Paid news by TOI on Sasikalaa?

On the day the DA case of Jayalalithaa was being argued in the Supreme Court by Sasikalaa’s lawyers rejecting the notion of Sasikalaa as a power centre, Times of India, Chennai edition carried a huge headline saying that Sasikalaa had a hand in the change of candidates in the upcoming elections. 

While the headline screams “Sasikalaa’s stamp on changes in AIADMK’s list of candidates”, the article does not contain any information linking Sasikalaa to the changes that Jayalalithaa has made in the candidate list. No source or authenticity was quoted in the article to indicate Sasikalaa’s complicity in this matter. Instead it has been said throughout in the article that the changes have been effected based on the winnability of the candidates and the inputs received from the surveys and intelligence reports. That means even if Sasikalaa had wanted her men to be given seats, their winnability and popularity only had decided their inclusion in the list.

Such being the case, why this mischievous title was given by the News network of TOI? Why passing on specific notions as news and pushing them in the title by the News desk of TOI?  If this news appears under some writer’s name, we will think that it is the writer’s wish to project such a notion. But when the news appears in the name of TOI news network, then it smacks of some hidden agenda or motive. Or is this a case of paid news by the TOI?

The title on Sasikalaa appearing at a time when the case is being heard about her complicity in DA case raises the question whether TOI is upto creating opinions in somebody’s mind. (If I mention who that somebody is, I may be accused of abuse of a constitutional authority). Only a DMK support- magazine can make such headlines without substance to support.

I would accuse that this is paid news, for, in the same newspaper a more important news of the day was not given the place that is due to it. Kanimozhi, Karunanidhi’s daughter had made an important statement that all the liquor manufacturing units run by the DMK men would be closed if DMK comes to power. This news appears as a small box item on the 10^th page.

This was not told by some DMK man, but by the daughter of the DMK patriarch who is a contender to the post of a future successor to Karunanidhi. Kanimozhi have even said that once coming to power they would not even divert the liquor sales to other States. It would be a complete closure. Kanimozhi has said that this was told by Karunanidhi himself. 

From another online magazine (tamil.oneindia.com)

Is this not a newsworthy statement? This statement by none other than Kanimozhi raises the counter question why not close down the liquor units NOW itself. If the DMK is serious about prohibition, why wait till it comes to power? It should close the manufacturing units now itself. Why TOI failed to give a prominent slot to this news item in its newspaper?

This statement by Kanimozhi spelling out DMK’s stance is worthy to be the headline in the front page but it also would attract a political storm. But by pushing it to a small box-news, TOI stands suspect in the eyes of the reader that it has tried to reduce the brickbats to the DMK generated by this statement. Why should it do this unless TOI had been taken care of well by the DMK. One can recall the meet with the media that Stalin had at the end of his “Namakku Naame” programme. Public has no idea of who attended that meet. But the news carried by the magazines, now including the TOI shows who attended it and what happened behind the screens.

Earlier TOI carried a news item (a few months ago) on the powerful / power wielding sons of politicians. Almost every politician in TN has a son or a son in law who is doing the controlling act from behind the politician. Sabareesan, the son in law of Stalin is a well known name in this segment. Only Jayalalithaa is left out in this area. As if to make up for it the TOI article / news item showed Jayalalithaa’s picture and a ‘son’ who is the son of the Ilavarasi. Has at any time until now, this son of Ilavarasi made his name or face or clout anywhere felt? But the news item said that he is the foster son of Jayalalithaa but could not pinpoint any instance of a role for him in the party or anywhere. But then why drag Jayalalithaa’s photo and that guy’s photo in that article? Is it to satisfy some pay masters and to say that TOI does a ‘level playing’ game with all parties, even if there is none to point out on Jayalalithaa in that segment?

This makes me think that TOI is going The Hindu way. The Hindu which was once called as Mount Road Mahavishnu by Karunanidhi is now known among readers as Mount Road Murasoli! (Murasoli is the official news paper of DMK). Not many believe or care about the articles and opinions published in The Hindu. It is now on par with many local Tamil dailies and magazines like Nakkeeran and Vikatan which are the mouth pieces of the DMK. No wonder the reader base of The Hindu is eroding day by day. The TOI is also going to go on that direction.

