Thread: The Great Indian Love Affair With Censorship

Originally Posted by YoungIndia

I am not interested in lookin at the "broader point" in this case because this is not a "genuine case".

There is no requirement for it to be a genuine case. The question is simple, can she say it or not. Her statement makes it very clear that what she said does not amount to sedition.

Nandi's is a genuine case but that did not save the editor of the Ahmedabad TOI for printing his article. Scroll up, i've already linked to it. I'm coming to the conclusion that there is no such thing as a genuine case when ppl can get you banged up or intimidate you AND get the state to do it for them.

Originally Posted by YoungIndia

The foolish person in question has done everything to bring trouble upon her and then cry about "free speech". it is nothing more than self serving refuge.

Irrelevant

Originally Posted by YoungIndia

you share a platform with islamists .Talk about democracy . endorse sedition. this is just lack of basic commonsense.

You are equating me with the views of these people and that is not the point. The point is once we start deciding what is and isn't acceptable we get on a slippery slope. We're already on it. Do you understand ?

Originally Posted by YoungIndia

if you want to waste your time defending foolish people, its your prerogative.

I'm not just defending these 'foolish people', i'm defending everybody in the country's right to speech here.

It's not about what these people said, its about how we react to them. If a nutter comes to you in the street says all sorts of crap you most likely are gonna ignore them. There is no difference here. Ignore them.

Originally Posted by YoungIndia

to me , this is not a credible case of free speech infringement.

Then why the hoopla about it ? If nobody tried to silence her you would have a point.

She's doing a bang up job showing how intolerant we are of offensive views and SHE'S WINNING

Originally Posted by YoungIndia

nonsense...there is no danger signs or anything of that sort.

Three wars demonstrated that Kashmir could not be wrested from us by military means, yet when she opens her mouth we shit bricks.

Originally Posted by YoungIndia

you and nandy are wasting your time for the wrong person with hyperbole.

Nandy has an ongoing case against him, i'm far more sympathetic to his views than Roy's.

Originally Posted by YoungIndia

i would be interested in debating the topic on a case that has merit.this case does not have any merit,.

This is the problem, i see merit in both of these cases because they are symptoms of a common problem. The mistake you and a ton of other ppl are commiting is letting the content of what these people say or their character determine whether the case has merit.

I don't want to get into the HOW we solve it, just want to get a consensus on the WHAT. Ppl have to understand WHY there is a problem here. Once that happens and once it reaches a critical mass the solutions will present themseves. All i'm doing is identiifying the problem.

Originally Posted by YoungIndia

there are people who value freedom but realise the importance of being law abiding.

The law in this case says you cannot offend anyone. It's applied arbitrarily and only in the case when the person is not well known. It does not apply to the common man in any sense, he's on his own. Cannot talk about corruption or be a whistleblower because there is no protection at all for this. This is why ppl rarely get caught, there's no evidence to charge them with because ppl are too scared to talk.

This is why i said it limits our creative potential and ulitmately our ability to compete with societies that do not have these restrictions.

Originally Posted by YoungIndia

and there are people who think they can do whatever they want until they get caught. these are precisely the types who are likely to abuse freedom and laws.

i would raise my voice for freedom only for the first kind of people.

Then charge them appropriately but not on the basis of what was said.

Originally Posted by YoungIndia

self inflicted trouble makers and wilful criminals are reaping what they have sown by their unhealthy ways .why should i have any sympathy when they go over the limits(as they are bound to with their ways) and put themselves in predictable trouble? then take refuge in "free speech"??

ridiculous.

You cannot legislate morality.

Oppose and counter them in the relevant fora but do not lock them up for what they say.

Originally Posted by kuku

What i do not understand is how the writer connected all of this on a economic profile of the population called the middle class, instead of the larger issue of divisions within the society?

Because his outlook article is actually a summary of many earlier articles he has written. Read them and let us know what you think.

TOI-Blame The Middle Class
'Democracy Is Now Psephocracy'
‘The middle class wants development backed by authoritarianism’
What fuels Indian Nationalism?

