Barkha’s nihilistic cult of biased journalism

Next time when you see Barkha pontificating on, say, the Sabarimala issue, please remember this truth folks- this is the woman who thinks that woman wearing veil is a matter of individual choice.

Here are the rules to live by as per Barkha-

1) Hindu women concentrating on problems in their own religion is perfectly acceptable.

2) Women from other religions, or agnostic women like Barkha, concentrating on problems faced by women in the Hindu religion are also acceptable.

3) A Muslim woman, who suffered at the hands of Islamic violence, needs to be asked why she is singling her own religion out.

In Martin Scorsese’s historical epic ‘Gangs of New York’, Jim Brodbent’s character explains “appearance of law must be upheld. Especially while it is being broken.” In the context of the horrible bias displayed by our journalists in various forums, this line can be modified for them as “appearance of lack of bias must be upheld. Especially when you are being biased.”

But no matter how low those minimum appearance requirements may be, Barkha Dutt’s recent moderation at the Women in the World New York summit debate slides right under it. I sat watching, incredulous, as Dutt threw all the principles of unbiased, pro justice journalism to wind. Therefore, a closer analysis of the debate and some discussion of the subtext might be in order.

The discussion panel consisted of one dissident, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, two fiercely pro-Islam women’s activists; the Sharia defender Hibaaq Osman and Zahra Langhi, co-founder and director of Libyan Women’s Platform for Peace and one career politician/diplomat, along with the Indian born American Farah Pandith.

Barkha opened by taking a crack at Ayaan. Even her opening remarks were laying down groundwork for her Islam apology “why are we here to discuss women in Islam, why not women in religion? Aren’t all religions, Christianity and Hinduism included, tilted against women?”  Then she added that according to her, what Donald Trump said about women was so much worse than the Muslim fundamentalists he is seeking to keep out. Really? Worse than those who conduct beheadings and put it on YouTube? She made this statement, since she knew that in a roomful of liberals, her remarks will draw no challenge. But they established her intention of Islam apology firmly at the onset.

hirsiHer first question to Ayaan was truly shocking “Why are you picking only on Islam?” she asked. Oh allow me to attempt that question madam- may be, because as a woman, Ayaan has seen problems like FGM and child marriage sanctioned by law only in Islam, may be, because her movie making partner, Theo Van Gogh, was brutally murdered (shot eight times, then stabbed with two knives as he lay on ground pleading for his life and then left with a note stuck to his bleeding body using another knife) by an Islamic fundamentalist and she had to flee her homeland after that incident?

Also, when contrasted with Barkha’s behaviour back home, this question throws some interesting anomalies. For example, when a woman’s rights activist, while responding to the question as to why she was concentrating on temple entry as an issue when there were bigger atrocities being committed against women of other faiths, said “I am only concerned with my religion.” I don’t remember Barkha asking her why she is picking on Hinduism, do you?

So if you put all of this together, you get the rules to live by as per Barkha 1) Hindu women concentrating on problems in their own religion is perfectly acceptable. 2) Women from other religions, or agnostic women like Barkha, concentrating on problems faced by women in the Hindu religion are also acceptable. 3) A Muslim woman, who suffered at the hands of Islamic violence, needs to be asked why she is singling her own religion out.

Something rotten in Denmark folks?

Ayaan, bless her soul, rattled off statistics that left no room for argument over the inherently misogynistic nature of Sharia law and its widespread acceptance among Muslims the world over. Then, she went on to differentiate between Muslims whom she embraces as people and Islam as a doctrine that according to her is inherently misogynistic and totalitarian in nature. Before any of the other panellists could jump in, Barkha was at the defence of the religion of peace again. She gave examples of women of a certain age not allowed inside a temple and then made a comment about being surprised that a country like the United States is still discussing about the women’s right to abort.

