The cowardly attack on Prashant Bhushan, was met with a wave of flag waving and jingoistic outbursts with people saying that anyone who threatens “national unity” deserves to be beaten up. Moreover, the criminals got bail which isn’t surprising. But I have my own poetic solution.
Those who don’t agree with India’s Constitution regarding Freedom of Expression can please leave this country. I don’t care how “proud” you are of India or Kashmir. I give two hoots about how you feel about precious “national unity.” If you don’t like unfettered freedom of speech, India is not for you. Please get out of my land.
Freedom of Expression is more important than Kashmir. It defines India. Kashmir doesn’t define India. Kashmir is not the soul of India. Freedom is the soul of India. And that’s what needs protecting. That’s what you should really get patriotic about. Don’t call yourself ”patriotic” and then slam freedom of expression. If do you that, you betray what India stands for. You should leave.
What makes India special? With neighbors like China and Pakistan, why is India a beacon of hope in an otherwise repressive region? It’s freedom. Freedom to do whatever you like as long as you don’t physically harm anyone else. True, the Constitution has a list of “reasonable restrictions” on freedom of speech but over the years, the Supreme Court has narrowed down these rules further and further.
When Khushboo made her remarks that men shouldn’t expect virgin wives, the court said there was nothing wrong and asked the “protectors of culture” to show one person who had actually been harmed. In Kedar Nath vs State of Bihar 1962, the Supreme Court said that even “sedition” was not an offence unless the person speaking was specifically inciting violence.
So unlike what most people think or like to feel, India is a country where you have the freedom to offend anyone you want. No one has a right to remain “offence free.”
Even the most repressive countries in the world allow “nice” speech. No country bans patriotic speech whether it’s China, Pakistan or Saudi Arabia. India is different. India is a free country, it has to do something more. It has to allow unpopular speech. It has to allow offensive speech. It has to allow “unpatriotic” speech. In short, barring libelous speech which has to actually target a particular person and unfairly “harm” them, all speech is tolerated. So says the Constitution of India and the Supreme Court which is the guardian of the Constitution.
So once again. If you disagree with India’s way of functioning, I humbly ask you to leave my country and go wherever you want. I don’t care where you go. Just don’t remain here. Because if you remain in India, and don’t support freedom of expression, you’re a traitor to my land.
Very well said, Bhagwad. I do hope not just your regular readers (who already support this) but also others will get to read it. One way would be to refine this and send for publication to some newspaper.
But there is a slight problem I’d like to bring to your notice. You suggest that “Freedom is the soul of India”. And yet I notice you approve of freedom of expression, but oppose other implications of freedom. For instance freedom of trade. If a particular trade is voluntarily and freely conducted, you seem to oppose the consequent distribution of income.
Note that NO voluntary trade (in real life) will ever proceed without both parties benefiting. The relative distribution of the benefits, though, is a matter for negotiation, haggling. It is not a given. It is possible that under certain situations a buyer might get to keep most of the consumer and producer surplus created. In others, it could be the seller who keeps most of it. The Edgeworth box therefore allows for an infinity of Pareto optimal trades.
Over time, if you are Michael Jackson, then even if you get to keep just 1 per cent of the retail price of your music CD, you manage to become a super-wealthy man.
But I notice (from your comments on my blog) that such “inequality” bothers you. Well if it does then you actually oppose freedom and justice.
Just a thought for you to consider.
I don’t have a problem with people becoming wealthy. Michael Jackson is welcome to his millions. He’s not the one people are angry at in the US…
Hear! Hear!
Loved it. Tweeted it. :)
Great Post.
The criminals who did this must have got inspiration from Govt of India who recently deported David Barsamian, founder director of Alternative Radio, and independent radio legend, on arrival from New Delhi airport. His fault was he was planning a visit to Kashmir among other places. He had previously reported on the atrocities of security forces there.
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article2497779.ece
This is shocking. I’m appalled at how governments try and hide things from the outside world – as if in today’s day and age anything can be truly hidden. Even in far flung places like the mountains of Afghanistan, we get video clips of horrific things being done. It’s childish, stupid, and almost laughable for the Indian government to think it can control the news of what happens in our country.
