Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Great Indian Love Affair With Censorship

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Great Indian Love Affair With Censorship

    Freedom of speech has come up lately here in various talkshows & articles but sad to say none of them gets it right

    The Great Indian Love Affair With Censorship
    Democracy’s new torchbearers would brook no lenience to ‘sedition’
    Ashis Nandy
    28 October 2010
    Outlook Magazine

    “Patriotism,” Samuel Johnson said nearly 250 years ago, “is the last refuge of a scoundrel.” These days in India, the adage can be safely applied to nationalism. There is no other explanation of the threat to arrest and try Arundhati Roy on charges of sedition for what she said at a public meeting on Kashmir, where Syed Ali Geelani too spoke. I was not there at the meeting, but I have read her moving statement defending herself afterwards. I feel both proud and humbled by it. I am a psychologist and political analyst, handicapped by my vocation; I could not have put the case against censorship so starkly and elegantly. What she has said is simultaneously a plea for a more democratic India and a more humane future for Indians.

    I faced a similar situation a couple of years ago, when I wrote a column in the Times of India on the long-term cultural consequences of the anti-Muslim pogrom in 2002. It was a sharp attack on Gujarat’s changing middle-class culture. I was served summons for inciting communal hatred. I had to take anticipatory bail from the Supreme Court and get the police summons quashed. The case, however, goes on, even though the Supreme Court, while granting me anticipatory bail, said it found nothing objectionable in the article. The editor of the Ahmedabad edition of the Times of India was less fortunate. He was charged with sedition.

    I shall be surprised if the charges of sedition against Arundhati are taken to their logical conclusion. Geelani is already facing more than a hundred cases of sedition, so one more probably won’t make a difference to him. Indeed, the government may fall back on time-tested traditions and negotiate with recalcitrant opponents through income-tax laws. People never fully trusted the income-tax officials; now they will distrust them the way they distrust the CBI.

    In the meanwhile, we have made fools of ourselves in front of the whole world. All this because some protesters demonstrated at the meeting that Arundhati and Geelani addressed! Yet, I hear from those who were present at the meeting that Geelani did not once utter the word “secession”, and even went so far as to give a soft definition of azadi. By all accounts, he put forward a rather moderate agenda. Was it his way of sending a message to the government of India? How much of it was cold-blooded public relations, how much a clever play with political possibilities in Kashmir?

    We shall never know, just because most of those who pass as politicians today and our knowledge-proof babus [bureaucrats]have proved themselves incapable of understanding the subtleties of public communication. They are not literate enough to know what role free speech and free press play in an open society, not only in keeping the society open but also in serious statecraft. In the meanwhile, it has become dangerous to demand a more compassionate and humane society, for that has come to mean a serious criticism of contemporary India and those who run it. Such criticism is being redefined as anti-national and divisive. In the case of Arundhati, it is of course the BJP that is setting the pace of public debate and pleading for censorship. But I must hasten to add that the Congress looks unwilling to lose the race. It seems keen to prove that it is more nationalist than the BJP.

    It is the hearts and minds of the new middle class—those who have come up in the last two decades from almost nowhere and are middle class by virtue of having money rather than middle-class values—that both parties are after. This new middle class wants to give meaning to their hollow life through a violent, nineteenth-century version of European-style ‘nationalism’. They want to prove—to others as well as to themselves—that they have a stake in the system, that they have arrived. They are afraid that the slightest erosion in the legitimacy of their particularly nasty version of nationalism will jeopardise their new-found social status and political clout. They are willing to fight to the last Indian for the glory of Mother India as long as they themselves are not conscripted to do so and they can see, safely and comfortably in their drawing rooms, Indian nationalism unfolding the way a violent Bombay film unfolds on their television screens.

    Hence the bitterness and intolerance, not only towards Arundhati Roy, but also towards all other spoilsports who defy the mainstream imagination of India and its nationalism. Even Gandhians fighting for their cause non-violently are not spared. Himangshu Kumar’s ashram at Dantewada has been destroyed not by the Maoists but by the police. I would have thought that writers and artists would be exempt from censorship in an open society. As we well know, they are not. The CPI(M) and the Congress ganged up to shut up Taslima Nasreen by saying she was not an Indian. As though if you are a non-Indian in India, your rights don’t have to be governed by the Constitution of India!

