[Reader-list] Freedom of Expression my foot!

[S.Fatima]

No Rahul, the constitution and judiciary is certainly
not against any citizen - I am not saying that the
Dalit oppression exists because of the constitution. 

I am stressing on the practical aspect of judiciary/
state since that's what counts. Nobody can endanger
the essential nature of state if it is only a
theoretical entity.

Secular democracy means nothing as long as corruption
and prejudice exists. We cannot ignore the practical
examples.



--- Rahul Asthana <rahul_capri at yahoo.com> wrote:

> 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.
> 
=== message truncated ===



      5, 50, 500, 5000 - Store N number of mails in your inbox. Go to http://help.yahoo.com/l/in/yahoo/mail/yahoomail/tools/tools-08.html