[Reader-list] Freedom of Expression my foot!

[Rahul Asthana]

I am not speaking for you..in case that was not clear.
Thanks.
--- zainab <zainab at mail.xtdnet.nl> wrote:

> Dear Rahul,
> 
> I have read your posts and exchanges with keen
> interest and I was not sure
> if I was reading what you were saying right, but
> this email clarifies what
> you have been trying to say. 
> 
> So let's get down to questioning some of the
> concepts and ideas that you
> have been mentioning in the posts you have made:
> 
> a). nation - ???
> b). democracy - ???
> c). secularism - ???
> d). essential nature of the state - ???
> 
> The reason I have put question marks against each
> one of these is because
> it seems that we have certain images at work when we
> say nation,
> secularism, democracy and state. We evoke the
> constitution to try to
> concretize these abstract ideas. In everyday life,
> each of these concepts
> and ideas take on different meanings. Your example
> of people in
> Iran/Iraq/Muslim countries wanting to attain
> secularism and democracy can
> ony do so through violent revolutions is not a
> strong one because what do
> democracy and secularism mean in the context of
> these countries? Surely,
> they cannot mean the same thing as they mean in
> India. Surely, Hindu or
> Muslim or Christian is not one composite identity
> and that even though an
> individual may be born in the religion of Islam, his
> being born in India,
> in South India, in Bangalore, in a slum in Bangalore
> and the historical
> conditions of that slum make him very different from
> a Muslim living in
> Fraser Town in Bangalore. Therefore, what secularism
> and democracy mean to
> him will be completely different from what they mean
> to the rich Muslim in
> Fraser Town. To give a more concrete example, an
> interesting research on
> slums and poverty in Bangalore points out how
> Muslims in Azadnagar slum in
> Bangalore identify with the Dalits owing to
> historical consciousness and
> detest the rich Kanpuri Muslims in the same slum
> saying, "those Kanpuri
> Muslims do not even allow us into their homes
> because they think we will
> learn their trade if we enter their homes'. My
> father is best friends with
> Gujaratis and his immense communal hatred is towards
> Bohra Muslims, Punjabi
> Muslims of Pakistan, Bengali Muslims of Bangladesh
> and he views Kashmiri
> Muslims with scepticism.
> 
> You have also been mentioning in your posts about
> civil wars, violent
> change, etc. which threatens the 'essential nature'
> of the 'state'. Can
> change not happen peacefully? What about South
> Africa? In India itself,
> haven't we seen the creation of Jharkhand and
> Chattisgarh without violence
> (and without threatening the essential nature of the
> state whatever that
> means)? Have we also not seen the worst of violence
> in Gujarat in 2002 and
> yet not a single word about separation and
> cessation? In my earlier post, I
> had asked this question of what is the fear about
> disintegration of the
> nation (whatever that nation means and wherever that
> nation is)? Can the
> nation be disintegrated with a click of the finger?
> This fear of
> disintegration appears to be so strong that the
> nation and the people
> sanction censorship and a variety of violences and
> injustices in the name
> of nation security, territorial integrity and
> sovereignty. 
> 
> I have every right to disagree and express an
> opinion against the nation if
> the nation is violent, is threatening to curb my
> freedom because what
> nation is free if people living within those
> territorial boundaries are not
> free to express a different opinion. What is this
> intense fear we have
> against someone expressing an opinion different from
> ours? What makes them
> 'them' and us 'us'? 
> 
> Therefore if you even think that it is legitimate
> for the nation to clamp
> down our freedom of expression if we say something
> against the nation then
> that thought is a highly problematic idea for me.
> Those who believe in this
> should then talk only about themselves and not
> attempt to speak on behalf
> of others. Not for me for sure!
> 
> Best,
> 
> Zainab
> 
> 
> On Sat, 1 Sep 2007 21:21:48 -0700 (PDT), Rahul
> Asthana
> <rahul_capri at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Hi Zainab,
> > I noticed you did not answer my first question.So
> I
> > assume you did not go through my posts and\or you
> do
> > not know what I stand for.You just know that I am
> > talking about restricting freedom of speech and it
> is
> > connected with nation in some way.This thought is
> > probably so traumatic to you that you wrote that
> > earlier post in deep anguish and you refuse to see
> the
> > nuance in my stand;nor do you have a concept of
> nation
> > of your own.
> > I do not have anything new to say;not that I am
> > unwilling to discuss that or repeat it further.But
> > what you are asking me is nothing but a straw
> man.So
> > yeah,my view is that freedom of expression for
> > anything that cannot be achieved by a
> constitutional
> > process as the constitution is defined today
> should be
> > restricted.Or in other words,anything which is
> against
> > what is defined as the "essential nature of the
> > constitution" or is defined as the "essential
> nature
> > of the state" should be restricted.
> > So anything against secularism,democracy etc
> should be
> > restricted.Anything which seeks to redefine as our
> > state exists now AS A LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL
> ENTITY
> > should be restricted.
> > If its still not clear,In this forum and at other
> > places I have criticized AFSPA repeatedly.AFSPA is
> not
> > the essential nature of the state;it can be
> repealed
> > by a constitutional process.
> > What else?Did I miss anything?
> > Let me know.
> > Oh yes and if the essential nature of state is not
> > clear as I mean it,do go through this link..
> >
> http://www.tribuneindia.com/2007/20070115/edit.htm#4
> > Regards
> > Rahul
> > 
> > 
> > --- zainab <zainab at mail.xtdnet.nl> wrote:
> > 
> >> Hi Rahul,
> >>
> >> I really do not know what this nation is and
> >> thereofore I am asking you
> >> what is this nation that you talk about? What is
> >> this nation that is above
> >> me or greater than me, which has the right to ban
> my
> >> freedom of expression
> >> (which it incidentally does under the guise of
> >> 'reasonable restrictions'
> >> and 'national security' if we read Article 19
> (1))
> >> if I 'say anything
> >> against it'? I don't know what this nation is. I
> >> don't know what this
> >> mighty force is and I refuse to let it determine
> my
> >> life.
> >>
> >> Best,
> >>
> >> Zainab
> >>
> >>
> 
=== message truncated ===



       
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better Heartthrob. Get better relationship answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out. 
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545433