Wednesday, November 2, 2016

M N Roy in Andhra

M.N Roy ( Manavendranath Roy) first visited Madras( now Chennai) during 1938. He met Mr E V Ramasami Naikar, Dravida Khazam leader. Mr Gudavalli Ramabrahmam editor Prajamitra Telugu fortnightly published articles and matter about Roy and his programs. During Press meet Mr Khasa Subbarao, editor of Indian Express made some ugly indecent remarks about Allen Roy. Then Roy reacted and said such commentators deserve cudgeling. The press reacted and boycotted the press meet. Mr Narla Venkateswararao was also there. Later M N Roy visited Nellore at the invitation of Vennelakanti Raghavaiah, the chairman of district board. M N Roy addressed south Indian agricultural labor conference. Afterwords Roy fell ill . A word was sent to Mr M V Sastry at Kakinada. He came and took Roy to Kakinada a coastal town in Andhra. Ellen also joined Roy. Then M N Roy and Ellen proceeded to Visakhapatnam where he was welcomed by few people like P H Gupta, Abburi Varadarajeswararao, Attaluri Narasimharao and others. M N Roy was hosted by Mr P H Gupta who was in insurance business. Roy couple stayed in Maharanipet at Gupta`s house where they recouped from sickness. Mr Abburi Ramakrishnara, librarian in Andhra University introduced M N Roy to the Vice chancellor of Andhra University Mr Kattamanchi Ramalingareddi ( C R Reddi) who invited Roy and even offered professorship in the university.Later mr C R Reddi wrote brilliant introduction to Roy`s Letters from Jail. Rachakonda Viswanatha sastry and few others met M N Roy and invited him to their college to address the meeting. The principal of the college reacted at this news and commented : what is the content of Roy`s speech? Is he going to teach how to make bombs? Rachakonda reported the matter to Roy and naturally Roy commented on principal`s attitue in the public meeting held at beach shore. Students started reading Roy`s Independent India and other writings . During 1940s M N Roy along with other radicals founded Radical democratic party. Mr Abburi Ramakrishna rao was made the first organiser of the state for the party in Andhra. Several stalwarts joined the Radical democratic party and some of them are: Tata Devakinandan from Vijayanagaram, Mr Pemmaraju Venkatarao from Nellimarla who organized labor in jute mills. Mr Palagummi Padmaraju writer contributed stories and books about Radical movement. Mr Tripuraneni Gopichand was made the state party secretary. Mr Narahari Guttikonda was in charge of labor front. Dr Pavuluri Krishna Choudary from Ponnur was incharge of student wing who conducted hand written magazine M N Roy was taken to Tanuku in West Godavari where Mr K P S Raju conducted huge procession with bullock carts. M N Roy toured Tenali, Vijayawada, Guntur, and few sorrounding villages. Several teachers, poets, writers were inspiried by the thoughts and writings of M N Roy. Tenali has become hub of Radical democratic party. Mr Avula Gopalakrishna Murthy, Mr G V Krishna rao, Mr Koganti Radhakrishna Murthy, Mr Sivalingaiah, Mr Jampala Syam sundar rao, Mr Kosaraju Sambasivarao were actively involved. Mr Koganti Subrahmanyam, Mr Kolli Sivaramireddi, Mr Alapati Ravindranath, Mr Achyutaramaiah, Mr Meka Chakrapani, Mr Subbarao, advocate were involved in various activities. Mr D V Narasaraju writer and cine artist played important role in the movement. Mr Guttikonda Narahari was the state secretary for some years who also organised labor unions and camps. Mr Bhattiprolu Hanumantharao, lecturer Mr Yelavarthi Rosaiah, Mr Kalluri Basaveswararao, Mr Jasti Jagannadham Mr Ravipudi Venkatadri, Mr N V Brahmam organised several study camps at different places. Some of them participated in all India study camps at Kolkata, Dehra Dun and other places. Few leaders from India visited Andhra, gave lectures and inspired workers, organisers . Some of them are: G D Parekh, V M Tarkunde, K K Sinha, etc. Few journals were started in Andhra and some pamphlets and books were published. Several books and articles of M N Roy and other leaders were translated into Telugu. M N Roy visited couple of times to Andhra which gave inspiration to many people. During the first general elections Radical democratic party contested in Andhra but lost completely. Mr Bandaru Vandanam, Mr Koganti Radhakrishna murthy, Mr Ravipudi Venkatadri, and few others contested and lost. Mr Malladi Ramamurthi joined the movement and worked relentlessly. He canvassed for the party during first elections. He attended all India camps. In one of the visites a meeting between M N Roy and Tripuraneni Ramaswamy, Chalam was arranged at Tenali. It did not yeild any result. During second world war the writings of M N Roy and radical democratic party leaders were not published in Telugu dailies and journals. Only few magazines like Prajamitra of Gudavalli Ramabrahmam, Mulukola of Bandi Butchaiah published. Hence radicals started their own journals like Radical, Radical democrary, Jyothi, etc But several study camps were held in nooks and corners where persons like Ravipudi Venkatadri, N V Brahmam, G V Krishna rao, Bhattiprolu Hanumantharao, Koganti Radhakrishnamurthi, Malladi Ramamurthi, Avula Gopalakrishnamurthi , kalluri Basaveswararao, Ch Rajareddi, Abburi Ramakrishnarao, participated. There were student wings in colleges and schools of radical democratic party. by Innaiah Narisetti