    The trend of harassing political dissenters for their “seditious” writings and actions started early. It started with the breakdown of consensus on national interest in the mid-’70s. Indira Gandhi imposed Emergency and introduced serious censorship and surveillance, she claimed, to protect national interest, democracy and development. (She had foresight, for though she included development in her list, it took another two decades for the consensus on development to break down.) The difference between the 1970s and the first decade of the 21st century is that millions are now acting out their dissent and speaking out of their radical differences with mainstream public opinion. The whole tribal movement—wrongly called the Naxal movement, because the Naxals have taken advantage of the tribal problem—is an example of this.

    There are times when a national consensus is neither possible nor desirable. The best one can do is to contain the violence and negotiate with those who act out their dissent. That may not be easy in the case of the Kashmiris because their trust in us is now close to zero. Psychologically speaking, the Kashmiris are already outside India and will remain there for at least two generations. The random killings, rapes, torture and the other innovative atrocities have brutalised their society and turned them into a traumatised lot. If you think this is too harsh, read between the lines of psychotherapist Shobhna Sonpar’s report on Kashmir.

    What is it about the culture of Indian politics today that it allows us to opt for a version of nationalism that is so brutal, self-certain and chauvinist? Have we been so brutalised ourselves that we have become totally numb to the suffering around us? What is this concept of Indian unity that forces us to support police atrocities and torture? How can a democratic government, knowing fully what its police, paramilitary and army is capable of doing, resist signing the international covenant on torture? How can we, sixty years after independence, countenance encounter deaths? Could these practices have survived so long and become institutionalised if we had a large enough section of India’s much-vaunted middle class fully sensitive to the demands of democracy?

    The answers to these questions are not pleasant. We know things could not have come to this pass if those who are or should be alert to these issues in the intelligentsia, media, artistic community had done their job. Here I think the changing nature of the Indian middle class has not been a help.

    We are proud of our democracy—the consensus on democracy still survives in India—but unaware of a crucial paradox in which we are caught. The democratic process has created a new middle class, a large section of which is not adequately socialised to democratic norms in sectors not vital to the survival of democratic politics but vital to creativity and innovativeness in an open society. The thoughtless, non-self-critical ultra-nationalism, intolerant of anyone opposed to the mainstream public opinion, is shared neither by the poor nor the more settled middle class. Ordinary Indians, accustomed as they are to living with mind-boggling diversity, social and cultural, have no problem with political diversity. Neither does the settled middle class.

    Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay, for instance, wrote an essay savaging the middle class in mid-nineteenth century. We had to study this in our school and it has remained a prescribed text in Bengal for more than a century. Today you cannot introduce such a text in much of India without probably precipitating a political controversy and demands for censorship.

    Recently, at a lecture organised by the Information Commission of India, I claimed that the future of censorship and surveillance in India was very bright. It’s not only the government that loves it but a very large section of middle-class India too would like to silence writers, artists, playwrights, scholars and thinkers they do not like. In their attempt to become a globalised middle class, they are willing to change their dress, food habits and language but not their love for censorship. We should thank our stars that there still are people in our midst—editors, political activists, NGOs, lawyers and judges—to whom freedom of speech is neither a value peripheral to the real concerns of Indian democracy nor a bourgeois virtue but a clue to our survival as a civilised society.
    Last edited by Double Edge; 08 Nov 10,, 10:41.

  • #2
    Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
    Freedom of speech has come up lately here in various talkshows & articles but sad to say none of them gets it right

    The Great Indian Love Affair With Censorship
    So what is your take on this? Obviously we (WAB) cannot discuss this with writer himself, but we can discuss this with you since you felt it worthy enough to be brought up for discussion.