Agree completely with your views! I hope more people come to think in this way. Very nice post!
[...] what they wear and what they worship. Anyone who does the same is called the Taliban.When fanatics beat up Prashant Bhushan, they were using their fists to control what he could say. They were the Taliban no less than the [...]
I wouldnt use strong words like traitor etc. and ask people to leave “my country” since its no more mine than theirs. I realize what you are doing here but its best IMO not to legitimize their currency in these transactions by adopting it yourself.
A slight digression re. the voltaire quote.
Have you thought about it seriously? I mean no offence to people who quote that sincerely. But for myself, to be honest, this is the closest approximation I can come up with, in a real-life situation:
“I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the point of mild physical violence (eg. receiving a shove) or sustained verbal violence (eg. receiving heavy barracking) your right to say it”.
To be more accurate I would have to add:
“Even if I agree what you say, I will only defend to the point of mild physical violence (eg. receiving a shove) or sustained verbal violence (eg. receiving heavy barracking) your right to say it”.
To be most accurate:
“Even if I agree with what *I* say, I would only be able to defend myself to the point of….”(you get the picture) :-)
So I doff my hat to those of you who would, in individual situations, put your life at risk for anybody’s FOS. Is there an understanding that this is a group situation and you are counting on the support of many others to not have to really risk anything? Does it pan out that way IRL?
thanks
Jai
If I had to say it, I would say “I may not agree with what you say, but I will stand up for your right to say it.”
Of course, if one is quoting Voltaire, then one has to quote him accurately. And it’s a great quote both for effect and for getting the jist of the argument across :)
http://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/column_ambika-sonis-adventures-in-arm-twisting_1588429
Simple Yes/No question for you, Bhagwad. Would you call Ambika Soni’s removal of government ads from newspapers that gave lots of coverage to Anna Hazare an attempt to curtail freedom of expression?
Yes.
I’m a Westerner who has lived in India awhile.
The previous post from Sam is interesting in that it shows the financial dependence angle which reduces the ability of media to speak freely.
So we can’t believe everything we read in the newspapers…
For example, I’ve noticed that the TV channel NDTV 24×7 is clearly pro-Congress. In newspapers, Hindustan Times has stayed consistent in supporting the Congress while The Hindu is pro-Communist and shies away from criticising China. In magazines, Outlook is out-and-out pro-Congress. Since they are branded this way, I understand their readership is suffering.
Does the BJP in India have any representation in the mainstream media? Maybe that’s why your most advanced state of Gujarat is constantly put down and it’s leader the subject of a long smear campaign despite the findings of your Supreme Court.
Hi Matt. It’s impossible that the Times of India which is one of the most profitable corporations in the world relies on DAVP advertisements to any large extent. I can speak authoritatively on this since I actually owned a newspaper in Madhya Pradesh once. If at all this is used as a tool for control, it’s only effective against small papers and therefore inherently useless.
Proof of this lies in the fact of the unprecedented coverage given to Hazare’s protest regardless of such threats. If anything, the episode shows how unbiased the papers are since all newspapers have been remarkably anti government in the past year or so.
Isn’t it a worry that many of India’s media people are related to politicians? Prannoy Roy from NDTV is the brother in law of Brinda Karat, for example.
There are other ways to pressure the media. Deny advertising, deny scoops, deny access. If you are in power for as long as the Congress has been, there is no way that the media can be “free.”
In today’s world of twitter, wikileaks and whistleblowers, I feel that it’s impossible for a newspaper to be under constant duress and have a political agenda without someone knowing about it and talking about it. After all, it’s not enough for Prannoy Roy to have connections – the thousands of journalists, bloggers and writers also have to be part of it and these days hiding such a vast network without someone getting a hint of something is simply impossible.
Huge conspiracies involving thousands of people is “namunkin” today.
It’s in Roy’s interest to support anyone he is related to. And so will all his employees, and political patrons…the media is very profitable like you said. And in a poor country, where votes are bought for the price of a dhoti, media money can be used to hire a crowd easily.
