[Reader-list] Freedom of Expression my foot!

[zainab]

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
>>
>>
>> On Sat, 1 Sep 2007 17:43:47 -0700 (PDT), Rahul
>> Asthana
>> <rahul_capri at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > Zainab,
>> > OK,I read that.Well written.Can you please do me a
>> > favor and read my posts in this thread and tell me
>> > what do you think I stand for?
>> > Also,can you please do me one more favour and tell
>> me
>> > what do you mean by nation?
>> >
>> > This will help me in answering your question.
>> > Best regards
>> > Rahul
>> >
>> >
>> > --- zainab <zainab at mail.xtdnet.nl> wrote:
>> >
>> >> 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
>>
> === message truncated ===
> 
> 
> 
>      
>
____________________________________________________________________________________
> Shape Yahoo! in your own image.  Join our Network Research Panel today!  
> http://surveylink.yahoo.com/gmrs/yahoo_panel_invite.asp?a=7
> 
> 
> _________________________________________
> 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/>