    Comment


    • #3
      Oh its worthy alright because the state of comprehension about this subject is very low amongst Indians going from my experiences online as well as offline. And this is with the educated and resaonably well off lot. They seem to get tripped up by questions of decency & obscenity which is a red herring. Chancellor Merkel put it very briefly recently in that its not about that at all, just whether you can or cannot. This is the point !

      Our freedom of speech was curtailed in 1951 when Article 19(b) of the constitution was amended to outlaw anything that could be construed as against the public interest. This assinine amendment was made on the grounds that it would be impossible to prosecute anyone advoacating murder. From that point onwards freedom of speech came with the caveat, that speech is permitted so long as nobody is offended. It outright created or supported ppl's "right to be offended". It enabled the enactment of laws that are constituional.

      That is what i mean by ppl not getting it here, various talkshows etc nobody even mentions this. They do very little to advance understanding on the subject because they do not mention the legal basis that was created to penalise anyone back in 1951. If you offend anybody they can get you locked up. This is as far as it goes, that its the LAW and no understanding is given as to the restrictions that this LAW places on society, the costs etc.

      Personally I did not get involved with this subject until the Danish cartoons came up and the long discussions on the subject i had in various fora which helped to get a better understanding and I grant you that its not an easy subject to understand if one was not educated on the subject to begin with.

      Having said that does not mean one adopts an absolutist position, i maintain that this freedom stops at the boundaries of incitement. That's it. Pretty much the US position and not the more crippled versions you find in Canada or Europe with their hate speech & libel provisions.
      Last edited by Double Edge; 08 Nov 10,, 14:38.

      Comment


      • #4
        Double Edge,

        I agree what you say is worthy of discussion, but the article you posted states little to nothing about the legal evolution on the issue of free speech, press and expression in India. Instead we are treated to a seriously one-sided (Left wing) whinefest about domestic events in India, which is of little significance or understanding to the world at large.

        Also when the author invokes issues like extra-judicial "encounter killings", that is the state breaking its own laws, it becomes a completely different discussion than what you suggest: India can have the most liberal laws for free speech, expression and press in the world, but if it becomes practical to ignore - what's the use? A completely different discussion, wouldn't you agree?

        What I would suggest is, ask one of the mods to lock this thread down and start afresh with a dispassionate and even-handed exploration of free speech and press laws and their enforcement in India. It will be a very interesting and enlightening discussion.

        Comment


        • #5
          We should thank our stars that there still are people in our midst—editors, political activists, NGOs, lawyers and judges—to whom freedom of speech is neither a value peripheral to the real concerns of Indian democracy nor a bourgeois virtue but a clue to our survival as a civilised society.
          I take the writer thinks these editors, political activists, NGOs, lawyers and judges are not Indian or from the Indian middle class.

          You see we will kick ass of the separatists and their appeasers amongst us (be they Hindu, Muslim, Atheists, Sikhs, Cristians, Zorostians, Jains, Buddhists, jews etc.) , and criticise ourself for kicking their asses too much, this way there is the great balance that is spoken about so much in our culture.

          I seriously think this whole ban on expressing thoughts freely should be done away with, i think it helps in polarising the society more than it helps in integrating the country, one step at a time though, and i think there is a move towards that.

          Remember though the moment you go tell a racist that he can not and/or will be punished to call a person with Mongolian features a *****y, or a person of lower caste a Chamar if he so wishes to, then you have already crossed your right to free expression of thoughts and crossed over to a territory, where the sensitivities of other people must also be respected for e.g, Most Indians (of many religions) to separatist thoughts, Muslims on Mohammad, Sikhs, etc. against any offence to their views in religion, culture or general taste.

          So do not be all politically correct free society, be a free society.

          Which is unfortunately not possible as that might really fuel a lot of violence.
          Last edited by kuku; 08 Nov 10,, 15:32.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by kuku View Post
            I take the writer thinks these editors, political activists, NGOs, lawyers and judges are not Indian or from the Indian middle class.
            He is contrasting "settled" middle class vs "new" middle class. "Settled" is the codeword they use for sections of the old money, old boys club, upper-middle classes. "New" are the vast majority of today's middle and upper-middle class who would have been in lower-middle/genteel-poor classes a couple of decades ago (before economic liberalization started). It is quite apparent that he has no connection or empathy with the real poor and their actual aspirations (to join the safety and comfort of his reviled "new middle classes") and opinions (a lot more nationalistic and unabashedly so).

