[Reader-list] Freedom of Expression my foot!

[Rahul Asthana]

Sadia:)
I am not asking you to ignore them.So when I am saying
something is against the essential nature of state,I
do not mean how the state exists in practice.I do not
mean all those things you listed because the
constitution specifically does not enable them.For eg.
The income equity as it exists is not the essential
nature of state.All your scenarios to me become straw
men.
Anyway, this is my last word on this.
Cheers.
Rahul


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

> 
> 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
> 
=== 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