When key politicians in the United States address the media or crowds, their teleprompters are visible. Even Donald Trump has in his 2024 bid for the US Presidency become a fan of the teleprompter. Of course, Trump being Trump, there are occasions when he goes off script, as was the case when during his debate with Kamala Harris, he spoke of Haitian immigrants stealing and “eating dogs, cats, pets” of residents of Springfield, Illinois. Both Trump as well as J.D. Vance based their conviction of such a bizarre story being factually accurate because of a couple of social media posts showing what purported to be Haitian immigrants holding pets and walking. What went unmentioned was that the obviously posed images were in response to the offer of a presumed conspiracy theorist to give $5,000 for such images. At least two enterprising individuals concocted images (although not in Springfield but elsewhere) which seemed to bear out an outlandish conspiracy theory. Dogs were at one time eaten in parts of East Asia, but no longer, and it would be difficult to find an individual who eats cats. When Trump included pet felines in what he considered a typical Haitian diet, television watchers could not suppress their laughter. This was the lowest of low points in the debate where the Republican candidate was concerned, a debate where he was clearly the loser to the coolly logical Harris. Handling the various tasks expected of a US President requires a degree of dexterity which cannot be replaced by verbal swordplay. US Presidential debates and entire campaigns signal to the voter just which candidate is best equipped for an admittedly difficult job. How would Trump or Harris be in the Oval Office? Who would provide a better administration? Who would best guide the country in the stormy seas of the 2020s? Such are the queries in the minds of voters as they cogitate on their choice at the ballot box.
A short while ago, a US journalist of Indian ethnicity was roughed up by supporters of Rahul Gandhi in Dallas when he asked a question about the genocide of Hindus taking place in Bangladesh. His query was forcibly removed from his cell phone and laptop by goons claiming to be supporters of Rahul Gandhi. As yet, Rahul has not condemned such intimidation of a journalist asking a legitimate question.
Freedom of speech is enshrined in the US Constitution, just as it was in the Constitution principally drafted by Dr B.R. Ambedkar in Article 19. Soon afterwards, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru introduced a Constitutional amendment which in effect removed several of those rights. In the Indian Penal Code, care was taken by the Nehru government to largely retain rather than consign to the waste basket the colonial era code and replace it with a version representing the fact that India was now a free country. Among the numerous sections of such colonial era laws that are incompatible with democracy is criminal defamation. As an MP during the UPA period, Rahul tore up some laws which he regarded as noxious, but that relating to criminal defamation was not in that list. Later, he himself was found guilty of criminal defamation and sentenced to two years in prison under the very statute which he did nothing about while having a powerful voice within the UPA. A short while ago, a US journalist of Indian ethnicity was roughed up by supporters of Rahul Gandhi in Dallas when he asked a question about the genocide of Hindus taking place in Bangladesh. His query was forcibly removed from his cell phone and laptop by goons claiming to be supporters of Rahul Gandhi. As yet, Rahul has not followed the example set by Sam Pitroda in condemning such intimidation of a journalist asking a legitimate question. Words need to be matched with action if the LoP wishes to be taken seriously.