Awakened One With Awareness Buddha’s Teachings in 4 Words
The “Nut” culture
Perfect example of what The fascist C(T)hief expected from the Rowdy
Rakshasa Swayam Sevaks (RSS) … Nut (character in a jatra)/ Do what is
told - culture!
The fascist’s dictates: “Selectivity has no place
in a Nut’s life. Do what is told. If told to break the head, practice
Sir mar Kramika with you Latti; told to hold meeting then meeting… For
instance some are told to go and work for politics that does not mean
that they have great interest or inspiration
for it. They don’t die for politics like fish without water. If they
are told to withdraw from politics then also there is no objection.
Their discretion is just not required.
Some of the SwayamSevaks work in politics. There they have to organise
according to the needs of work fopr gobbling the Master Key by the
Murderers of democratic institutions (Modi) by tampering the fraud EVMs,
processions etc., have to raise slogans. All these things have no place
in the work.
However, like the character in a play whatever role
has been assigned should be portrayed with best of capability. But
sometimes Swayam Sevaks go beyond the role assigned to a performer (nut)
as they develop over-zealousness in their hearts, to the extent that
they become useless for this work like modi yeddi. This is not good”
It was much more than a mere photo-op.
Just consider the scenario. Bahujan Samaj Party and Samajwadi Party
chiefs Mayawati and Akhilesh Yadav respectively sharing the stage at a
swearing-in ceremony for the first time ever. Congress leaders Sonia
Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi posing with Mayawati. Sonia and Mayawati hugging.
Sitaram Yechury and chief minister and Trinamool Congress supremo Mamata
Banerjee shaking hands! Notably, four chief ministers attended JD(S)
leader HD Kumaraswamy’s oath-taking ceremony: Andhra Pradesh’s
Chandrababu Naidu, Kerala’s P Vijayan, Delhi’s Arvind Kejriwal, apart
from Mamata Banerjee — all four leaders from different parties.
Governor Vajubhai Vala congratulates HD Kumaraswamy, the chief minister of Karnataka.
Virtually, the entire Opposition was in attendance. Though another chief minister and regional satrap K
Chandrasekhar Rao (chief of Telangana Rashtriya Samiti) was conspicuous
by his absence at the swearing-in, it must be pointed out that KCR
visited Kumaraswamy in Bangalore only yesterday to express solidarity
with him, apprising him about the pre-arranged engagement he couldn’t
cancel and telling him that he would be sending his son for the
oath-taking, which he did.
This stupendous gathering of Opposition, a rarity in Indian politics
ever since the Modi-era, is well-orchestrated optics for Mission 2019.
It’s the first hurrah of a fast unifying Opposition. It has taken them
The Opposition at HD Kumaraswamy’s oath taking ceremony on May 23.
Grand alliance of Rashtriya
Janata Dal (RJD), Janata Dal (United) and the Congress trounced the BJP
in the October 2015 Bihar Assembly polls. Two back-to-back political
reversals for the Modi-led BJP suggested a seemingly early demise for
For the first time since the Bihar polls, the Opposition got
something worth cheer in this month’s Karnataka Assembly elections that
threw up a fractured mandate. And look at the quirk of fate. The BJP met
its Waterloo even after emerging as the single largest party with 104
seats, just seven short of a clear majority as against 78 of the
Congress and 37 of the JD(S).
It happens only in politics that a party finishing last in a three-horse race becomes the eventual winner.
But the BJP’s embarrassment stems from the fact that it failed to
gain power in Karnataka even after winning 104 seats, though it managed
to form governments in Goa, Manipur and Meghalaya where the Congress was
the single largest party — Meghalaya being the most ludicrous example
of political impossibilities where BJP won just two seats in the
Karnataka may well prove to be a turning point, politically speaking.
No, it’s not just because of the fact that the BJP’s juggernaut was
finally stopped in Karnataka. Nor is it because the BJP had to eat the
humble pie even after an indulgent governor swore in BJP’s BS
Yeddyurappa as chief minister — who decided to resign 55 hours later
without even facing the trust vote.