**********

From

http://epaperbeta.timesofindia.com/Article.aspx?eid=31807&articlexml=Sasikalaas-stamp-on-changes-in-AIADMKs-list-of-19042016005005

Apr 19 2016 : The Times of India (Chennai)

Sasikalaa's stamp on changes in AIADMK's list of candidates

TIMES NEWS NETWORK

Party Drops 8 Candidates, Replaces 3

AIADMK leader J Jayalalithaa's associate Sasikalaa appears to be making her presence felt as the AIADMK list of candidates for the assembly election goes through a review. On Monday, the party chief made yet another change in her list, dropping eight candidates and replacing three with ministers, who had been left out in the original list of 227 released on April 4.

So far, Jayalalithaa has changed 21 candidates. Sources said several factors influenced the AIADMK leader's decision, including Sasikalaa's insistence that some of her supporters, sitting MLAs, be retained, besides intelligence inputs about candidates' image, credibility and petitions from cadres.

Jayalalithaa has chosen to bring back three ministers, who did not figure in the initial list, to take on heavyweights from other parties.

While higher education minister P Palaniappan has been fielded in Pappireddipatti in Dharmapuri district, where he had contested and won in 2011,

minister for rural industries and milk P Mohan will contest in his home constituency of Sankarapuram in Cuddalore district. It was found that A S A Rajasekar, who was replaced by Mohan, was not so popular.

Tourism minister S P Shanmughanathan will contest again from Srivaikuntam in Tuticorin district.

Party leaders whisper about surveys conducted by the leadership to assess how voters are receiving their candidates.

It was found that G S Kuppusamy , who was fielded earlier in Pappirediipatti had poor prospects. “The feedback Amma got was that Kuppusamy was sure to lose,“ said a party functionary on condition of anonymity . The “survey“ apparently also indicated that Palaniappan would win if he was fielded.

Jayalalithaa has clearly accorded priority to ensuring that candidates with a clean image are fielded as corruption is emerging as a key plank.

Jayalalithaa had fielded Tamilarasi, the party's women's wing secretary , to take on DMK veteran K N Nehru in Trichy West. Later a decision was taken to replace her with Trichy district secretary R Manoharan and to move her to Trichy East. The decision to replace her kicked up a furore among her supporters, who picketed the entrance of the Rock Fort Temple when Natarajan and his men had gone to pray .

Subsequently, the leadership has replaced Tamilarasi with Vellamandi N Natarajan in Trichy East. In the process, Tamilarasi has now ended up losing her post as councillor in Trichy corporation as well. She had tendered her resignation from the post after announcement of her candidature.

Does Hinduism require one to be a vegetarian?

Excerpted from

http://sanskritdocuments.org/doc_z_otherlang_1_index.html

Does Hinduism require one to be a vegetarian?

By

K. Sadananda

Recently two questions were asked –

Does Hinduism require one to believe in God?

Does Hinduism require one to be a vegetarian?

In a recent article, I have addressed the first question. 

Here I will provides some thoughts for the second question.

In relation to the first question, I have discussed what Hinduism stands

for and who is truly a Hindu. 

In essence, Hinduism is Sanatana Dharma,

and that Dharma is from time immemorial –

it involves pursuit for Moksha.

Therefore the one who is seeking for Moksha is a true Hindu,

Irrespective of the nationality, caste, creed or gender. 

With that catholic

understanding, one can see that Hinduism becomes a way of life

because the pursuit of the essential purpose of life is

the goal of the Hindu life.

With that perspective, it is easier to analyze all other questions

including whether Hinduism requires one to be a vegetarian. 

Since the purpose of life is securing liberation or Moksha,

until we reach that we need to live. 

Only death is the death of the ego that happens in the

spiritual awakening. 

Hence, keeping the body alive by nourishment is

our Dharma. 

That means one has to eat to live

(not the other way – living for eating sake!)

Life lives on life. That is the law of nature.

 Whether I eat an animal or plant I am destroying a life.

Among all life forms Man is different from the rest of the life kingdom. 

He has the capability to discriminate the right from wrong.

That also gives him the freedom of choice. 

Plants have just body and perhaps a rudimentary mind.

Animals have both body and mind to express

 feelings and suffering, but rudimentary intellect. 

Man has not only body, mind

but also well developed intellect to discriminate, decide and to choose. 