Monday, September 26, 2016

Interview by American Atheist association with Innaiah Narisetti

Kindly listen and circulate. This interview by Ellen Johnson ( president of atheist association )and Mr Bob,with Innaiah Narisetti was conducted in the studios of American atheist association, Staton Island, New York. It was telecasted. link:

Friday, September 23, 2016

Humanist visited from India to USA

From time to time many humanists from India visited USA and played some role. It started with M N Roy in 1915 and continuing till now 2016. These humanists visited to their families, relatives, friends and some contributed to thought through universities, magazines and lectures. Few did research on various topics. The list of visitors may not exceed 100 from various states of India. On each visitor a brief note is attempted and when material is available somewhat detailed matter is placed for readers. Starrting with Manavendranath Roy the list continues with Ellen Roy, Evelyn, Tayyab Shaik, Shib Narayan ray, Samaren Roy, Vimadlal Mahadev Tarkunde, Govardhan G Parekh, Indumati Parekh, Premnath Bazaz, Gouri Malik Bazaz, Suyesh Malik, Balraj Puri, B. d Sharma, Chandrakant Daru, Jayant Patel, Nanavati Kiran, Ramesh Awasti, Sangeeta Mall, R M Pall, Laxman Sastri Joshi, Bandiste, Gogineni Babu, Innaiah Narisetti, G Veeranna, Siddarth Baksh, Vijayalakshmi, Sharif Gora, Ravipudi Venkatadri, Vasant B Karnik, Bipin Shroff, Prakash Narayan, Jasti Jawaharlal, Ravela Somaiah, Aruna, Polu Satyanarayana, Dr Santi Sri, Rakahl Datta, Gora, Lavanam, Vijayam, Suresh Parekh, Dhawal Mehta, Narendra Dhabolkar, Deepak Girma, Kumar Kelkar, Sharad Bedekar, Nanda Khare, Raosaheb Kesav, Dr Madhukar, Dadu Chandane, Arvind Gupa, Avula Sambasivarao, Mulukutla Venkata sastri, Abburi Varadarajeswararao, C R Dalvi, Malladi Subbamma, Avula Gopalakrishna murthy, V R Narla, Venigalla Komala, Deepak Girma, Justice Jahagirdar, M K Samant, Sharad Abhayankar, Thirbhai Poonawala, Dr Madhukar Deshpande, Shalini Oak, Amlan Datta, Alapati Ravindranath, JBH Wadia,CLNGandhi, C Bhaskararao,Maitri, Patri Umesh, Premanand, Malathi,and more Details will come gradually along with pictures
Univision Communications, Inc. (UCI) today announced that digital media executive and veteran editor Raju Narisetti has been named Chief Executive Officer for Gizmodo Media Group (GMG), a unit within the company’s Fusion Media Group (FMG). As CEO, he will be responsible for managing all business and editorial operations for the Gizmodo Media Group, home to category-leading brands focused on technology (Gizmodo), car culture (Jalopnik), contemporary women’s interests (Jezebel), sports (Deadspin), lifestyle (Lifehacker), and gaming (Kotaku). Narisetti, who will be based at GMG headquarters in New York, will report to Isaac Lee, Chief News, Digital and Entertainment Officer of UCI, and Felipe Holguin, President and Chief Operating Officer of FMG. Heather Detrick, President of GMG, John Cook, Executive Editor, and Courtenay O’Connor, GMG Deputy General Counsel, will all report directly to Narisetti. He will formally join Gizmodo Media Group in late October. “Raju is a rare combination, someone who comes with a very strong background in journalism, became a leader in digital media on three continents, and went on to develop new businesses for a global company,” said Lee. “His commitment to journalistic integrity, his entrepreneurial spirit and proven ability to adapt quickly in a fast-paced digital environment will help us strengthen and grow these newly acquired category-leading brands.” In addition, “Raju will play an important role on Fusion Media Group’s leadership team as we look to deepen the engagement of America’s increasingly diverse television, digital, mobile and social