Acronym gaffe – Yes, Murderer of
democratic institutions (Modi) MG (Master of Gaffethology) did get the
spelling of STRENGTH wrong as….STREANH again fumbled a second time and
ended up making STRENGTH sound like STRENGATH meant to say but got
confused with his spelling. “STRENGATH : S-Spirituality;
T-Tradition,Trade & Technology; R-Relationship; E-Entertainment
(Movies, Art, etc.); N-Nature conservation; G-Games; A – Animosity
T-Tourism & H-Health&Healing.”in China
Ha..ha..ha…this educationally and morally challenged guy is shaming
us in the entire world! Little wonder, they are spitting on him!!!! –
He thinks he is addressing the RSS (Rowdy Rakshasa Swayam Sevaks) bakhts of India even in global audience – Shaikh
Bhakt spotted here-Salman
of revealing information as per CIC orders, the university has branded
one applicants as a “busybody or meddlesome interloper”. It also said
that the activists “masquerade as crusaders for justice” and have “no
interest of the public to protect”.
New Delhi: Delhi
University has now taken to personally attacking the Right to
Information (RTI) activists who filed intervention applications in what
has now famously come to be known as the Narendra Modi degree case.
While an affidavit submitted by registrar
T.K. Das last month singled out the main intervener for the attack,
additional solicitor general (ASG) Tushar Mehta, while appearing for the
university in the Delhi high court, on Tuesday accused all the three
applicants – RTI activists Anjali Bharadwaj, Nikhil Dey and Amrita Johri
– of being “nothing but busybodies or meddlesome interlopers …
surreptitiously trying to intervene in the present matter”.
HC refuses to dismiss intervention without going into its merits
The ASG also opposed the intervention tooth
and nail, claiming that it should not be allowed under any
circumstances. When Justice Rajiv Shakder said legal points had been
raised by the applicants in the matter and at least their services could
be utilised as friends of the court or amicus curiae, DU’s counsel also
opposed any such idea.
Furthermore, when asked for his response to
the notice served in the matter, Mehta said he had been served only
one-and-a-half pages and not the 24 pages which were supposed to be
there. At this, Justice Shakder said that even he had gone through the
detailed notice. Mehta also opposed any arguments in the matter though
the lawyers for both the appellant Neeraj Sharma and the intervening
applicants were prepared for it. Finally, the judge posted the matter
for August 23 but said he cannot dismiss the intervention without going into its merits and hearing it properly.
DU had earlier overlooked how activists have intervened in other cases too
Incidentally, the attacks on the activists in this case had begun in the last hearing itself. Talking to The Wire,
Bhardwaj said that in the last hearing, the petitioners had been
accused of not intervening in any other matter but only the Modi degree
She said, “Today, we also attached a list
of cases in which we had intervened and these included the matter of
non-appointment of CIC and the Lokpal case in the high court. We have
also gone to the Supreme Court against the non appointment of
commissioners by information commissions across the country. In the
Delhi Rozi Roti Adhikar Abhiyaan again we had gone to court. But they
were trying to make it sound like we were intervening for the first
Also, she said, Delhi University is trying
to make this a case about the PM’s degree. “We have said that in this
RTI application it is not just the prime minister’s degree that has been
sought, it is about the entire 1978 batch. So no one is targeting any
individual. It is just that PM has also said that he passed out in 1978.
But it is clear that they have resorted to personal attacks in both the
affidavit and in the court proceeding. It was done rather blatantly by
Incidentally, while the ASG mentioned all
the three applicants, an affidavit submitted by the registrar of Delhi
University, T.K. Das, in early April in the matter, had clearly targeted
Das had categorically stated that “a mere
assertion of the applicant that she is a public spirited person and is
interested in meaningful implementation of the Right to Information Act
is no legal ground warranting intervention of the applicant in the
present proceedings”. He had added that the “application for
intervention is devoid of merits and such liable to be dismissed at it
In its affidavit, Delhi University had placed its reliance on the a Supreme Court judgment in the Bar Council of Maharashtra v M.V. Dabholkar
case (1975) in which the court had held that “in the context of locus
standi to apply for a writ of certiorari, an applicant may ordinarily
fall in any of these categories: (i) “person aggrieved”; (ii)
“stranger”; (iii) busybody or meddlesome interloper. Persons in the last
category are easily distinguishable from those coming under the first
two categories. Such persons interfere in things which do not concern
them. They masquerade as crusaders for justice. They pretend to act in
the name of pro bono public, though they have no interest of the public
or even of their own to protect.”
