Thursday, June 30, 2011

PM's Press Meet - 'Friendly Fire'

Here are two tweets from Rahul Kanwal of Headlines Today. He sounds upset in both. This is following the very private meeting the Prime Minister had with five editors from the print media.

Rahul Kanwal:
Since you don't like message, shoot messenger! Wonder if that's new media strategy of govt. Even sympathisers seem to (be) turning against UPA

Boy Cong incredibly angry with media. 1st PM attacks press, then spokespersons launch scathing attack on air. Case of shooting d messenger?

I believe it’s very unfair to call it a ‘press meet’. It looked like a luncheon meet of the ‘mob’ for a friendly discussion on the state of affairs of their turf. It’s strange you would think. A Prime Minister holds a press meet with five select editors from the print media and then needs to be defended by his own spokespersons. That is precisely what Manish Tiwari and Ambika Soni were doing on  June 29.

Some of the firm assertions of Manmohan Singh at this meet were “I am not a lame duck PM” and the media is an “accuser, prosecutor and judge”. I agree with the media part though. That is their general approach to all issues. Other than that, the PM generally blamed the opposition for the lame duck tag. These statements were made when most of the ‘chosen’ editors were ones who are known to be friendly to the Congress.

It is also strange that the PMO has decided MMS will now meet the media every week. This is in stark contrast to months of silence and is clearly an excess. I wonder who devised this strategy, the PM himself or his media advisor Harish Khare. Nobody wants the PM to meet the press every week. Every week would not only be an over-kill but just as boring. And how do they pick the editors for the meeting? Do they draw lots? Do they go by circulation or viewership? Do they go by friendliness of the media outlet? And in this day and age a closed-door meeting? Because MMS is camera-shy? Weird reasoning!

If I were one of the five editors chosen for this particular meet I would have declined. In any other sensible country the PMO would have journalists who are accredited by his office for regular meetings, like the White House has. It would have been appropriate for the PM to meet those journalists all together. After all, those journalists do get to travel with him on Air India One on his official travels.

After the press meet Kumar Ketkar of Divya Marathi and Alok Mehta of Nai Duniya were almost the spokespersons for the PM themselves. They were disseminating the utterances of MMS to the rest of the media. So the rest of the media was delivering what I would term as second-hand news. Is this what the PM wants this country’s media to be? Dealing in second-hand news? And then analyse second-hand news for the vast population?

An edition of Divya Marathi was recently launched by none other than P. Chidambaram. This is the Dainik Bhaskar group. The Divya Bhaskar edition in Gujarat is a severely anti-Modi newspaper. Then there is Nai Duniya’s Alok Mehta. This newspaper is circulated in parts of MP and published from Indore. Then there is Business Standard’s T.N. Ninnan which, of course, is a business paper as its name suggests with limited circulation. There is Raj Chengappa from the Tribune. The PM is a great fan of the Tribune himself.

So Rahul Kanwal has his own fraternity to blame for the nonsense that was the press meet. The PMO cannot and should not pick and choose journalists that it wants to meet. The five wise men who met the PM should have declined and asked that the PM meet all the journalists accredited by the PMO. Lame ducks shouldn’t get to choose their crutches.

Here’s another thing. When the PM meets a bunch of five journalists next time, would the issues remain the same? Would the questions remain the same? So each time the select journalists would get to address or hear the PM on a different set of questions and issues. By itself there is nothing wrong in that. But the very crooked idea of limiting the meet to five journalists is to restrict the agenda, the questions and the issues.

So Rahul Kanwal’s lament, while justified, should only reflect on the media itself. The media which normally acts like a mafia union should not accept press meets that pick journalists at the whims of the PMO for an audience. The first bunch of journalists who met the PM were from friendly media outlets. The media first willingly allows its own manipulation and then cries foul. The drama can only be called ‘friendly fire’!

As for the Congress, in keeping with its devious policies, it might as well run a ‘Malamal Weekly’ lottery to pick the winners from the media who will get to meet the PM in future.

Wednesday, June 29, 2011

What’s Sanjiv Bhatt Angling For?