audiences with our portfolio of brands that speak to their interests in a passionate, authentic manner,” added Holguin. FMG now reaches more than a third of all Americans online each month with 96 million unique visitors, including its extended network. FMG’s collection of digital-first brands serve young, diverse influencers with content that reflects their shared values and passions. In addition to the Gizmodo Media Group, FMG includes FUSION, The Root, Flama, Univision Digital, Univision Music, as well as Univision’s interest in El Rey Network, The Onion, The A.V. Club and ClickHole. FMG also includes Story House, a content development and production unit. “It is a privilege to be responsible for leading this unwaveringly energetic team of journalists and business staff,” said Narisetti. “As part of Univision, we will now be more ambitious in deepening, broadening and sensibly scaling the passionate digital communities that Gizmodo, Jezebel, Deadspin, Kotaku, Jalopnik and Lifehacker have attracted, by offering accurate, responsible, edgy and engaging journalism, as well as through relevant, related content and commerce.” Narisetti is currently Senior Vice President, Strategy, of News Corp. Since 2013, he has been responsible for acquisitions and global expansion, while also helping guide and influence the digital growth of News Corp’s existing companies in the news, information, publishing, social video and digital real-estate portfolio, which include The Wall Street Journal, The Times of London, Harper-Collins, and Storyful, among others. Prior to that, Narisetti was Managing Editor of The Wall Street Journal Digital Network. In this role, he headed editorial teams and content strategy for WSJ’s Digital Network, which included,, WSJ video platforms, and WSJ/MarketWatch Radio Networks. Earlier, Narisetti served as Managing Editor of The Washington Post (2009-2012) overseeing digital journalism and adjacent news products, as well as managing editing, design, photo, video, engagement and social media teams, as well as the Post’s Style and other features sections. Narisetti spearheaded the Post’s efforts to combine its separate print and digital newsrooms into an integrated operation. During that period, despite significant business headwinds, the Post achieved record digital audience growth, and won many top journalism awards, including seven Pulitzer Prizes. Prior to joining the Post, Narisetti was Founder & Editor of India’s Mint newspaper (, now India’s second-largest business newspaper, by circulation. Mint is critically acclaimed in India for its high ethical standards and its pioneering Journalism Code of Conduct. Narisetti started his U.S. journalism career as a summer reporting intern for the WSJ in 1991, and in his first 13-year stint there, held multiple reporting and editing roles, culminating in being named Editor of The Wall Street Journal Europe, and Deputy Managing Editor for the global WSJ, with responsibility for Europe, Middle East and Africa. Narisetti was named a Young Global Leader by the World Economic Forum in 2007, and is now a member of the WEF’s Global Future Council on Information and Entertainment. He is a life member of South Asian Journalists Association (; and a Trustee of the International Institute of Education (, which administers the Fulbright fellowships and operates the Scholar Rescue Fund. Narisetti has a MA in Journalism from Indiana University, Bloomington; and a BA (Economics) and MBA from India. Born in Hyderabad, India, Narisetti began his journalism career as a Staff Writer at The Economic Times, Delhi. Narisetti, 50, lives in Brooklyn with his wife and author, Kim Barrington Narisetti, and daughters Leila and Zola. LikeShow more reactions Comment Share