He says in the interview about that TOI-article...

Development authoritarianism like in Singapore and China today is a hidden dream of the Indian middle class too. Anyone who disagrees with the majority is a traitor. I do believe that a robust scepticism towards the middle class is vital for the survival of a democratic culture. For, when a fish rots, it always begins to rot from its head.

He levels his criticism at the middle classes of Gujarat, one of the most successful states, if not the leader. His TOI article indicates that if one party is dominant then things move faster, similar to the China model. Everybody wants to emulate Gujarat's success which will have to include its style and methods.

What then happens to India in this case

In my first post, he mentions surveillance having a bright future in India, NATGRID & UID are already in the works. But thats a topic for another thread.

Originally Posted by Double Edge

Because his outlook article is actually a summary of many earlier articles he has written. Read them and let us know what you think.

TOI-Blame The Middle Class
'Democracy Is Now Psephocracy'
‘The middle class wants development backed by authoritarianism’
What fuels Indian Nationalism?

He says in the interview about that TOI-article...

Development authoritarianism like in Singapore and China today is a hidden dream of the Indian middle class too. Anyone who disagrees with the majority is a traitor. I do believe that a robust scepticism towards the middle class is vital for the survival of a democratic culture. For, when a fish rots, it always begins to rot from its head.

He levels his criticism at the middle classes of Gujarat, one of the most successful states, if not the leader. His TOI article indicates that if one party is dominant then things move faster, similar to the China model. Everybody wants to emulate Gujarat's success which will have to include its style and methods.

What then happens to India in this case

In my first post, he mentions surveillance having a bright future in India, NATGRID & UID are already in the works. But thats a topic for another thread.

But reading them is hurting my head.

Is there in all of that anything that takes a more logical approach and analyses the preferences of families that have the annual income to qualify as middle class?

Has he tried to rule out all causes to reach to his conclusions or has he just looked at two events that happened in the same time-frame and called them codependent, or one the reason of another?

Anyways i am not going to read them. May be on text to audio- but thats stupid for long text, later may be.

Gujarat was a success story in terms of business for a long time, so was Mumbai.

In terms of how it is perceived, i doubt any reasonable man will be able to say that any form of authoritarianism can survive in India, there are far too many groups to protest, far too many divisions to reach common ground. The middle class too, like the rest of the economic sections, demographic is divided in its political views, social views, religious views.

:D Anyone who is a traitor disagrees with the majority, LOL would have been funny if it got printed like that.

Originally Posted by kuku

Anyways i am not going to read them. May be on text to audio- but thats stupid for long text, later may be.

Long text ? they are column size. He explains in short paras what others would waffle on for pages and never get there. Besides this is WAB, you're expected to be able to read better than in other places.

Originally Posted by kuku

In terms of how it is perceived, i doubt any reasonable man will be able to say that any form of authoritarianism can survive in India, there are far too many groups to protest, far too many divisions to reach common ground. The middle class too, like the rest of the economic sections, demographic is divided in its political views, social views, religious views.

Maybe if you read what was linked to you might better understand. All those divisions are slowly being homogenised.

Originally Posted by kuku

Anyone who is a traitor disagrees with the majority, LOL would have been funny if it got printed like that.

Trying discussing the above in other indian fora and watch the sparks fly, medic's reply is the typical fare to be expected

Those articles explained to me a quite a few phenomena that previously were completely inscrutable to me. He uses that as a background to explain why tolerance to free speech is actually going to reduce in the future. That's how deep he's coming from.

During the first 40 years of Indian independence, the electoral support base of the Hindu nationalists ranged between seven to nine percent, roughly speaking. It has expanded to more than 20 percent now.

This support base is disproportionately higher among the urban middle classes and among educated, modern Indians. Among NRIs in the First World, I shall not be surprised if some survey finds that the support base of Hindu nationalism is more than 90 per cent. It is true that this base is unlikely to rise much further. But even this base goes a long way in Indian politics today, given the fragmented party space.

