Monday, March 9, 2015

BBC’s India’s Daughter; What about Films on UK’s rape and pedophilia epidemic , Ms Leslee Udwin

BBC's India's Daughter; What about Films on UK's rape and pedophilia epidemic , Ms Leslee Udwin


1. UK Taxi Rapes "No Woman is Safe in a Cab" by Soeren Kern


July 17, 2013, Great Britain is in the throes of a rape and pedophilia epidemic unlike anything the country has experienced in living memory. However, a much acclaimed report produced by the London Metropolitan Police Service estimates that on average there are a total of 1,125 sexual assaults, including rapes, each year involving taxi drivers in just London; this works out to approximately 22 sexual assaults against women by taxi drivers each week in England's capital city alone.


2. More than 35 women report being raped every DAY... up 36% in just 12 months to hit record high


16 October 2014, Extra 4,000 women raped in the year to June than in the previous 12 months

Some 13,455 women were raped according to police recorded crime figures .In total more than 22,000 rapes were recorded, a 29% rise in just a year .Increase comes despite overall falls in crime to the lowest level on record

One can go on and go on.


Writes Bhaskar Menon

What the BBC Rape Movie is Really About

Our agony aunts in the media and politics beating their breasts about the BBC documentary on Nirbhaya are getting worked up about all the wrong issues. 

The movie is not about the terrible attitudes of Indian men, having us "look in the mirror" as a society, or the BBC trying to "understand rape." 

It is just another example of Brits raping India. 

They've been doing it for so long it's probably second nature (for other examples see here and here), and it is accomplished now with such consummate control over Indian proxies and poodles that if it were the obedience trials at a dog show one would be inclined to give up a round of applause.

As the British rape other nations with "interests" in mind (overview), the Nirbhaya documentary has aim and purpose. 

It is meant to keep control of Brand India, a long-standing effort that began early in the colonial era.

During colonial times they controlled India's global image with distorted "histories," talk of Thugee, Sati and Bengali Babus. 

Now they do it with suborned novelists (the "Indian" Booker Prizewinners), movies (most recently, Slumdog Millionaire and Midnight's Children), and "journalists" (see here). 

The fact that in all the earnest baying on television no one even hints at any of these aspects shows just how deeply India is still afflicted by the corruption and lack of character that made colonial rule possible. 

The problem, of course, is not just in the media. 


Personal note (K.Gajendra Singh)


As a diplomat since 1961 and as an independent commentator on international affairs since 1996 , I have found BBC anti-Indian ,racist and full of war mongers. Therefore, there is nothing unusual in BBC commissioning a film on India's daughter. What about films on United Kingdom's small children being sodomised and brutalised by a ring of highly placed pederasts.


Amritya Sen should have described Indians as mostly talking nonsense without any facts and figures With the proliferation of TV channels, every Indian wants to have his flimsy fame on TV channels with the usual suspects .You have ignorant lawyers. We all know we have a terrible legal system in this country and the legal fraternity specially those not on the bench is much more to blame. As the then Supreme Court judge Singhvi declared Indian judicial system has become a medium for litigation and therefore majority of people do not go to it. So the Indian legal fraternity should not talk rubbish. Another thing, if you ask an Indian, he is the first to talk about freedom of speech and truth but most of Indians are just the opposite. Then there are the usual suspects, corporate media Counts and Countesses, experts on selling soaps and toothpastes and those who acquired fame by writing erotic and pornographic novels.


BBC is a war monger TV channel

BBC stands for British Bloody liar Corporation .In the months prior to illegal U.S./UK-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 and brutal occupation, BBC was rated as the top warmonger, giving only 2% time to those who opposed the war, and 98% to those who promoted war, when millions of people walked protesting against the war all over the world and more than 1 million UK itself. It was worst of the all broadcasters, including CNN, NBC, ABC, etc. So much for the credentials of BBC as a media Corporation.


