Nidhi Razdan being ripped apart by British MP Barry Gardiner

[Clarke]

Now the fundoo kacchadharis are doing their job by defending the lies of a foreign MP and in the same breath talking about "domestic mudslinging".

Enlighten me, where did I defend the foreign MP ? My argument from the beginning is the interrogation that he's subjected to because he dares to invite my CM. On the contrary, you find nothing wrong there and make up BS arguments why this is justified. Would you rather have another round of questioning of Bush & company about their opening up to a nuclear deal with India ? Will you enjoy an interrogation of a Saudi minister visiting India why he's keeping relations with the land of non-believers ? I guess you'd really like those going by your quest for the thoughts of the British MP unless of course Soniaji is your lord & savior.

[The Outsider]

I don't agree with this at all. An elected Indian CM representing 6 crore people cannot be used as a football in a conversation about British foreign policy. By the way, there was no official boycott of Modi by the UK government so the example of Modi makes even less sense.

Where did I say official boycott? In the post you quoted I clearly say "unofficial boycott". And if there was no boycott, official or unofficial, there would have been no need for the UK High Commissioner to issue a statement regarding it last year.

She is because she calls the people who are opposed to Modi as "people looking into human rights". How did she come to this conclusion that the people opposed to Modi are actually concerned about human rights ? This implies that the MP is ignoring human rights by inviting Modi. As I said in an earlier reply, the Hizbul Mujahideen calls itself a freedom fighter group, but we don't refer to its terrorists as freedom fighters.

Are you saying Human Rights Watch, for example, is a terrorist organization instead of one looking into human rights violations?

[Crookbond]

But then she should have asked a direct question about the MP's personal interests. I don't understand the need to say that "people looking into human rights" are opposed to Modi, and thereby granting moral legitimacy to this opposition. She should have simply asked a direct question without casting aspersions on an Indian CM. She calls them "people looking into human rights" ? How the hell does she know that these people are concerned about human rights ? And why not name these people/organizations directly instead of granting moral legitimacy to their opposition?

Razdan is asking a simple question - "What made you change your stance?" to which BG replies - "He's the leader of the opposition party (factually incorrect statement) and we want to do business with him". Now rather than take him up on this point (which BG is factually wrong) she raises the point of "Modi being a controversial figure" (which is not untrue). Of course, Nidhi is not a great journalist but Gardiner is an A-grade House of Commons chewtiya.

I don't understand why do you have to engage in personal attacks at members of this forum. I haven't referred to you pejoratively.

Saar, I meant Gardiner was dealt by Razdan like a troll; in other words Gardiner is a troll not you! So there that was not a personal attack on you but on Gardiner and he's not a member of ICF :aha:

[Crookbond]

this is precisely why i cant tolerate anchors like razdan' date='extremely [b']convoluted,vexatious ..these anchors nowadays have an agenda, they are not pellucid rather follow an anomalous,uncouth approach while interviewing which annoys and disturbs the national/intl viewer

Are you taking the GRE? :hmmm:

[The Outsider]

Enlighten me, where did I defend the foreign MP ? My argument from the beginning is the interrogation that he's subjected to because he dares to invite my CM. On the contrary, you find nothing wrong there and make up BS arguments why this is justified. Would you rather have another round of questioning of Bush & company about their opening up to a nuclear deal with India ? Will you enjoy an interrogation of a Saudi minister visiting India why he's keeping relations with the land of non-believers ? I guess you'd really like those going by your quest for the thoughts of the British MP unless of course Soniaji is your lord & savior.

Well, you have already made your position clear that you are interested in shooting the messenger instead of discussing the message. No wonder you see kaanspiracy thiyorees and agendas in everything.

[Clarke]

Well' date=' you have already made your position clear that you are interested in shooting the messenger instead of discussing the message. No wonder you see kaanspiracy thiyorees and agendas in everything.[/quote'] Yeah, Razdan has no agenda, she's perfectly neutral :haha: The message matters a ton here when its conveyed by an unofficial Congress representative with the media mask on her head. I wouldn't mind one bit if it was the BBC questioning the MP. In this case it was virtually the INC pulling the strings. They do it to much greater lengths when they set up the turf war between IB & CBI, thus jeopardizing the security of the nation, this was just business as usual.

[seedhi]

In pakistan there are many people (like Hafiz Sayeed and Syed Salahuddin) who oppose the granting of MFN status to India and increased trade because of the Kashmir issue. And pakistani govt itself has in the past denied MFN status citing the lack of resolution of the Kashmir issue. Let us suppose that tomorrow the pakistani govt decides to give India the MFN status. Would it be appropriate for an Indian TV journalist to ask a pakistani MP or minister that "there are people looking into Kashmir issues (referring to Hafiz Sayeed) who say that the human rights violations by the Indian army in Kashmir are continuing" ?