In my post ‘My Sore Pak’ an Anonymous commenter remarked: “Now that you have made Modi a kind of a demi-god in your blog, kindly let us know your so called (un)biased views about IPS officer Bhatt's recent events. I wouldn't be surprised if you again put the blame on the media or blamed the congress…….Please dont divert the issues of development here. It is not the government's administration but about morality here, and dont tell me that Modi hasn't yet been proved guilty of his crimes…”

The comment was made in a post that had absolutely nothing to do with Narendra Modi or Sanjiv Bhatt or even the Congress. It was about the killing of Osama Bin Laden. But just like the vast group of Modi-haters and Modi-baiters that abound in the media and political parties any forum is justified to rant against Modi. The last line in the comment is the mantra on which the anti-Modi industry thrives “..don’t tell me Modi hasn’t yet been proved guilty of his crimes”. Well, there are people who are trying and trying very hard to see Modi in jail – guilty or not.

So here’s a report from TheHindu on June 27:  The case of Gujarat cadre IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt, who recently created a flutter by accusing Chief Minister Narendra Modi of having made “anti-minority” statements on the eve of the 2002 communal riots, has taken another curious turn, with a former colleague filing a police complaint that he was forced to file a false affidavit……”

Then there’s another report in TheHindu today (June 29):  The (Gujarat) government has decided to recover from Mr. Bhatt Rs.1 lakh as compensation due to a Rajasthan-based advocate, Sumer Singh Rajpurohit, as “directed” by the National Human Rights Commission, for an alleged false case against him in 1996, an official spokesman of the government said here on Tuesday. The amount would be recovered from Mr. Bhatt within a month, the spokesman said…..Mr. Bhatt, who was the Banaskantha District Superintendent of Police in 1996, was claimed to have falsely implicated Mr. Rajpurohit under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS), allegedly with the motive of getting a rented premises vacated by him……The NHRC also, in its report in September 2010 considered it a case of “serious human rights violation” in view of the fact that the provisions under which Mr. Rajpurohit was falsely implicated could have fetched him 10 years of imprisonment, and ordered the Gujarat government to pay him a compensation of Rs.1 lakh….”

The NHRC’s ruling on Sanjiv Bhatt is a clear indictment on lack of integrity and misuse of powers. It seems more and more obvious that people with dubious integrity and credibility find Narendra Modi a fair game to throw mud at. You can also rest assured that this particular news item will not find much air-play on our TV channels who made a great tamasha of Bhatt’s accusations against Modi. It also depends on which side the media is when reporting this news. The NHRC ruling was also reported by DainikBhaskar in the following terms:

Govt tries to corner Sanjiv Bhatt again: “After allowing an FIR to be filed against Sanjiv Bhatt, the state government in yet another attempt to corner the IPS officer has decided to collect Rs1 lakh from him. The state had paid the amount to the National Human Rights Commission when a Rajasthan-based advocate had filed a case against Bhatt in the NHRC. The state government had coughed up Rs1 lakh to the NHRC in the alleged false case filed against Sumer Singh, a Pali-based advocate……It should be noted that several other cops were associated with the case filed in the NHRC, but so far the state government has decided to collect the money only from Bhatt. This is the second attempt by the state government to corner Bhatt”.

Dainik Bhaskar probably didn’t get the other news that a constable has claimed he was forced to file false affidavits by Sanjiv Bhatt. So in the false narcotics case it’s not the BOSS but the ordinary constables who should also be penalised according to Dainik Bhaskar. Does all this false affidavit and false cases have a familiar ring to it? Oh well, sometime back the SIT looking into the Gujarat riots mentioned some people filing fake affidavits at the instigation of someone. Remember that? Guess where that washing machine of justice ended up?

Long-time Modi-baiter, Teesta Setalvad, also has cases against her where her own colleagues have turned witness against her. She has even sought anticipatory bail twice. Where does she end up? She ends up on the committee to draft the Communal Violence Bill of the National Advisory Council (NAC). Isn’t that brilliant? So then, I do wonder what Sanjiv Bhatt was or is angling for with all his sensational claims against Modi. If it was a position in the NAC, I don’t think they’re hiring right now. They are too busy with secular communalism. They are busy proposing laws that can throw Narenda Modi into jail for good. That should be reassurance for Sanjiv Bhatt.

Friday, June 24, 2011

Freedom Of Speech – Geert Wilders Not Guilty!