The coverage of Anna Hazare’s campaign has been about exaggerating divisions within his team, character assasination, and how what he is doing is unconstitutional. A government mouthpiece couldn’t do better.
In general, I find Indians (and particularly your Hindus) have an inferiority complex. The left wing and intellectual types who dominate the media space seem to take some perverse pride in the Balkanization of their own country and the surrendering of it’s interests, its history and it’s future to venal, corrupt politicians. If I had a civilization like yours, I’d be proud of it. But most of you Indians seem to want to get rid of it!
The world isn’t such a bad place that every single one of the thousands of a people in a huge organization will be corrupt just for the sake of money – especially when there’s not a shred of evidence.
And sorry, but the Hazare coverage was not just focused on character assassination. It was pretty well balanced with view from all ends.
As for hindus etc, I don’t care about that. I’m not a religious person and don’t care to discuss religion on my blog. Neither do I give a damn about history and being “proud” of it. One cannot be proud of anything one did not create. And I wasn’t born hundreds of years ago so I don’t care.
This post is about free speech and how it’s more important than Kashmir or religion.
As for media bias, your Press Council of India chief seems to agree with me. (smart man!)
http://ibnlive.in.com/videos/197593/media-deliberately-dividing-people-pci-chief.html
People are corrupt for the sake of money! Why else would they be corrupt?
Not a shred of evidence of corruption? Which rock have you been under? Radia tapes? Barkha Dutt brokering ministerial appointments? 2G scam? Your Press Council Chief and a former Chief Justice agree that it’s a problem. But you are in denial.
Don’t care about your history and culture and country’s territorial integrity? That’s sad. At least you are in a country that does not punish treason. The indian soldiers who lay their lives down to protect you are protecting you from countries which would hang you in a second. Look at the poor Pakistani journalist, shehzad and the Chinese dissidents in jail.
I’m looking forward to the day that your media actually holds your badly performing public servants (who make the public their servants) to account instead of being part of the problem. There is no ‘free speech’ in significant parts of your media. Rather, it’s ‘bought speech’. The WSJ just published the fact that 300 of 500+ politicians are millionaires. Indian politics is the millionaires factory. And much of the media is it’s paid stooge or part of the gravy train.
That’s why the West does not have much respect for india or Indians like you. And why it is turning to the past achievements of india for guidance – its art, architecture, yoga, Ayurveda, philosophy, literature…precisely what you are rejecting in the headlong rat race rush to be “modern.”
Matt, since you’re not an Indian, there’s no way you can follow the news in India as comprehensively as other Indians. You have your own country’s news to follow after all
Since I am an Indian, just take it from me that the coverage of Hazare was well balanced and not at all focused on side issues. If you want, proof, just search Google for the stories on Hazare during his protest and see which ones talked about the so-called side issues you’re referring to.
Since you obviously can’t follow Indian news as comprehensively as I do (not being an Indian,) just take my word on this.
Last I checked, every country in the world punishes treason. What is your basis for saying India doesn’t?
As for evidence, I’m willing to let the courts work things out.
Finally, no country in the “west” is turning to India’s past achievements. Where did you manage to pull that from?
Haha. So you can follow the Indian news better than non-Indians can? You live in Oldsmar, Florida according to your homepage. I live in India and read the papers and watch TV as well as anyone else! I daresay I’m more Indian than you are, my presumably lefty chum.
Do you know how popular yoga, vegetarianism, meditation, Indian philosophy, etc are around the world? This is not just a recent phenomenon. Think back to Emerson and Thoreau…to King Rama of Thailand.
I suggest you start learning about your own culture before dismissing it out of hand. Indian civilization could not have lasted as long as it has without something valuable sustaining it. But then, its not cool anymore for young ones like you who wear your anti-national, anti-cultural badges of honor.
As for anti national behavior having no consquence, see what Arundati Roy (another relative of Prannoy Roy) gets away with – calling for the separation of Kashmir and praising the killers of 76 security personnel in dantewada.
http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/uncategorized/i-salute-people-of-dantewada-arundhati-roy_100348149.html
http://blogs.reuters.com/india/2010/10/28/arundhati-roy-kashmir-remarks/
Or maybe you missed that in Oldsmar?
