CALCUTTA HC ADMITS PIL AGAINST BENGAL’S NEW HEALTH COMMISSION FOR INCLUSION OF DR. SUKUMAR MUKHERJEE WHO WAS CONVICTED FOR GROSS MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE CAUSING ANURADHA SAHA’S DEATH

A new PIL (Writ Petition No. 17057W/2017) filed against the recently formed Health Commission (under W.B. Clinical Establishment Act, 2017) was admitted by the Calcutta High Court division bench of chief justice Ms. Nishita Mhatre and Mr. Tapabrata Chakraborty and tagged with a second PIL (W.P. No. 217/2017) that had already been pending on similar grounds. The court directed West Bengal health department and Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee to file their response within 2 week and allowed another 2 weeks to file any rejoinder. The matter will be heard after 4 weeks.

The PIL filed by PBT president Dr. Kunal Saha has raised specific questions on violation of Constitution as well as moral authority on part of the state government to select Dr. Mukherjee as senior doctor-member of the powerful Health Commission to judge complaints of medical negligence by private doctors and hospitals in the state. Ironically, as known all over India, the same Dr. Mukherjee was found guilty by the Supreme Court for gross medical negligence causing death of Anuradha Saha in 2009. The Apex Court also awarded a compensation of Rs. 11.5 crore (including interest), highest in Indian medico-legal history, against Dr. Mukherjee and some other doctors/AMRI hospital in a second historic judgment in 2013. The Supreme Court has also made scathing criticism for professional misconduct against Dr. Mukherjee and dubbed his conduct as “unbecoming of a doctor” and who has brought “great disrespect for the medical profession”. The PIL has claimed that appointment of Dr. Mukherjee to the coveted post as a senior medical member for the Health Commission has undermined sanctity of the Apex Court and it also has violated Article 144 of Indian Constitution that mandates that all authority in India, civil and judicial, must act in aid of Supreme Court.

Not a Simple Tax: Be Ready for Multiple Taxes Under the GST Regime

Why are the movie theatres across Tamil Nadu shut? Is the entertainment tax not part of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) and therefore, rates specified? Why are the theatre owners then complaining of double taxation?

Some of the answers can be found in the GST council’s decisions. While the entertainment tax is part of the GST with two specific rates – 18 and 28 per cent – there is a provision which says “local bodies are free to levy their charges and there is no cap on the quantum of additional levy,” says Pratik Jain, partner and leader, PwC.

According to a BloombergQuint report, the average tax incidence on movie tickets across the country was 20 per cent before 1 July. It ranged from 20 percent in Madhya Pradesh to as high as 60 percent in Uttar Pradesh.

With the GST council fixing two rates – 18 percent for tickets priced below Rs 100 and 28 percent for tickets priced higher – there was cheer all around, expecting a fall in the prices of cinema tickets. However, with the introduction of additional levy by the local bodies, the cheer has proved to be short-lived.

The theatre owners in Tamil Nadu are so upset that they have gone on an indefinite strike. They are protesting against the imposition of 30 percent entertainment tax in addition to 28 percent GST.
Not just movie tickets, there is a likelihood of television-viewing becoming expensive. According to reports, the TV services that are likely to be charged are cable and direct to home (DTH).
In the pre-GST regime, DTH and cable services used to attract a combined tax burden of nearly 25 to 45 percent. Under the GST regime, the TV cable and DTH services will be taxed at 18 percent – significantly lower.

So naturally, there was hope that TV viewing would be economical in the GST regime. However, this is unlikely to be the case if local bodies start imposing an additional levy as they have on movie theatres. Reports indicate that this is the case.

While states like Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Rajasthan and Tamil Nadu have already indicated the imposition of additional entertainment levy by local bodies (panchayats, district councils, municipalities and municipal corporations), other states are likely to follow suit.
Experts are of the view that apprehending shortfall in revenue, states are likely to use local bodies to garner additional resources.

Since many taxes levied by the local bodies have been kept out of the purview of the GST, states are likely to use this route frequently and for more services.
What this means is additional accounting problems. You pay one set of entertainment taxes under the GST and another to the local bodies. There is bound to be confusion
 Manish Mishra, Partner (indirect tax), BDO India LLP.