Before you read further I would recommend you read the following posts:


On June 23 Dutch politician Geert Wilders was pronounced not guilty on accusations of hate speeches and hate crimes against Islam and muslims. He  is a politician who spoke out openly against Islamisation of his country and appeasement of muslims. He was accused of "hate speech" crimes for comparing the Koran to Mein Kampf and Islam to Nazism. Mein Kampf is banned in Netherlands and therefore Wilders demanded that the Koran be banned too. The accusations also included the documentary he made, FITNA, which includes graphic images of Islamic terror juxtaposed with verses from the Koran. It is strange that those mullahs who made, and keep making, violence-inciting speeches against non-muslims, were never put on trial but Wilders, who protested, was put on trial.

No religion should be above questioning, debate and even ridicule. Some of it may hurt the sentiments of religious people. That does not mean issuing death threats or killing people. We have seen people being killed for even questioning blasphemy laws.Wilders was even prevented by the UK government in January 2010 from screening his documentary on an invitation by members of the House of Lords. This was later overturned by the courts. Such is the length to which appeasers will go.

The Dutch MP is surely not the first one to question Islam or the verses in the Koran. In 1985 Chandmal Chopra and others filed a case in the Calcutta High Court seeking a ban on the publishing and distribution of the Koran. This is commonly known as The Calcutta Quran Petition. The reasons cited by Chopra were similar to those of Geert Wilders – that the Koran contains hate and violence-inciting verses against members of other communities or non-believers. The Calcutta petition thoroughly exposes the ‘pseudo-secular’ credentials of the Congress, the Communists and the media. The Koran doesn’t need to be banned nor should those who question any religion or religious book be prosecuted. Freedom of thought, speech and expression is more important than any religion.

British PM, David Cameron, is on record for stating ‘multiculturalism’ has failed in the UK. So is German Chancellor Angela Merkel. The reasons are all too well known. The Dutch are known to be a very liberal and tolerant people. But when intolerance and violence visits you because you question faiths it is bound to start a movement against the intolerant. Theo Van Gogh, related to the famous artist Vincent Van Gogh, was brutally murdered on the streets of Amsterdam for making a documentary on the sufferings of muslim women. Our government and media who hyper ventilate on issues of women are too scared to even talk about this subject. The greatest response to the plight of muslim women was the Shah Bano verdict reversal by a constitutional amendment by the Congress. Another clip from Religulous further demonstrates the hypocrisy. (Caution: Some images are graphic)

video

That is a high price to pay for freedom of thought and speech. Salman Rushdie had an international ‘fatwa’ on his head. Closer home MF Hussain had seen violent protests, threats and court cases. I condemn Hussain’s painting of India as a nude woman with names of states written on the nude body. Hussain was also selective in his pornography and his paintings were not banned in India. If he managed to annoy some Hindus it is more because his own community is incapable of taking the slightest offence or questioning of their religion. But that is as far as I will go. I am even more opposed to a media and a government that is selective in its defence of freedom of speech. In India, freedom of speech in the media and government, where religion is concerned, almost means you can offend Hinduism as much as you want but other religions are untouchable. 

Sonia Gandhi’s NAC has currently proposed a draconian Communal Violence Bill. Well, anyone reading India’s long history may understand that religious violence was brought into this culture by Islam and Christianity and not by Hinduism. They were minorities then too. We cannot alter history but we can attempt to ensure it doesn’t repeat itself. In the meantime, let’s celebrate Geert Wilders’ victory. It’s a victory for all those who stand for democracy and freedom.

Wednesday, June 22, 2011

Religulous Secular Channels

So on Headlines Today there was a report about someone called Isaac Tigrette who claims to be the ‘heir’ of  Satya Saibaba’s (Puttaparthi) legacy. He claims Saibaba spoke to him in secret telling him what to do when he passes away. This always amazes me. That baba spoke to people, interacted with them and yet wanted to tell only Tigrette, that too in secrecy, what should be done after his death. Throughout history we have had God almighty always whisper to Moses or Mohammad what they should tell people. One would have thought God is so powerful that in one stroke he could have directly spoken to all the people in the world in one stroke. Well, I suppose God also tells our secular channels what to report where religion is concerned. He specifically tells them what news to broadcast!
Pastor Shantaraju
I did not coin the word ‘Religulous’ but we will come to that later. Take a look at the picture on the left and this related report : Bangalore Mirror, June 17  “A city pastor has been accused by his own wife of being a paedophile and of misappropriating church funds. The charges against K Shantaraju, the 45-year-old pastor of the Bethel Church and Bethel Student Centre in Siddhartha Nagar, Jalahalli West, are being probed by the police after a complaint was filed by his wife Priyalatha at Gangammanagudi police station on Wednesday….. Minor children are being used for sexual activities in the centre. He has sexual relationships with many girl children… I have witnessed these activities. When questioned, he threatened to kill me and my two children

Imagine if this were a report about some Hindu swami (like a Nityananda or someone) and your NDTVs, CNN-IBNs, Headlines Todays etc. would be all over the place with the news. By now the swami would have been roasted by these news channels and there would be debates on all news channels on how Hindu godmen are cheating the masses, are rapists and so on. Not surprisingly, this Bangalore pastor was hardly to be found anywhere on these secular news channels.

