Hi Hartman, Thanks for offering another perspective on John Dayal.
To understand the power of propaganda, you need to only look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dayal and see how anyone questioning religious fundamentalism and extremism in India will be targeted, tarnished and turned controversial. In turn, these allegations will be used to fuel more allegations... and the circle is complete! John Dayal is not the only one to get thus targeted. Vijay Prashad, who has been in the forefront against communal intolerance, has another interestingly-distorted page on the Wikipedia. While the Wikipedia as such is an amazingly useful and collaborative tool, any organised tiny agenda-driven network can manipulate it skilfully, as the edits history on such pages reveal. Obviously, this can slip past the mainly-overseas editors who might not understand the context of how the bigotry of religion-based politics works in today's India. In the above page, John Dayal gets reduced to "an Indian Christian activist and campaigner for Dalit rights" and " a journalist... of the Indian tabloid newspaper" (why call him an editor at all... and we do know the global connotations that tabloids come with, even if the Mid-Day *was* in shape and size a tabloid!) "Dayal was born of Christian parents" we're told. Is this a normal description of everyone with a Wikipedia entry against their name? Further 'He describes himself as a "human rights activist" who is "fighting for the rights of Muslim, Christian and Dalit minorities" in India.' Interesting. He just describes himself thus! And yes, in case you wanted to know, "He has attacked anti-Conversion bills passed in various states in India." I guess what's left out about the person, in a page dedicated to 'him', would be interesting! Then, we learn from Francois Gautier, who else, that he is "a radical fanatic". P.N Benjamin, whom I knew as an letter-to-the-editor writer (if active one) in my Bangalore newspaper days, is quoted as calling Dayal someone who ""opens his mouth and wields his pen only to spew venom on the Hindu community". To get a better picture, one perhaps needs to look at Benjamin's interesting work at "Christian aggression" http://www.christianaggression.org/item_display.php?type=ARTICLES&id=1133659062 which suggests that the "RSS is the Best Friend of Genuine Christians"! Dayal, we are told, quoting others, is anti-Hindu, has subversive separatist views and has been "misrepresenting the Catholic Church in India" (I don't believe Dayal is Catholic in the first place, please correct me if wrong). Hartman, by challenging the spiral-of-silence, you've called this bluff for now. I think there's need for a challenge to attempts to tarnish the reputations and approaches of people questioning religious intolerance. But then, you will be dragged into controversy over the flimsiest of excuses, accused of posting to Christian dominated networks, and be beaten down by a multi-sided attack. Going by his recent postings, I wouldn't call Heble a "bigot", but we are all obviously getting swayed by the "facts" posted by one another! Perhaps you were unfair in using that term. This is the polarisation that I was talking about, which will help some parties in a big way in the forthcoming elections. Strangely, the people who deny the existance of any prolarisation, by splitting hairs, seem to be falling for it themselves. I agree that I myself get affected by this nicely-timed politics of hate and suspicion which is unfair and based on half-truths to say the least! FN 2009/1/6 Hartman de Souza <[email protected]> > > However when Sandeep Heble casts aspersions against my old friend, > comrade and colleague at Patriot newspaper, New Delhi, I am afraid I > must ignore my distaste for fundamentalists and jump into the fray. > > Heble writes: "However, John Dayal's credibility in wide Hindu circles > is a bit poor where he is seen as a religious/political campaigner > having his own vested agenda"... > > John has a rock solid reputation in the media, and I can think of at least > twenty prominent journalists in the country who would rally to his side and > protect his integrity. Heble, going by his writing, appears both brash and > young. He may not know that till 1993, John has covered every single