He always has three choices –

Karthum sakhyam, akartum

sakhyam and anyathA karthum sakhyam –

he can choose to do,

not to do and

do it other way. 

For animals and plants there is no freedom of choice.

They are instinctively driven. 

Cow does not sit down before meals, and

inquire whether it should be a vegetarian or non-vegetarian.

So is a tiger. 

For a Man the discriminative intellect is very evolved.

Plants and animals do not commit sin in their actions

because there is no will

involved in their actions.

For a human, the story is different. 

You may wonder why I brought sin in the argument. 

Let me explain.

Sin is nothing but agitations in the mind. 

It is these agitations that

prevent me in my journey to Moksha.

Mind has to be pure

(meaning un-agitated)

for me to see the truth as the truth. 

To define sin more scientifically - it is the divergence

between the mind and intellect.

Intellect knows right from wrong –

but we feel like doing things even

though we know they are wrong –

that is, the intellect says something,

but mind which should be subservient to intellect rebels and

does whatever it feels like. 

This divergence is sin. 

After the action is performed -

there is a guilt feeling,

because intellect, although was overruled, does

not keep quiet, it keeps prodding

" I told you it is wrong.

Why did you do it?"

With peace of mind gone Man goes through a "Hell". 

Man is not punished for the sin,

he is punished by the sin! –

Think about it.

All yogas, if you analyze clearly, are bringing this integration

Between the body, mind and intellect. 

For a Yogi - What he thinks, what he speaks

and what he does are in perfect harmony or alignment

(Manasaa vAcha karmana).

In our case, we think something but have no guts to say

what we think, our lips says something

different from what are thinking –

if you watch the lips and the actions that follow,

they are again different! -

There is no integration anywhere.

We live a chaotic life. 

Besides deceiving others,

most pathetic is we deceive ourselves,

and the worst thing is we don't even realize that.

Now, when a tiger kills and eats, it does not commit a sin. 

Because its intellect is rudimentary,

 and it does not go through any analysis

 before it kills –

“should I kill or not to kill –

Should I be a non-vegetarian or

should I be vegetarian?". 

When it is hungry, to fill the natures demand,

it kills it pray and eats what it needs and

 leaves the rest when it is full. 

It is not greedy either. 

That is its Swadharma.

It follows a beautiful ecological system.

It is only man who destroys the ecology by being greedy. 

"Should I be a vegetarian or non-vegetarian?"

is asked only by a man. 

Why that question comes?

Because man has discriminative intellect,

and he does not want to

hurt others to fill his belly. 

He learns what `hurt' means because

He surely does not want others to hurt him.

Plants are life forms too, should one hurt them?. 

 You may ask. 

If one can live without hurting any life forms that is the best,

but that is not possible. 

Life lives on life -that is the law of nature. 

My role as a human being with discriminative intellect is

to do the least damage to the nature for keeping myself alive. 

At least, I am not consciously aware of suffering of the plants.

That is why eating to live and not living to eat is

the determining factor.

In Bhagawad Geeta, Krishna emphatically says

that a Sadhaka (one who is in pursuit of Moksha)

should have a compassion for all forms of life –

Sarva Bhuta HitErathAha. 

In the spiritual growth, one develops

subtler and subtler intellect

(Sukshma Bhuddhi in contrast to TeeKshna Buddhi, i.e.

sharper intellect).

That is, the mind is becoming quieter,

 calmer and

self-contended.

Your sensitivity to suffering of others also grows. 

Hence it is advisable to be a vegetarian.

Even the traditional non-vegetarians repel against

eating dogs and cats or

other human beings! Why? 

Meat is a meat after all! 

But with familiarity grows a compassion.

There are many two legged animals in human form

with rudimentary intellect.

They behave like animals. 

But in the evolutionary ladder one develops

subtler and subtler intellect,

then it is advisable to be a vegetarian –

only taking from nature what it needs to keep the body going.

One should not hurt any life forms

to satisfy the craving of one’s tongue.

Should Hindu be a vegetarian?

Since such a question already arose in your mind,

you have a degree of sensitivity not to hurt

other living forms to satisfy your belly.

Then you may be better off not eating meat and

You will be at peace with yourself. 

Since you are sensitive to this your

intellect directing you one way and

your mind wants some baser pleasures

and directing you the other way.

When you go against your own intellect

you commit sin.