In Evil Orders, The Economist wrote: (on child-abuse by Church): ‘The scandal is more widespread than the one that swept through the United States in recent years, costing the church up to $2 billion in compensation payments. In recent weeks at least 350 victims have come forward in the Netherlands, along with around 300 more in Germany and Austria. In Brazil a priest and two monsignors have just been suspended from their church duties following allegations of involvement in the making of a sex video involving a youth”. Do our secular channels ever discuss that?

India constitutionally became a  ‘secular’ country in 1976 during the Emergency. There is, however, no clear definition of secularism in the constitution. So unlike the West which largely defines it as the separation of state and church, many Indian experts (like Shashi Tharoor for example) suggest it means all religions are equal or the state will ‘treat’ all religions equally and respect their freedom? But is that really true? Practically, over the years, inspired by communist ideology,  many in the media, the Congress and some more political parties have practiced secularism as the right to ridicule or abuse Hinduism. To the Congress it also meant practically take control of temples and Hindu religious institutions and fund minority group activities. Wait and watch what happens to Saibaba Trust (Puttaparthi) funds.

While all this is happening there are reports that politicians and state governments are directly helping Christian outfits. Well, sure these are reports from predominantly Hindu sites but they do quote sources that are not necessarily Hindu. This is from Vijayvaani.com: Christianisation of Andhra Pradesh: “With YSR’s advent in 2004, evangelical activities increased alarmingly and mass conversions were witnessed in rural areas on a large scale. His open pandering to Church and missionaries emboldened evangelists to go all out in their conversion activities. They dared focus on Hindu pilgrimage sites such as Badrachalam, Simmachalam, Srisailam, Ahobilam, Mangalagiri, Kalahasthi, and didn’t spare Thirumala-Thirupathi! YSR aided the Church and missionaries in many ways. He sanctioned Rs. 80, 000/- per Church for repair works in August 2006 as per GO MS. No: 21 dt 22/08/2006 (CM Reddy okays public money for Churches – Deccan Chronicle, 23 August 2006) and an aid of Rs. 1.5 lakhs for the construction of each Church. This is done while the government is controlling over 30,000 Temples and taking all their revenue. Only 15% of temple revenue is given back for temple maintenance and salaries of priests. Over 40,000 Priests earn a salary of only Rs. 500/- to Rs. 1000/- per month. The rest of the revenue is being used for other government schemes and minority welfare schemes, as in Tamil Nadu..”

So why do our TV channels think it is only funny stuff about Hinduism or Hindu god-men that should be reported. All religions have enough of funny stuff that will provide a good laugh any day. Religulous, a combination of Religion + Ridiculous, is a 2008 movie by American comic Bill Maher. Maher was born Jewish-Catholic but is now an atheist. The movie is meant to poke gentle fun and have a good laugh at the funny side of religion. However, many parts of the movie are actual interviews and the movie itself is non-fiction.

So let’s first start by meeting the descendant of Jesus Christ himself: (Jose Miranda actually claims to be a direct descendant of Jesus Christ and that there were angels who informed him so - Caution: clip contains some offensive language)
video
Well, what do you think now? Do you feel better now that you've met the direct descendant of Jesus Christ? Now, that isn’t all. Here is one more clip from the movie where Bill Maher is at the Vatican.
video
A senior Vatican Priest, Father Reginald Foster, himself believes Jesus wouldn’t have stayed at that mansion where the Pope lives. Secondly, Father Foster also suggests, hypothetically, Jesus could have been born on July 3 and all that midnight birth on December 25 could be a myth. There’s more, he mentions that in a crisis situation Jesus is the sixth man that Italians pray to.

So you see, there are enough funny things in religion. The good part about Hinduism is that there is no rule of blasphemy. You can make fun of the god-men and Hindu rituals and customs. That our secular channels are able to debate so much about everything in Hinduism is a credit to Hindu culture itself. Would they dare to debate Christianity or Islam that much?