The citing of the Supreme Court order by
Das clearly illustrated that extent to which Delhi University is willing
to stop the information on students who are believed to have graduated
from Delhi University in 1978.
The citation also showed the university’s
scant regard towards an RTI activist of repute, Anjali Bhardwaj (the
first applicant), who, as a member of the National Campaign for People’s
Right to Information, has been at the forefront of the transparency
movement, the Right to Food campaign, and various accountability
A Lady Shri Ram College graduate, who
obtained higher degrees from Oxford University and the Delhi School of
Economics, Bhardwaj is also the founding member of Satark Nagrik
Sangathan and has worked towards promotion of transparency in public
life by advocating the need for implementing the RTI Act, the Whistle
Blowers Protection Act, the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act 2013 and the
Grievance Redressal Bill. She is also an active Right to Food campaigner
and regularly helps the poor and marginalised fight the system and gain
access to rations, pensions and other entitlements.
For her part, Bhardwaj said, “Maybe I was
targeted because I am the first intervener and it is ‘Anjali Bhardwaj
and others versus…’.
But she agreed that personal attacks have
become a part of the case. “Today, they made it clear that the
interveners are meddlesome interlopers. The hearing also started with
their reading descriptions about us. Obviously they are carrying out
personal attacks,” she said.
HC had issued notice to DU despite opposition from ASG
Earlier on February 28 this year, the Delhi high court had issued notice to Delhi University on
the intervention filed by the RTI activists in the matter relating to
information about students who graduated from Delhi University in 1978 –
the year Prime Minister Narendra Modi is said to have graduated,
according to his election affidavit.
Justice Shakdher had issued notice despite
Delhi University strongly opposing the request for it. Appearing for the
university then, Mehta had insisted that RTI activists should not be
allowed to intervene in the case. However, the counsel for the
intervenors had said this was an issue of grave public importance and
that the interpretation by the court would have serious ramifications on
the RTI regime in the country. It was also highlighted that similar
interventions had been allowed by the Delhi high court in matters
relating to the appointment of the chief information commissioner of the
Central Information Commission (CIC) under the Lokpal and Lokayuktas
The Wire had earlier also reported
how RTI activists had contended that Delhi University’s challenge to
the CIC order directing it to disclose the names of all students who
graduated with a BA degree in 1978, was bad in law. They had noted that
while such information was readily provided by prominent foreign
universities, Delhi University had also erred in citing various
provisions of the RTI Act in trying to block the disclosure of
information, which is over 20 years old.
Delhi University had challenged the CIC’s
2016 order on the grounds that it violated the RTI Act’s provision
pertaining to privacy (Section 8(1)(j)) that it is in possession of the
information being sought in a fiduciary capacity under section 8(1)(e)
of the Act.
CIC had allowed inspection of DU’s 1978 BA degree records
In his order of December 21, 2016, central
information commissioner M. Sridhar Acharyulu had allowed inspection of
Delhi University’s 1978 BA degree records. Hearing the RTI application
by Neeraj Sharma, Acharyulu had overturned the DU central public
information officer’s (CPIO) decision to deny the sought information.
The university then contended that disclosure of its 1978 university
records would invade the privacy of students and that the information
“has no relationship to any public activity or interest”.
The CIC held that the university could not
provide any evidence or explain how such information causes any
“invasion of privacy”, and allowed for inspection of records.
Soon after he passed the order in the case,
Acharyulu was divested of the charge of the human resource development
ministry. Though the chief information commissioner later issued a
notice allowing him to retain the power to intervene in HRD ministry
matters, RTI activists have urged that the reasons behind the move,
widely assumed to have been prompted by a nudge from outside the
commission, be disclosed.
Kejriwal had accused PM of influencing departments
Subsequently, Aam Aadmi Party leader and
Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal had also written to the CIC
alleging that the prime minister was influencing the departments
concerned not to release details about his degrees.
Treating his letter as an RTI application,
the CIC had then directed both Gujarat University (GU) and Delhi
University to give Modi’s roll numbers so that they could find out the
necessary details. Later, both DU and GU confirmed what Modi had stated
in his election affidavits. Copies of his degree certificates showed
that he had completed his BA from Delhi University in 1978 with a third
division and finished his MA in ‘Entire Political Science’ with a first
division in 1983.