Again, hypocrisy alert. If Barkha finds the pro-life argument misogynistic, why had she never condemned Mother Teresa, one of the biggest opponents of abortion, (she termed it as the greatest threat to the world peace) for being a misogynist? Why, when RSS Chief Mr. Bhagwat talked about Teresa’s intentions to convert, Barkha chose to question the political motives behind his statement rather than accepting that the late missionary was a religious bigot? So here is Barkha’s hierarchy of religions for you folks- while condemning Hindus, defend Christianity, while defending Islamic extremism, question Christianity. Intricate, eh?

Ayaan once again slapped Barkha by asking her to concentrate on the topic of debate for the next thirty minutes, rather than getting sucked into the argument Barkha wanted to draw her in. She received a thunderous applause for that. Chastised, Barkha started leading the attack from the flank by throwing Zahira Langhi this rope “If you had to explain to (note the choice of the words) Ayaan that while you might be facing misogyny as a woman, but you are not necessarily facing misogyny as a Muslim.” Wow!! Barely ten minutes into the debate, two of the four panellists have not even opened their mouths, and our brave moderator has already reached a conclusion.

Barkha, now properly warmed up, started badgering in earnest and compared Ayaan to Trump since both of them do not want Muslims to immigrate to America. You see how our narrator flips from not accepting violence against women as misogyny in the religion, to calling a women’s right activist a misogynist by association? Slick.

Since Ayaan did not dignify you with an answer Barkha, once again allow me to do it. 1) Trump’s supposed misogyny has nothing to do with his idiotic statement of banning Muslims. Trump was being racist or communal when he said that, but not misogynist.  2) Ayaan had qualified her statement about migrants by saying, if they were to bring their misogynistic attitude with them, then they might as well turn around. You can oppose this sentiment, only if you are naïve enough to assume that the migrant Muslims will abandon their beliefs once they come to a new nation, or feel that women’s rights are not important enough, if migrant’s rights to come and enforce their culture on United States hangs in balance. Both are appalling sentiments, especially coming from a woman.

When Ayaan brought up the issue of child marriage in Sharia law, Barkha tried to shut her down many times by telling her they were not debating Sharia law. When Ayaan ignored her, and completed her point, Barkha brought her anti Hindu bias into play to break Ayaan’s rhythm. Barkha said “you know what, even if it embarrasses me to admit it on the global stage, child marriage is common in many cultures, including the Hindu culture” yeah sure, except one tiny difference- In India, child marriage was first outlawed in 1929, and then again in 1978 when the minimum age of marriage was raised from fifteen to eighteen. A year later, Ayatollah Khomeini came to power in Iran and he reduced the marriage age to nine. But guess for a journalist like Barkha noting this is just splitting hairs.

Barkha, who told Aayan that it was her job to provoke at the start of the conversation, had a memory lapse about her job description, when Somali born activist Hibaaq went on a rant against Aayan. Not only did she not ask any provoking questions to Hibaaq, but actually endorsed her view thus- “you are saying since Ayaan at some point has declared a war on Islam, there is no point in engaging with her. Reform has to come from within the society, am I summarizing it correct?” After taking the obligatory confirmation from Hibaaq, Barkha did a clever transition by asking Farah Pandith “Farah that’s what you try to do.” Subtext- Hibaaq is right, Ayaan should not be engaged with since she is a radical (with the same view as Donald Trump), and in case you do not agree with Hibaaq, we have a slightly more palatable version of Islam reformist in Pandith.

Facepalm moment for Barkha next came, when she tried to build consensus by saying “We agree on a lot of things. We agree on Muslim diversity. We agree that cultures inform Muslim women very differently as they do Hindu and Christian women, and we seem to agree that there is a need to reform Islam (interruption as Zahira Langhi said ‘no, we don’t) ——–You didn’t let me finish my sentence, (again interruption from Zahira who kept nodding in negative), there is a need to reform Islam, as there is a need in all orthodoxies that I believe are inherently misogynistic. Zahira again denied point blank that there was any need for reforms in Islam.

