even the occasional Noble
Laurette for me it's been exciting I
hope it's been enjoyable for you but
these as you know are tough times and if
this program is going to remain bold
independent and sometimes even defiant
then I think we need your support at the
end of the day it's a truism but
editorial Independence is best defended
by the viewers so if you would like this
program to remain the way it is
forthright outspoken and interesting
then would you consider supporting us
all you have to do is to click on the
description at the bottom but more than
anything else I hope you will continue
to watch the interview your viewership
means an awful lot to me
let's come to the election commission
directly multiple complaints have been
filed in front of the election
commission by sitaram Yuri of the CPM by
the congress party by jish choker by Mr
E Sarma just to name those four there
are probably many others I believe the
congress party itself has filed as many
has 17 complaints that is what I've read
in the
papers 3 days have passed since the
Rajasthan speech two days have passed
since the aligar speech but we haven't
had an official reaction from the
election commission how do you view
that
yeah the election commission has ceased
to be an independent body and this is in
direct violation of the order of the
Supreme Court earlier which uh made a
certain suggestion about the composition
of the selection selection committee if
you like the selection panel for
appointing election Commissioners uh and
the government has violated it
completely ceased to be an independent
body this this has been a process that's
been unfolding over time but then I want
to call attention I mean to bring uh
take us back to
2014 the election commission
banned Mr Amit sha and also aam Khan of
the
samajwadi party for inciting hatred for
hate hate speeches and the BJP sought a
review and so on finally Amit sha gave
an tendered an unconditional apology and
he was let off but from there this is
you know it's we we it has come to where
where we seen at least in 2014 there was
an attempt
to to to penalize reprimand and penalize
actually act against by Banning him from
attending rallies by the election
commission and
today it's some striking contrast can I
put this you it's been three full days
since the Rajasthan speech two full days
since the aligar speech is that not
sufficient time for the election
commission to at least issue a notice
yes it's not sufficient time for a
judgment and a ruling but they should at
least have expeditiously issued a notice
this is a matter of grave concern done
but in the middle of an election the
prime minister is campaigning every day
and aggravating the situation by
repeating what he said on earlier days
so surely in the three days the election
commission could have at least issued a
notice yes it it was bound to issue a
notice and the silence is eloquent this
is it just speaks to it's being a surval
Election Commission it's got worse and
worse over three elections and uh uh yes
it's you know it can't that it is
truthless and helpless under the law
it's got the powers the Supreme Court
has empowered it the Constitution
empowered it it is you know to conduct
it's in complete control of the conduct
of the election it can transfer
officials it can order it can issue
directives to them all government normal
government activity comes to a stop and
cannot move without the election
commission uh initiating this action so
I think in in this situ situation the
silent is shocking it's uh and we can't
find word strong enough to deplore and
condemn this uh this act let's let let's
hope let's let's see within the next two
or three days whe there it's going to be
different you know in
2019 that's exactly five years ago there
were multiple complaints that the Prime
Minister speeches at the time were
promoting enmity and hatred but the
election commission did absolutely
nothing and ultimately asoke lavasa
resigned and left the commission last
year during the kattic elections the
Prime Minister told voters to chant J
bajarangbali when they vote again the
election commission did absolutely
nothing and the matter was allowed to be
forgotten how confident are you that
this time around the election commission
will
act I am not confident at all that the
election commission will act but
the only way of making it act the only
chance we have of making it Act is to
pile up the pressure political pressure
and also take this to the people as part
of the election campaign if that happens
who knows but uh if they have uh hide as
thick as they have today then there's
little chance of their acting any better
than they've done so far you know on
earlier occasions and you referred to at
least one of the occasions a moment when
you were talking about Amit sha on
earlier occasions when the election
commission has deemed politicians to be
guilty of hate speech which breaches the
modal code of conduct or the
representation of people act they've
barred those politicians from
campaigning for a day for two sometimes
even for three would you say similar
action is needed in the prime minister's
case absolutely for a much longer
duration because he has the advantage of
be of being able to use uh the official
uh means of transport to go to any part
of India so I think uh you know there's
a certain uh lack of
equity between the way he campaigns and
the others do so I think even for a
longer duration yes so you're saying to
me that the correct fitting and suitable
punishment would be barring the Prime
Minister from campaigning for one two or
three days or maybe more yes because
there's no limit to what they can do
they can even impose an a total ban on
on further campaigning in the election
on anything that prospected tell me
something else I'm going to quote what
abishek singi said to the Press after
the Congress went public with their
complaint to the election commission he
said the higher the position a person
holds the greater is the obligation on
that person to exercise restraint and
there can be in India no higher
opposition than than the position of the
Prime Minister do we therefore need some
form of exemplary punishment because the
offender is the prime minister and not
an ordinary minister or an ordinary MP
or just an MLA because of the position
he holds should he be meed with
exemplary
punishment what kind of exemplary
punishment I leave that to you to tell
me I think it has to be within the
confines of the law and the Constitution
you know there's political punishment
there's Moral Moral censure let me put
it like this Mr RAM does it need to be
more severe punishment than would have
been given if the same comments had been
made by just an ordinary Minister yes
which is why I said they have the power
to ban the Prime Minister from F any