Thursday, April 7, 2016

What is scientific what is not?

What is scientific and what is not? Here is brief talk in Telugu language for the benifit of Telugu speaking people in India and abroad:

Wednesday, March 30, 2016

Why I am not a Muslim by Ibn Warrak

Ibn Warrak`s research publication entitled:
Why I am not a muslim
Center for Inquiry, USA brought out this book
through Prometheus books.
see chapterwise translation:

Tuesday, March 22, 2016

Agehananda Bharati`s talk in memory of M N Roy

Please listen to this lecture of Agehananda Bharati during 1987 in connection with M N Roy`s centenary year at Ambedkar Open University in Hyderabad.
link for the u tube:

Thursday, January 21, 2016

Ten Contradictions Theists Just Can’t Stop Making

Ten Contradictions Theists Just Can’t Stop Making

Image via
Image via
Talking with theists about religion sometimes – and by sometimes I mean almost always – feels like Groundhog Day,  a painful and monotonous slog that simply travels the same territory over and over and over.  I get weary of both hearing and repeating the same arguments so frequently, so I decided to compile the most tired (not to mention the most tiresome) themes that I encounter, so that going forward I can simply point people here when they trot out these inevitable gems.
1. Explaining what god is or wants, then saying humans cannot understand god.
The conversation goes like this:
Theist: “God loves us and wants us to be saved. God is just and merciful. God will provide. God always gives us what we need, not just what we want.”
Atheist: “If god loves us, is merciful, provides, and always gives us what we need, why do children starve to death?”
Theist: “We are mere mortals and can’t expect to understand His ways. You can’t apply human standards to god.”
Uh . . . If we can’t apply human standards to god when it comes to figuring out why he lets children starve, why can we apply human standards to establish that he loves us, is just and merciful, and will provide?  By what means do you ascertain these attributes in the first place if not by human standards?  God is either knowable or he isn’t; you either understand him or you don’t. If his reasons for allowing innocent children to suffer and die are inscrutable, so too must be his reasons for everything else, and to claim otherwise is to admit that you in fact know nothing of god, but have opted to believe what is most comforting to you – something that is manifestly apparent to atheists already, but which most theists would not confess in so many words.
2. Claiming that god loves us all, then rationalizing human suffering.
Theists most often dismiss human suffering by victim-blaming – declaring that our own free will causes us to make bad choices, which cause us to suffer as a result. Once we get past the inherent privilege of a claim that assumes everyone has an array of both good and bad options from which to choose (or has a choice at all), we are still left with the problem of suffering that is not the direct result of our own actions. “Free will,” they repeat. “Some people use theirs to hurt others.” Ah, okay – so god is willing to stand idly by and watch innocents be tortured and murdered because he prioritizes the free will of evil people to do harm over that of their victims? That’s not much of a resume-builder for god, but for the sake of argument I’ll give you that one too. What about illness and natural disasters then? Even the most nefarious of minds cannot will a tumor or an earthquake or a tsunami into being. That’s when, if we don’t hear “Oh, free will causes climate change which causes those disasters,” we hear (again), “We are mere mortals and can’t expect to understand god’s ways.”
In this world, deliberately inflicting pain and hardship on someone we claim to love is called abuse. In religion, it’s called grace. When we regard human suffering as not only inevitable but as an expression of love by an omnipotent being, we trivialize the experience of those who must endure it and stifle the otherwise natural human impulse to alleviate it.
3. Pretending that free will and a divine plan are not mutually exclusive.
When asked once if he believed we all have free will, Christopher Hitchens ironically replied, “Of course I have free will; I don’t have a choice.” In other words, an omnipotent god endowing humans with free will and commanding that they use it negates the very notion of free will in the first place – with or without it, we are still exactly as god made us, choosing exactly as he already knows we will. Conveniently, free will seems to only ever cause humans to behave badly; when they are charitable, kind, generous, selfless, humble, honest, and virtuous, it is always because they were following the example set by god, but when they are selfish, cruel, and violent their actions are the result of their own frailty, thus ensuring that god continues to reap the credit when we choose well and remain blameless when we don’t.