[The Outsider]

In pakistan there are many people (like Hafiz Sayeed and Syed Salahuddin) who oppose the granting of MFN status to India and increased trade because of the Kashmir issue. And pakistani govt itself has in the past denied MFN status citing the lack of resolution of the Kashmir issue. Let us suppose that tomorrow the pakistani govt decides to give India the MFN status. Would it be appropriate for an Indian TV journalist to ask a pakistani MP or minister that "there are people looking into Kashmir issues (referring to Hafiz Sayeed) who say that the human rights violations by the Indian army in Kashmir are continuing" ?

Yup. Human Rights Watch is the equivalent of Lashkar-e-Taiba. :nice:

[adi B]

Are you taking the GRE? :hmmm:

maybe.not pertinent to this topic though

[seedhi]

Are you saying Human Rights Watch' date=' for example, is a terrorist organization instead of one looking into human rights violations?[/quote']Just as there is no reason to believe that HRW is motivated by human rights with regard to its allegations on the Indian army in Kashmir and elsewhere, there is no reason to believe anything that it says about Gujarat. In any case, Nidhi Razdan could have specifically mentioned HRW instead of saying "people looking into human rights" thereby casting a veneer of moral legitimacy on the opposition to Modi. Discussing a purely internal matter of the country with a foreign MP is a terribly bad idea in the first place.

[seedhi]

Yup. Human Rights Watch is the equivalent of Lashkar-e-Taiba. :nice:

In the sense that neither of these organizations have any locus standi on any issue completely internal to India. And there is absolutely no need to grant what they say about such issues any moral legitimacy.

[The Outsider]

Just as there is no reason to believe that HRW is motivated by human rights with regard to its allegations on the Indian army in Kashmir and elsewhere' date=' there is no reason to believe anything that it says about Gujarat. In any case, Nidhi Razdan could have specifically mentioned HRW instead of saying "people looking into human rights" thereby casting a veneer of moral legitimacy on the opposition to Modi. Discussing a purely internal matter of the country with a foreign MP is a terribly bad idea in the first place.[/quote'] Thanks. I am done on this thread. Can't really get myself to reply to someone who believes that the actions and motives of Human Rights Watch and Lashkar-e-Taiba are similar.

[Mariyam]

this is precisely why i cant tolerate anchors like razdan' date='extremely convoluted,vexatious ..these anchors nowadays have an agenda, they are not pellucid rather follow an anomalous,uncouth approach while interviewing which annoys and disturbs the national/intl viewer[/quote'] While the topic on hand may not interest me in the slightest, the amiable alacrity with which you regale us with your arcane knowledge of the queens language is mirthfully risible. Pray tell us why you've used 'vexatious' and not 'vexing' ?

[seedhi]

Thanks. I am done on this thread. Can't really get myself to reply to someone who believes that the actions and motives of Human Rights Watch and Lashkar-e-Taiba are similar.

I said that their legitimacy as far as matters completely internal to India is similar - they both have no locus standi and what they say deserves to be ignored. By the way, some of what they both say about the Indian army in Kashmir is similar. This is what the HRW writes about the Indian army:

In its efforts to crush the militant movement, India's central government has pursued a policy of repression in Kashmir which has resulted in massive human rights violations by Indian army and paramilitary forces. Throughout the conflict, the security forces have deliberately targeted civilians, the majority of whom are widely believed to sympathize with the militants. Indian security forces, which include the army and two paramilitary forces, the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) and the Border Security Force (BSF) have assaulted civilians during search operations, tortured and summarily executed detainees in custody and murdered civilians in reprisal attacks. http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/INDIA935.PDF

Are we going to now believe an organization which spews such trash ? Do you even consider a possibility that HRW might not actually be motivated by human rights in this disgusting characterization of the entire Indian security forces.

[adi B]

While the topic on hand may not interest me in the slightest' date=' the amiable [b']alacrity with which you regale us with your arcane knowledge of the queens language is mirthfully risible. Pray tell us why you've used 'vexatious' and not 'vexing' ?

dont pull my plonkers mariyamji ,this is awesome irony :hysterical::hysterical:

[Number]

Mariyam. :hysterical:

[EnterTheVoid]

"I am wondering that despite your name being included among those people who has unfurled the tricolour on the maximum occasions, you are saying the same things which were said by Pandit Nehru in his first address to our nation. Modi said the same problems and concerns are highlighted by Singh today were mentioned by Nehru in his first speech. "The question arises what did you do for the past 60 years. If the situation has not changed a bit...then what have you done," he asked.

Brilliant stuff. This guy means business :hatsoff:

[diga]

Gardiner represents a constituency that is 51 percent Asian (the largest community in North Bent) and 32 percent Hindu.

Wow... he is a politician after all :--D

[beetle]

While the topic on hand may not interest me in the slightest, the amiable alacrity with which you regale us with your arcane knowledge of the queens language is mirthfully risible. Pray tell us why you've used 'vexatious' and not 'vexing' ?

:hysterical::hysterical::hysterical:

[Khalpat]

Wow... he is a politician after all :--D

No body noticed or commented that a British MP has Joined the RSS ranks and should be addressed as "Sanghi" and "half chaddi" what is this..so much for the left intelligentsia, missed such a simple point.