 "How ever, BBC itself gave in its overall coverage a mere 2% times to opposition's anti-war voices, which was really the majority view of the British people. It was the worst of the leading broadcasters, including US networks, according to Media Tenor; a Bonn-based non-partisan media research organization. So much for the most hyped pristine western media outlet. ABC of USA with 7% was the second-worst case of denying access to anti-war voices.  


In a 4 July, 2003 comment in "the Guardian" titled "Biased Broadcasting Corporation", Justin Lewis, Professor of Journalism at Cardiff University confirmed the above result while refuting the anecdotal view that BBC was anti-war in its coverage.  "Just the opposite was the truth". A careful analysis by the University of All the Main Evening News Bulletins during the war, concluded that of the four main UK broadcasters - the BBC, ITN, Channel 4 and Sky, BBC's coverage was the worst in granting anti-war viewpoint. The BBC had "displayed the most pro-war agenda of any [British] broadcaster."  Matthew d'Ancona in the Sunday Telegraph described how "in the eyes of exasperated Blairites - the BBC whinged and whined, and did its best to sabotage the war effort". But the pattern that emerges from their study was very different.  


Unfortunately rulers coming from British colonial days to those who succeeded them have continued to praise BBC or UK's police and military services .The British forces may not be so brutal and human rights violators and against all UN conventions as the US troops in Iraq's Abu Ghraib etc .But many cases have been filed in the British courts about the inhumane treatment of poor Iraqis by British forces in Basra, where they were located


Abuse in UK's Iraq occupation was 'systemic'


The UK government is facing more allegations of vicious abuse in its Iraqi prisons during the occupation. Now, on the eve of the 10th anniversary of the invasion, lawyers want to prove that the abuse was systemic.


Next week, from January 29, not long before the 10th anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, UK lawyer Phil Shiner will present 180 statements to a high court in London. They were gathered in Beirut by Shiner and his Public Interest Lawyers team from Iraqis detained by the British army in southern Iraq between 2003 and 2008. The testimony is shocking, both because of its volume (another 871 statements are still to come), and its sickening detail.


One civilian, known only as Khalid, said, "[A British soldier] then grabbed my penis and dragged me around the floor while holding it. He also made me squat up and down whilst naked and inserted his finger into my anus. I would have preferred to have been killed than subjected to this."


Another prisoner, named Halim, claimed he was told: "F--- you and f--- Islam!" by a soldier who then "opened the belt of my trousers and said 'now jiggy jiggy'. The soldier put his boot in my chest and pulled my trousers down … The soldier put his foot on my chest … lifted me in the air and turned me on to my front."


How about BBC making film on these and other instances

Continues Bhaskar Menon on 'Manipulating India'

After our massive general elections impressed upon the world an image of India as a great law-abiding democracy, I waited for the dismal corrective, and sure enough, it came in the grotesque footage of two teenage girls hanging from a tree in a poor village. 

It had all the ingredients that constitute the British-created international image of the country: caste discrimination, defecation in the open, callous police (drunk to boot), and brutal violence against women.

Coverage of the crime in our "elite" (read British proxy) media endlessly accentuated those themes, focusing entirely on the grisly crime scene and reducing all actors to stereotypes. There were no specifics about the alleged perpetrators, nothing about the drunken cops. (Were they habitual drunkards or did someone provide them with drink just on that day?)

The clincher was the news that the "United Nations" had "condemned the horrific crime." It flashed endlessly on television screens for a whole day and hit the headlines in print. Not a single report I have heard/seen bothered to explain that there was no "condemnation" of any sort; a Pakistani journalist who is a veteran India baiter, had asked the Secretary-General's green-around-the-gills Spokesman what he thought of the crime, and instead of answering diplomatically and personally he had said it was "horrific."

The timing of the crime right after the elections and transfer of power, its odd coverage, and the UN angle, all indicate a branding exercise similar to those the British have pursued at every opportunity since 1947.

For instance, you will find it in all of the "Indian" novels that have won the
 Booker Prize, and in Slumdog Millionaire, the Oscar-winning movie made by a British director who completely refashioned the plot and characters of a novel written by one of our serving diplomats and presenting a loving positive image of the country. 

