[Reader-list] Freedom of Expression my foot!

[zainab]

I do not live in a war zone
I live in a state of terror
Terror which is perpetual
which assumes various proportions. 
There is terror inside of me,
Outside of me
Terror about who is lurking,
In those distant shadows
Is it my enemy or my foe?
Oh, it is the security guard!
He is here for my security.
He has a naked gun in his hand
The gun is ignorant, but the guard is not.
The strength, might, and power of the gun gives me courage to muster up
courage.
I am feeling safe.
My breath is calm and smooth.
So is my heartbeat.
I am safe.
Suddenly, the guard advances towards me
His naked gun is too.
He comes close enough,
looks into my eyes,
peers. His looks are piercing.
He says, ‘Sorry pal, I have to shoot you down.’
‘I have to shoot you so that you become (vulgar) news.’
‘The headlines should shriek, ‘We gunned down an enemy spy.’’
‘But I am a citizen of this country, not an enemy spy,’ I pleaded.
‘Why do you do this to me?
What is my crime?
What is my sin?’
‘Nuffing! Nffing’s your crime,
Nuffing’s your sin’
‘You are simply going to be a martyr,
A martyr of the Other Side
And a source of security for Our Side
You see buddy, there are many
whom I have to protect,
Many whom I have to make feel safe
Many whom I have to assure that the world is a safe place to be in, to live
in
as long as I am there.
So put your faith (and money) in me (and my guns)
For as long as I am there,
You will be there,
Your progeny will be there,
Safe, calm and soothed.
And you, buddy, will help me comfort the souls of this world
Souls, who are in un-rest and discomfort
Because the Other is there,
The enemy is there,
And they (the perturbed and disturbed souls) need to be protected
And made to feel secure.
Your death shall bring them security.
Your dead body shall unnerve their perturbed souls.
Your death will be their joy.’
‘But what about tomorrow,’ I asked,
‘Who will you gun tomorrow?
How long will you continue to make them feel safe,
Feel secure, feel soothed?
Will they ever cease to be insecure?’
‘No, not until I know,’ said he,
‘As long as there are weapons,
As long as there are bombs,
As long as there are walls (in people’s minds)
As long as people don’t know
(The unknown enemy is always greater than the known)
As long as we don’t let them know,
Fear will prevail (in their hearts and minds)
The state of terror shall be
And there shall be martyrs like you
Whom we shall slay alive’
Saying this, he shot a bullet into my skull
And the next day, I, an unknown citizen, became known.
I became The Enemy.

So now Rahul, I want to ask you a question - what is this nation that you
talk about? What is this nation which cannot hear anything said against it?
What is this nation that has the right to clamp down on me if I say
something which is supposedly against it?

Best,

Zainab 




  

On Sat, 1 Sep 2007 05:40:32 -0700 (PDT), Rahul Asthana
<rahul_capri at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 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
> _________________________________________
> 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/>