That is against your SWADHARMA as Krishna puts it.

Besides, now, even the traditional non-vegetarians

are choosing vegetarianism

not because of any compassion to other animals

but they are recognizing that it is not good for their health.

I have already mentioned that

Hinduism has no doos and don'ts,

but you determine your own doos and don'ts

based on your intellectual values,

culture, education and primary goal in life. 

You will find that

Following your Swadharma makes you comfortable with yourself.

It is not others to judge, it is for you to judge. 

If you are agitated, that means

you are loosing peace of mind for these and

that is a sin! 

Imagine yourself that chicken or cow that you are eating.

Would you not advice the guy who is eating you

to be a vegetarian instead and spare its life? 

Do not say you are not killing the animal yourself,

and killing will go on whether you eat or not.

If you don't eat, one animal is spared.

This is the demand and supply. 

I may not be stealing myself,

but if I buy the stolen property knowing that it was stolen,

it is a crime!

Is it not? 

Now there are imitation meats too –

so why the crave for a dead meet?   

Why do you want your stomach

to be a burial ground for a dead animal?

********************

Food for Thought:-

Manu Samhita says

5/51. He who permits (the slaughter of an animal), he who cuts it up, he who kills it, he who buys or sells (meat), he who cooks it, he who serves it up, and he who eats it, (must all be considered as) the slayers (of the animal).

5/52. There is no greater sinner than that (man) who, though not worshipping the gods or the manes, seeks to increase (the bulk of) his own flesh by the flesh of other (beings).

Does Sanathana Dharma support eating meat? (Part 2)

Part 1 :- Does Sanathana Dharma support eating meat? (Part-1)

Excerpted from an article by Mr Shrivathsa.B.

Full text can be read at https://bharatabharati.wordpress.com/2015/11/25/the-hindu-view-of-food-and-drink-a-critique-shrivathsa-b/

The definitive argument against eating any form of meat is found in the most ancient text concerning Vedic rites, the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa. The eighth and ninth khaṇḍas of the sixth adhyāya contains a brāhmaṇic story of  a puruṣa who was about to be sacrificed in a yajña (conducted by devas). The best material in him escapes because of the fear of death and enters various animal bodies and escapes them in sequence. It finally enters earth and then the grains. The sum and substance of the brāhmaṇic story is that the person conducting a sacrificial rite using puroḍāsha (a grain preparation) is indeed doing an animal sacrifice. This is  because of the yajña paśu has passed the bodies of various animals, earth and finally the grains. The drift being that grains have the best essence of all animals and the earth. The text also provides equivalence between the body parts of an animal and the different parts of a grain.

This seems to suggest that there was either (1) a parallel tradition which practiced sacrifices using grain alone; or (2) an opprobrium associated with animal sacrifice—which led to a brāhmaṇic story such as the above.

In any of the above cases it can be safely argued that the concept of sacrifices of the animal variety as the only means of attaining heaven was being reviewed by the ancients (thereby the story extolling grain over meat).

Animal sacrifice prohibited according Mahābhārata

The anuśāsana parva of Mahābhārata holds a view strictly against animal sacrifice of any sort. This is explained by the story of King Vasu. The story being: A king by name Vasu goes to heaven as a result of conducting yajñas. After he reached heaven, there happens to be a debate among the devas and ṛṣis about the use of goats, etc. in sacrifice. In this debate, the devas are in favour of goat sacrifice and ṛṣis favour oblation of unsprouted seeds. The tussle is about the word “aja” which can either mean unsprouted seeds or a goat. They decide that as Vasu has reached heaven performing yajñas, he is the right person to be consulted. Vasu, who is now a deva himself decides to be partial to the deva view and gives the verdict in favour of goats being killed. As a result of this, he is cursed immediately to be born on earth as a snake.

Were ancient Hindus beef-eaters? {as though they were eating beef at least once a week (if not every day)}. Let us ask a few questions and answer them.

Que:  Who are the ancients who are supposed to have eaten beef, if at all?