You can correlate each of those examples to positive developments in India.

Salman Rushdie put Indian and Bangladeshi independence into a disheartening British perspective.

Arundhati Roy presented Kerala, the most socially progressive state in India, as dankly decadent.

Kiran Desai did a number on the Northeast of the country after a number of foreign-sponsored insurrections were defeated there.

And Aravind Adiga conducted a Jack the Ripper attack on the emergence of Bangalore as an international IT hub.

Slumdog Millionaire
 took aim at the "India shining" image of an emerging economic powerhouse. 

The video of the hanged girls lacked only one ingredient of the stock image of India the British have spread globally: the Hindu-Muslim riot. But it was not altogether missing. It was a strong theme throughout the coverage of the campaign – and rightfully so because of Gujarat 2002 – but the BBC inserted it in a voice-over that drowned out our national anthem at the oath-taking ceremony. Every other channel, including CNN, carried the solemn and moving scene with music intact. (RT was too preoccupied with slamming America to carry anything at all.)

The most amazing thing about this continuing and largely successful manipulation of India's global image is that most Indians seem entirely unaware that Britain is continuing its colonial era psy-war against Indian nationhood, right down to attacks on Mahatma Gandhi as a shallow hypocrite. All the "Indian" Booker authors dump on Gandhi, as do the "histories" of India that flow perennially from British publishers.

In contrast to Indians, the British are 100 per cent on the ball when it comes to controlling their own image. Their history books ignore Britain's dominant role in the transatlantic slave trade and London has consistently deflected demands for apologies from its former colonial victims. It has strongly rejected calls for compensation for stolen resources and return of treasured art and artifacts. It has never admitted the horrific toll of death and misery that colonial rule imposed on every territory the British controlled. Instead of admission of guilt and contrition we have the campy violence of James Bond movies presenting murderous
 British policy as glamorous and sexy. 

Not all of it has worked -- James Bond has become a ridiculous figure -- but the massive campaign of avoidance and lies has allowed the British to lecture countries like Sri Lanka on human rights, and to pretend that it is not stealing massively from the poorest countries in the world even as its Prime Minister appears on a panel setting global development goals. It is also the prime mover in the continuing manipulation of the world of

To understand that success we have to look to the evolution of the advertising industry in the 20th Century under the influence of the work of Austrian theorist Sigmund Freud (1859-1939).

Freud and his Acolytes


As the above-ground criminality of the British Empire submerged into organized crime in the decades after the Second World War, the advertising industry entered a new phase shaped by the thinking of a man deeply scarred by the vicious anti-Semitism of his time. Freud was skeptical of all religion, dismissing it as an "illusion" and a "form of mental illness." In his irredeemably materialistic view, adults were no more than overgrown infants suffering from the frustration of their naive self-love and overweening egotism. The resulting "neuroses" made them putty in the hands of an experienced "analyst" (read manipulator). 

Freud's nephew, Edward Louis Bernays (1891-1995), was a key figure in fitting psychology to the arts of manipulating public opinion. He was born in Vienna but raised in the United States from the age of one, in an elite, close-knit Euro centric Jewish community. Working for the propagandist
 Committee on Public Information during World War I, Bernays was impressed by British success in mobilizing anti-German feeling where none had existed. 

In two seminal books,
 Crystallizing Public Opinion (1923), and Propaganda (1928), Bernays set out his view that ordinary people could and should be subject to elite psychological manipulation and guidance. 

That attitude was reinforced by the French theorist Gustave LeBon, proponent of "crowd psychology" and the "herd instinct;" and Wilfred Trotter, an Englishman who authored
 Instincts of the Herd in Peace and War and pioneered the concept of "group dynamics." 

Hitler's publicity chief, Joseph Goebbels (1897-1945) was a fan of all three writers and his use of their concepts gave an entirely new meaning to the word "propaganda." (Previously, it had been used mainly by the Catholic Church, which set up in the 17th Century theCongregatio de Propaganda Fide, the congregation for propagating the faith.)