As it is, there are a range of indirect taxes which will continue despite the arrival of the much touted ‘one tax, one nation’ regime. While under construction properties come under the purview of the GST, completed properties will be outside its purview since stamp duty is not part of the GST. Similarly, states will continue to charge electricity cess and property tax will have to be deposited with the local bodies.

What is more, while commercial vehicles are not required to pay octroi anymore at state borders, they will continue to pay entry tax if a vehicle enters the boundary of a municipal body.
In other words, your Uber or Ola ride from, let us say, Delhi to Noida will continue to attract additional charge of nearly Rs 100 because of the transition from one municipal body to another.
Some of the other taxes that will continue despite the onset of the GST regime are road tax, toll tax and additional excise duty on tobacco products whenever they are imposed.

Cow protectors victims: VHP

Our Special Correspondent New Delhi, July 4: The Vishwa Hindu Parishad today strongly backed "gau rakshaks"(cow protectors) and portrayed them as "victims, not tyrants". Like Prime Minister Narendra Modi last week, the VHP referred to Mahatma Gandhi's stress on cow protection and demanded a strong anti-cow slaughter law. "Mahatma Gandhi had said swaraj (self-rule) is incomplete without gau raksha. He understood the strong resolve of Hindus for gau raksha and therefore made it the centre-point of our freedom struggle," VHP international joint secretary Surendra Kumar Jain said. During his recent trip to Sabarmati ashram in Gujarat, Modi had said "killing in the name of cow worship was not acceptable", but stressed the need for cow protection and asked people to follow non-violent ways of preserving cows like Gandhi and Vinoba Bhave. Jain said the VHP too was against violence but asked the central government to enact a stringent anti-cow slaughter law and said its implementation would end the "struggle" for cow protection. "We are of the clear view that vested interests are creating a poisonous atmosphere in the country. It can be checked only through a strong anti-cow slaughter central law and its effective implementation. Once the law is implemented, there will be no need for a struggle," he said. Jain said " gau rakshaks" were "victims , not tyrants" and alleged that deadly attacks were being carried out on them. He accused those involved in the meat trade of maligning cow protectors and urged all state governments not to target gau rakshaks. "In the past 10 years, more than 50 policemen and gau rakshaks have been killed by cow-killers. It proves that gau rakshaks are victims, not tyrants," Jain claimed. Asked about the lynching of teenager Junaid Khan on a Delhi-Mathura train and a meat trader in BJP-ruled Jharkhand, Jain condemned the killings and said there was no place for violence in cow protection. "Whoever is killed, it is not right," he said. Jain, however, accused the media of being selective and ignoring "deadly attacks" on cow protectors. He also denied any involvement of VHP and Bajrang Dal activists in the killing of the meat trader in Jharkhand's Ramgarh. "The VHP and the Bajrang Dal do not have any unit in Ramgarh. We used to have one, but now we don't have," Jain said.

CM explodes on governor 'threat' call - Party seeks recall

Calcutta, July 4: Chief minister Mamata Banerjee today accused governor Keshari Nath Tripathi of "threatening" her when he called her on phone to enquire about unrest in pockets of North 24-Parganas, saying she felt so "insulted" that she contemplated resigning.

"The governor cannot threaten me like this.... He called me on my phone and threatened me," the chief minister told a news conference at Nabanna, the state secretariat. 

Sources close to Mamata said they had never seen her so emotionally charged.

The chief minister did not make public the specific content of the governor's conversation but said Tripathi, who was closely allied with the BJP and the RSS before taking up the gubernatorial assignment, was speaking like a "BJP block president".

The sources said the governor accused police of doing nothing while one community was on the rampage and another was being targeted.

The version could not be corroborated with the Raj Bhavan. In a statement in the evening, the Raj Bhavan denied the allegations levelled by Mamata and said: "The Hon'ble Governor did say to the Hon'ble Chief Minister to ensure peace and law and order by all means. The Hon'ble Governor always holds the persons, who occupy the Constitutional positions, in high esteem."

The unprecedented disclosure by the chief minister - which was followed by a Trinamul Congress demand to recall the governor and a BJP call for central intervention - came at a particularly fraught time.