Ans: A subset of Brahmins called yājñika Brahmins who have done or taken part in somayāga. This is a “difficult” yāga to conduct owing to the requirement of numerous priests of a very high erudition. Generally the convention was for the yajamāna and his next seven generations to carry surnames such as somayājī,vājapeyī, etc. Any cursory population analysis of the Brahmins will reveal that the number is minuscule. Brahmins had other vocations such as temple duties, official duties in the royal court and the like. In fact, some communities in Brahmins are classified as (1) Kammis (corruption of “karmī”, i.e. worker) who were predominantly officials by tradition. (2) Ācārya: who were traditional school teachers. (3) Joshi: the ones predominantly traditional astrologers (4) Purāṇika: the ones who were traditional story tellers, bards etc. This being the case, the number of those who have eaten beef, if at all, is minuscule.

Que: How often did they eat beef (if at all)?

Ans: Somayāga was not a daily event. It had strict restrictions on its conduct including restrictions on

1. the time of the year: certain varṇas had to conduct it in certain seasons;
2. the yajamāna (the one on behalf of whom the yajña is conducted): before even beginning a somayāga, he should have (a) been an āhitāgni, (b) conducted the sapta pāka and sapta havissamsthas. Except in the case of a chosen few who probably had royal backing, to be an āhitāgni and have finished the samsthas is quite difficult practically;
3. Ayajño vā etadadakṣiṇaḥ (that which doesn’t have substantial dakṣiṇā is not fit to be called a yajna) goes a famous maxim. Stories abound in itihāsaand purāṇa about kings giving away everything they had. The rājasūyasacrifice calls for giving away even the loin cloth worn by the king. Given this, the number of those even among even the yājñikas who were regularly conducting yāga is logically low;
4. once seven Somayāgas are done, the yajamāna is supposed to have attained the merit of going to heaven, hence it isn’t necessary for him to do any more yāgas. So, at the most, he and the priests may have eaten beef seven times in their life (if at all).

Related article:-

What are Vedic yajnas? (Guest post by R. Ramanathan)

Story told by Sita to Rama has a message to non-vegetarians.

On this Rama Navami day, let me recall a story told by Sita to Rama that is found in Aranya khanda of Valmiki Ramayana. Sita talks about a Dharma of shunning cruelty to people with whom there is no enmity. This idea is relevant in shunning meat food too, as meat is procured by killing the hapless animal which had not done any harm to the eater and to the one who kills it for selling as food. This particular episode in Aranya khanda is vital for understanding that Rama did not eat meat as per any verse of Valmiki Ramayana. A discussion on this was earlier done by me in my blog Does Sanathana Dharma support eating meat? (Part-1)

The setting is in Aranya Khanda after meeting the sage Suteekshna. He requests Rama to vanquish the demons of Dandaka forest as they were constantly giving trouble to the sages like him who are engaged in ascetic life in the forest. Rama agrees to do that. Sita hands over the bows and swords to Rama and Lakshmana. But she is distressed while doing that. She expresses that to Rama which can be read in 9^th sarga in Aranya khanda.

She says that there are three definite products of self- gratification that arise from desire. One is speaking falsehood. The second is desire for another man’s wife. The third is cruelty without enmity. The first two are irrelevant in Rama’s case. But by agreeing to Suteekshna’s request Rama is at the verge of sticking to the third, namely cruelty without enmity.

Sita goes on to explain that Rama is set out to destroy the people whom he does not know and with whom he has no prior enmity. Rama has come to the forest to lead the life of a sage. His parents would be happy to only hear that of him. But by taking up the arms now, the faculty of the weapons would eventually come to stick to him.

To explain this Sita tells the story of a sage who lived in the forest amidst animals that adored him. He never intended to do any harm to any life. As if to challenge his nature, once Indra came to him and asked to him to take care of his sword until he returned. The sage agreed and started to guard that sword. To keep up his promise, he could not leave the sword when he went out to do his daily chores. So he started carrying that weapon all the time. But what happens is that the faculty of the weapon comes to stick to the carrier of that weapon. Anger, infuriation and ultimately the propensity to use the weapon driven by such faculties overpowered the sage. As a result the sage did things that led him to hell.

Sita says that all this happened owing to the reason of associating with a weapon constantly, and the sequel of constant association with weapon is as good as constant association with fire.

Rama being a kshatriya has already carried the weapons, but that was in Ayodhya. In the Dandaka forest where he has come to lead a life of a hermit he must not carry it as the association with it would cause him to injure people with whom he has no enmity, even though they happen to be demons. As a Kshatriya he can use weapons (cruelty) only as a means to protect the suffering people. Otherwise the constant contact with weapons would transfer the quality of weapons to him and make him act as directed by that quality.