Matt, feeling proud over your ancestors, history, or anything else you did not do is a sign of insecurity. Only a person having no achievements of their own needs to support themselves with the crutch of past glory.
Fortunately, I don’t need such a crutch and don’t take credit for anything someone else did. Being proud of one’s “history” is a sign of weakness since you did nothing yourself to feel proud about.
Arundhati Roy is protected by India’s constitution which protects freedom of speech. Freedom of Expression is far more important than Kashmir or anything else she might have said.
Let her praise Osama Bin Laden for all I care. She has every right to say it and you have every right to ignore her if you wish.
This post of mine is about Freedom of Expression and not about India’s supposed past greatness. I would greatly appreciate it if you remained on topic here.
So how can you be anti-indian as well as indian? You seem confused.
One can feel pride and be inspired by one’s history. Especially, when it’s a rich one like India’s. That is different to a “crutch.” Are you not proud if your child has done well at school? Or if your father or mother did something notable in their lives, despite the odds? The British are proud of Shakespeare. The Americans of George Washington and Edison. The French of Voltaire. It’s a normal human feeling to seek inspiration. Who inspires you?
I raise this because much of the indian media (and its left-wing co-religionists who sup at the holy book of Marx and Engels) seem to be so anti-indian and hide behind the fig leaf of freedom of speech. They really want the freedom to abuse, confuse and deceive. That’s hate speech and defamation and deception.
If Arundhati Roy (or you) hates india, then she and you should renounce your indian citizenship. By demanding a breakup of the country, and praising the killers of young security personnel is she violating her oath of allegiance?
“I, [name] do solemnly affirm (or swear) that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India as by law established, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of India and fulfil my duties as a citizen of India.”
To remain a citizen of india after all that, is just hypocritical.
I disagree. Freedom of speech means nothing unless it’s freedom to offend. What’s the point in only allowing “nice” things to be said? Even China allows that. What separates us from them? True freedom of expression allows even “seditious” things to be said. And in several judgments the Supreme Court of India agrees with me.
To answer your question – no, ideally you should not feel proud of the accomplishments of your child. Unless you feel that it’s because of your upbringing that they were able to accomplish so much. And I don’t need to imagine – my parents and grandparents have accomplished a lot. My grandfather was the last Prime Minister of Sikkim. But it means nothing to me. He’s a different man and the fact that I happen to share his genetic code doesn’t create some magical bond.
You say I want the freedom to abuse. Can you show me where I have indulged in abuse?
A mature country allows people to speak against it and even hate it. As long as no one breaks any laws (and Arundhati Roy has not,) then what you say is your business. Basically, it comes down to this – the government has no right to control how people’s lips and tongues move.
But how can you say the oath and then talk of breaking the country without being a hypocrite?
Sikkim had a PM? Do you mean CM?
What oath? I never said any oath. I was randomly born into a country which then assumed that I agreed with everything.
Sikkim was a separate country before India took it over in 1973 I think.
Then renounce your citizenship and stop living a lie. Citizenship in any country comes with duties, not just rights.
In the early 18th century, the British Empire sought to establish trade routes with Tibet, leading Sikkim to fall under British suzerainty until independence in 1947. Initially, Sikkim remained an independent monarchy, however in 1975, its subjects voted by plebiscite to become a state of India.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Sikkim
Matt, none of those duties are legally binding. The only thing legally binding is the laws of the country – which I agree to follow because most of them are in line with my conscience. My conscience comes first – before any imposed laws.
Rights are legally binding. “Duties” apart from the actual laws are not. Big difference.
Btw, what’s with the Sikkim link? Just info?
So you wish to take all the rights but not perform/ and criticize those who wish to perform the duty of ensuring the territorial integrity of your country? You open yourself to the charge of being anti-national or a traitor.
How can you be both indian and anti -indian? The honorable thing is to renounce your citizenship.
