www.outlookindia.com | The L.K. Diminuendo

Illustration by Sorit

opinion

The L.K. Diminuendo

Paradoxically, unassertiveness catches up with the Loh Purush

Neelabh Mishra

PRINT	SHARE	COMMENTS

As L.K. Advani turns 82 on November 8 in the fading twilight of his popularity, the ‘Janata jinx’ seems to be catching up with his BJP. By the ‘Janata jinx’, we mean a sort of self-destruct software programmed into the erstwhile Janata Party, formed on the eve of the 1977 general elections to oppose Indira Gandhi’s Emergency and displace her. In two years, owing to this inbuilt code, the Janata Party split and paved the way for Indira’s return. After the defeat in the 1980 general elections, the jinx went on to split the erstwhile Janata Party into several splinters—one of which is the BJP—before they all, sans the BJP, came together once again in 1989 as the Janata Dal to displace the Congress, led by Rajiv Gandhi this time. But the software played havoc again in 1991 to split the Janata Dal and return the Congress to power. Out of power, the split-up constituents splintered further. These splinters again enjoyed power in coalition at the Centre in 1996-98, under H.D. Deve Gowda and I.K. Gujral. Today, you can discern the various regional rumps of the erstwhile Janata Party and Janata Dal under the leaderships of Nitish Kumar-Sharad Yadav, Mulayam Singh Yadav, Laloo Prasad Yadav, Om Prakash Chautala and others. Then there’s Subramanian Swami, leader—as well as sole known constituent—of the rump that has inherited the original name of Janata Party. Nearly all these splinters have been in and out of power in the past 32 years, either at the Centre or in their respective states.

Till the other day, of all splinters, the BJP seemed to have inoculated itself against this virus. The reason, it seemed, was this: among the four constituents that merged to form the Janata Party in 1977, three—the Lok Dal, the Socialists and the Congress (O)—had a history of splintering, but not the Jan Sangh, the pre-Janata Party incarnation of the BJP. But for the Jan Sangh, all other constituents had broken off from the Congress at some point in the past, and the Socialists and leaders like Charan Singh and Biju Patnaik had split, formed and re-formed several organisations before merging into the Janata Party. Not being a piece that broke off from the Congress, the Jan Sangh, and subsequently the BJP in its post-Janata phase, claimed the more steadfast and disciplined conservative heritage of the RSS, untainted by any notions of secular adventurism. Moreover, the parent RSS never relaxed beyond a point the restraining organisational leash it kept on its political offspring.

But it now seems the Janata Party’s lethal coding has slowly caught up with the BJP. During the euphoric surge in the early- and mid-1990s and the heady days of power in 1998-2004, it incubated quietly but started raising its head with post-defeat bickering. The days of power at the Centre and the gap between promise and performance that they exposed stole the claimed moral sheen of a hitherto untested rhetoric. The gap showed most starkly in none other than Advani, the hero and leader of the saffron surge. As a key mobiliser and organiser of the BJP’s march to power in the 1990s, Advani’s image- makers had assiduously built an aura of upfront and decisive leadership around him ever since he whirled off on his rioting chariot to thwart V.P. Singh’s Mandal card. But he was never seen to seize the initiative in the most testing moments of Vajpayee’s regime, be it Kargil, the Gujarat riots of 2002, Musharraf’s verbal barbs after the failure of the Agra summit, the attack on Parliament, or the Kandahar imbroglio.

The fact of the matter is, he was either perceived as politicking behind the scenes or shrugging off responsibility. This eroded his carefully built image and cost him and the party dear in the wake of the National Democratic Alliance’s defeat in 2004. Such was the erosion of stature that, after defeat, even Advani’s very own found it easy or useful to demolish the remnants of his image. Remember the TV moment when Uma Bharati defiantly walked out pointing her angry index at Advani? Or when the RSS, in 2005, forced him to relinquish presidentship of the party and all his second-rung lieutenants turned Brutus? Insofar as Advani failed to establish his credentials in decisive leadership before the country when he got the opportunity during the Vajpayee regime, he is also to blame for what happened subsequently. The problem with the BJP and the RSS is that they demolished Advani without readying another icon to project. Now they can only ask, fire-fighting in Rajasthan or Karnataka, how far has LK led the party towards liquidation?

PRINT	SHARE	COMMENTS

Filed In Topics: L.K. Advani, BJP, L.K. Advani, Neelabh Mishra

More In: National, Opinion

Daily MailPublished

COLLAPSE COMMENTS :