A Facebook post had ignited unrest at Baduria in Basirhat and adjoining areas in North 24-Parganas. The person responsible for the post has been arrested, four companies of BSF have been deployed and community leaders pressed into service to advocate peace.

A senior district official told The Telegraph late in the evening that the situation seemed to be "under control".

Some police vehicles have been set on fire and the superintendent of police attacked. No death or any grievous injury was reported but the situation remained tense, the official added.

At the news conference, the chief minister issued a blunt message: "I want to tell both communities and their leaders, listen if you have ears. See if you have eyes. I have had to suffer a lot of humiliation because of you.... I am not going to tolerate this hooliganism."

The political thunder began rolling in the afternoon. A few minutes before 3pm, governor Tripathi's office placed a call to the chief minister's cellphone.

Thirty minutes earlier, a delegation led by RSS south Bengal chief Jishnu Basu and BJP state vice-president Jayprakash Majumdar had entered the Raj Bhavan to draw the governor's attention to the unrest in Baduria. Some sources suggested that the delegation was still inside the Raj Bhavan when the governor spoke to Mamata but the version could not be independently verified.

Soon after, Mamata went public with the call at the news conference that was convened to announce the government's plans to revamp the Kalighat temple in south Calcutta.

But a question on the events in Baduria opened the floodgates.

"I have told the Hon'ble governor that 'you cannot talk to me like this'. The way the governor is speaking, it seems that the BJP block president is speaking.... After this insult, I had myself thought that I would resign. I have never been insulted in this way in my whole life," Mamata said.

She added: "I'm really sorry if I have hurt anybody because of what I said. I apologise for that. But my conscience was extremely hurt today. I have not sat on this chair just for the sake of it. I work hard to accomplish whatever I can."

Political scientist Biswanath Chakraborty said that the news conference by Mamata was "unprecedented".

The statement from the Raj Bhavan said the governor was "surprised" at the "attitude and language" used by the chief minister during the news conference. The statement said that "talks" between the chief minister and the governor were "confidential in nature and none is expected to disclose it".

"However, there was nothing in the talks for which the Hon'ble Chief Minister may have felt insulted, threatened or humiliated," it added.

"The Hon'ble Governor, being the Head of the State, is the guardian of all the citizens of the State and not of any particular party or section of society. It is proper for the Hon'ble Governor to bring to the notice of the Hon'ble Chief Minister any serious grievance made by any member of public or any serious event happening in the State. The Hon'ble Governor cannot remain a mute spectator of the affairs in the State," the Raj Bhavan statement said.

Who Designed the present National Flag?

I recently learned that a Hyderabadi Muslim woman, not Pingali, designed the tricolour Indian flag. Is it true?

3 Answers

Madhur Malu, works at IBM

Answered Aug 24, 2015

For several decades, crores of Indian’s were led to believe that  Pingali Venkaiah from Vijayawada designed the Indian National Flag. Now,  new research by Capt. L. Panduranga Reddy proves that this is yet  another half-truth propagated by our Andhra leaders. Truth is that the  current Indian National Flag had evolved over several decades of  independence movement. Pingali Venkaiah was merely a contributor to one  of the versions of the flag. Even the flag designed by him, was not his  idea, but Venkaiah just implemented the idea of  Lala Hansraj and  Gandhiji.  Capt. L. Panduranga Reddy’s research proves that it is a  Hyderabadi woman named Suraiyya. who actually designed the final  tricolor!
Read on:
—
Hyderabad Woman made the National Flag
- Capt. Lingala Panduranga Reddy
President, Voice of Telangana


For many writers, the erstwhile Hyderabad state was a last legatee of  the Mughals and a feudal backward state. However, for a few it was a  peaceful state known for Ganga-Jamuna tehzeeb where people lived in  harmony. The Nizam was known for eclectic views and did not squander  state’s finances. In reality, both views are partly correct and in many  respects they are wrong. Earlier writers castigated the Nizam belittled  Hyderabad people as indolent, indulgent and ingenuous and the affluent  hedonists. On the other hand, they not only became nostalgic but also  turned apologists. They wrote about buildings, sherwanis – biryanis,  khandaan and pandaan, etc. In the process, the real contributions of  Hyderabad people were relegated to limbo of history, and the heroes were  unwept and unsung.