The Fundamental Duties of citizens were added to the Constitution by the 42nd Amendment in 1976, upon the recommendations of the Swaran Singh Committee that was constituted by the government earlier that year.[18][98] Originally ten in number, the Fundamental Duties were increased to eleven by the 86th Amendment in 2002, which added a duty on every parent or guardian to ensure that their child or ward was provided opportunities for education between the ages of six and fourteen years. The other Fundamental Duties obligate all citizens to respect the national symbols of India, including the Constitution, to cherish its heritage, preserve its composite culture and assist in its defense. They also obligate all Indians to promote the spirit of common brotherhood, protect the environment and public property, develop scientific temper, abjure violence, and strive towards excellence in all spheres of life.
Matt, you’re missing the basic point.
Duties are not legally binding! There is no provision in the constitution for jailing someone for not “cherishing the country.” I will never join the army and put my life at stake for defending a set of man made boundaries. And it’s not illegal to do so either.
And most importantly, the Constitution allows me to feel this way. If it didn’t, there would be a law saying “anyone who doesn’t like India should go to jail etc.”
The only thing which is legally binding are the actual laws. Which I follow. I pay my taxes, keep the streets clean of my muck and respect other people’s rights.
I feel that by respecting and upholding the right to freedom of expression, I am performing the greatest service to my country imaginable. Because to me, that is the core of India. Everything else is superficial.
The last para from Wikipedia
In my observation, freedom of expression is (ab)used by the Indian Left as cover to continue anti-national activities.
The Left has no mandate – the drubbing they got in the elections is proof of that.
In practice, India’s media is heavily coloured by its political preferences. NDTV and the anti-Hindu rag they ironically call The Hindu, is anti-India, pro-China and decries nationalism to the extent that serving / loving India and it’s history and culture is a dirty word. The Hindustan Times, I understand, is run by a Congress MP. There are a bunch of regional party owned media like Sun TV. So in all cases, freedom of expression is curtailed by ownership. Bias, in short. If you really cared about freedom of expression, this media bias would concern you.
In theory, India’s Constitution values nationalism as a duty. True, a duty is not legally binding but there is still the inherent hypocrisy inherent in claiming to love your country, but dismissing it’s cultures, history, and not caring about its territorial integrity. Hence, my recommendation for Arundati Roy and you to renounce Indian citizenship.
Incidentally, would you like to ask Digvijay Singh to leave India for goonishly beating up a journalist, too? Digvijay is clearly not in favour of freedom of expression, either.
I simply don’t consider its culture, history and Kashmir important. So the fact that I dismiss them isn’t proof that I hate my country. I love what I consider important – freedom of speech.
Freedom of speech is meant to be abused. If no one is allowed to abuse it, we don’t have “rights” – only privileges. A “right” by definition cannot be taken away no matter what.
All your observations regarding newspapers are your opinions – not facts. If they’re facts, provide reliable references and I’ll believe you. Otherwise no.
And anyone in India can start a newspaper. I know – I started one after all. So if there’s demand for alternative reporting, the free market will take care of it.
About Digvijay Singh, do you really need to ask? What’s so special about him that I need to separately answer a question about him?
You are evading all my questions…you consider the freedom to abuse your country more important than it’s territorial unity.
Are you reluctant to say anything about Digvijay? Just want to see if you are consistent and whether by your logic, he should leave the country.
What I wrote above is factual. Prove me wrong. it’s easy to check ownership and political affiliation of the bigger newspapers.
Come on! It’s obvious that Digivijay Singh’s threats against free speech are unacceptable and he should leave. Why would I ever say anything else?? Do I have to comment individually for each person separately when there’s a general rule in place? What was the point of this specific guy and for what reason would I treat him differently? What him and not some other person – is he special in some way?
Before you ask me about the thousands of other people in India who oppose FoE, let me state that my post applies to all of them – no need to question me about exceptions. I thought that went without saying. Have I given you reason to doubt otherwise?
You say I evade your questions and yet you evade mine. You never told me what was so special about Digvijay Singh that I needed to answer a question about him separately.
Since you went down this road, here’s a list of other questions I’ve asked and you haven’t answered. Are you “evading” them?