Barkha conceded that Muslims were diverse, she agreed that cultures had an influence on them, and yet when she tried, mildly and apologetically, to get Zahira to agree on the obvious, i.e. Islam needs reforms, all she got was a cold and a curt no. Here is the things about radicals Barkha, they may smile, and pat your back if you agree with their world view, but they are never at a negotiation table with you. On a cringe worthiness scale of 1 to 10 seeing a fellow Indian slapped like this was a full 10.

Barkha, in a damage control mode, went to the neutral panellist next. Asking Pandith “would you be more comfortable if we were discussing women and religion and not women and Islam”

This reminded me of a scene from Tom Hank’s Oscar Winning turn in ‘Philadelphia’. The AIDS afflicted Hanks is studying in a library for his upcoming discrimination lawsuit when he breaks into an uncontrollable coughing fit. People sitting around him slowly disperse. The librarian walks to him and asks, apologetically, “Sir, wouldn’t you be more comfortable in a private research room?” Hanks coughs once more and responds “No, would it make you more comfortable?” I rest my case.

More appeasement as Barkha asked Pandith “the feminist in me is confused. The veil, is it a sign of multiculturalism, or is it a sign of oppression?”


Curiously, Barkha, who is so confused and diffident when it comes to veil in Islam, knew exactly where to plant her feet when she tweeted last year on the occasion of the Hindu festival of Karva Chauth, (a day when married women keep fast for their husbands) “no power has yet been able to convince me that Karva Chauth is not inherently regressive and patriarchal.” Again, the rules change as per the religion for our fearless moderator.

With the time running out, Barkha still managed to get one last appeasement in. She asked Hibaaq if human rights supersede religious rights, and Hibaaq answered in negative. Let me say that again- a panellist told Barkha that religious rights are more important than human rights, and Barkha kept nodding intelligently, following the logic of how Islam gave enough rights, so to speak. Now imagine back home, a right winger saying the same thing to Barkha in a televised debate. Then shake your head at the hypocrisy, and go on about your life. Hibaaq was not done however. She made an absurd statement that people asking women not to veil are the same as people asking women to veil. That is like saying women fighting for abolition of dowry are the same as women asking dowry for their sons. And of course, this being New York, and the speaker being a Muslim, Barkha said she agreed with that. A little irony is good for your health folks.

For the readership of this column the fact that Barkha Dutt is a big Hinduphobe and a hypocrite is no secret, so why discuss this?

It is because, this brand of appeasement and dual standards have life and death consequences. As Ayaan put it so eloquently when Barkha gave the example of Benzir Bhutto’s Prime Ministership as an example of modernity in Islam (insert roll of eyes here) “we need to acknowledge the fight of them (reformists). It’s a dangerous fight, it’s a fight where people who disagree with you on the inside want to kill you. I don’t mind arguing with the Islamists and the radicals, but they want to kill me, I don’t want to kill them.” Allow this to sink in for a while folks. These are the statements from a person who has lived under the fear of death for most of her adult life. To obfuscate her struggle against a particular faith as just another woman fighting the regressive patriarchy, takes some of the legitimacy away from it. And in case of women like Ayaan, a loss of legitimacy can translate into the loss of life in a moment.

Closer home, it matters to us (other than our obvious ideological support for people like Ayaan), because in this information age, journalists like Barkha Dutt consider themselves at the forefront of each reforms debate that we as a society have. Journalists, at their finest, are the spokespersons of the society as a whole. Do we really want people who subscribe to the dangerous theory of Islamophobia and try their best to rob the earnest dissidents of the legitimacy of their struggle, as our spokespersons?

So next time when you see Barkha pontificating on, say,  the Sabarimala issue, please remember this truth folks- this is the woman who thinks that woman wearing veil is a matter of individual choice and that anyone who wishes to reform religion should obtain approval of its most bigoted supporters first.