One such remarkable and incredible contribution was designing the  National Flag was by a woman from Hyderabad. Tomes of vernacular and  English literature attribute this to Pingali Venkaiah of Vijayawada. It  is a factoid – an assumption or speculation that is reported or repeated  so often that it becomes acceptable as truth. According to them, in  1921, All India Congress Working Committee meeting was held at Bezawada  (present Vijayawada), Venkaiah, a Congress volunteer designed a  tri-colour flag and presented to Mahatma Gandhi. Gandhi was impressed by  it and passed it on to the Working Committee. In deference to the  wishes of Gandhi, Congress had adopted it and subsequently it became the  National Flag, for which Pingali Venkaiah was hailed and Government of  Andhra Pradesh showered encomiums on him. His statue was installed at  the Tank Bund of Hyderabad along with other supposedly luminous  personalities of Andhra region.

In March 2013, Telangana protagonists organized a “Millennium March”  to Tank bund as part of agitational programmes to press for Telangana  de-merger from A.P. Some of the protagonists became restive and  demolished many statues belonging to Andhras. However, they did not  touch the statue of Pingali Venkaiah out of veneration, for they  regarded him as a nation builder. That was the esteem Venkaiah held even  amongst Telangana people. A section of media reported that  Pingali Venkaiah progeny was not only impecunious but also indigent and  also appealed to the Govt. to extend financial assistance to his  successors and the Government rightly obliged.

Be that as it may, the official history of Congress reads altogether  different. The All India Congress Committee Commissioned Bhogaraju  Pattabhi Seetaramaiah to write a detailed Congress history. Accordingly,  he wrote authentic history of Congress. He writes that – the issue  of National Flag was first time ever discussed in the annual conference  of the Indian National Congress held at Calcutta in 1923. However, the  Home Rule League movement which was started by both Bal Gangadhar Tilak  and Annie Beasant in 1916, had already designed a flag and propagated it  as the National Flag. Subsequently, the Home Rule League was merged  with the Congress. However, the Congress appointed a sub-committee to  finalise the flag for India. On this Committee, a noted artist,  Avinindranath Tagore was included. The Committee never met and finalized  the Flag.

Sitaramaiah further succinctly writes that the Congress included  ‘Charaka’ to the earlier Home Rule League Flag and adopted. It was in  1931, original red colour in the Home Rule League Flag was replaced with  Ochre colour (Bhogaraju Pattabhi Seetaramaiah, Congress Charitra, All  India Congress – Allahabad, Andhra Patrika Printing Press, Chennapuri,  1935, p.207). It should be noted that the History of Congress is a  ponderous book of 870 pages and has 86 annexures. Seetaramaiah was a  knowledgeable senior national Congress leader from Krishna district of  Andhra Pradesh. To this very district, Pingali Venkaiah belonged.  However, Seetaramaiah did not make mention of Venkaiah’s name, not even  once in this book.

Bal Gangadhar Tilak started the Home Rule League confined mainly to  Maharashtra and Karnataka in April 1916, whereas Annie Beasant founded  her Home Rule League in September 1916. Activities of both league  consisted of carrying out propaganda for the Congress – League agenda of  political reforms following the Lucknow Pact. In the year 1917, the  33rd session of the Congress was held at Calcutta, and the first woman  President Annie Beasant (Dec. 26th to 29th). As Annie Beasant became the  President of AICC, she merged the Home Rule League along with its  tri-colour in the Congress. That means, tri-colour came into vogue in  1917 whereas the Working Committee of Congress met at Bezawada only in  1921. In this meeting, Pingle Venkaiah supposed to have presented  tri-colour to Mahatma Gandhi. The contemporary newspapers of that period  both vernacular English did not make any mention of the flag.

It was in 1957, the Government of India while celebrating the century  celebrations of 1857, the first war of independence, had decided to  compile a book on the freedom fighters of India and solicited the  services of noted historian Prof. Tarachand of Allahabad University. He  produced four volumes of authentic history of freedom movement citing  primary sources. Curiously enough his book also does not make a mention  of Pingali Venkaiah and his much orchestrated tri-colour flag.
Be that as it may, another erudite English historian Trevor Royle in  his “The Last Days of the Raj” writes that the National Flag was made by  Badruddin Tayabji’s wife.