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Cactus View Post
              I agree what you say is worthy of discussion, but the article you posted states little to nothing about the legal evolution on the issue of free speech, press and expression in India.
              TBH i've not found much articles that deal with this issue very well here, what we get are bit replies everytime some 'incident' happens, nothing too threatening in the media, hence my reply to your first post which i think summarises the issue as concisely as I understand it. That is what i'm looking for whenever this topic comes up but rarely ever find it.

              I picked this article because of the author who is a long standing sociologist whom I've heard on many shows and whose articles go into the underlying WHY's that i do not find anyone, anywhere in India being able to articulate as well. AND he's gotten into hot water cpl of years back on matters regarding speech. This was the article he wrote that got him charged, fortunately the Supreme court intervened but the charge still stands. The editor of the Ahmedabad TOI was not that lucky. This reaction is exactly the same as got that Chinese Nobel prize winner jailed.

              Originally posted by Cactus View Post
              Instead we are treated to a seriously one-sided (Left wing) whinefest about domestic events in India, which is of little significance or understanding to the world at large.
              How can it be one sided when he's taken shots at three different political parties over a span of four decades ?

              What he's demonstrated is this is not a partisan problem, in fact quite the contrary.

              Pick out the parts you disagree with and counter them or add ones you feel are necessary.

              Originally posted by Cactus View Post
              Also when the author invokes issues like extra-judicial "encounter killings", that is the state breaking its own laws, it becomes a completely different discussion than what you suggest: India can have the most liberal laws for free speech, expression and press in the world, but if it becomes practical to ignore - what's the use? A completely different discussion, wouldn't you agree?
              Agree, we can leave out the encounter stuff as its pretty grey territory.

              Originally posted by Cactus View Post
              What I would suggest is, ask one of the mods to lock this thread down and start afresh with a dispassionate and even-handed exploration of free speech and press laws and their enforcement in India. It will be a very interesting and enlightening discussion.
              No need for a lock, i'm hoping that what this thread will turn out to be just that. I've already stated my views and position so ball is in your court or anyone else who wishes to join
              Last edited by Double Edge; 09 Nov 10,, 00:27.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by kuku View Post
                I take the writer thinks these editors, political activists, NGOs, lawyers and judges are not Indian or from the Indian middle class.
                Why do you say that ?

                Originally posted by kuku View Post
                You see we will kick ass of the separatists and their appeasers amongst us (be they Hindu, Muslim, Atheists, Sikhs, Cristians, Zorostians, Jains, Buddhists, jews etc.) , and criticise ourself for kicking their asses too much, this way there is the great balance that is spoken about so much in our culture.
                You need to take a much broader view than just seperatists. If you notice Roy skirted the fine line there between sedition & free speech and got away with it. Tho more for reasons other than we allowed her to say it.

                Originally posted by kuku View Post
                I seriously think this whole ban on expressing thoughts freely should be done away with, i think it helps in polarising the society more than it helps in integrating the country, one step at a time though, and i think there is a move towards that.
                What 'move' are you referring to here ?


                Originally posted by kuku View Post
                Remember though the moment you go tell a racist that he can not and/or will be punished to call a person with Mongolian features a *****y, or a person of lower caste a Chamar if he so wishes to, then you have already crossed your right to free expression of thoughts and crossed over to a territory, where the sensitivities of other people must also be respected for e.g, Most Indians (of many religions) to separatist thoughts, Muslims on Mohammad, Sikhs, etc. against any offence to their views in religion, culture or general taste.
                And i'm arguing they have no 'right to be offended'. There are any number of different belief systems in our country that its only a matter of a time where something is construed as being against that of another community. Where does it end ? We seem to be trying very hard to create 'accepted speech' and the criteria for this isn't well defined at all. Taking offence is incredibly broad a basis upon which to define such a criteria.