1. Why the Sikkim info?
2. What separates us from China if only “nice”, polite, and “patriotic” things are allowed to be expressed?
3. Where have I used my freedom of speech to indulge in abuse as implied by you above?
4. Which country in the west is “turning to India’s past achievements?
All these questions I have asked you at various points in this comment thread – not one of which you’ve replied to. I’ve done the decent thing and not accused you of “evading” my questions. Yet you do the same to me.
Please be reasonable next time when hurling accusations.
The myths of media ownership are popular, overstated and ridiculous. I’ve written about them here: http://www.bhagwad.com/blog/2010/politics/indian-media-debunking-ownership-myths.html/
And here is the TOI’s “official” position over its political leanings: http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2008-01-15/edit-page/27771628_1_editorial-newspaper-views
Answers
1. Sikkim – just FYI since we were querying a date
2. FoE is better in india but the left rules the media – see ownership. And a dynasty rules it’s politics. This compromises FoE. Millions still have no voice. Votes are bought.
3. Referring to Arundati Roy and the indian left
4. Many people e.g. German, American Vedic scholars, yoga masters, popularity of vegetarianism, meditation, pranayama, etc.
You still didn’t tell me why you asked me about Digvijay Singh. Are you “evading” my questions?
Strictly speaking, ownership of the media has nothing to do with FoE. FoE refers to the government imposing restrictions on FoE and making certain speeches illegal. The media is a private enterprise.
Besides, the Internet has ended the dominance of the traditional media companies.
There are abusive voices on either side of the spectrum. In fact, the right wing uses far more dirty and vulgar words than the left. At least Arundati Roy doesn’t use crass abuses. So you’re cherry picking your data.
Finally, westerners take whatever they want and don’t give a damn about India. They adapt and sell yoga by themselves, modify the meditations and even try and patent them! You’re deluding yourself if you think this means they have any respect for India – modern or old.
Bhagwad, take a chill pill. Your language indicates you are ruffled.
I asked about Digvijay since his actions were against FoE, but there was no mention of him anywhere on your blog till now. Given he is the spokesperson and general secretary for the largest party in government, I am surprised at your silence on him till I pressed you repeatedly for an answer.
And don’t broad brush all Westerners. As long as there are Indians like you who don’t value India’s territorial integrity, it’s culture and history, how can you expect Westerners to, as you say, “give a damn?”
There are many Indians packaging and selling yoga too – heard of Bikram yoga? And what about Deepak Chopra?
Now on to some sections of India’s media…
Why didn’t we hear about the UPA-DMK 2G spectrum scam, India’s largest scandal, from any investigative journalist. It took Janata Party’s Harvard educated Subramania Swamy to intervene.
Sections of India’s media are certainly politically motivated and hence there cannot be FoE there.
e.g. NDTV – Prannoy Roy, related to Leftist extremist Suzanna Arundati Roy, and brother-in-law to Prakash Karat, head of the Communist Party. Do you disagree?
e.g. The Hindu – N.Ram, a known sympathiser of China.
http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cpapers34%5Cpaper3360.html
Also see this from the TOI.
http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/headon/entry/why-congress-fears-rss
“The strategy used by the Congress to “partner” sections of the media in villifying Anna’s campaign has already proved counter-productive. The newspapers, TV channels and senior editors who act as surrogate mouthpieces of the Congress have succeeded only in damaging their own reputations built over decades. That damage is irreparable.”
Now reason without emotion and we’ll continue the debate. Otherwise, I am wasting my time.
Matt, I’m astonished that you can imagine that I would have double standards for Digvijay Singh merely because he’s the spokesperson for the largest party in India. How is that even relevant?
Westerners who listen to Deepak Chopra etc tend to have a glamorous view of India as a land of elephants and snake charmers. Guys like him actually do a disservice to the country of their origin. People like the exotic after all.
Second, just because a newspaper leans towards a particular policy doesn’t mean there’s FoE. The TOI for example, allows bloggers airing views from all sides of the spectrum on their website. No view is suppressed. It may be openly liberal – they admit it – but there’s no evidence to show that they suppress other views.