He writes “By one of those contradictions which run through  India’s history, the national flag was designed by a Muslim, Badr-ud-Din  Tyabji. Originally the tricolour was to have contained the  spinning-wheel symbol (charka) used by Gandhi but this was a party  symbol which Tyabji thought might strike the wrong note. After much  persuasion Gandhi agreed to the wheel because the Emperor Ashoka was  venerated by Hindu and Muslim alike. The flag which flew on Nehru’s car  that night had been specially made by Tyabji’s wife.” (Trevor Royle, The Last Days of the Raj, Cornet Books, Hodder and Stoughton, London, pg. 217)

Tyabji was an ICS officer in the Prime Minister’s office in 1947. He  was known for erudition and scholarship and his wife’s name was  Suraiyya. She was none other than niece of Sir Akbar Hydari of  Hyderabad. Her wedding was performed at Hyderabad city. Thus the Indian  tricolour was made by a woman from Hyderabad, but history does not  record the contribution of Hyderabad people as was done in the case of  Maulvi Allauddin, the first 1857 martyr who was transported for life to  Kalapani, Andamans and Abdul Hasan Safrani a Hyderabadi who coined  Jaihind slogan.

Dramatist Shakespeare is right: “when beggars die, there are no comets seen; the heaven’s blaze from the death of princes”.

Source : The truth about who designed the Indian National Flag

8.2k Views · 16 Upvotes

Related QuestionsMore Answers Below

• Is it true that some of the Hyderabadi Muslims support Pakistan but not India?
• Why do Hyderabadi Muslims do late night marriages?
• What is it like to be an Indian Muslim?
• What makes a person a true Hyderabadi?
• What do Urdu speaking Hyderabadi Muslims think of being in a Telugu speaking state of Telangana?

Crowly Mathew Arackal, I learned by observing people and their life.

Answered Jul 30, 2015

The formal information says "The National Flag of India was designed by Pingali Venkayya and adopted in its present form during the meeting of Constituent Assembly held on the 22 July 1947, a few days before India's independence from the British on 15 August, 1947". Pingali Venkayya was an Indian freedom fighter.

But a news in Indian Express in 2013 says:

"Our national flag was designed by a Hyderabadi Muslim woman by the name of Suraiya Tayyabji and not by Pingali Venkaiah as is widely believed, according to Voice of Telangana president Capt. L Panduranga Reddy.

At a press conference here on Monday, Panduranga Reddy said the popular belief was that in 1921 the All India Congress Committee meeting was held at Bezawada (Vijayawada) wherein Pingali Venkaiah, a Congress volunteer designed a tri-coloured flag and presented it to Mahatma Gandhi.
Gandhi was reportedly impressed by the design and passed it on to the working committee. In deference to the wishes of Gandhi, the Congress adopted the flag and subsequently it went on to become the national flag. But the truth is that the national flag was designed by a Hyderabadi Muslim woman, Suraiya Tayyabji.

In order to substantiate his claims Capt. Panduranga Reddy said that the AICC authorised historian Bhogaraju Pattabhi Seetaramaiah on the issue of national flag, who has written that the issue of national flag was for the first time discussed in the annual conference of  the Indian National Congress held at Calcutta in 1923.

However, the Home Rule League movement which was started by  Bal Gangadhar Tilak and Annie Beasant in 1916, had already designed a flag and propagated it as the national flag.

After the merger of Home Rule League in Congress, a sub-committee was appointed to finalise the national flag, but the committee never met and the Congress included a charkha in the Home Rule League flag and adopted it as the national flag.

It was in 1931, that the original red colour in the Home Rule League flag was replaced with the ochre colour and that the charkha was replaced by Ashoka’s Dharma Chakra.

However, Seetaramaiah did not make any mention of Pingali Venkaiah’s name, not even once in his book.  Moreover, the resolutions adopted during 1921 All India Congress Committee meeting held at Bezawada makes no mention of the meet adopting a resolution on the acceptance of the national flag design prepared by Pingali Venkaiah, he claimed.

Even in the book published on the freedom struggle by noted historian Tarachand “Freedom Struggle of India” published in 1957, there was no mention of Pingali Venkaiah having designed the national flag.