Rama convinces her that by agreeing to the request of Suteekshna he is only agreeing to protect him and other sages. So it is perfectly justifiable to kill the demons unknown to him and with whom he has no direct enmity. After all it is only for the protection of the hapless ones, he is going to kill the people with whom he has no direct enmity.

The outward message of this episode is that Rama is always there for protection of suffering people. But the inner message of this episode that he will not do any harm to any life where there is no enmity with him and that wherever such cruelty is perceived to be done by him it was for the purpose of protecting some deserving people who has suffered on account of those people.

 And this nature – not being cruel to beings that have in no way harmed you or not being an enemy with you – is the justification for shunning food got by killing animals. Sita tells this tendency – cruelty without enmity – as one of the three desires of man that are fundamental to self- gratification. Killing a life for the gratification of the stomach is therefore not desirable. Such a thing is permitted only in the case of saving life when one is dying of starvation (Apad Dharma).

Based on this one can say that Rama could have never eaten food that was procured by killing a life. The so-called verses in Valmiki Ramayana that are interpreted by non-vegetarian lovers as indicating that Rama ate meat are pure mis-interpretations.

That Sanatna Dharma had never supported food procured by killing can also be noted in the way one Satyavratha earned the name “Trishanku”. According to Harivamsam, tri-shanku means three blemishes. Satyavratha came to be called as Trishanku due to three blemishes or dosha he had.

One is pithru dosha - common form is the debt to one’s parents that is unpaid.

The second is Guru droha by having killed the milk cow (Kamadhenu – the wish-giver) of Vashishta - a common form of this is the harm done to environment and others while fulfilling one’s wishes.

The third is eating unsanctified food. This does not mean that meat got by killing an animal can be sanctified by means of mantras or prayers. As cruelty without enmity is the dictum, meat itself is unsanctified food. Eating that would create its own karma which cannot wiped out by prayers but by undergoing the same suffering that the animals underwent.  

One must not interpret this dictum – cruelty without enmity – to mean that cruelty is justified if there is enmity. In the case of enmity when one is drawn into tit for tat like fights, whatever justification is there on the part of one to inflict injury on the other would to some extent modify the retributive karma that accrues out of that act. In the case of cruelty without enmity as in the case of killing life for food, there is absolutely no justification that can reduce the retributive / resultant karma that accrues to one for having been the cause for that cruelty to a hapless life. 

Related articles:-

Rama’s birth date.

Message of Ramayana!

Rama Navami – why celebrate Rama’s birthday on thithi and not on birth star?

Thoughts on Sri Rama Navami. (open letter to Sri Rama)

The Crow, the crime and Rama’s reasons.

“Is Rama a female in a male’s garb?” (Sthreeyam Purusha Vigraham?) – Rama-Navami musings!

Rama and Sita wait for each other (Rama Navami musings).

Symbolism of Vaali vadham.

Symbolism of Sita desiring the golden deer!

Hanuman and Sita conversed in Madhura language (Spoken language of ancient India –part 3)

Ramayana -- a mythology or history? -- K. Gopalakrishnan (July 2013)

Why do we write Sri Rama Jayam in the beginning?

Kings of Ayodhya before and after Rama.

Did Rama rule for 11,000 years?

Rama in the rock carvings of Iraq.

Cash for anti- ADMK blogs, DMK lures bloggers.

A few days after the drama of Vaiko accusing and then apologizing to Karunanidhi for indulging in the world’s oldest profession, here comes the news about the latest digital way in which DMK tries to rope in bloggers into that oldest profession!

The offer is to pay 100 rupees for a blog that will be supplied to the blogger every day. There will be 3 such blogs which will contain anti ADMK material that the blogger has to copy and post it in his blog as his own idea. The material may not be a direct attack on the ADMK but a clever play of words with facts and figures so that the readers may not suspect the blogger as a handle of DMK.  The money is more if the blogger introduces other bloggers to carry out this oldest profession in digital world. 

This job is done for the DMK by a Mumbai based Brand consultant.  Mail transaction of this kind of digital prostitution is reproduced here.