HAVE YOUR SAY

Nov 11, 2009 08:41 PM 14	Janata self-destruct ... good alliteration ... they (the BJP) should now become a solely cadre-based party ... with a real elected presidet ... hari chennai, India
Nov 11, 2009 08:13 AM 13	" As for the BJP, barring in Lucknow West and Jhansi, its candidates lost their deposits in all Assembly constituencies and Firozabad ". The above is the current status of the BJP in India's largest state - Uttar Pradesh - in yesterday's vote counting of the just concluded bypoll elections. This is in line with my earlier posting. BJP's decline will be in direct proportion to the decline of the Brahmanic Hinduism's influence on the Dalitbahujans ( dalits, tribals and obcs who account for 70% of India's population ). The caste based hinduism cannot survive, that it is in decline is a known fact among all including the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh ( RSS ) and therefore the Indian masses will continue to move to one of the three major faiths in India that are available to them - Christianity, Islam and Buddhism. B Prabhu Mangalore, India
Nov 10, 2009 06:52 PM 12	Rediff.com interview plagiarised by OUTLOOK magazine mass media outlook weekly, chennai, electronic media, sociologist, copyright india On October 12, 2009, the rediff.com published an interview with me by Shobha Warrier (see 'Brahmins dominate all modern professions'). The rediff.com website published as many as 422 comments on this interview. This was rediff.com’s fourth interview with me. The earlier ones were 'If Prabhakaran surrenders, Tamil suffering will end'; 'In the Case Of Reservations, There Is No Exit’; and Dalits Have Not Benefited From Quotas. It is gratifying that all these interviews resulted in a lot of debate on the rediff.com website, which is the purpose of any interview. This certainly goes to the credit of the interviewer, rediff.com, and most important of all, the readers and browsers of the rediff.com website. I am not sure if the earlier interviews were plagiarized, though they were picked up by the media and websites across the world and debated. While plagiarism is age-old, the emergence of the World Wide Web or Internet has increased it manifold. The plagiarists often get away with the act. Even if caught by chance, in a country like India it is impossible for the victim to get any redress. I have been a victim of plagiarism on at least four occasions. I do not include in this category plagiarism by bloggers. The scourge is mainly in academics and journalism. A special article of mine (with my student) was lifted from a journal and published verbatim as a chapter in a book. By a sheer coincidence the book landed on my lap for review. Though Tejeshwar Singh, Managing Director of Sage Publications, publisher of the book, who had also published one of my books, profusely apologised for what happened, the author sent a long letter to me, sent through Tejeshwar Singh stating that he is willing to tender a public apology. But even the apology did not take place; and the author got away with his plagiarism. At that time someone mentioned to me that if this were to happen in the US I could have sued the person for millions of dollars. But India is not US and Indian judiciary is a poor specimen of justice delivery system. Considering this I did not move the court. Instead I send an article to The Hindu. Its then editor of the Sunday Magazine was concerned and considerate. My article, Plagiarise or perish, was published in two parts on July 7 and July 14, 2002. Those interested can go to my article which is now available online. The plagiarism of my latest interview with the rediff.com is something which should make the journalists and editors in the Indian print and electronic media sit up and think. A few days after the interview, I happened to read an article in Outlook Weekly by Neelabh Mishra. When I read it I had a feeling that I was reading my own ideas, and in some places my own language. So I compared the article with the interview. The article had appeared on the Outlook website and Outlook Weekly print edition of October 26, 2009. I do not read this magazine regularly. If I had not read this particular issue of Outlook on the website, the plagiarist would have got away with his act. For, until I posted the following on the Outlook website, nobody had noticed the plagiarism: Plagiarism by Neelabh Mishra in OUTLOOK Weekly The write-up What Caste Is A Nobel? by Neelabh Mishra (Outlookindia.Com, October 26, 2009) is disingenuous and plagiarised for at least two reasons. One, the author gives the impression as though none other than the author thought about the Brahminical `twist’. Read this sentence: “I am surprised how nobody here has yet courted controversy with the Brahminical ‘twist’ to the Nobel, considering that out of the six Nobel winners of Indian origin, four are Brahmins, of whom three are Tamil Brahmins.” The fact is that the rediff.com published a lengthy interview with an Indian sociologist on October 12, 2009 under the title 'Brahmins dominate all modern professions'. It has been picked up by various websites and sections of the media in different parts of the world. At the time of writing this I see as many as 18,900 related hyperlinks on the Internet, Two, the author feigns ignorance of this interview in the claim “I am surprised how nobody...” and goes on: “No one will be so facetious as to argue for a Dalit and obc quota in Nobel prizes based on this fact, but some genetic supremacists will latch on to it to insinuate that some communities are congenitally more advanced than others, what with another fact that most Nobel prize winners have been Jews. But it is not genetics, it is cultural capital, which in a hierarchical order is concentrated at the top and is a result of various historical factors and contexts that explains the apparent correlation between communities and achievement. Cultural capital gets transmitted from generation to generation and over generations, which makes its recipients well-entrenched. Intelligence is distributed across all sections of society, but opportunities are not. So it is with geography. There are plain historical reasons as to why most Nobel winners in India are from the upper castes of Tamil Nadu and Bengal.” Compare the above paragraph with the following portions of my rediff.com interview. “We also see a co-relation between the Nobel Prize and Jews as most of the Nobel Prize winners are from a Jewish background. Nevertheless, we cannot overlook the crucial importance of cultural capital in intellectual achievements; and virtually all the Nobel Prize winners possessed cultural capital. In one sense, you can use the genes theory -- genetically some groups are advanced. But that may not happen in a hierarchical society, and ours has always been a hierarchical society.” Why do you say that in a hierarchical society, the gene theory won't work? It can only happen randomly. In a hierarchical society, the cultural capital is concentrated at the top. Brahmins are at the