This post or the video clips aren’t put up here to offend anyone. I believe if we could laugh a bit about religion then we wouldn’t need the stupid and much-abused concept of ‘secularism’. There’s more in Religulous, watch this space!

Tuesday, June 21, 2011

Rahul & Digvijay - The Narcissist & The Sycophant

On June 20 CNN-IBN expectedly ran a program on Rahul Gandhi (RG) as PM following Digvijay Singh’s (DS) comments. That was Face the nation by Sagarika Ghose, of course. I can understand the likes of Vinod Sharma (Hindustan Times) and Congress spokesperson Jayanthi Natarajan being there to defend all the great qualities of Rahul Gandhi. However, I do not understand why sensible journalists like Swapan Dasgupta or Prem Shankar Jha come on to these programs. Do they really need to participate in these absurdities? Anyway, there are reports now that Sonia Gandhi is miffed with the glowing remarks made by DS. That sounds strange. By now DS would know what Sonia likes and dislikes, probably even down to her footwear maybe. So I believe DS would have only said things that would please madam’s ears and, surely, the future-PM’s ears. Never mind that either.

Sagarika Ghose, intelligent as ever, raised a question in her program: Does Rahul Gandhi have a vision for India? At the risk of sounding boringly repetitive I am reproducing a statement made by her own boss at CNN-IBN, Rajdeep Sardesai (when RG was declared Indian of the year 2009 by CNN-IBN):

Rahul Gandhi has been chosen CNN-IBN politician of the year over many of his more experienced colleagues and rivals because no one toured India the way he has in the past 60 months. Nobody has enunciated a vision of new India the way he has and none has understood the immediate need to bridge the city-country divide the way Rahul Gandhi has. His efforts show that hard work pays even in the uncertain world of politics.”  So Sagarika should remember statements from her own channel before raising silly questions.

Well, if Digivijay Singh is stupid and a known gutter-mouth, the media isn’t too far behind. However, what is now and consistently coming forth is that there is a strange relationship between Rahul Gandhi and Digvijay Singh. All of us would like to be appreciated and praised for some good work or some accomplishment. It’s quite human. But if someone were to keep on praising and flattering me for no particular reason and even crediting me with skills and talents I do not posses I would start to suspect that person and at some point would find that person obnoxious enough to ask him to shut up. I would even start to loath such a person.

The Narc's reflection
All we have seen so far of Rahul Gandhi is the behaviour of a ‘Mr. Hit and Run’, stray stories of Kalawati, parachuting suddenly into places of agitation, uttering nonsense that college students have laughed at, accepting no responsibility for election losses. In fact accepting responsibility for nothing. On Sagarika’s program Prem Shankar Jha pointed out that we know nothing of views on anything. What is that? Is that supposed to our blind side? And for a person to be revelling in the utterances of a DS so frequently must indicate some psychological or neurological disorder. RG has shown nothing but traits and indications of such disorders, especially that of a narcissist. I am no shrink. But I now firmly believe that to understand the RG-DS equation one has to really understand the equation of a narcissist and a sycophant. I don’t think even DS would deny that he is a great sycophant. But what makes RG a narcissist which sustains this relationship? A definition or attributes or behaviour of a sycophant is not as hard to define and understand as that of a narcissist. Let us therefore rely on some experts who have laid out the following:


According to the legend of Narcissus, this Greek boy fell in love with his own reflection in a pond. In a way, this amply sums up the nature of his namesakes: narcissists. The mythological Narcissus rejected the advances of the nymph Echo and was punished by Nemesis…Narcissists are punished by echoes and reflections of their problematic personalities up to this very day.
Narcissists are said to be in love with themselves. But this is a fallacy. Narcissus is not in love with himself. He is in love with his reflection. There is a major difference between one's True Self and reflected-self.
Loving a reflection has two major drawbacks:
1. One depends on the existence and availability of the reflection to produce the emotion of self-love.
2. The absence of a "compass", an "objective and realistic yardstick", by which to judge the authenticity of the reflection. In other words, it is impossible to tell whether the reflection is true to reality – and, if so, to what extent.

