Comment by Riaz Haq on January 9, 2017 at 8:08am

SRK: Use #MerylStreep's Golden Globes’ speech to condemn #Hindutva attacks on #Pakistan artists http://indianexpress.com/article/entertainment/opinion-entertainmen... … via @IndianExpress

Meryl Streep’s powerful speech at the Golden Globes, to quote her own words ‘sank its hooks in my heart’. It also made me recall how our own award nites are nothing but blah. It is exactly what actor Govinda says it is: “One camp announces the award, another from the same camp receives it while a third one from their camp sits in the audiences and claps vigorously.” That’s a Bollywood awards night for you where nepotism rules supreme and God, along with corporate sponsors, find frequent mentions in thank you speeches. But never even once will anyone ever do what Meryl Streep did.

Will you ever see Karan Johar (an eloquent speaker) openly talking about the troubles he and Bollywood at large had to face from MNS, a political outfit that is not even in power? Shah Rukh Khan preferred a quiet settlement rather than taking the bull by its horns, which in the prevailing circumstances looked like a smart move. Their continued public silence emerges from the fact that every time they have aired their opinions on an issue that is political in nature, it has only earned them political wrath and calls for forcible bans on their films. Both Aamir and SRK have suffered for their statements on intolerance made in the past. Not wanting to invite anymore trouble, all major stars have now clamped up and adopted the ‘silence is golden’ method when faced with such questions.

Questions asked by the press on public podiums about such issues are either disallowed or met with ‘no comments’ response. For those who feel like reacting, opt for the safe way out – record a video in the safe confines of their luxurious house and post it on Twitter. This provides them the immunity from speaking about it on a public platform. “I have already said what I wanted to on Twitter,” is their terse response if ever asked about it by the press. While to expect Bollywood stars to speak their mind out will remain a Utopian dream, what I couldn’t avoid noticing is how Streep’s speech could be a perfect one for SRK to address the Pakistan controversy at an upcoming awards nite. And here is how it should go with some minor changes.

Comment by Riaz Haq on January 9, 2017 at 9:52am

Right-wing Indian media claim love of Indian soldiers deployed in Kashmir. But they don't cover the poor treatment of these soldiers by their own Army:

#Indian Soldier Yadav on Insufficient Amount & Poor Quality Food. #India #Modi #Kashmir https://youtu.be/J5sxamauVgY via @YouTube

Tej Bahadur Yadav serving with India's 29th battalion of Seema Suraksha Bal (BSF) in Indian occupied Jammu and Kashmir says,: “From morning to evening we work, standing in all weather conditions. No matter the rain, no matter the snow, in all conditions we do our duty, but neither the media nor any minister pay heed to our problems. This dal just has turmeric and salt, but no taste. There are times when we are forced to sleep off empty stomach. We get one paratha for breakfast in the morning and we have to eat it just with tea. We have been getting this same food for 10 days continuously. Can a BSF jawan do 10 hours of duty after eating such food?"

Comment by Riaz Haq on January 9, 2017 at 10:02am

How the #American #CIA Infiltrated the World's #Literature Using Famous Writers as Tools https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/how-the-cia-infiltrated-the-worl... … via @VICE

"The CIA's influence in publishing was on the covert ops side, and it was done as propaganda. It was a control of how intellectuals thought about the US."

The new book, Finks, reveals how great writers such as Baldwin, Márquez, and Hemingway became soldiers in America's cultural Cold War.

When the CIA's connections to the Paris Review and two dozen other magazines were revealed in 1966, the backlash was swift but uneven. Some publications crumbled, taking their editors down with them, while other publishers and writers emerged relatively unscathed, chalking it up to youthful indiscretion or else defending the CIA as a "nonviolent and honorable" force for good. But in an illuminating new book Finks: How the CIA Tricked the World's Best Writers, writer Joel Whitney debunks the myth of a once-moral intelligence agency, revealing an extensive list of writers involved in transforming America's image in countries we destabilized with coups, assassinations, and other all-American interventions.

The CIA developed several guises to throw money at young, burgeoning writers, creating a cultural propaganda strategy with literary outposts around the world, from Lebanon to Uganda, India to Latin America. The same agency that occasionally undermined democracies for the sake of fighting Communism also launched the Congress for Cultural Freedoms (CCF). The CCF built editorial strategies for each of these literary outposts, allowing them to control the conversation in countries where readers might otherwise resist the American perspective. The Paris Review, whose co-founder Peter Matthiessen was a CIA agent, would sell its commissioned interviews to the magazine's counterparts in Germany, Japan, and elsewhere. Mundo Nuevo was created to offer a moderate-left perspective to earn trust among Latin American readers, effectively muting more radical perspectives during the Cuban Revolution. Sometimes the agency would provide editors with funding and content; other times it would work directly with writers to shape the discourse. Through these acts, the CCF weaponized the era's most progressive intellectuals as the American answer to the Soviet spin machine.

While the CIA's involvement in anti-Communist propaganda has been long known, the extent of its influence—particularly in the early careers of the left's most beloved writers—is shocking. Whitney, the co-founder and editor at large of the literary magazine Guernica, spent four years digging through archives, yielding an exhaustive list—James Baldwin, Gabriel García Márquez, Richard Wright, and Ernest Hemingway all served varying levels of utility to Uncle Sam. (Not that the CIA's interest were only in letters: Expressionists Jackson Pollock and Mark Rothko were also championed by arms of the agency.)

But don't let that ruin Love in the Time of Cholera. Whitney explains with methodical clarity how each writer became a tool for the CIA. This nuance not only salvages many of the classics from being junked as solely propaganda, but it serves as a cautionary tale for those trying to navigate today's "post-truth" media landscape. In an era where Facebook algorithms dictate the national discourse, even the most well-meaning journalist is prone to stories that distract on behalf of the US government. 

"It was often a way to change the subject from the civil rights fight at home," Whitney said of the CIA's content strategy during the Cold War. We can easily draw parallels to today, where the nation's most dire issues are rarely our viral subjects. With Donald Trump's presidency just weeks away, Finks arrives at a crucial time, exposing the political machinery that can affect which stories are shared and which are silenced. 

Comment by Riaz Haq on January 10, 2017 at 5:52pm

Intel Reports Allege #Trump Has Deep Ties To #Russia. Speak of Trump's lewd conduct. #FSB https://www.buzzfeed.com/kenbensinger/these-reports-allege-trump-ha... … … via @kenbensinger

The dossier, which is a collection of memos written over a period of months, includes specific, unverified, and potentially unverifiable allegations of contact between Trump aides and Russian operatives, and graphic claims of sexual acts documented by the Russians. CNN reported Tuesday that a two-page synopsis of the report was given to President Obama and Trump.

Now BuzzFeed News is publishing the full document so that Americans can make up their own minds about allegations about the president-elect that have circulated at the highest levels of the US government.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3259984-Trump-Intelligence-...

Comment