summit of the social hierarchy. So, they had all the advantages of society traditionally, though they may not be having the same advantages now. CULTURAL CAPITAL GETS TRANSMITTED FROM GENERATION TO GENERATION AND OVER GENERATIONS, THIS TRANSMISSION MAKES ITS RECIPIENTS WELL-ENTRENCHED... UNIVERSALLY, INTELLIGENCE IS DISTRIBUTED ACROSS THE ENTIRE SOCIETY. BUT OPPORTUNITIES ARE NOT. The sentences above are given in block letters to highlight that they are also there in the Neelabh Mishra write-up. What a shame! Will Vinod Mehta pay attention to this, publish an explanation and apology, and contain the damage before I take up the issue with the larger print and electronic media? In response to my protest, two persons condemned the plagiarist on the Outlook website on Oct 22, 2009. I am reproducing below their messages: ONE ‘>> CULTURAL CAPITAL GETS TRANSMITTED FROM GENERATION TO GENERATION AND OVER GENERATIONS... The sentences above are given in capital letters to highlight that they are also there in the Neelabh Mishra write-up. What a shame! Radhakrishnan While I appreciate your keen eye to notice Neelabh Mishra's plagiarism, I am afraid you are expecting too much from Mishra. What else one can expect from a pseudo secular and boot licker like Mishra? He is one of those paid piper. Sandilya Chennai, India TWO Points made by Neelabh Mishra are valid!! Really!!! It is obvious to all but the most stupid and gullible people what is going on here!! Just put the words in google and see!!! If it was as common words as Mishra would like us to believe, a search should show up at least some more instances where the same LONG sentence structure is used. Mishra and outlook really insult the intelligence of its readers by so blatantly lying despite getting caught. You have been exposed. Have some shame and just own up. And the lies are not in one place but throughout: first in the column and now in the reply. It is clear by a cursory reading that Mishra had read the interview and copied it. He could make a clean breast of it, but he is being dishonest. Vikas Aggarwal New York, United States Meanwhile the Outlook website carried Neelabh Mishra’s following reply defending the indefensible. That was also on October 22: Neelabh Mishra replies to Dr Radhakrishnan's allegation of plagiarism: Dr P Radhakrishnan doesn't have a copyright over Bourdieu's concept of Cultural Capital. 1. The whole thrust and focus of my article is when will a Dalit from India be capable of winning a Nobel in the light of Obama, a coloured American, getting one, a point not dealt with at all in Dr Radhakrishnan's interview carried by Rediff. His interview is mainly about why communities like Tamil Brahmins dominate the list of Nobel Prize winners from India, a point I only refer to in passing in my column while making a subsidiary argument. 2. I wrote: 'I am surprised how nobody here has yet courted controversy with the Brahminical twist to the Nobel....' In this, 'Brahminical' refers to an ideology that believes Brahmins are inherently and genetically superior and Dalits and backward castes genetically incapable of excellence, which is what many despisers of quota system believe. Even Dr Radhakrishnan has argued against the genetic superiority of Brahmins and hence not 'courted controversy', which is what I have said: 'nobody has yet courted controversy with the Brahminical twist...' Moreover, read as a whole, my sentence means that no fanatic from the other ideological end has accused the Nobel establishment of a Brahminical bias. It doesn't mean that no one else has pointed out that three Tamil Brahmins have been Nobel winners. One should pay attention to the nuances of English language and not rush to misinterpret. 3. Coming to the most crucial point, Dr Radhakrishnan cites three sentences about Cultural Capital in an article of 800 words to allege that my write-up is plagiarized. I would like to remind Dr Radhakrishnan that he does not have a copyright over the concept of Cultural Capital and the fact that it is acquired over and transmitted through generations. This is originally French Sociologist Pierre Bourdieu's concept. He first elaborated it in his work written jointly with Jean-Claude Passeron, 'Cultural Reproduction and Social Reproduction' (1973). In his later work, 'The Forms of Capital'(1986), Bourdieu explored Cultural Capital's relationship with other forms of capital, namely, Economic Capital and Social Capital. He added Symbolic Capital to the list later. Dr Radhakrishnan has borrowed from Bourdieu but not cited Bourdieu in his interview. Should Mr. Radhakrishnan then be accused of plagiarism? Yet, I would not be foolish enough to do this because Bourdieu's concept of Cultural Capital is so well known that one need not cite him every time one uses it journalistically just as one doesn't cite Einstein every time one refers to the Theory of Relativity or Newton every time one mentions the Laws of Gravitation. Yes, I like many others, including Dr Radhakrishnan, owe my point about Cultural Capital to Pierre Bourdeau. A journalistic piece's word limit does not often allow for a complete bibliography, set of references and footnotes. Why only Bourdieu and Radhakrishnan, many others would find their echoes in my small opinion piece. Neelabh Mishra, New Delhi. The same day I refuted Mishra’s rejoinder: Neelabh Mishra's reply is diversionary. The issue is not Bourdieu or cultural capital. It is plagiarism, which is an open and shut case in Mishra's write-up. To restate part of what was said in the earlier post (no. 30): Read from Mishra: Cultural capital gets transmitted from generation to generation and over generations, which makes its recipients well-entrenched. Intelligence is distributed across all sections of society, but opportunities are not. Read from the rediff.com interview: Cultural capital gets transmitted from generation to generation and over generations; this transmission makes its recipients well-entrenched... universally, intelligence is distributed across the entire society. But opportunities are not. That Mishra is allowed to write only 800 words is irrelevant to the issue. I am glad he was not allowed to write 8000 words, in which case his culpability would have been a lot more. The issue here is journalistic ethics. The editor of the Outlook magazine cannot allow journalists and Outlook to thrive on plagiarism Radhakrishnan Chennai, India After I posted the above rejoinder, three more letters appeared on the Outlook website, one on October 26, and two on October 27, 2009. I am reproducing them all below: ONE The plagiarism reported by Dr Radhakrishnan is absolutely disgraceful and even more shameful is that a respected editor like Vinod Mehta allowed the brazen and despicably dishonest response by Neelabh Mishra. I won't be surprised if the whole controversy is sought to be hushed up now with not even a word about the complaint or the disgusting response finding its way into the print magazine. Yashodhara New York, United States TWO This is truly blatant and