“Moreover, the book published on the occasion of centenary year of Congress party in 1985 has  no mention of Pingali Venkaiah designing the national flag”, he said. It was Prof. Sarojini Regani of Osmania University, who in her hagiography, “Highlights of the Freedom Movement in Andhra Pradesh” published by the state government in 1972 had written about Pingali Venkaiah designing the national flag. However, she does not cite any primary source to substantiate her assertion.

The sample prepared by Suraiya Tayyabji was approved on July 17, 1947, he claimed and added that English historian Trevor Royle in his book “The Last Days of the Raj” has written that the national flag was actually designed by Badruddin Tayabji’s wife Suraiya Tayabji".

'Hyderabadi Muslim woman, not Pingali, designed Tricolour'

Personally I do not think we can prove or disprove the claims at this time especially when we cannot get any first hand information on the issue.

Ctrl Alt Delete Fake News - The person Behind Alt news

Pratik Sinha has a problem. His system cannot digest fake news. Every time the electronic or social media airs or posts news with a false ring to it, he just can't let it pass. It bothers him like a thorn in his side until he gets to the pain-point and puts out a tell-all on his website AltNews.in.

The tagline of Pratik's site reads - Alternative News and Views in the Post-Truth World. "In a democracy people deserve correct information," says the software-engineer-turned-fake news-analyst.

The Ahmedabad-based AltNews debuted this February with the story of Banaras Hindu University and how it had come under the grip of a vice-chancellor with strong Hindutva leanings. He had reportedly made life difficult for female students with a litany of diktats. Since that story, the site has been on a roll.

A news channel tied itself in knots recently trying to explain why it used a photoshopped seven-year-old image in its prime-time show on the alleged luring of Hindu girls by jihadists. The Union home ministry ordered an internal enquiry after it was revealed that its annual report carried an image of the Spain-Morocco border and passed it off as the flood-lit India-Pakistan border. It was proven that most of the videos of supposed Indian Muslims celebrating Pakistan's victory in the Champions Trophy and circulated ad nauseam on social media were, in fact, of Pakistani origin. All were AltNews exposes.

And in case you were imagining a giant army crunching data, punching numbers round-the-clock and churning out these precious finds, think again. There is Pratik, the lone full-time ranger, and two part-time contributors fuelling the success of this enterprise.

But running a website is not something new to Pratik. In 2013, when his father, human rights activist and lawyer Mukul Sinha was alive, he and his social activist mother, Nirjhari, had launched truthofgujarat.com. The site was meant to highlight the stories of riot victims, fake encounter victims and others. Says Pratik, "What my parents and I realised was that a lot of BJP spokespersons were going on the media and saying that Ishrat Jahan was a terrorist. The mainstream media was not doing a great job. There were so many loopholes in the case. I suggested to my parents that we need to put all the information that we have in the form of legal papers on to a website. That's how we took up other cases related to Gujarat."

Truthofgujarat.com did not quite take off, but for no fault of its own. The idea lived, and resurfaced.

In August 2016, Pratik and his mother participated in the 350-kilometre Azaadi Kooch March or March Towards Freedom from Ahmedabad to Una. The march was in solidarity with the Dalits of Gujarat who were protesting against the atrocities of the upper castes.

"On the fifth day, we were in a place called Botad. There was a sea of people but there was hardly any media presence. Dalits, who form seven per cent of the Gujarati population, didn't seem to matter," he says. The media coverage of the event was negligible but Pratik documented the journey and posted photographs and videos on Facebook and Twitter. And that is when he found himself wishing there was a website where he could host such "ignored stories".

Nevertheless, in the absence of one, Pratik kept posting news items on his Facebook page. He also debunked quite a few fake news items parading as real news. But the impact was minimal. "I noticed that it was all in a bubble. People reading my posts were those who were already in agreement with me on most issues."

AltNews was born of all these experiences and frustrated impulses.

Today, Pratik and his team follow a simple drill. They track social media very closely and also keep tabs on a few prominent handles that have a reputation for carrying fake news as "propaganda items".