further campaigning in the seven phase
election one phase is gone so six
remaining phases that's the ultimate you
can do and you can work out the actual
they have that power I mean
and you're arguing that the punishment
because of the fact that the man is the
prime minister the most important
position in the country therefore the
punishment needs to be exemplary it
needs to be more than it would be if the
offender had been someone else yes that
that is
correct is this therefore a test of the
credibility of the election commission
yes to put it mildly yes because uh you
know the way the appointments have been
done in such a rush in violation of the
spirit of the Supreme Court's order the
whole thing in in blatant violation of
this of this ideal of Independence the
concept of independence of the election
commission on which the Supreme Court
has spoken so yeah but we can also raise
the question why didn't the Supreme
Court do something about it well let
that's a different issue let's not get
the reflected with that let me put this
to you instead if this is a test of the
credibility of the election commission
and your answer was yes to put it mildly
yes what happens if the election
commission fails the test because you
said to me a moment ago you're not at
all confident they will act properly so
what happens when they fail the
test I think you had to campaign against
uh such packing of the election
commission of India and also you know
they you know session whatever his
faults sometimes he overdid it transform
the character of the election commission
and subsequent election Commissioners
have Chief election Commissioners and
others have done exceedingly I mean many
of them have done very well because they
have asserted their independence now uh
it's gone back to the pre-session era so
I think there has to be a serious
campaign to change this to get these
Commissioners uh uh either fall in line
or I I don't know if they can be removed
they can't be
removed election Commissioners can be
removed more easily because they can be
removed under the recommendation of the
election commissioner but the chief
election commissioner can only be
removed
by yes so it's that won't happen but
unless the Supreme Court strikes down
the uh appointments themselves of the
election commissioner because that
matter is still before The Supreme Court
but let me ask you this is this
otherwise you have to do political
campaigning and raise moral issues of
the kind you said it it goes against
constitutional morality let me ask you
this Mr Ram is this a low point for
India's
democracy yes it is a it is it is a low
point but other there have been other
low points many awful things have
happened Hindu authoritarianism for one
has taken a heavy troll of Indian
democracy and this is widely
recognized by serious this is but this
is another low Point yes it is finally
the wire has revealed that the pmo
website does not carry the offensive
passages in the English version of the
Prime Minister speech although they are
there in the Hindi version they dropped
from the English version but they're
retained in the Hindi how do you
interpret
that yeah so you say different things to
different
constituencies the Hindi version is
presumably aimed at the Bucks and their
constituency and they want more of this
not less whereas the in the English
version aimed at you and me and many
others perhaps a minority of our
population certainly is is it has to be
a message has to be more sophisticated
but I also read that story saying the
videos are there quite right but is this
not in a sense
playing fast and loose with the full
truth the English version doesn't convey
the full truth of what the PM said yeah
it summarizes what he said apparently
and deletes what he said about Muslims
when he said they have more children
than us and again when he said they were
infiltrators that's
deleted yes but that will be no comfort
for them if it the matter a notice is
issued and the matter properly
investigated because it's there they is
there in the video and is it is it a is
it at all even the slightest smallest
hint of remorse and regret on the part
of the Prime Minister this is why it's
been dropped from the English
version remorse is too strong a word but
rethinking is possible perhaps okay you
say it in the spur of the moment and
then you you sort of rethink but remorse
is too strong a word given their
ideological if there is if there is a
rethink and this is not just a question
of you and me speculating about it if
there is a real genuine heartfelt
rethink would it not be honest and
proper for the prime minister to
actually say I'm sorry I made a mistake
I apologize yes that would be the right
thing to do not not a fced apology but
an apology on your own seeing what what
is being discussed out there and I think
uh that would be the that would help yes
so the the Prime Minister owes Indian
Muslims an apology yes absolutely many
apologies for for many of many strikes
against okay I'll end on that note I
just repeat it because I think it is so
important you said the prime minister's
speech is immoral unethical and
unacceptable the Prime Minister owes
Indian Muslims an apology in fact you
said he owes them many apologies Mr Ram
thank you very much for making time for
me take care and above all else stay
safe thank you Karan it's always a
pleasure talking to you and an
educational sir thank you hi I'm Karan
taer over the last few years I hope
you've been watching my program the
interview on The Wire during that period
I've interviewed doctors politicians
businessmen scientists authors and even
the occasional Noble Laurette for me
it's been exciting I hope it's been
enjoyable for you but these as you know
are tough times and if if this program
is going to remain bold independent and
sometimes even defiant then I think we
need your support at the end of the day
it's a truism but editorial Independence
is best defended by the viewers so if
you would like this program to remain
the way it is forthright outspoken and
interesting then would you consider
supporting us all you have to do is to
click on the description at the bottom
but more than anything else I hope you
will continue to watch the interview
your viewership means an awful lot to me
Просмотреть больше связанных видео
Cracks in the US-Israel relationship are beginning to show | The Listening Post
The surprising results of India’s election
What Do the Indian Election Results Mean for Modi, Congress, and Pakistan? | Faisal Warraich
India election: Narendra Modi set for third term but opposition still to concede | BBC News
India election 2024: Explained in maps
India's Voice At G7 Summit: PM Modi's Impactful Visit To Italy | Dr. Manish Kumar | Capital TV
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)