beyond belief. Shocking. I hope some serious corrective action is taken. Ajit Tendulkar Seattle, United States THREE What is truly ironical is that only a few days back, Outlook had carried this piece which said, "The recent case of plagiarism is only symptomatic of the truly serious issue: the utterly cynical and self-serving attitude of a great many people who walk the corridors of power in New Delhi, wearing cloaks labelled 'Culture' And 'Education'" http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?261517 I wonder what Mr Vinod Mehta has to say on this. Ajit Tendulkar Seattle, United States One of the readers of Outlook sent me a personal email as follows: Dear Prof. Radhakrishnan, After reading the Outlook article, in my mind there is not even a shadow of doubt that Neelabh Mishra has plagiarised your article. However, I consider that his plagiarism is the highest tribute paid to your scholarship. Please bring the plagiarism to the attention of Vinod Mehta. I would be satisfied if the journal acknowledges your original contribution. Neelabh Mishra stealing your ideas is bad. But most journalists make a living doing just that. So far the no section of the media has come forward to report the Outlook plagiarism. I and some others sent emails to Vinod Mehta. He has not replied. The irony is Neelabh Mishra’s column appeared both in the print and web editions of Outlook. The correspondence on plagiarism has appeared only on the website. Those who have read it only in print and not on the website will think that the column is original. When editors are expected to uphold journalistic ethics, the appearance of Mishra’s column and the silence of Vinod Mehta are ominous and pernicious. As a small time editor of a glossy magazine, Debonair, I do not consider Vinod Mehta a journalist or editor of any worth or integrity, capable of upholding journalistic ethics. However, as editor of a news magazine his silence is also culpable. As Vinod Mehta has been an affront to the readers of the Outlook magazine and the media fraternity, the management of the Outlook should get rid of him as editor, and appoint a really competent person as Outlook editor. http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?262325 Radhakrishnan Chennai, India
Nov 08, 2009 08:06 PM 11	B Prabhu Mangalore, India You are right. The day reservations are delinked with caste and religion, Hinduism will be dead. ahmad pasha long island, United States
Nov 08, 2009 05:20 PM 10	prabhu even as a hindu agnostic i welcome your departure , in case you ever were a hindu. it represents the departure of the uneducated, backward masses leaveing behind the hindus who have shown an ability to make progress wherever they live. good riddance . gayatri devi delhi, India
Nov 08, 2009 02:35 PM 9	Advanis lack of willingness to take harsh decisions has come to haunt him far too many times.But he never accepted his follies.As for the nxt generation of the BJP leadership they have enjoyed the fruits of Advani and Vajpayees hard work of over 50 years.Its totally different thriving on someone elses efforts ,than working to achieve the same with no gaurantees.Advani has had his moments were he was eugolised as the Man for India.At 82 he is done and is better off enjoying his retired life to avoid his actions coming in for any more scrutiny.Let these gen nxt work and grow. drharun chennai, India
Nov 08, 2009 10:26 AM 8	BJP's decline will be in direct proportion to the decline of the brahmanic hinduism's influence on the dalitbahujans ( dalits, tribals and obcs who account for 70% of India's population ). The caste based hinduism cannot survive, that it is in decline is a known fact among all including the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh ( RSS ) and therefore the Indian masses will continue to move to one of the three major faiths in India that are available to them - Christianity, Islam and Buddhism. B Prabhu Mangalore, India
Nov 08, 2009 06:43 AM 7	This is a bit of a pointless article: the whole first half, about the Janata descendants' tendency to splinter, has no bearing on the BJP's own infighting, since the author himself has pointed to no connection between the latter and the former. I personally think the BJP's epitaph is being written a bit too hastily -- when parties like the Samajwadi and Rahstriya Janata Dal and Shiv Sena and even NCP have demonstrated permanent relevance in particular states, I see no reason why the BJP won't continue to be relevant at the national level. Especially as, unlike in decades past, the Congress' current electoral dominance is not tied to robust performance in seat-rich states (with the exception of Maharashtra). Umair Muhajir New York, United States
Nov 08, 2009 01:36 AM 6	The plagiariser is back with his gobbledegook, and it is a shame really to see Outlook (a) not even publish any letter charging plagiarism and (b) continue with sub-standard screeds from a clearly mediocre mind. Ajit Tendulkar Seattle, United States
Nov 08, 2009 12:47 AM 5	> "... he was either perceived as politicking behind the scenes or shrugging off responsibility." That is a true description of Advani! However talk of BJP's demise may be premature, unless they make a poor showing in the next general election. Anwaar Dallas, United States
Nov 08, 2009 12:27 AM 4	They all want to be the Chiefs and no one wants to be the Indians [cowboys & Indians]. So, everyone is constantly jockeying, if not for the Chief's post then positions of power, no matter the consequences. The present disarray is a consequence of this infighting and jockeying for power, prestige and status at any cost by selfish, self-aggrandizing party-members. Bodh Springfield, United States
Nov 07, 2009 09:43 PM 3	I know it's your wet dream Mr Mishra but rest assured you would be disappointed BJP is here to stay as long as congressi inefficiency and dictatorship persists Anil Kumar Toronto, Canada
Nov 07, 2009 02:10 PM 2	Advani has spoilt the name of the opposition, like his predecessor Vajpayee did for decades. By crowing about communalism, and issues that dont even exist, they have lost their credibility, so much so, that Indians are unlikely to even trust the opposition for decades to come. And these morons are not even talking about anti-male polticies and politics! How unfortunate! Partha persistent spammer chennai, India
Nov 07, 2009 01:48 PM 1	It is a very amateurish article.Mishra's understanding of the Indian politics seems very shallow.He wishes to see a parallel between the other split-prone constituents of the original Janata Party and BJP where actually there is none.Yes there is huge vacuum at the top after Vajpayee's & Advani's retirement.But that is natural for any organization even in other fields let alone the political field.I believe that just because the journalists must keep writing something to justify their existence should not mean they can take readers to be fools and they can write whatever trash they want to fill the pages of the periodicals like Outlook. K.C.Sharma Delhi, India