It's not always easy. But according to him, his software background helps him find the right research tools. Some sites carry photoshopped images, and a fair bit of work is needed on these. Tracking and calling out fake videos is another challenge. Pratik cites the example of a video of a beheaded Brazilian. It was presented as the beheading of an Indian jawan.

Most of the fake news is apparently generated by Right-wing sites and affiliated social media handles. Expectedly, they come at him in full force when he calls their bluff. "On social media, the manpower behind the pushing of the propaganda plays an important role. And the Right-wingers have the numbers."

But Pratik quarrels with the allegation that his sole focus is BJP and Right-wing bashing. "My ideology is opposed to what PM [Narendra] Modi and the BJP represent, but AltNews is dedicated to exposing fake news. It is as simple as that."

That AltNews has acquired a reputation and recall quality over the last six months is obvious from the number of threats Pratik has received to date. They come and go; some more serious than the others. He adds with a laugh, "I got a phone call by one Ravi Pujari a month after the site was launched. He asked me to stop writing or he would shoot me. It was short and curt." Then, of course, there are all those Twitter abuses.

Pratik does not seem overly bothered. He alerts the police when he needs to. The rest of his mind space is occupied with AltNews expansion plans. Essentially, how and where to raise money. "Have to produce more reportage in areas such as farmer and labour issues. Have to start a Hindi website - most of the fake news apparently gets generated there."

If the volume of maliciously motivated faux stuff being churned out all the time is anything to go by, Pratik has his work cut out for a long, long time.

Fraud File

Just a few AltNews scalps

• Fake video (pic above) titled “Prime Minister Modi on the way to White House. Superb video, Must Watch” shared on Facebook during the PM’s trip to the US last week. According to AltNews, it is a video of President Obama’s cavalcade in San Francisco, recorded in 2010
• Grandmaster Shifuji Shaurya Bhardwaj, a YouTube star known for his inflammatory videos. He had claimed to be a former armed forces man
• The man behind dainikbharat.org, a serial fake news story producer
• Hindutva.info, which passed off a Mexican
• stabbing video as that of an RSS member getting killed in Kerala
• Involvement of journalists in posting of bureaucrats. AltNews accessed a conversation from a leading newspaper’s internal WhatsApp group chat to do so
• Francois Gautier’s claim that Nostradamus
• had predicted the birth of Narendrus (Narendra Modi) in India
• Postcard.news for spreading fake news
• Fake Twitter profiles that defended Rajasthan CM Vasundhara Raje after she dubbed the lynching of Zafar Khan an unfortunate ‘demise’.

Honouring the word - A breach of faith is unbecoming of any prime minister

Gopalkrishna Gandhi

No teacher teaches but learns so much more in the process. My students had been tasked to write essays on the broad subject of India's nationhood. There was not a single essay from which I did not learn something. One of them, on tribal India, contained a memorable quote from a speech given in the Constituent Assembly on December 19, 1946 by the Munda leader, Jaipal Singh. "I rise," he said,"to speak on behalf of... the original people of India... As a jungli... The whole history of my people is one of continuous exploitation and dispossession by the non-aboriginals of India punctuated by rebellions and disorder, and yet I take Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru at his word. I take you all at your word that now we are going to start a new chapter, a new chapter of Independent India where there is equality of opportunity, where no one would be neglected..."

What I was moved most by in that deeply affecting quotation was the faith, the simple honest trust, reposed by the tribal leader in one man's word - Jawaharlal Nehru's word: "I take Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru at his word." And then, broadening his faith, "I take you all at your word..." The essay made me reflect on 'the word' today, the value, traction, worth of a word that is given by the authority of the State.

The Ayodhya Canto in Tulsidas's Ramacharitamanas has the line spoken by Dasarath: "Raghukula riti sada chali ayi, prana jahu baru bachanu na jayi." Translated by A.G. Atkins it means: "'Tis a known rule in Raghu's line, one naught can shake - Life may go, but his word a man may never break."

Three instances of 'the word' given by the Indian State, post-Independence, came to mind. In two of these the word was kept and one in which it was not.