                In a nutshell, what it affects is the creative potential of the country. How do we compete with societies that do not have these kinds of restrictions ? Think about that for a bit.

                Too bad the law does not agree with me here

                Originally posted by kuku View Post
                So do not be all politically correct free society, be a free society.
                Yep, PC enforced on public channels, private channels go no far than incitement.

                Originally posted by kuku View Post
                Which is unfortunately not possible as that might really fuel a lot of violence.
                Well it does fuel a lot of violence already, the kind that comes with the full power of the state because you can lock up anybody if you can show you were 'offended'. Instead of being the other way around.

                In fact it strengthens extremists because they can threathen violence if the govt does not act in the public interest. Lock up one instead of protecting that one from the mob ;)

                When we talk about free speech i'm talking about the state being able to protect that speech otherwise it does not exist to begin with. A Bangaldeshi writer, Tasleema Nasreen comes over to India from her native Bangaldesh because what she has written is unacceptable there, what do we do ? Pass the buck and milk it for all its worth so she shuttles around several European countries because we cannot defend her.
                Last edited by Double Edge; 09 Nov 10,, 00:41.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Cactus View Post
                  He is contrasting "settled" middle class vs "new" middle class. "Settled" is the codeword they use for sections of the old money, old boys club, upper-middle classes. "New" are the vast majority of today's middle and upper-middle class who would have been in lower-middle/genteel-poor classes a couple of decades ago (before economic liberalization started).
                  He just talking about the nouveau riche vs old money, and this isn't an india only thing btw, its universal.

                  Originally posted by Cactus View Post
                  It is quite apparent that he has no connection or empathy with the real poor and their actual aspirations (to join the safety and comfort of his reviled "new middle classes") and opinions (a lot more nationalistic and unabashedly so).
                  I'm not sure what you mean here

                  He's not against ppl bettering themselves, he's just saying some of them tend to express themselves in ways that are ultimately self-defeating. He's attacking their inferiorty complexes and going by his previous articles succeeding IMO. What's changed recently ? Our economy has grown and with it has come a rise of nationalism that wasn't there before, WHY ? I was watching a show yesteray where Nandy said Indians are the most nationalistic people in the world and he used the Pew global Attitides survey to show that.

                  The Janata party could never hope to get into office, then when things opened up they rode the wave and the BJP got into office. Society has changed and with it come reactions. To pass his comment off as anti-wealth is too simplistic i think.
                  Last edited by Double Edge; 08 Nov 10,, 20:09.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                    . I am a psychologist and political analyst, handicapped by my vocation; I could not have put the case against censorship so starkly and elegantly. What she has said is simultaneously a plea for a more democratic India and a more humane future for Indians.
                    if arundhati is the person to argue for a "more democratic India and a more humane future",then the case is already lost. she is an impractical women who relies on hyperbole and her credibility is close to zero.

                    she wants support for kashmiri muslim seperatism because of people's wishes. but "people's wishes" she is referring to, refers toa desire for an islamic state so that sunni muslims are preferred over a non muslim populaltion.

                    in other words, she wants democratic nation to allow seperatism so that kashmir sunni muslims destroy a democractic system and follow their "islamic state" . is she on crack or what? the absurdity of it all is astounding.

                    is allowing muslim seperatism a sign of a demcoratic india? we already have this wonderful example :pakistan.

                    take this. she shares the same platform with islamist geelani and other seperatists and lectures india about democracy. will geelani and his ilk care twoo hoots for democracy? why can't she advise geelani or other muslims like him about the virtues of multi cultural democracy? she pretty well knows what she will get .

                    how is the "politcal hinduism" of sangh wrong but "politcal islam" as followed by geelani or kashmiri sunni muslims right?

                    the double standards are there to see. as long as arundhati and nandy fail to condemn polital islam just as they shout themselves at the hindutva brigade(i am one of the biggest haters of them mind you) , they are showing themselves as hypocritical and naive.