As if this weren’t bad enough, many of the same folks who talk about free will also claim that god has a plan. Take a common trope on prayer, for example, that says when you pray, “God answers in one of three ways: 1. Yes; 2. No; 3. I have something even better in store.” All three of those responses entail a god who is actively shaping your life, and who is giving or withholding things based on what he either intends or knows will happen. So which is it? Because it can’t be both.
4. Behaving hatefully, then saying “god bless.”
I recently had the pleasure of conversing with a theist on my Facebook page who called me “ignorant;” a “liar;” a “child;” “dense;” “trash;” laughed that I was “probably not” in a stable relationship and therefore infected with “the latest STD;” that my jokes aren’t funny (O, the humanity!); and, predictably, that she wished she could be there when I stand before god after death to see me receive my eternal sentence for disbelief. She topped off this love-fest by saying, “May God bless you and keep you in the New Year and many more to come.” Wait, I thought you were being an arrogant ass, but you want god to bless me? Well, in that case, right back atcha! Hugs and kisses!
These people seem to think that no matter how nasty they act or how mean-spirited their words,  it is all permissible and forgiven as long as they conclude with an insincere blessing.  Some of them will further justify their unpleasantness by claiming they were only fulfilling their godly responsibility to love their enemies by pointing out the error of their ways.  Hence we end up with comments like, “Your ignorance and your unfunny jokes make baby Jesus cry, you slutty, disease-infested piece of trash! I’ll be laughing while you burn in hell! God bless!”
5. Declaring god as the source of objective morality, then interpreting scripture.
It is frustrating and disheartening that the myth that one needs to believe in the supernatural to live ethically persists in the face of thousands of years of evidence to the contrary. Beyond this obvious fallacy, however, lies the transparent manner in which theists lay claim to the objective correctness of their morals while simultaneously applying their own contemporary cultural morality to the world. “Look here,” you say, pointing at the words on the page, “it says to murder your loved ones if they worship any other god.” “You’re taking that out of context,” comes the reply. Or maybe it’s, “You have to consider the culture at the time this was written.” Or perhaps, “That isn’t meant to be taken literally.”
If objective morality comes from god, then the only way to determine that morality is through scripture.  If you are not going to take scripture at face value, then you are admitting that your morals are inherent within you and influenced by the society around you, not handed down from the outside.
6. Labeling god as omnipotent, then blaming evil on the devil.
Is it that god cannot defeat the devil, or is it that he chooses not to? Not that anyone could blame him if it was the latter, seeing as how the devil makes such an outstanding scapegoat. But seriously – if you believe god is omnipotent and you also believe in the devil, then you have to believe that god has made a decision to let the devil do his thing. If god cannot in fact defeat the devil then he is not omnipotent, in which case it makes little sense to worship and pray to him at all. In either case, though, god sure as shit has both the power and inclination to get involved once you’re dead – by sending you straight to hell for doing whatever it was the devil talked you into while god stood by and watched.
7. Seizing upon minuscule inconsistencies in highly specialized scientific disciplines as a failure of science to explain the universe while accepting supernatural explanations for which there is no evidence.
There are mountains of evidence in support of evolution by natural selection and the Big Bang. Virtually all of modern biology and cosmology are predicated upon these theories; the elegance of their explanations and success of their predictions continually reaffirm their validity. Furthermore, there is no small amount of evidence to suggest that under the right conditions, complex molecules can become self-replicating – the first step towards the creation of life. Meanwhile, there is no evidence for god. As in, zero. Zilch. None.