Nov 07, 2009 01:48 PM 1	It is a very amateurish article.Mishra's understanding of the Indian politics seems very shallow.He wishes to see a parallel between the other split-prone constituents of the original Janata Party and BJP where actually there is none.Yes there is huge vacuum at the top after Vajpayee's & Advani's retirement.But that is natural for any organization even in other fields let alone the political field.I believe that just because the journalists must keep writing something to justify their existence should not mean they can take readers to be fools and they can write whatever trash they want to fill the pages of the periodicals like Outlook. K.C.Sharma Delhi, India
Nov 07, 2009 02:10 PM 2	Advani has spoilt the name of the opposition, like his predecessor Vajpayee did for decades. By crowing about communalism, and issues that dont even exist, they have lost their credibility, so much so, that Indians are unlikely to even trust the opposition for decades to come. And these morons are not even talking about anti-male polticies and politics! How unfortunate! Partha persistent spammer chennai, India
Nov 07, 2009 09:43 PM 3	I know it's your wet dream Mr Mishra but rest assured you would be disappointed BJP is here to stay as long as congressi inefficiency and dictatorship persists Anil Kumar Toronto, Canada
Nov 08, 2009 12:27 AM 4	They all want to be the Chiefs and no one wants to be the Indians [cowboys & Indians]. So, everyone is constantly jockeying, if not for the Chief's post then positions of power, no matter the consequences. The present disarray is a consequence of this infighting and jockeying for power, prestige and status at any cost by selfish, self-aggrandizing party-members. Bodh Springfield, United States
Nov 08, 2009 12:47 AM 5	> "... he was either perceived as politicking behind the scenes or shrugging off responsibility." That is a true description of Advani! However talk of BJP's demise may be premature, unless they make a poor showing in the next general election. Anwaar Dallas, United States
Nov 08, 2009 01:36 AM 6	The plagiariser is back with his gobbledegook, and it is a shame really to see Outlook (a) not even publish any letter charging plagiarism and (b) continue with sub-standard screeds from a clearly mediocre mind. Ajit Tendulkar Seattle, United States
Nov 08, 2009 06:43 AM 7	This is a bit of a pointless article: the whole first half, about the Janata descendants' tendency to splinter, has no bearing on the BJP's own infighting, since the author himself has pointed to no connection between the latter and the former. I personally think the BJP's epitaph is being written a bit too hastily -- when parties like the Samajwadi and Rahstriya Janata Dal and Shiv Sena and even NCP have demonstrated permanent relevance in particular states, I see no reason why the BJP won't continue to be relevant at the national level. Especially as, unlike in decades past, the Congress' current electoral dominance is not tied to robust performance in seat-rich states (with the exception of Maharashtra). Umair Muhajir New York, United States
Nov 08, 2009 10:26 AM 8	BJP's decline will be in direct proportion to the decline of the brahmanic hinduism's influence on the dalitbahujans ( dalits, tribals and obcs who account for 70% of India's population ). The caste based hinduism cannot survive, that it is in decline is a known fact among all including the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh ( RSS ) and therefore the Indian masses will continue to move to one of the three major faiths in India that are available to them - Christianity, Islam and Buddhism. B Prabhu Mangalore, India
Nov 08, 2009 02:35 PM 9	Advanis lack of willingness to take harsh decisions has come to haunt him far too many times.But he never accepted his follies.As for the nxt generation of the BJP leadership they have enjoyed the fruits of Advani and Vajpayees hard work of over 50 years.Its totally different thriving on someone elses efforts ,than working to achieve the same with no gaurantees.Advani has had his moments were he was eugolised as the Man for India.At 82 he is done and is better off enjoying his retired life to avoid his actions coming in for any more scrutiny.Let these gen nxt work and grow. drharun chennai, India
Nov 08, 2009 05:20 PM 10	prabhu even as a hindu agnostic i welcome your departure , in case you ever were a hindu. it represents the departure of the uneducated, backward masses leaveing behind the hindus who have shown an ability to make progress wherever they live. good riddance . gayatri devi delhi, India
Nov 08, 2009 08:06 PM 11	B Prabhu Mangalore, India You are right. The day reservations are delinked with caste and religion, Hinduism will be dead. ahmad pasha long island, United States
Nov 10, 2009 06:52 PM 12	Rediff.com interview plagiarised by OUTLOOK magazine mass media outlook weekly, chennai, electronic media, sociologist, copyright india On October 12, 2009, the rediff.com published an interview with me by Shobha Warrier (see 'Brahmins dominate all modern professions'). The rediff.com website published as many as 422 comments on this interview. This was rediff.com’s fourth interview with me. The earlier ones were 'If Prabhakaran surrenders, Tamil suffering will end'; 'In the Case Of Reservations, There Is No Exit’; and Dalits Have Not Benefited From Quotas. It is gratifying that all these interviews resulted in a lot of debate on the rediff.com website, which is the purpose of any interview. This certainly goes to the credit of the interviewer, rediff.com, and most important of all, the readers and browsers of the rediff.com website. I am not sure if the earlier interviews were plagiarized, though they were picked up by the media and websites across the world and debated. While plagiarism is age-old, the emergence of the World Wide Web or Internet has increased it manifold. The plagiarists often get away with the act. Even if caught by chance, in a country like India it is impossible for the victim to get any redress. I have been a victim of plagiarism on at least four occasions. I do not include in this category plagiarism by bloggers. The scourge is mainly in academics and journalism. A special article of mine (with my student) was lifted from a journal and published verbatim as a chapter in a book. By a sheer coincidence the book landed on my lap for review. Though Tejeshwar Singh, Managing Director of Sage Publications, publisher of the book, who had also published one of my books, profusely apologised for what happened, the author sent a long letter to me, sent through Tejeshwar Singh stating that he is willing to tender a public apology. But even the apology did not take place; and the author got away with his plagiarism. At that time someone mentioned to me that if this were to happen in the US I could have sued the person for millions of dollars. But India is not US and Indian judiciary is a poor specimen of justice delivery system. Considering this I did not move the court. Instead I send an article to