DU opposed the CIC order citing privacy clause
The CIC order was expected to provide
finality, but DU opposed it and moved the Delhi high court in appeal.
The court on January 23, 2017 stayed the CIC order directing disclosure
of Modi’s degree records.
In its petition, Delhi University had
stated that the CIC order of December 21, 2016 had directed the
“University of Delhi to facilitate inspection of relevant register where
complete information about result of all students, who have passed in
Bachelor of Arts (B.A.), in the year 1978 along with roll number, names
of students, father’s name and marks obtained is available and provide
certified copy of the extract of pages from the register”.
Delhi University, therefore, “sought
exemption from provision of the said information under Section 8 (1)(e),
(j) and Section 11 of the Act”, citing clauses pertaining to privacy
and its fiduciary capacity. In granting a stay, the high court stated
that Delhi University had contended it had “no difficulty” in providing
information on three points that concern the total numbers but when it
came to the fourth point, it objected to the demand saying that this
concerned “personal information” of all students and was thus exempt
The high court noted that the additional
solicitor general, while appearing for Delhi University, had contended
that even if the said information was not held in fiduciary capacity,
disclosure of personal information could only be directed after
compliance of provisions of sections 8(1)(j) and section 11 of the Act,
which require issuance of a notice and provision of an opportunity of
hearing to the individual concerned about whom the information is
RTI activists plea says DU’s stand based on incorrect interpretation of law
Before the matter was listed again for
hearing toward the end of 2017, the three RTI activists filed an
intervention plea in the matter. They stated that DU’s stand was at
variance with major universities across the globe which freely share
information on their students’ performance.
The RTI activists also claimed that Delhi
University’s petition was based on an incorrect interpretation of law
and ran contrary to the manner in which Delhi University dealt with such
information at present. They also pointed out that the university had
at the time of obtaining the stay ignored section 8(3) of the RTI Act,
which provides for the lifting of most of the exemptions if the
information sought for pertains to matters that are over 20 years old.
Murderer of democratic institutions (Modi) after gobbling the Master
Key by tampering the fraud, he is loyal to his master the just 0.1%
intolerant, cunning, crooked, number one terrorists of the world,
violent, militant, ever shooting, lynching, lunatic, mentally retarded
outsiders and foreigners paradesis chit[avan brahmins RSS (Rowdy
Rakshasa Swayam Sevaks).He is working hard to bring back manusmriti in
the place of our Marvelous Modern Constitution that provide equality,
fraternity and liberty. Though modi spells Strengh fot strength wants to
take classes for IAS. Only chitpavan brahmins have the right to be
educated as per manu.
alok asthana • 3 days ago
hitting wide and deep in his effort to put in an evil plan across the
country. It is not a plan for the country but one for himself, BJP &
RSS. There is practically no organ of the state that he is not trying
to infuse with his ‘follow me or else’ type of philosophy. If only this
man had the best interests of India as his desire! If only!
S.N.Iyer • 2 days ago
This is one more instance of this Govt changing systems to suit
themselves. Already Modi has broken most conventions and amended laws
and Bills to suit their party. Between now and 2019 Modi may even change
electoral rules. Already the EC is packed with his own people. Thank
God, we have a Supreme
Court and hopefully they will maintain law
sivaraman ias retd • 2 days ago
This is an outrageous proposal as there will be very subjective
assessments unless the UPSC is asked to assess them again.It is
different for a person to improve his rank purely on the basis of the
final academy examination on subjects taught.For example in my time we
had to pass a complicated riding test conducted by the army on the
academy’s riding ground which included jumping over a hedge of five
Instead of this proposal which will be highly subjective I as a
person who joined tha IAS at 22 and retired as ED IMF and designated as
Ambassador to the US in that capacity, would like to make a radical
All the IAS and IPS officers as selected by the UPSC
must be sent to one of the military acdemies for a six month military
training to instil discipline courage and decision making ability under
adverse circumstances.Then they shd be sent to the border areas and
attached to combat patrols for 2 months.One month they shd command
combat patrols independently with the rank of captain.
This training will teach them discipline courage endurance and a camarederie with the armed forces of the country.
They could then join their respective academies.