After World War II Bernays set up shop in New York as a "public relations counsel" and worked for corporate clients like the
 American Tobacco Company, for which he ran a campaign famous for equating smoking with women's liberation: one effective stunt was the "torches of freedom" parade, a group of lovely models walking around puffing on cigarettes. 

Working for the
 United Fruit Company (later Chiquita Banana), Bernays branded Guatemala's democratically elected president as a Communist, bringing on a CIA sponsored coup, a brutal dictatorship, and the original "banana republic." 

He saw that as "engineering consent."

His tactics became part of the tool-kit of American electoral strategists who discovered they could mobilize voters of particular groups with utterly dishonest propaganda.

These antecedents are the dirty secrets of the advertising industry, studied and admired but not celebrated. The person the industry acknowledges as the "Father of Advertising" is a British Intelligence officer, David Ogilvy, who had, during World War II, "extrapolated his knowledge of human behavior from consumerism to nationalism" and suggested tactics successfully used by the American Psychological Warfare Board. (The quote is from a biography issued by the firm he founded, Ogilvy & Mather.)

After the war, Ogilvy built one of the most successful advertising agencies in the world, and by the time he retired in 1972, it was an international conglomerate, the
 Ogilvy Group. He returned to work a decade later to found what is now Ogilvy India. (Piyush Pandey, head of Ogilvy India, was consultant to Narendra Modi's prime ministerial campaign.) 

In the final decade of the Cold War, London-based
 WPP (for Wire and Plastics Products, the original business of its boss Martin Sorrel), began to buy up advertising agencies. He made hostile bids and took over two New York based giants, J.Walter Thompson and Ogilvy & Mather. Sorrel now controls the largest advertising conglomerate in the world and figures 366th on the list of the world's Top Jewish Earners; his current wife is the public relations director of the World Economic Forum 


Advertising in India

It is interesting to note that a part of WPP, Soho Square, produced the Voltas commercials that caricature Tamils. 

 came to Soho Square after giving up a nine-year advertising partner in 2009 and changing its agency twice more before settling on Bangalore-based Meridian in 2011. (Meridian changed its name and is now part of with Ogilvy's New York based boutique Soho Square.) Trade papers said the churn reflected the search for a strong "Indian" slant to its campaign. 

What that means is a moot point. Unlike Western agencies, which have minutely detailed statistical analyses of audience preferences and responses to particular ad campaigns, Indian
 Mad Men fly in the dark`, guided by their instincts. 

Many of them use
 White models and Western music in commercials because their instincts tell them that are the best way to "sell up" (i.e. associate products with a social demographic "superior" to the target audience). 

Others seem to be guided by the "Oh it's so cute," responses of family and friends (the
 Vodafone "etch" and flipchart's grotesquely dressed children.) 

Yet others seem motivated by nothing more than a desire to subvert the social values of impressionable viewers; so much so, that one Intoed
 even forgot to mention any product at all. 

A current nitwit example is a commercial starring a White woman biting into an apple and another bouncing her very ample breasts. I have been unable to locate the product either on the Internet or in stores; perhaps I've got the name wrong, but it flashes so briefly on screen it is hard to tell.

The offensive
 Voltas air-conditioner commercials fall into a category of their own: they do not "sell up" and are in fact, crude in approach and execution; they seem to exist purely to brand Tamilians in a certain way. Since I wrote about that, another commercial caricaturing Punjabis has aired, selling the app We Chat. It is as anti-national as the Voltas ad, for the same reasons. (We Chat is a Chinese product, and given the potential for misusing information collected from its users, any Indian who uses the app would have to be certifiable.) 

To find out the reasoning behind the
 Voltas ad campaign I called up Deba Ghoshal, head of the company's marketing department. After a few preliminary exchanges, when I asked about the thinking behind the "Mr Murthy" ads, our phone connection went suddenly bad. He asked that I email my question. I will send him this article and will share his response with readers. 


K.Gajendra Singh, 9 March, 2015.