In the first instance, the word was almost betrayed. It occurred in 1948 when the question arose of the division of the cash balance between India and Pakistan. India was required to and bound itself to pay a sum of Rs 75 crore to Pakistan as its proportionate cash asset. India had paid Rs 20 crore in the first installment and was set to pay the second instalment of Rs 55 crore when Pakistan invaded Kashmir. Nehru and Patel favoured holding the amount back. Would Pakistan not use the money to purchase arms to use against India? The governor general, Mountbatten, and Gandhi, both prevailed on the government to make good the payment. Imprudent idealism? Inviting the smirk of the cynic and the snarl of the jingoist, one should say honour won. The honour of the plighted word. And India has a huge moral advantage logged there, in its book of accounts with Pakistan.

The second major word of honour was given by the prime minister, Nehru, on the floor of the Lok Sabha on August 7, 1959. This was on the subject of India's official language. The south, Tamil Nadu in particular, had been disturbed at what seemed to it like Hindi imperialism. Nehru said: "...for an indefinite period - I do not know how long - I should have, I would have, English as an associate, additional language... as an alternative language as long as people require it and the decision for that I would leave not to the Hindi-knowing people, but to the non-Hindi-knowing people." This was the polar opposite of majoritarianism and Madras was assuaged. A year after Nehru's death, in 1965, suspicions of Hindi imposition rose again and riots broke out in Madras. The prime minister, Lal Bahadur Shastri, reiterated the assurance. English, he said, would continue as the second official language as long as non-Hindi-speaking people wanted it. This Nehru-Shastri word of honour is cited every time there is apprehension in Tamil Nadu over the intentions of Hindi enthusiasts. And Delhi is obliged to say there is no change in the assurance given. The Nehru-Shastri word has not only thereby served to keep Tamil Nadu reassured but has in fact blunted the resistance of the people of the state towards Hindi as a language per se.

The third major instance of the word and its honour arose over the princely states of India which covered 48 per cent of the area of undivided India and nearly 30 per cent of its population. Defending the privy purse, the author of the integration of the states, Vallabhbhai Patel, said in the Constituent Assembly: "Let us do justice to them... The rulers have now discharged their part of the obligations by transferring all ruling powers... The main part of our obligation under these agreements is to ensure that the guarantee given by us in respect of privy purses are fully implemented. Our failure to do so would be a breach of faith and seriously prejudice the stabilisation of the new order." Whatever the socialist in Nehru may have felt about the princely order, the man of honour in him did not cavil at the purses. But the prime minister, Indira Gandhi, clearly displeased by the princes' rallying round the Swatantra Party, abolished the privy purses in 1970. The total amount payable to the princes at the time was only four crore rupees a year. Patel's word of honour was relinquished at the altar of political hubris in the garb of democratic equity.

The State's 'word' keeps being given.

Addressing a gathering of Christian leaders at Vigyan Bhavan, New Delhi, in February 2015, the prime minister, Narendra Modi, extolled the 2008 inter-faith 'Hague Declaration' on human rights and announced: "[S]peaking for India, and for my government, I declare that my government stands by every word of the above declaration. My government will ensure that there is complete freedom of faith and that everyone has the undeniable right to retain or adopt the religion of his or her choice without coercion or undue influence. My government will not allow any religious group, belonging to the majority or the minority, to incite hatred against others, overtly or covertly. Mine will be a government that gives equal respect to all religions."

A 'tweet' is hardly the vehicle for a word of honour but if the prime minister tweets a word of honour, the word becomes more important than its vehicle. On World Press Freedom Day, last May, Modi tweeted, "Our unwavering support towards a free and vibrant press, which is vital in a democracy."

Both these - guaranteeing freedom of faith and freedom of speech - are our prime minister's words of honour. They are words of honour in the highest Jaipal Singh sense of the term. Our prime minister knows more than anyone else that many things have happened, deeply troubling and shameful, that have belied his words of honour. Is it too late, even futile, to say, like the Munda leader did to Nehru, "...and yet I take Prime Minister Narendra Modi at his word"? His word of honour needs to be recognized for what it is. That, in his own words, is 'vital in a democracy'.

If not in the Jaipal Singh-Nehru sense of honour, for Nehru is outside his mind's chemistry, then in Sardar Patel's sense of honour, can our prime minister be mindful of the moral vacuity of a 'breach of faith'? And can he reflect on Tulsidas's lines: "... prana jahu baru bachanu na jayi"?

The author teaches at Ashoka University