Disclaimer: The facts and opinions expressed within this article are the personal opinions of the author. IndiaFacts does not assume any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, completeness, suitability, or validity of any information in this article.

Mayuresh runs a financial advisory business in Pune and is an avid marathon runner and reader. His novel ‘The Dark Road’ is now available on Juggernaut app here:
  • AnalyseAbhishek

    A brilliant article..very well written and argued!

  • Mo

    He defence of Islam by painting Hinduism as barbaric, intolerant etc says much about this nasty woman.

  • _bhaarat_

    Burkha is also the same woman who wants SHARIA implemented in the US! She supported KILLARY – her links to IS must be scrutinized.

  • Jitu


    I could only imagine the look on Ms. Hypocritical Dutt’s face, as she read this crisp article.

    Despite the fact that it was an article on a topic that usually enrages me, I was smiling at the language and presentation. The sarcasm was spot on. Each sentence was so precise, and so perfectly caustic… it could not have been any better. 🙂

  • Dummy FP

    Too long, too precious time discussing worthless characters who are already known to be terrorist sympathisers and getting funds from ME through Money Laundering! Less we discuss about such characters more productive we can be!

  • Selvam

    very articulate article mate…….

  • Rag

    The whole idea of this debate was three fold.

    – First was to brand the oppression of women in Islam as “misogyny”, and to label it along with all other religions, so that they can get away with it.
    – Two was to un-brand, and de-legitimize the struggle of Ayaan as the foremost authority of oppression of women in Islam.
    – Three, was to promote and create a global platform for Islamic cover-up artists, so that they can invade public spaces with their version of Islam and Sharia.

    I dont think Barkha got there. She was quite uncomfortable doing this, and her attempts to do the above three ended in some severe rebounds from Ayaan. BTW, Ayaan, has studied this subject for 10 years, and encountered at-least 3 dozen such cover-up artists in more vociferous debates than this one.

    There are a long list of such cover-up artists – Zeba, Fareed Zakharia, Reza Aslan, Tareh Fatak, Tareeq Ramadan.. and Barkha is quite far behind these artists, I should say.. Nice try, but bad luck on this one !!

  • Prasad

    Many thanks. I was terribly frustrated after seeing that debate on youtube and quite a few of the questions that popped to my mind have been brought up by you most eloquently and in a very telling manner. I want to add another thing about “barkha and the veil”. She once said that she was in New York immediately after 9/11 and she met a muslim woman who was forced to go out without a burqa as she feared she may be attacked. Barkha was almost choking with emotion while describing how the muslim woman felt so scared and defenceless to go out without a veil. Any normal educated, emancipated woman feminist (leave alone a female journalist) would compare such a woman to a parrot which has been caged and restricted for so long that it did not know how to fly out and get its freedom when the doors of its cage had been broken.But here was Barkha feeling so agonised and anguished about the lady having to go out without a burqua!!!. I thought God what double standards this lady has !!!.

    And about the lady from Libya she kept on telling that Sharia is the best there is no need for any change and it is some men who have spoilt it. I wanted to say this to her , Madam don’t you realise that the so called “emancipated women of Islam as laid down in the holy book ” is an Utopian dream that never was there in the first place1300 years ago and never will come true now or for the next 1000 years or more !. The holy scriptures and laws are so well sewn up by the mullahs that it is impossible to find any chink in them. Only the patriarchal and male favourable interpretation done by males will decide what he law is for women- take it or leave it, women like you can talk all you want but in the end you have to take a long sulking walk.Good luck to you in your mirage chasing endeavour!!

  • satyameva jayate

    Awesome article…. Keep it up……….

  • Burqa is a dhimmi(house nigger) and today such dhimmis(house niggers) control MSM and bollywood in India.

  • somayajulu csjr

    Burkha Dutt is ‘radia’ted for her disease. She was silent for sometime. She re-entered the arena of her kind of journalism and the disease has relapsed. God save her with one more remission.