(click the image to enlarge)

The conversation between the reporter of The New Indian Express (who exposed this) and the employee of the agency who work for the DMK can be heard here:

This kind of campaign had already taken off in the social media. The twisted news on Chennai floods was first posted by a DMK man whose father worked as a lawyer to Karunanidhi. His vicious post was quoted by the Tamil daily Dinamalar the next day and passed off as a news item saying that the flood was caused by the delay in opening the flood gates as the flood gate operators waited for Jayalalithaa’s ‘orders’! Times of India produced an article on the same lines quoting him and another unknown writer who wrote from her desk top and not from the ground. This idea went round and round until the facts were exposed by another blogger (Read here).  

This kind of false propaganda on social media platform done by one’s own volition or as party organs is acceptable as free speech. But engaging an agency to hire bloggers to post the propaganda material to reach to the unsuspecting readers who would be thinking that it is their favourite blogger’s own idea is nothing but making the bloggers indulge in digital prostitution.  

By now many DMK affiliated bloggers were into this propaganda - whether paid or not is beyond doubt after knowing about this agency. This information itself is enough to vote out DMK. DMK and Karunanidhi had always been in the forefront in corrupt practices and mischief. When they got a chance to enter the cabinet in Delhi, they spread their practices there too. They have not left out the social media now.

**********

From

http://www.newindianexpress.com/states/tamil_nadu/Paid-News-Passe-its-Now-Paid-Views/2016/04/08/article3368981.ece

Paid News Passe, it's Now Paid Views

By 

S Deepak Karthik

“Here is an opportunity for getting paid for your blog. All you need is to copy paste the content and get paid weekly. This is a political campaign we are running where we provide facts and figures that features the existing government in Tamil Nadu.”

With the election campaign increasingly moving online to match the age of technology where a quarter of the electorate is under 30, can the dirty tricks experts be far behind? A Mumbai-based brand consultancy firm has entered the murky waters ahead of the Assembly poll in Tamil Nadu in search of digital daily-wagers who can take on the incumbent government by ‘playing around with facts and figures’.

On Wednesday, a group of about 100 bloggers, who are part of a Chennai-based online blogging community, received a group mail from Brand Monachis, a Mumbai-based company that has worked with national and regional political parties, with the subject, ‘Get paid for your blog’.

The deal was rather simple:

every morning, it will provide the content which the blogger has to post on their blog, without making any changes, and share on the social media space. “You just have to copy and paste the content we send you. In return, we will pay you about Rs 300 per day at the rate of Rs 100 per article that we provide along with data against the existing State government,” a representative of the firm told this reporter on phone after responding to the initial mail. The wages will be paid weekly, with a blogger willing to do the job standing to earn Rs 2,100 a week, it added.

The campaign was run for the DMK against the incumbent government, the person added, though Express could not independently verify the identity of the client.

The person at the other end of the line gave two contact numbers if interested in taking up the job — it included one that is the number for the Mumbai firm as given in its official webpage. When called the number feigning interest, the offer became sweeter: bring in 10 more who would be willing to do this and become a coordinator for the group. In return, this reporter was offered double the money for each post — Rs 200 per post.

Such efforts to enlist bloggers are not unusual. Firms spend money to build presence and promote brands online through bloggers who have a substantial number of captive audience and are able to mould opinion thro-ugh informal channels. But doing it for political parties is unusual, at least in Tamil Nadu. The bloggers in TN, who received the invite, said popular ones among them were earlier approached by another party strongly associated with an influential community in northern TN for a similar campaign where they would give the content to be posted on their blog space. 

“Bloggers would prefer to express their own opinions instead of being forced to reproduce the content generated by some PR agency for promoting a particular political party. We can’t do injustice to our readers,” N Katie, a noted blogger from Chennai, told Express.

“I can immediately relate this as a digital equivalent of paying voters to vote. Such initiatives will backfire since it affects the credibility of bloggers who post such pre-prepared articles on their blogs,” said Kiruba Shankar, a social media entrepreneur.

While repeated attempts to reach the leaders of DMK, for whom the campaign is allegedly being run, failed, Chief Electoral Officer Rajesh Lakhani said, “We will take action as per MCC and IPC against any violation.”

“Bloggers would prefer to express their own opinions instead of being forced to reproduce the content generated by some PR agency for promoting a particular political party. We can’t do injustice to our readers,” N Katie, a noted blogger from Chennai, told Express.