The Hindu. Its then editor of the Sunday Magazine was concerned and considerate. My article, Plagiarise or perish, was published in two parts on July 7 and July 14, 2002. Those interested can go to my article which is now available online. The plagiarism of my latest interview with the rediff.com is something which should make the journalists and editors in the Indian print and electronic media sit up and think. A few days after the interview, I happened to read an article in Outlook Weekly by Neelabh Mishra. When I read it I had a feeling that I was reading my own ideas, and in some places my own language. So I compared the article with the interview. The article had appeared on the Outlook website and Outlook Weekly print edition of October 26, 2009. I do not read this magazine regularly. If I had not read this particular issue of Outlook on the website, the plagiarist would have got away with his act. For, until I posted the following on the Outlook website, nobody had noticed the plagiarism: Plagiarism by Neelabh Mishra in OUTLOOK Weekly The write-up What Caste Is A Nobel? by Neelabh Mishra (Outlookindia.Com, October 26, 2009) is disingenuous and plagiarised for at least two reasons. One, the author gives the impression as though none other than the author thought about the Brahminical `twist’. Read this sentence: “I am surprised how nobody here has yet courted controversy with the Brahminical ‘twist’ to the Nobel, considering that out of the six Nobel winners of Indian origin, four are Brahmins, of whom three are Tamil Brahmins.” The fact is that the rediff.com published a lengthy interview with an Indian sociologist on October 12, 2009 under the title 'Brahmins dominate all modern professions'. It has been picked up by various websites and sections of the media in different parts of the world. At the time of writing this I see as many as 18,900 related hyperlinks on the Internet, Two, the author feigns ignorance of this interview in the claim “I am surprised how nobody...” and goes on: “No one will be so facetious as to argue for a Dalit and obc quota in Nobel prizes based on this fact, but some genetic supremacists will latch on to it to insinuate that some communities are congenitally more advanced than others, what with another fact that most Nobel prize winners have been Jews. But it is not genetics, it is cultural capital, which in a hierarchical order is concentrated at the top and is a result of various historical factors and contexts that explains the apparent correlation between communities and achievement. Cultural capital gets transmitted from generation to generation and over generations, which makes its recipients well-entrenched. Intelligence is distributed across all sections of society, but opportunities are not. So it is with geography. There are plain historical reasons as to why most Nobel winners in India are from the upper castes of Tamil Nadu and Bengal.” Compare the above paragraph with the following portions of my rediff.com interview. “We also see a co-relation between the Nobel Prize and Jews as most of the Nobel Prize winners are from a Jewish background. Nevertheless, we cannot overlook the crucial importance of cultural capital in intellectual achievements; and virtually all the Nobel Prize winners possessed cultural capital. In one sense, you can use the genes theory -- genetically some groups are advanced. But that may not happen in a hierarchical society, and ours has always been a hierarchical society.” Why do you say that in a hierarchical society, the gene theory won't work? It can only happen randomly. In a hierarchical society, the cultural capital is concentrated at the top. Brahmins are at the summit of the social hierarchy. So, they had all the advantages of society traditionally, though they may not be having the same advantages now. CULTURAL CAPITAL GETS TRANSMITTED FROM GENERATION TO GENERATION AND OVER GENERATIONS, THIS TRANSMISSION MAKES ITS RECIPIENTS WELL-ENTRENCHED... UNIVERSALLY, INTELLIGENCE IS DISTRIBUTED ACROSS THE ENTIRE SOCIETY. BUT OPPORTUNITIES ARE NOT. The sentences above are given in block letters to highlight that they are also there in the Neelabh Mishra write-up. What a shame! Will Vinod Mehta pay attention to this, publish an explanation and apology, and contain the damage before I take up the issue with the larger print and electronic media? In response to my protest, two persons condemned the plagiarist on the Outlook website on Oct 22, 2009. I am reproducing below their messages: ONE ‘>> CULTURAL CAPITAL GETS TRANSMITTED FROM GENERATION TO GENERATION AND OVER GENERATIONS... The sentences above are given in capital letters to highlight that they are also there in the Neelabh Mishra write-up. What a shame! Radhakrishnan While I appreciate your keen eye to notice Neelabh Mishra's plagiarism, I am afraid you are expecting too much from Mishra. What else one can expect from a pseudo secular and boot licker like Mishra? He is one of those paid piper. Sandilya Chennai, India TWO Points made by Neelabh Mishra are valid!! Really!!! It is obvious to all but the most stupid and gullible people what is going on here!! Just put the words in google and see!!! If it was as common words as Mishra would like us to believe, a search should show up at least some more instances where the same LONG sentence structure is used. Mishra and outlook really insult the intelligence of its readers by so blatantly lying despite getting caught. You have been exposed. Have some shame and just own up. And the lies are not in one place but throughout: first in the column and now in the reply. It is clear by a cursory reading that Mishra had read the interview and copied it. He could make a clean breast of it, but he is being dishonest. Vikas Aggarwal New York, United States Meanwhile the Outlook website carried Neelabh Mishra’s following reply defending the indefensible. That was also on October 22: Neelabh Mishra replies to Dr Radhakrishnan's allegation of plagiarism: Dr P Radhakrishnan doesn't have a copyright over Bourdieu's concept of Cultural Capital. 1. The whole thrust and focus of my article is when will a Dalit from India be capable of winning a Nobel in the light of Obama, a coloured American, getting one, a point not dealt with at all in Dr Radhakrishnan's interview carried by Rediff. His interview is mainly about why communities like Tamil Brahmins dominate the list of Nobel Prize winners from India, a point I only refer to in passing in my column while making a subsidiary argument. 2. I wrote: 'I am surprised how nobody here has yet courted controversy with the Brahminical twist to the Nobel....' In this, 'Brahminical' refers to an ideology that believes Brahmins are inherently and genetically superior and Dalits and backward castes genetically incapable of excellence, which is what many despisers of quota system believe. Even Dr Radhakrishnan has argued against the genetic superiority of Brahmins and hence not 'courted controversy', which is what I have said: 'nobody has yet courted controversy with the Brahminical twist...' Moreover, read as a whole, my sentence means that no fanatic from the other ideological end has accused the Nobel establishment of a Brahminical bias. It doesn't mean that no one else has pointed out that three Tamil Brahmins have been Nobel winners. One should pay attention to the nuances of English language and not rush to misinterpret. 