  • nairps

    There are hundreds, perhaps thousands of Barkha Dutts in Indian media, still carrying on with their treacherous and traitorous agenda despite a so-called nationalist central government in office (not in power) for nearly 2 years. They will continue until they get the government of their, not our, choice. It is a great tragedy that Hindu society in unable to do anything to destroy these quislings of the media.

  • sundars

    I stopped subscribing to NDTV since 2yrs so this article had been useful to know how Burkha aunty got slapped by Ayan and rightfully so.

    Many of us frustrated with PaidMedia for years but unsure how to neutralise them

    1. Gov, individuals shall file lawsuits against TVC when tarnishing image of individuals, mis reporting financials etc so as Tvc spends
    2. Deprive of revenue – Convince companies, Gov to stop Ads for TVC for its poor TRPs
    3. Stop watching it, bring down TRPs (viz.. snapdeal suffered with Aamir as brand amb)
    All of above shall be applied to get desired result.

  • Govinda

    She was and is married to Kashmiri Muslims. She is consciously or unconsciously defending this action. She cannot tell Muslim faith mistreats women which will make he stupid for accepting person from that faith. I do not know the Psychological term for this. But people in those situation become ultra protective of the choices they took.
    Go and talk to many NRI’s who are permanently settled abroad. They will tell lot of bad things about India. They have to, because they want to justify their decision to settle in a country which has different culture. Similar thing is happening to Barkha Dutt. Another fact is none of our English educated talking heads do not know ABCD of hinduism and India. I just started learning recently. I missed many years in my life without this knowledge.

  • untildnextFPban:)

    Well , barkha dutt’s sick double standards are now known to almost every one in India, she has also been called out with nauseating frequency in that past couple of years but the scum never changes, her degradation is complete with no scope of any improvement…today itself the b!tch questioned Chetan Bhagat on writing an open letter to kashmiri youth without talking about handwara and this from a scum who didn’t bother to once talk about NIT srinagar

    But it’s good people keep calling out her filthy bias , ndtv viewrship is in the bottom of the heap and must remain so

  • Vivek Bhaskar Sathe

    There are some individuals who have reached such intellectual level and NOT gotten above SELF … They seem mentally retarded who keep repeating a tune wherever they go!!!
    @Bdutt is one such a public example

  • ravikch

    Frankly, Burkha thought she could measure up to Ayaan, what a mismatch? The game is over even before it began. I feel sorry for the network news in India, if she is the so called “eminent” journalist. She is the stupid, condescending, lacking any conviction on her own, principle deficient and really lacks any intellectual depth. Ayaan should have walked away.

  • Sridhar S

    Brilliant article. May we have more of these, please?

  • SSM

    People usually concentrate on critiquing and reforming the religion they grew up in since they are more knowledgeable about that. If Barkha hates Hinduism then fine – whatever. But for her to be considered an “expert commentator” on Islam, unless she has converted and not told us, is truly WTF.

  • balayogi

    The media has brought this bad image upon itself by playing into the hands of certain forces; I need not explain in detail who or what those forces are.

    The media persons have every right to interpretations, ideological identities, even bias as all these are universal human weaknesses, so no one expects them to be immune from all these.

    What is obvious is media’s selective amnesia and collective indifference making them use microscopes to magnify minor mistakes in usage of words [after all politicians are not specialist linguists] whereas do not bother to report glaring non governance, non performance for 10 years because most of the media personalities, some of the select media houses were themselves beneficiaries of a scam of UPA government which took them on trips abroad at the tax payers money along with the Prime Minister on all his trips abroad, making them stay at five star hotels and treating them like royal servants.

    I do not understand why no one has taken up this scam. I wish that this is taken up seriously.

    Malda melted like Dalda and disappeared from media glance, murders in Kerala masked but harsh treatment for Horse flogging.