We will then have excellent officers who will not buckle under presdure.
vinie • 2 days ago
its really unfair for those who are preparing for ias now or in future.
this proposal shouldn’t be passed , modi is only thinking of his
benefits. what is the need to change the existing system, in his term
period he has done a lot for india for which iam thankful but this
proposal for three months training after upsc exam, this will create a
lot of pressure for students. if so ,then what use is the rank we score
in upsc exam.and its for sure if we have this three month foundation
course on the basis of which they will allot the people who cleared ias
there will be a lot of discrimination,bias and favouritism.That means
who ever gets a top rank can also fall back due to this.
right-thinking citizens of the country really helpless in this scenario ?
Isn’t there anything we can do to keep this country pluralistic and
Murderer of democratic institution (Modi) Proposal on Service Allocation Seen as Move to Create ‘Loyal’ Bureaucracy
Instead of the UPSC’s relatively objective process, the fear is that
pliant academies will open the doors of sought-after services to people
whose ideological outlook suits the current BJP (Brashatachar Jiyadha
Modi’s office has its way, doing well
in the civil services examination conducted by the Union Public Service
Commission will not be enough to get into an All India service of your
An extra layer of assessment is being mooted to decide
the service as well as cadre that probationers will eventually get
selected for – based on their performance in the compulsory ‘foundation
If the PMO’s latest proposal is accepted, it will
theoretically be possible for a candidate whose rank in the UPSC civil
services examination can get him only into, say, the Indian Defence
Accounts Service, to climb up to the coveted Indian Administrative
Service on the basis of how well he does his foundation course at the
Lal Bahadur Shastri National Academy of Administration (LBSNAA),
Mussoorie or Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel National Police Academy (SVPNPA)
or other academies for civil servants.
In a move that has already
caused outrage among retired, serving and aspiring civil servants, the
Centre’s department of personnel & training (DoPT) has asked various
ministries for suggestion and action on the PMO proposal. The DoPT
wants the new system implemented from the current year itself.
DoPT letter sent to various government departments.
The DoPT letter says the PMO “has desired to consider the following
suggestion and necessary action on it for implementation from the
current year itself”:
Union government ministries ‘to examine
if service allocation/cadre allocation to probationers selected on the
basis of the civil services examination be made after Foundation Course.
Examine the feasibility of giving due weightage to the performance in
the Foundation Course and making service allocation as well as cadre
allocation to All India Services Officers, based on the combined score
obtained in the civil services examination and the Foundation course.’
Two days after the DoPT communication reached various ministries, it
has become the major topic of discussion in WhatsApp groups of
Three problems seen
The reaction among them
is three-fold: First, Using a probationer’s performance in the
foundation course to decide his or her service will ruin whatever
objectivity the UPSC examination provides and put pressure on
probationers to appeal to the subjective assessments of their examiners.
Second, some officials see a deeper design in the desire to implement
the proposed new system from this year itself. Third, the proposal
raises a whole lot of technical questions cannot be easily resolved
given the current system of service allocation and training.
Above all, the fear is that pliant academies with extraordinary powers
will open the doors of sought-after services to people whose ideological
outlook suits the current government, creating a loyal or ‘committed’
bureaucracy over the long haul.
A serving officer said Samkalp
Coaching Centres with close connections to the Rashtriya Swayamsevak
Sangh (RSS) have sprung up all over India and many serving bureaucrats
and retired bureaucrats give lectures there regularly.
One of the buildings on the LBSNAA campus, Mussoorie. Credit: LBSNAA
Some bureaucrats question whether the academies are competent to assess
a probationer’s ability and decide on the service for them. “Are they
not being given too much power? There has to be a deeper reason for
fiddling with a system which is universally accepted as fair. Biases
will play out in full measure now,” says a serving joint secretary-level
officer who had a stint in the Mussoorie academy.
secretary says the results of the foundation course at LBSNAA are
subjective. “There are probationers who make a song and dance about
their knowledge and always do well in the foundation course. The UPSC
results are sealed, signed and un-manipulative,” she says. The former
top bureaucrat, who was in one of the large ministries that has a good
number of serving IAS officers, also feels this move of deciding service
after the foundation course would lead to large-scale litigation by
bureaucrats right at the beginning of their careers.