                    I

                    Yet, I hear from those who were present at the meeting that Geelani did not once utter the word “secession”, and even went so far as to give a soft definition of azadi
                    pro islamist idiocy rearing is ugly head again. he either does not understand geelani's ideology or remarkably incompetent

                    geelani's politcal worldview is simple- a secular state is not acceptable.only an islamic state with shariah laws is.

                    who cares whether its moderate or extremist? this worldview has no place in systems of democracy and multiculturalism.

                    political islam is totally incompatible with multi cultural democratic system.

                    infact the proponents of politcal islam are only interested in defending or propagating islam.that's how they view politics.
                    good luck finding them a place in any democracy.

                    i also find right wing nationalism annoying often but the pro islamist idiocy and strategic incompetence as well as double standards of the likes of nandy and arundhati in antipating the dangers of political islam has no excuse.

                    "free speech" is becoming the refuge of hypocrites and incompetents. arundhati does not have a case with her sickening actions.
                    Last edited by YoungIndia; 09 Nov 10,, 07:49. Reason: edt

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                      Why do you say that ?

                      You need to take a much broader view than just seperatists. If you notice Roy skirted the fine line there between sedition & free speech and got away with it. Tho more for reasons other than we allowed her to say it.

                      What 'move' are you referring to here ?


                      And i'm arguing they have no 'right to be offended'. There are any number of different belief systems in our country that its only a matter of a time where something is construed as being against that of another community. Where does it end ? We seem to be trying very hard to create 'accepted speech' and the criteria for this isn't well defined at all. Taking offence is incredibly broad a basis upon which to define such a criteria.

                      In a nutshell, what it affects is the creative potential of the country. How do we compete with societies that do not have these kinds of restrictions ? Think about that for a bit.

                      Too bad the law does not agree with me here

                      Yep, PC enforced on public channels, private channels go no far than incitement.

                      Well it does fuel a lot of violence already, the kind that comes with the full power of the state because you can lock up anybody if you can show you were 'offended'. Instead of being the other way around.

                      In fact it strengthens extremists because they can threathen violence if the govt does not act in the public interest. Lock up one instead of protecting that one from the mob ;)

                      When we talk about free speech i'm talking about the state being able to protect that speech otherwise it does not exist to begin with. A Bangaldeshi writer, Tasleema Nasreen comes over to India from her native Bangaldesh because what she has written is unacceptable there, what do we do ? Pass the buck and milk it for all its worth so she shuttles around several European countries because we cannot defend her.
                      Cause they are Indian and belong in the economic profile of the middle class, which is not a single organism looking to assimilate.

                      Its not as black and white as that man, the state will make arrests when groups turns violent their protest against a persons opinion. Tasleema Nasreen was provided with security, however we had a huge crowd of inbred mulims angry at her.

                      When it is the question of the bigger picture, of the unity of the nation, it always scores over personal rights of a few, that is not going to improve till the divisions in the society decrease, and i think you can see that the divisions exist and they are reducing with every generation (the 'move'), not gonna happen in my lifetime though.

                      I still do not get what the writer was going on about? Roy's a nut-case, everybody knows that, no one is going to put her into prison, may be a hospital.
                      Last edited by kuku; 09 Nov 10,, 09:33.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by YoungIndia View Post
                        if arundhati is the person to argue for a "more democratic India and a more humane future",then the case is already lost. she is an impractical women who relies on hyperbole and her credibility is close to zero.
                        This isn't about WHO is making the argument it's about WHAT is said that is unacceptable. Unacceptable to a point where ppl are very willing to lock that person up for just talking about it as if talking about it will actually make WHAT is said come to pass. This is fear, pure & simple.

                        Look at the broader point not the person making it. This is what is missing on those TV debates i see on the subject.

                        Originally posted by YoungIndia View Post
                        is she on crack or hat? the absurdity of it all is astounding.
                        Irrelevant

                        Originally posted by YoungIndia View Post
                        i also find right wing nationalism annoying often but the pro islamist idiocy...
                        Our current position wrt to speech empowers extremists, it gives them legitmacy. Because all they have to do is fart and the govt moves in swiftly to silence the perceived troublemaker. Do you see now how backwards this is ?