    Some media houses are conducting more trails and delivering more judgments on all issues than all the courts in India put together including on judicial activism when judiciary is not favoring them; preach on parliamentary over reach when parliament wants a panel to appoint judges; blame bureaucratic hurdles when funds of their pay masters get delayed; criticize government corporate nexus; condemn police excess but media mafia, misuse and its lobbies always take umbrage under press freedom.

    Stephany Yablow was correct “Inevitably, the media create a circus, elevating everything and elucidating nothing.”

    It also establishes well what Charles Eisenstein said, “From brand names to PR slogans to political code words, the language of the media that inundates modern life consists almost wholly of subtle lies, misdirection, and manipulation”.

    Viruses that affect the Indian socio- psychological perceptions are mostly thanks to media contribution in the recent past.

    Myth making;


    Citing exceptions as examples and make sweeping statements based on that;

    Over generalizing the particular;

    Particularizing the general;

    Over simplifying the complex;

    Complicating the simple;

    Resorting to unloving criticism and uncritical love;

    Projecting poverty and suffering as the important requirements to get god’s grace;

    Evaluating anything or anyone with irrelevant aspects;

    Quoting and questioning things without contextual relevance;

    Proceeding with justifications to bolster up or brush aside facts;

    Paralyzing simple events with unwarranted and perverted analysis;

    Forging for facts to fit into preconceptions;

    Showing intolerance towards dissent;

    Invent intentions when results are good and useful;

    Pandering to populism and political correctness over providing long term prosperity;

    Making desperate attempts to degrade some and deify others;

    Opposing for the sake of opposing; rejecting reasoning; operating with selective amnesia and collective indifference;

    Trying to mask present short comings by raking up past glories and gloat with ethnocentric pride;

    Sit on judgment over everything and everyone without trying to know in detail what we are judging;

    Generously throwing opinions around even without doing some home work on any issue;

    Diverting attention from intrinsically important issues by projecting emotionally appealing allegations, twisting facts, total indifference to facts etc have all become such a huge carapace covering the present generation that no one can know what is the real character of this generation.

    The prime reason for most of these ugly trends are because people are overwhelmingly negatively influenced by media houses both in the print and audio visual which churns out heroes out of zeros and in some cases the glamorous reel industry dominates over and sometimes replaces the reality.

    These worthies in the media are mostly guided by some petrified ideological fixations bolstered by some putrefied slogans and outdated statistics , pelf that pours into their purses, propelled by pseudo intellectualism and all of these masquerading as meaningful concern for the public.

    These media worthy pawns are moved around to manipulate, mislead and micro manage remotely all domains by multiple forces.

    Most unfortunate impact of the manifestation of these attitudes is that many gullible youths apply most of these indiscriminately across the whole spectrum of human activities like in political domain, religious activities, social issues, cultural institutions, sports arena, economic development projects, commercial sector etc.

  • Rajan Natarajan

    Wonderful. You nailed her so logically

  • very well written with detailed information. This should reach more people so that people can understand her ‘fake identity’ as the crusader for truth, freedome and women’s rights.

  • Lalitaditya Muktapida

    The fact that people like Barkha exist and have influence and power is among the greatest argument for the statement that “This world is ruled as per Satan’s will and not God’s”

    That being said, What a class Act Ayaan Hirsi Ali is! What a beauty she is! Look at the way she comported herself in the video below. What dignity! What Grace, what patience with the other bimbos in the panel. Ayaan is everything that the whore from NDTV is not. Ayaan is Beautiful, Articulate, intelligent, courageous, knowledgeable. While that Whore from NDTV is fat, ugly, deceitful, pretentious. It is almost an obscenity to see the two of them in the same room. Ayaan is a Goddess while Barkha is a cheap two bit, pustulent, syphilitic whore with a little bit of lipstick and eye-liner to pass inspection in bad lighting.