Bias and favouritism
Already, the intra-service rank of a probationer is decided on the
basis of performance in the foundation course. A serving joint secretary
level officer says the assessment at the LBSNAA and other academies is
full of biases. He gives the instance of how one probationer who was in
the top 10 all India rank moved much below in ranking after the
foundation course at Mussoorie. The reason: he asked too many questions
and did not always agree with the faculty and director. “Imagine now
even the choice of service will be in the hands of the faculty in these
civil service academies for a whole range of All India services.”
A serving bureaucrat who had a stint in the Mussoorie academy gives a
larger perspective. He says there have been a few legendary directors
like P.S. Appu and N.C. Saxena. He remembers Saxena even inviting people
who were openly opposed to the government of the day to give lectures,
turning the academy into a liberal space. Similarly, Harsh Mander as
deputy director took some bold measures for which he is remembered even
Otherwise, there have been many directors who have spent
two-thirds of their career in the IAS serving in academies without much
The Mussoorie academy is full of stories of
mediocrity and nepotism, says the bureaucrat with administrative stint
in Mussoorie. “Now these people will have a role in allocating service,”
he says. A few instances will suffice to highlight the dangerous
A little over a decade ago, essays by two
probationers caught the attention of a conscientious faculty member who
ran a Google check on them only to find that one essay was lifted from a
chapter from Leo Tolstoy’s War and Peace and the other a straight lift
from a speech by the Dalai Lama. They were given zero. But the then
director of the academy came to their rescue and asked the faculty
member to pass them. His argument was simple: ‘You cannot give zero in
an essay. So what if it was lifted from a classic or reproduced from a
In another instance, a probationer was caught
shop-lifting in Singapore while on an official trip. Instead of
stringent action, he managed to escape with the help of a protective
director till a senior home ministry official got to know of it. He was
attached to the academy for two years but is now back in service. In a
third instance, a probationer got drunk, drove his vehicle and met with
an accident, resulting in the death of a batchmate. But the director
ensured no action was taken against him.
‘No probationer will ask questions’
Jawhar Sircar, who retired as a secretary in the Union government and
also served as chairperson of Prasar Bharati, is most scathing in his
criticism of the PMO’s new proposal. He fears this move will stifle the
new generation of bureaucrats. Sircar says no probationer will ask
questions during the foundation course for fear of getting a poor
assessment and a service they do not want.
Even among those who
think the new system being proposed is a good idea, the consensus is
that it needs to be implemented with a lot of preparation. Former DoPT
secretary Satyanand Mishra is one of them. He terms the proposal “a big
step, a good step”. But he wants the existing assessment system in the
academies to go. “The evaluation system should eliminate subjectivity.
It should be more quantitative,” he says.
also a former secretary, is supportive of the concept too. But he wants
the existing hierarchies and faculty of the academies to be overhauled.
Directors, he says, should be persons of eminence and carefully selected
without any bias. However, he advises the government to spend time
developing the idea rather than rushing through implementation.
Habibullah also wants the LBSNAA to give the proposal to government
rather than the other way round.
Keshav Desiraju, who retired as
Union secretary, consumer affairs, says the faculty of the LBSNAA does
not have the experience to do additional assessment to decide service.
He thinks even with some degree of discretion that UPSC shows it is
better placed. He would rather prefer that all successful candidates are
put through a psychological test.
Bureaucrats are also raising several technical issues about the proposal.
The first question is about what the foundation course will consist of.
Right now, probationers of all services do the first three-four months
of the course together and then go to academies specific to their
service for further training. IAS probationers stay back in Mussoorie,
for example. Their cadre is decided before the end of the first year of
training and they begin learning the language of their cadre state. In
the second year of probation, all officers go to their respective cadres
for field training.
Sircar points out that in the new proposal
it is not clear if service/cadre allotment will be done after the first
three-four months or at the end of two years. “If service is allotted
within four months of training, will it be on a fair basis? Isn’t it too
little a time to decide?” he asks. And in case service/cadre allotment
is done after two years, what happens to field and language training? It
is quite possible that a probationer will go for a field training to
one state and get allotted another state.
Sircar says that in the
present system, the moment their cadre is allotted, probationers start
developing a loyalty to that state, start learning its language and
history and interacting with people of that state. All of this will now
The proposed measure, a retired secretary says, is
like everything else in the Modi government: half-baked and sinister.
“It will do no good but destroy the existing system,” he says.
Akshaya Mukul is a Delhi-based journalist and author of Gita Press and the Making of Hindu India.