Tuesday, June 21, 2016

Fwd: Political Humbuggery, The New York Times, and Indian Shills

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: S G Naravane columbusstate.edu>

Dr. Ramesh Rao
Is this possible too – that cow urine can tantalize the taste-buds of the readers of the venerable New York Times? It seems so, especially if it is garnished with generous doses of the "Hindu Right", "Hindu nationalists", "Hindus' nativist pride", etc. In a recent NYT op-ed, two Indian activists/lawyers have urged the Indian government not to patent cow urine. That the NYT would suddenly be interested in the uses of cow urine is surprising, but it seems that nothing need come as a surprise on Indian matters in this newspaper which seems desperate to hang Indians/Hindus by the tail of a cow if not by the trunk of Lord Ganesha. Sudhir Krishnaswamy, one of the co-authors of the commentary, and who now occupies the B. R. Ambedkar Visiting Professorship in Indian Constitutional Law at the prestigious and left-leaning Columbia University, seems to have no compunction in fishing for red herrings to sprinkle the path of the easily led and ideologically gullible readers of The New York Times. The writers do not explain what "patenting cow urine" means, and while it is only possible to patent certain extracts of cow urine for certain purposes the writers seem to know that drumming up all kinds of conspiracies and purposefully loading their commentary with Hinduphobic rhetoric will always tempt the editors of the newspaper to lead their bovine readers up an Indian alley! It is the new rope trick that the left/secular media have designed to keep the pot boiling on Indian matters.
As a friend pointed out after reading the op-ed piece, "Modi isn't trying to patent cow urine; this headline and the thrust of the story plays up on bigoted stereotypes". He correctly pointed out that the thrust of the commentary is in opposing patents on traditional medicine and natural products in India, not cow urine, and that "for all its pretence at progressivism, the op-ed in fact is a stalking horse for those elsewhere who would pick up Ayurvedic and other traditional medicine and patent them". Forget about intelligent lawyering, even simple logic would show that the government patenting traditional medicine could in fact stop private companies from patenting them for profit and allow open use of such medicine/treatments. So, who is selling what to whom in this cunningly headlined commentary? Would it not be curious thatThe NYT might be backing those who would patent traditional medicine in the West? So, could the NYTand its hired Indian guns be batting for private individuals and corporations who seek to raid the Indian storehouse and claim what they find there as theirs?
... deleted 

No comments: