[Reader-list] Freedom of Expression my foot!

[rashneek kher]

Dear Fatima and Kuber,

We did not have a choice on either our nationhood or religion.No one asked
us where we would like to be born or which religion would you like to
follow.
This whole concept of nation as it is percieved today is very
narrow.Besidesthe boundaries of nations have changed so many times in
the past that one
doesnt really know what his nation is or will be.Like people living in
former Soviet Union were Soviets and felt proud/sad about it and now they
are ukranians,belarusians etc etc and feel sad/happy/proud about that.
Well we may be digressing from the topic because supposedly we started with
expression of freedom.Expression of freedom is much a right as a
responsibilty.So it is upto "us"to use it judiciously and
rationally.Everytime we seek rights for our freedom of speech we must be
prepared to give those rights to others who may disagree with us.

REgards

Rashneek


On 8/27/07, S.Fatima <sadiafwahidi at yahoo.co.in> wrote:
>
> Dear Kuber
> Do you think one would be so ignorant so as to not
> even have a cursory look at the history and mythology
> of nationalism. The nationhood is there even in the
> colonies of amoeba. Of course one is aware of these
> historical references, although most of these
> treatises are written for/by the ruling class, so we
> never get to know what the ordinary people of the
> world/India felt about their nation, or whether it was
> necessary in those days to whip up the emotions or
> create euphorias about one's nation, or was is
> necessary to be patriotic those days to be an Indian.
>
> I was only responding to the present day version of
> nationalism/patriotism which is based on a lot of gas.
>
> The present day nationalism (and its version of
> history) is not so old - it was certainly sowed in the
> British period. And its flowering only now. I don't
> want a nationalism which shows a foot to the freedom
> of expression.
>
> Using your own phrases such as "annexation" and the
> "ambitions of a ruler" which no right thinking person
> would like to endorse in today's politically correct
> world, one can assume that a lot of assertion of
> nationalism can lead to problems and conflicts. For
> instance, the enforcement of a unified culture on
> every citizen of a nation (in the name of
> nationalism). Why is that Hindi is not acceptable to
> Tamils as a national language? Because a centralized
> nationlism is forcing it down their throat, and they
> don't want it. I was simply referring to the
> artificial/superficialities of nationalism which have
> creeped into us now - and we need to rise above them.
>
> (Alas, by being apologetic about my name you are
> merely invoking a stereotype. How do I know whether a
> Nomad/wanderlustt/Kuber is a Parsi or a Swahili or an
> Inca).
>
>
>
> --- Nomad <wanderlustt at rediffmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Dear Sadia,
> >
> > The concept of Nationhood was there since the time
> > Men & Women learnt to live in communities, yes its
> > premise has kept evolving over the time from forced
> > annexation because of the ambitions of a ruler to
> > today.
> >
> > I do not know what your area of specialization is,
> > but even a cursory glance at Mythology and History
> > books is enough to answer your poser.
> >
> > Ramayana and Mahabharta are replete with references
> > to Kings and Kingdoms, the term used is Rashtra.
> > Ashoka fought wars till he became a champion of
> > peace. Cholas, Chalukyas, Pandyas, Santhavanas,
> > Lodhis, Mughals. Wonder how come you have not heard
> > of even one.
> >
> > Elsewhere Alexander traveled all the way to India
> > annexing territories along the way. There was the
> > Pax-Romana.
> >
> > Considering the etymology of your name, I will
> > refrain from referring to Darul Islam or Crusades,
> > for you might label me a fascist which is not the
> > case.
> >
> > This was just an off the cuff reply, will get back
> > with a better researched & politically correct reply
> > shortly
> >
> > Cheers!!!
> > Kuber
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 SFatima wrote :
> > >Dear Rahul
> > >I don't agree with you on this. Where has this
> > concept
> > >of Nation, Nationalism, Rashtra come from? Was it
> > >there in our country 100 years ago, or 300 years,
> > or
> > >2000 years ago? Has it been mentioned in any
> > Shastras?
> > >I don't think so. It has been implanted into us by
> > the
> > >colonial rule. While we continue to reject so many
> > >things as "foreign" we have happily accepted this
> > >concept as it suits our ends. Why?
> > >And what is constitution/legisilation? Is it a
> > voice
> > >of God? Is it embedded in our DNAs? Isn't that
> > created
> > >by some individuals (who we may or may not agree
> > >with).
> > >
> > >I think its time we rise above the definition of
> > the
> > >Nation if we want to bring any real change. And a
> > >civil war and bloodshed is not required for that.
> > What
> > >is required is the opening of hearts and minds.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >--- Rahul Asthana <rahul_capri at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
>
>
>
>      DELETE button is history. Unlimited mail storage is just a click
> away. Go to https://edit.india.yahoo.com/config/eval_register
> _________________________________________
> reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
> Critiques & Collaborations
> To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net with
> subscribe in the subject header.
> To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list
> List archive: <https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>




-- 
Rashneek Kher
http://www.nietzschereborn.blogspot.com