The democratic process in India has brought close to power many social sectors that would not have dreamt of having access to power only 30 years ago. But in the process of creating a nation-state called India, this process has also ensured that those who are close to the Indian state also imbibe its global, homogenising message. A part of that message is that if you want to be successful as a nation-state in the global arena, you have to do to your cultural diversity, to your minorities, your forest dwellers and your tribes, what Europe and North America and Australia have done to theirs. The Hindu nationalists seem well-equipped and well-qualified to do so.

This is what i am talking about the writer is absolutely unwilling to explore the numbers and the causes behind them, instead he seems to be fitting numbers into his opinions.

Leaving so many gaps in making the connection is wrong, he should do his theory more justice, team up with a good economist (the kind who researches these things instead of going around making magic predictions on markets that fail), and get a well detailed study, this is more like ranting. This is just lazy, for someone who wants it as a job.

Maybe if you read what was linked to you might better understand. All those divisions are slowly being homogenised.

Even in the Urban setting there are plenty of existing divisions when it comes to political, communal and religious opinions.
Is there any data on the communal, religious, ethnic, etc. etc. divisions coming together in the middle class to form a separate political opinion?
May be in the next two generation of urbanised middle class as it looses its village and community links.

Trying discussing the above in other indian fora and watch the sparks fly, medic's reply is the typical fare to be expected

Yes that is something to wonder about, the young and online community.

Bottom line : does he deserve to be charged by the govt for his TOI article ?

As for your other points, the man's been an academic for four decades, he's prolly got some papers published to back it up. I see no reason to doubt anything he's said.

Originally Posted by Double Edge

Bottom line : does he deserve to be charged by the govt for his TOI article ?

As for your other points, the man's been an academic for four decades, he's prolly got some papers published to back it up. I see no reason to doubt anything he's said.

Well not without reading the papers, or atleast a summary



And i don't think he deserves, however .... deserves got nothing to do with it.

Originally Posted by kuku

Well not without reading the papers, or atleast a summary

So your critique won't hold until then either

Originally Posted by kuku

And i don't think he deserves, however .... deserves got nothing to do with it.

meaning ?

Ya ya, start the chicken and hen debate, however just because he might have, does not mean he has, neither does he refer to any of his studies in the articles.

As Clint said deserves got nothing to do with it, reality has, It happened with Rushdie before him, and many men before Rushdie, has been happening in for sometime now, older than the economic reforms, and the licence raj, even older than the British raj.

Originally Posted by kuku

reality has, It happened with Rushdie before him, and many men before Rushdie, has been happening in for sometime now, older than the economic reforms, and the licence raj, even older than the British raj.

And reality is we DO have a problem with freedom of speech. Rushdie should not have faced the flak he did, nor Nasreen, MF Hussain, etc etc, the list goes on and on.

Originally Posted by Double Edge

And reality is we DO have a problem with freedom of speech. Rushdie should not have faced the flak he did, nor Nasreen, MF Hussain, etc etc, the list goes on and on.

Ya, no one is denying the problem with freedom of expression being a bit restrained in India, the writers is strange, this is nothing new or limited to a economic segment.

This is something i have seen in other Indian forums as well. I would go so far as to say that Indians do not understand the concept of free speech.
If you explain it to people in nearly all cases they would oppose it.
The majority would say exactly what Young India said

self inflicted trouble makers and wilful criminals are reaping what they have sown by their unhealthy ways .why should i have any sympathy when they go over the limits(as they are bound to with their ways) and put themselves in predictable trouble? then take refuge in "free speech"??

After all saying anything against the majority is 'Hurting the sentiments of the People'.

To me the very definition of a society with free speech is that people get to say things that you may not like and vice versa.
I may not like someone like Arundhati Roy and her Maoist loving ways do anger me, but she should be free to state her beliefs and others should be free to counter them.

Ideally all speech should be free speech. Given how easily mobs of any community can be inflamed in India, right now this is impossible. But we should at least try to hang on to as much as we can.