                        Originally posted by YoungIndia View Post
                        "free speech" is becoming the refuge of hypocrites and incompetents. arundhati does not have a case with her sickening actions.
                        Bingo! when WHAT Is said is considered a threat we are already losing. These are danger signs to me because stopping one from speaking amounts to stopping everyone
                        Last edited by Double Edge; 09 Nov 10,, 11:11.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                          This isn't about WHO is making the argument it's about WHAT is said that is unacceptable. Unacceptable to a point where ppl are very willing to lock that person up for just talking about it as if talking about it will actually make WHAT is said come to pass. This is fear, pure & simple.

                          Look at the broader point not the person making it. This is what is missing on those TV debates i see on the subject.


                          Irrelevant


                          Bingo! when WHAT Is said is considered a threat we are already losing. These are danger signs to me because stopping one from speaking amounts to stopping everyone :frown:
                          Stop Bullshytting and get a life loser. This is not your JNU campus gubo session. Now I just hope that the mods will allow me my freedom of speech to say what I feel about a Lefty **** like you. The wish of millions of Indians is that Kashmir belongs to India. Now leftys like you can shed crocodile tears and hold candles but you ain't getting shyt. BTW your idol Arundirty is trying for the Nobel Peace Prize, too bad that plenty of people in India fit her profile and she is bound to have a lot of competition....
                          Seek Save Serve Medic

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by kuku View Post
                            Cause they are Indian and belong in the economic profile of the middle class, which is not a single organism looking to assimilate.
                            I still do not understand

                            Originally posted by kuku View Post
                            Its not as black and white as that man, the state will make arrests when groups turns violent their protest against a persons opinion. Tasleema Nasreen was provided with security, however we had a huge crowd of inbred mulims angry at her.
                            Then we failed. The state failed to protect her.

                            Originally posted by kuku View Post
                            When it is the question of the bigger picture, of the unity of the nation, it always scores over personal rights of a few,
                            Three wars showed that it was not possible to wrest Kashmit away from us, yet a few words by an author has us shitting bricks ?

                            Originally posted by kuku View Post
                            that is not going to improve till the divisions in the society decrease, and i think you can see that the divisions exist and they are reducing with every generation (the 'move'), not gonna happen in my lifetime though.
                            If awareness & education about these issues remains non-existent and unprotected then yes.

                            Originally posted by kuku View Post
                            I still do not get what the writer was going on about? Roy's a nut-case, everybody knows that, no one is going to put her into prison, may be a hospital.
                            He's talking from personal experience when he was charged for speech as well. He identifies with her in this aspect. He luckliy managed to escape like she did. That in itself is bad because had he not had the contacts he would not have. This means only if you are connected can you escape.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by 667medic View Post
                              Stop Bullshytting and get a life loser. This is not your JNU campus gubo session. Now I just hope that the mods will allow me my freedom of speech to say what I feel about a Lefty **** like you.
                              Allowing the state to *NOT* usurp rights is lefty to you ? My position is about maximising freedoms !

                              The fallacy is to think this is a left only thing, when the article clearly states, that left, right & centre are all on the same page wrt to this issue. Because NEITHER of them wants to uphold it.

                              Oh and the joke is, nothing i've said here is remarkable to any westerners reading this, they take these rights for granted. I very much look forward to the day when Indians can experience the same.

                              Pls refrain from ad hominems because i ain't gonna fall for it, soattack my arguments instead ;)

                              Originally posted by 667medic View Post
                              The wish of millions of Indians is that Kashmir belongs to India. Now leftys like you can shed crocodile tears and hold candles but you ain't getting shyt. BTW your idol Arundirty is trying for the Nobel Peace Prize, too bad that plenty of people in India fit her profile and she is bound to have a lot of competition....
                              Your confusing my suport for her right to say the things she has as actually endorsing her position. Simple fallacy really

                              Pls do try to stick to the topic, i'm not getting into what these particular ppl say but their right to say it which is actually pretty weak going by recent developments. I think this is a problem.
                              Last edited by Double Edge; 09 Nov 10,, 12:00.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X