3. Coming to the most crucial point, Dr Radhakrishnan cites three sentences about Cultural Capital in an article of 800 words to allege that my write-up is plagiarized. I would like to remind Dr Radhakrishnan that he does not have a copyright over the concept of Cultural Capital and the fact that it is acquired over and transmitted through generations. This is originally French Sociologist Pierre Bourdieu's concept. He first elaborated it in his work written jointly with Jean-Claude Passeron, 'Cultural Reproduction and Social Reproduction' (1973). In his later work, 'The Forms of Capital'(1986), Bourdieu explored Cultural Capital's relationship with other forms of capital, namely, Economic Capital and Social Capital. He added Symbolic Capital to the list later. Dr Radhakrishnan has borrowed from Bourdieu but not cited Bourdieu in his interview. Should Mr. Radhakrishnan then be accused of plagiarism? Yet, I would not be foolish enough to do this because Bourdieu's concept of Cultural Capital is so well known that one need not cite him every time one uses it journalistically just as one doesn't cite Einstein every time one refers to the Theory of Relativity or Newton every time one mentions the Laws of Gravitation. Yes, I like many others, including Dr Radhakrishnan, owe my point about Cultural Capital to Pierre Bourdeau. A journalistic piece's word limit does not often allow for a complete bibliography, set of references and footnotes. Why only Bourdieu and Radhakrishnan, many others would find their echoes in my small opinion piece. Neelabh Mishra, New Delhi. The same day I refuted Mishra’s rejoinder: Neelabh Mishra's reply is diversionary. The issue is not Bourdieu or cultural capital. It is plagiarism, which is an open and shut case in Mishra's write-up. To restate part of what was said in the earlier post (no. 30): Read from Mishra: Cultural capital gets transmitted from generation to generation and over generations, which makes its recipients well-entrenched. Intelligence is distributed across all sections of society, but opportunities are not. Read from the rediff.com interview: Cultural capital gets transmitted from generation to generation and over generations; this transmission makes its recipients well-entrenched... universally, intelligence is distributed across the entire society. But opportunities are not. That Mishra is allowed to write only 800 words is irrelevant to the issue. I am glad he was not allowed to write 8000 words, in which case his culpability would have been a lot more. The issue here is journalistic ethics. The editor of the Outlook magazine cannot allow journalists and Outlook to thrive on plagiarism Radhakrishnan Chennai, India After I posted the above rejoinder, three more letters appeared on the Outlook website, one on October 26, and two on October 27, 2009. I am reproducing them all below: ONE The plagiarism reported by Dr Radhakrishnan is absolutely disgraceful and even more shameful is that a respected editor like Vinod Mehta allowed the brazen and despicably dishonest response by Neelabh Mishra. I won't be surprised if the whole controversy is sought to be hushed up now with not even a word about the complaint or the disgusting response finding its way into the print magazine. Yashodhara New York, United States TWO This is truly blatant and beyond belief. Shocking. I hope some serious corrective action is taken. Ajit Tendulkar Seattle, United States THREE What is truly ironical is that only a few days back, Outlook had carried this piece which said, "The recent case of plagiarism is only symptomatic of the truly serious issue: the utterly cynical and self-serving attitude of a great many people who walk the corridors of power in New Delhi, wearing cloaks labelled 'Culture' And 'Education'" http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?261517 I wonder what Mr Vinod Mehta has to say on this. Ajit Tendulkar Seattle, United States One of the readers of Outlook sent me a personal email as follows: Dear Prof. Radhakrishnan, After reading the Outlook article, in my mind there is not even a shadow of doubt that Neelabh Mishra has plagiarised your article. However, I consider that his plagiarism is the highest tribute paid to your scholarship. Please bring the plagiarism to the attention of Vinod Mehta. I would be satisfied if the journal acknowledges your original contribution. Neelabh Mishra stealing your ideas is bad. But most journalists make a living doing just that. So far the no section of the media has come forward to report the Outlook plagiarism. I and some others sent emails to Vinod Mehta. He has not replied. The irony is Neelabh Mishra’s column appeared both in the print and web editions of Outlook. The correspondence on plagiarism has appeared only on the website. Those who have read it only in print and not on the website will think that the column is original. When editors are expected to uphold journalistic ethics, the appearance of Mishra’s column and the silence of Vinod Mehta are ominous and pernicious. As a small time editor of a glossy magazine, Debonair, I do not consider Vinod Mehta a journalist or editor of any worth or integrity, capable of upholding journalistic ethics. However, as editor of a news magazine his silence is also culpable. As Vinod Mehta has been an affront to the readers of the Outlook magazine and the media fraternity, the management of the Outlook should get rid of him as editor, and appoint a really competent person as Outlook editor. http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?262325 Radhakrishnan Chennai, India
Nov 11, 2009 08:13 AM 13	" As for the BJP, barring in Lucknow West and Jhansi, its candidates lost their deposits in all Assembly constituencies and Firozabad ". The above is the current status of the BJP in India's largest state - Uttar Pradesh - in yesterday's vote counting of the just concluded bypoll elections. This is in line with my earlier posting. BJP's decline will be in direct proportion to the decline of the Brahmanic Hinduism's influence on the Dalitbahujans ( dalits, tribals and obcs who account for 70% of India's population ). The caste based hinduism cannot survive, that it is in decline is a known fact among all including the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh ( RSS ) and therefore the Indian masses will continue to move to one of the three major faiths in India that are available to them - Christianity, Islam and Buddhism. B Prabhu Mangalore, India
Nov 11, 2009 08:41 PM 14	Janata self-destruct ... good alliteration ... they (the BJP) should now become a solely cadre-based party ... with a real elected presidet ... hari chennai, India

