[Reader-list] Freedom of Expression my foot!

[Rahul Asthana]

Dear Sadia,
I think we are using and understanding the phrase
"essential nature of state" differently,so we are
ending up talking through each other.In your
usage,essential nature of state is how it exists in
practice.So if India is a country where dalits are
oppressed,which I agree with incidentally, then
perhaps in your terms the oppression of the dalits is
the essential nature of the state.
But my usage is constitutional\legal.I wont say that
oppresion of dalits is an "essential nature of Indian
State",because the constitution does not enable the
oppression,quite the contrary in fact.
So for me,the essential nature of Indian state is a
"secular democracy".In a secular democracy inequity of
income may exist,and other "what ifs" that you have
mentioned may exist.That does not make them the
essential nature of the state,because the constitution
does not specifically enable them.
My argument is not on the lines of what is more
important or who is more patriotic;because that is
just sidestepping from the current topic.

regards
Rahul 

--- "S.Fatima" <sadiafwahidi at yahoo.co.in> wrote:

> Dear Rahul
> Of course I am not in favour of somebody's freedom
> of
> expression which puts the national security at risk.
> I
> would certainly not like an action which helps in
> sinking the boat which I am also riding. But the
> point
> is, who should decide what is a security risk? A
> statement which is a painful truth for someone could
> be a security risk for others. 
> 
> To extend your analogy a little, if the oarsman of
> the
> boat decides that a few travelers are his enemy and
> tries to push them into the water, there will be a
> clash where the victims may try to throw the oarsman
> himself into water. Of course the other travelers
> who
> are not aware of the origin of the clash will
> declare
> the victimized group as their enemies and so on.
> Thus
> it becomes a conflict. I know it’s a childish
> analogy
> but the reality is much more complex. Each one of us
> is living with our own versions of history, and that
> decides our definition of nationhood and patriotism.
> 
> No Indian (or human) today will say that he/she is
> not
> victimized by somebody/something or the other.
> Everyone's (hi)story is important. It’s just that
> the
> state has the power to legitimately suppress other's
> version of the history if they want to. And that's
> where my problem lies with the nationhood and the
> constitution.
> 
> I fail to understand what you mean by the "essential
> nature of the state" and why is it over and above
> everything? What if it hurts me instead of
> safeguarding me? What if this “nature of state”
> discriminates against a certain group of its
> citizens
> because of sheer sectarian prejudice or simply
> corruption? Ultimately the “nature of state” in its
> practical form is nothing but a bunch of civil
> servants, MPs, judges, soldiers, cops - do you think
> all of them are angels from heaven? (I am not
> denying
> thier sacrifices in running the country and saving
> us
> from all the dangers, and so on). But do they follow
> the constitution as perfectly as required? And
> forget
> about national security and defense – have they
> provided clean water, sanitization, basic health,
> education, roads, housing, employment, and food to
> everyone? Is the “nature of state” above all these
> essential duties? Why shouldn’t someone become
> Naxalite given the current nature of state?
> 
> It doesn't matter how clean and perfect our
> constitution is, or what our fathers of the Nation
> dreamt about. What matters is how is the state
> treating its people? (Of course its reverse is also
> important). But I or anyone else who faces injustice
> and partiality will have a shaky belief in the state
> and nationhood. In any case, most of our middle and
> lower-middle class today is so helpless, frustrated,
> and tired that they don’t give a damn to
> nationalism.
> The only people who are happily patriotic are some
> nicely employed or filthy rich or the NRIs. Don’t
> you
> think?
> 
> Fatima
> 
> 
> 
> --- Rahul Asthana <rahul_capri at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> > Dear Sadia,
> > Sorry for the belated reply.I guess I could not
> > explain myself clearly.Kshmendra has articulated
> it
> > better than me.Anyways,I will try once more.
> > To take a rough analogy;all of us are traveling in
> a
> > boat.It does not matter really how we evolved into
> > it.The boat should prohibit any activity which may
> > sink it,isnt that logical? 
> > Lets take the matter of Kashmir out of this for a
> > sec.Right now,lets just focus on this:Whether it
> is
> > justified by a nation to ban any kind of freedom
> of
> > expression on any pretext.You obviously think
> there
> > should be no checks on the freedom of expression.I
> > would say,as I did in my earlier email,that
> anything
> > which is contradictory to the essential nature of
> > the
> > state,should be banned.I gave the example of
> Iran.I
> > will give one other example.Lets suppose there is
> a
> > monarchy in which there is hereditary
> > succession.Suppose someone starts preaching about
> > democracy in a monarchy.So yeah they will be
> jailed
> > etc.Its only after a revolution,civil war etc that
> > one
> > can change the essential nature of a nation state.
> 
> > Lets come to India now.Its a secular democracy.Now
> > the
> > founding fathers of the nation wanted it to be
> > so.Lets
> > consider two imaginary scenarios and you tell me
> > where
> > freedom of expression will lead to in that
> > scenario..
> > 1. BJP-RSS-VHP  talk about making India a hindu
> > state
> > and start giving inflammatory speeches about
> > muslims.
> > 2. Chief of army staff writes a book on the
> corrupt
> > politicians and argues how dictatorship is good
> for
> > India.He starts holding meetings and tries to
> build
> > a
> > consensus that civilians are not fit to rule the
> > country and military should take over.He even
> starts
> > ad campaigns on TV.
> > I could give several such examples.The steps to my
> > reasoning is..
> > 1.Anything which is contradictory to the essential
> > nature of state;the state will not provide a
> > constitutional procedure to let that happen.
> > 2.The only way to bring about that kind of change
> is
> > civil war\blood shed.
> > 3.If freedom of expression is provided in such a
> > scenario,it could lead to violence and in the
> > extreme
> > case the change of the essential nature of the
> > state.
> > 
> > If we still do not agree that the nation is
> > justified
> > in curbing the freedom of expression in certain
> > cases,please let me know what you think.
> > 
> > You have talked about nation and constitution not
> > being divine ordained,of course its not;but I did
> > not
> > get your point.What are you trying to say?Are you
> > pointing at the Caliphate and Shariat in place of
> > nation and constitution?If you are then again I
> > would
> > say;the secular democratic nation of India should
> > suppress your freedom of expression.A secular
> > democracy is what I was born into and this is how
> I
> > want it to stay.Please note that this is not a
> moral
> > judgment on your stand,its just that I have chosen
> > my
> > side.
> > You have also talked about"the current version of
> > nationalism being full of gas" I totally agree
> with
> > you.Nationalism to me is first and foremost an
> idea
> > that gives us certain freedoms,protections and
> > basically enables all of us to peacefully
> > coexist.Beyond that,I have no use for it.I am not
> an
> > "India Shining" or "mera bharat mahaan" kind of
> > patriot.Its not a judgement on those who are, but
> I
> > just want you to understand where I am coming
> from.
> > So I would support full freedom of expression on
> > anything that can be achieved without violating
> the
> > essential nature of the state.Even the constiution
> > is
> > open for amendment.But the essential nature of the
> > state is not.
> > If there is anything else I have missed,please let
> > me
> > know.
> > There is the specfic matter about "self
> 
=== message truncated ===



      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Luggage? GPS? Comic books? 
Check out fitting gifts for grads at Yahoo! Search
http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=graduation+gifts&cs=bz