    Having to watch the two of them in the same room is pure mental torture. Having to see that lying whore of NDTV speak to Ayaan as if they were intellectual equals is an exercise in intellectual self-flaggellation.

    That being said, I really enjoyed Ayaan Hirsi Ali slaughtering Barkha Dutt. She basically disrespected Barkha Dutt by ignoring her and treating her as some sort of Scum. The irony of all this is that a thick-skulled Bimbo like Barkha would not even know that she has been bitch slapped into orbit. Ayaan really knows how to put a bitch in her place. It’s just that the bitch does not know it!

  • Satyapriya

    Absolutely top notch analysis. I have not seen NDTV now for 3 years as it is blatantly anti-Hindu and has lost all sense of balance. More people tuning off, the better off we are as their revenues will hurt. Ignorance is the only medicine for arrogance.

  • Clockwork Orange

    BD is a chameleon and master of spin. Her agenda is to peddle lies in the garb of social justice, morality and freedom of expression. A journo with no integrity, she should be the last one to speak on such issues. I wish someday I get a chance to confront her here in DC if she gets an invite. It’s high time to expose her intent to the masses she caters. In a sharp contrast Arnab even with his cringe-worthy cacophony, he comes across as an honest journo. Several scams expose, gender equality, civil justice, class struggle and not to forget his never ending rant of nationalism have immensely benefited us. And not to forget the obscene contrast of IPL glamor and horrendous water scarcity problem had come to the fore mainly because of him.

  • Jaya

    Absolutely brilliant! Cannot imagine a more incisive analysis of the hypocrisy that is “barkha Dutt”

  • sandipanfool

    There is a derogatory term(although not used now) in America. Its called house niggers. A section of blacks so scared and frustrated of white man’s oppression of them that they acted as supplicants for their master and whipped the hard working blacks even more in order to get a better treatement from their white masters.
    Barkha is that bit*ch.

    • prashants5 .

      House Nigro is the term coined by Malcom X around 1950-60. Similarly there is another term “House Indian” in America. These House Indians ( highly colonized enslaved mind) are the one who die to go to America and then once they are in America, the start bashing India and Hinduism etc. etc. sitting in America. But in modern days “House Indian” can also live in India.

    • Dummy FP

      Lets not getting into western definition on everything….Westerners and Indians are two different animals altogether! You can apply their system for Indians vice-versa.

  • India

    Let’s ignore her, that’s enough for her low self esteem. We can punish the news channels (which employ substandard journalists) & publications by a united & massive boycott.

  • K.Harapriya

    We all know why the burqu dutts of the world criticize Hinduism. Because they can. No one is going to physically attack them, although they will pretend that nasty tweets are equal to physical attacks. They also know that they can’t criticize Islam and live. And my guess is that their paymasters are Christians.

  • Krispy K

    There are few people in India deserving of the most severe contempt than this utter, utter bitch Burqa, who seems to be pioneering the technique of pretending to be Hindu in order to lend some fake credibility to her deception-laden campaign against the same. Oh how I’d love to see this criminal swinging by her fat neck on a public highway, for all to see and enjoy.

  • Abhi

    This was an article that is par excellence. Each of your sentences were like bullets at point blank range and I am sure no Barkha or Barkha clones could escape from its range of shot with (giggle) a convincing explanation. Kudos to you sir!

  • shrikant talageri

    A truly brilliant analysis. Is there no way to get this ***** to answer for this? I think this article deserves to be widely circulated in circles where she struts around as a “fearless” crusader for truth, freedom and women’s rights.

    • Jitu

      Agree with you. 🙂 While reading it… all I could think of of was the look on the face of Ms. Dutt and her pals 😛

  • Harish Iyengar

    Very well constructed and lucidly written article that drives home the duplicity of people like barkha with the force of a hammer.

    • Camilla_Sunshine

      More “Big Screen” than “Duplicitous” – contravacy generates ratings.