I would dare to say RG loves his reflection. His drama-queen behaviour, his choreographed public meetings, his parachuting at trouble spots and then suddenly reclining in to extreme solitude would explain his narcissistic behaviour. Mr. Hit and Run suits him. Especially when the reflection takes a beating, like the 4 seats in Bihar elections, it drives him into a hiding. This is because his hollow reflection starts to confront him, while his sycophant(s) continue to adore him and tell him his clothes are fine and that he is not naked. This is a problem RG is probably grappling with. So let’s see if his behaviour matches narcissistic disorders:


A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behaviour), need for admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following:
1. Has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)
2. Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love
3. Believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)
4. Requires excessive admiration
5. Has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations
6. Is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends
7. Lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others
8. Is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her
9. Shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes

When I searched more for the relationship between a narc and a sycophant I found this brilliant piece and I believe it explains the RG-DS equation quite well:


“Let’s begin with some descriptions. A narcissist is a person with inordinate fascination with himself or herself. They have few social control mechanisms, fewer friends, little or no psychic demands to do the right thing (even though they give lip service to this concept) do not look for approval from others, lack social barometers of how to conduct themselves, and are driven to be captivating, inspirational, charming and seductive. They have a desperate need to get others to buy into their worldview–their vision, to create a world that they populate with their devoted followers. They are grandiose, don’t listen to others, are prone to angry outbursts (often used to control others who disagree with them), bully subordinates, dominate meetings and are often isolated and paranoid. According to Twenge and Campbell, narcissism is “a disease that causes others to suffer.” Narcissism is nearly always corrosive to social relationships as it breeds distrust. Narcissists are prone to using people like they use books, information and knowledge—they pump them for information and then when they are through, throw them aside. To the narcissist, there are only friends or foes; you are either for or against their vision. There is no middle ground.

Sycophants are self-serving servile flatterers and are often slavishly submissive to the narcissist.  The narcissist and the sycophant need each other. The narcissist is completely dependent on the sycophant to feed his ego, to feel important and powerful.  The sycophant, on the other hand, is also dependent on the narcissist for the narcissist makes the sycophant feel included and connected to someone the sycophant believes is powerful and important and will elevate the sycophant to great success, recognition or social standing. The sycophant derives a lot of self-worth from the narcissist as the relationship with the narcissist gives the sycophant social standing he otherwise would not have. In short, the relationship between the narcissist and sycophant is symbiotic; each feeding and dependent on the other. Without sycophants, the narcissist struggles, becomes depressed and feels his or her life has no meaning. A narcissist must have blind allegiance and the adoration of sycophantic followers because that is the food of the narcissist. Most often, a narcissist surrounds him or herself with “yes men” (slavishly submissive flatterers) who the narcissist sees as no threat to him or herself but yet, who are also not much good for advancing the narcissist’s vision. But that is ok with the narcissist, because he or she has all the answers, knows what is best and right and doesn’t listen to others anyway. The “yes men” are the means to an end, they help the narcissist get what he or she wants and will only be kept close as long as they serve a purpose.

As a group, sycophants find meaning and purpose out of protecting and becoming the narcissist’s handlers. They bond with other sycophants in this common purpose and are simultaneously validated by each other for how dysfunctional this interpersonal interplay is, either on a conscious or unconscious level, depending on the dysfunction of each individual. In such groups, everyone suffers. There are no winners in this symbiotic relationship. The narcissist’s hold is so great it is hard for the sycophant to escape the narcissist’s seductive embrace. At some point, depending on the amount of pain the sycophant has had to endure, they will wake up when they are no longer able to tolerate being used or when their own ethics or integrity will no longer permit them to be passive participants in the destructive world of the narcissist. Faced with abandonment, the narcissist acts more and more out of desperation, devolves deeper into his or her pathology and ends up alone and even more isolated, completing the cycle of narcissistic self-destruction.

In the end, narcissists die alone and sycophants suffer stunted emotional and psychological growth, unless they grow strong enough to break their addiction and choose to value their own self-worth instead of abandoning it for the advancement of the narcissist…

Digivijay Singh’s career of any public responsibility is already over. He will inadvertently kill Rahul Gandhi’s too. The sycophancy has reached a point that we will know RG only by what RG allows DS to speak of him. Trouble is Subramanian Swamy has once again pointed out that Rahul Gandhi is legally not eligible to become the PM of India. I really don’t care if RG is saved from the viciousness of DS. I do care that India is saved from the laughing stock that Rahul Gandhi is. My prediction is that India’s luck will hold out.