It has always struck me as odd that an institution that not only extols the virtue of faith but requires it as a matter of course and as a prerequisite of salvation would turn to science at all to justify its claims; after all, if the religious are so certain they are correct, shouldn’t faith be sufficient to maintain belief?  The answer is, of course it isn’t, and their desire to claim the legitimacy of science betrays their understanding (and fear) of this fact.  Furthermore, you cannot pretend to be concerned about the quality or weight of the evidence for a natural explanation of the universe while simultaneously advancing a hypothesis for which thousands of years of inquiry have failed to produce a single shred of evidence.
8. Subscribing to religion, then labeling the religious beliefs of others as “crazy.”
Protestants say Catholics aren’t really Christians. Baptists say Pentecostalism is a cult. Mormons say creationists are nutty. And yet all of these people believe more or less the same thing: That an invisible, omnipotent, omniscient, all-loving deity created the entire universe and was subsequently so displeased with his own creation that he made a virgin pregnant with himself in human form; condemned himself to be tortured and sacrificed to atone for the sins of his creation; rose from the dead and ascended bodily into the sky; and now presides over the affairs of all humans and keeps track of where they put their car keys and whether they masturbate so that he knows who to help while they are alive and who to torture for all eternity after they die.
Anyone who thinks this is plausible forfeits the right to comment on the sanity of anyone else’s ideas.
9. Accusing atheists of cherry-picking scripture to make it look bad.
This one always makes me laugh.  For one thing, no one needs to try to make scripture look bad; it does that all by itself with its genocide and rape and slavery and conquest and general bloodthirsty, vengeful douchebaggery.  For another thing, scripture is packed with so many mutually exclusive commands and prohibitions that cherry-picking is required if one is to follow or even just discuss it.  The only question is which cherries one will pick.  Some will pick the ones about love and kindness and charity and claim these are the “real” version of their religion, leaving the others – the ones about torture and violence and cruelty – on the branch, hoping no one will notice them.  Perhaps cherry-picking isn’t even the right metaphor.  I think a better one is the Tree of 40 Fruit:  Some of what it has to offer is sweet, some is bitter, and some may even be poisonous, but it all grows from the same plant.
10.  Claiming membership in one of thousands of sects of religion as authority for telling non-believers why our interpretation of religion is wrong.
How often do we hear from theists that we misunderstand, misrepresent, misinterpret, or are ignorant of their scriptures? “What the bible (Qur’an / Torah / etc.) really says is X,” they say, or “When god said that he meant Y.” Setting aside for the moment the fact that many atheists are former believers who are intimately familiar with scripture, what do we make of the fact that other people who also identify as belonging to that religion claim that actually, god didn’t mean Y either, but Z? And what of the ones who say not Z, but A? Theists themselves cannot agree with one another on what god really meant or wants and none of them can produce a single valid reason why their interpretation is more likely to be right than anyone else’s. Why then is the interpretation of a non-believer any less credible – or to be more precise, any more incredible?
What most believers refuse to see, or at least to admit, is that there is no wrong interpretation of scripture. What is “known” about god resides inside people’s heads; there is no objective, external yardstick by which it can be measured, nothing that can be observed, and no source to clarify what was truly intended by any given chapter or verse. Furthermore, even if we could eliminate the ambiguity of scripture we would still be left with the contradictions: For virtually every instruction, elsewhere in the text is its prohibition or the command to do the opposite, and since no one can ring up Yahweh or Allah to ask which one is the right one it is left to the individual to decide. Said another way, scripture is sufficiently ambiguous and contradictory that all interpretations are justifiable – in which case we are left with nothing more than a free-for-all in which religion is whatever any given believer says it i