COLLAPSE COMMENTS

COLLAPSE COMMENTS :

HAVE YOUR SAY

Nov 30, 2009

Hasty Advance

Neelabh Mishra’s understanding of Indian politics (The L.K. Diminuendo, Nov 16) seems shallow in that he sees a parallel between the split-proneness of the Janata Party and the bjp, which has not seen any so far. Yes, there is a vacuum in the bjp leadership, but that’s common in most organisations, including political ones. Journalists shouldn’t keep writing to justify their existence and take readers for fools.

K.C. Sharma, New Delhi

COLLAPSE COMMENTS


Post a Comment
You are not logged in, please log in or register

Comments Policy

We at outlookindia.com welcome your feedback to the articles, stories and blogs featured by us.

But please note the following:

1. Please keep your comments/feedback limited to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all. It is for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site. Please try and keep your comments concise and clear. Short messages tend to get noticed and also have a high probability of getting published in our respective print magazines.

2. Please do not spam us. Please do not post the same message again and again. Even in different threads.

3. Scathing, passionate, even angry, critique is welcome; abuse and invective is not. We request civility and urge our readers to try and express their disagreements, if any, without being disagreeable. There is just no space for personal attacks. No ad hominem please.

4. If any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and/or also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser(s).

Please note that it may not be possible for our moderators to sift through your messages and if they find more than one instance of abuse, they may decide to delete all your messages ever posted by you rather than spend time trying to locate all the abusive ones. Therefore, if you want us to take you seriously and for your messages to be retained on the site, please ensure that you do not cross the civil lines of propriety.

Please note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.

Our endeavour is to keep these forums un-moderated and unexpurgated. Please help us help you.

5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not stoop to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message with links to the offending mails at the following email address: Mail AT outlookindia DOT com. Please put "COMPLAINT" in the subject-header of your mail.

6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you think that an article on another site has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered "fair-use" and provide a link to the article under question.

7. There is no particular Outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and do not necessarily reflect the views of Outlookindia.com

8. Please also note that the sole responsibility for the comments posted on the site is that of the relevant registered user posting the comment. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of a comment's existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of its contents. Outlookindia.com however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever.

9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays the comments posted by you. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:

a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially show up on search engines such as Google, Bing etc.

10. There is an online thread for our comments policy. You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT.

We look forward to your feedback.