Note that even if they did suppress them, they are private organizations not governmental. Just like this blog is my private space. If I moderate comments on my blog, no one can claim that their FoE has been violated because anyone can go start their own blog and write whatever they want on it.
Similarly, the media industry is a free market. If there are many people who truly feel that the current newspapers aren’t doing a good job, they can band together and start their own.
FoE doesn’t mean the right to say anything you want on someone else’s private space. It means you can say what you want in your space and allow others in. Or even say it in a public place without fear.
But like I said, this is irrelevant because no national newspaper censors the views of its bloggers or editorial staff regardless of its leanings. Every view is presented.
As for the Congress trying to partner with some sections of the media – the fact that their strategy failed should tell you something about the robustness of the Indian media.
Or at least it tells you the robustness of the indian people who have good political bullshit detectors despite being denied the freedom to education, good roads, reliable electricity, potable water…after nearly 60 years of Gandhi family maladministration and propaganda, to which some sections of the media have been a party to. I’d suggest that the great masses of india care more for those kinds of freedom over FoE.
The focus on good governance by the NDA is a step in the right direction but the UPA and Left controlled media will have none of that.
Anyway, I’m outta time.
Remember, you have got a great country.. It suffers from extremely poor leadership. If FoE can help address that, then good. But the media, by and large, does not play it’s role in keeping the politicians honest. It falls to people like the Harvard professor Subramania Swamy.
And so we finally come to it. I’ve thought for quite a while that there was some political angle to your posts – your references to Digvijay Singh, “liberals”, the “media” etc. and now you finally plug your favorite party.
In case you didn’t notice, my post is apolitical. I give a damn about which party is in power. And if you think there’s any real difference between the major parties in this country, then you’re being naive and simplistic.
Of course, there’s a political angle! Rights, freedoms, nationalism – the topic of this post IS a political topic.
FYI – I’ve never voted in an Indian election since I’m not eligible. I’m just praising the whistleblower. I praise the whistleblowers who sent the corrupt Karnataka CM to jail, too.
I love India, it’s a force for good in this world. As such, political participation by Indian citizens like you would be meet if you care about the direction of your country.
If you do exercise your franchise, I’d wager you vote Left since there’s a clear left-political angle to your posts. You see it in the selective criticism of the right-wing, and the defense of left-wing loonies like the Roys, and your insistence that the Indian media is a paragon of impartiality.
1. I will defend anyone’s right to free speech. Not just the “left loonies.” That doesn’t make me prefer one political party to another.
2. I never claimed the Indian media was a paragon of impartiality. There are certainly problems, but there’s a big difference between it being imperfect and completely and hopelessly compromised as claimed by you.
3. The content of my post isn’t veered towards or against any political party. It has nothing to do with the BJP or the Congress.
where did “matt” say “completely and hopelessly compromised” ??? U r putting words in his mouth.
“matt” is always only referring to certain sections of the media, no? like ndtv, the hindu, hindustan times which are all pro-government. it is well known that congress is trying to partner the media, or silence it.
why dont u write about barkha dutt of ndtv trying to sue the bloggers? this is also against freedom of expression. should she and digvijay leave the country like you say? maybe digvijay should stay – he is such a comedy.
Liberalism fuels radical Islamism
http://www.dailypioneer.com/columnists/item/50461-liberalism-fuels-radical-islamism.html
do u disagree with the british stance? do tell.
But I did write about Barkha Dutt’s silencing of bloggers and even said that was one of the important issues for me during elections – complete freedom of expression for bloggers.
Why do so many people feel that I support only one side of FoE while denying the other? As far as I know I’ve never said anything of the sort.
In most of Matt’s comments, he refers to the “media” in general – just take a look. And if the Congress is trying to silence the media, they’re doing a very poor job and it looks like we have nothing to fear.
What is England’s stance?
This post is totally outrageous.
“So once again. If you disagree with India’s way of functioning, I humbly ask you to leave my country and go wherever you want. I don’t care where you go. Just don’t remain here. Because if you remain in India, and don’t support freedom of expression, you’re a traitor to my land.”
Hah? your land? you dont have any feeling for your country then how dare you claim to be your land?
If some guy comes and tells you, i will rape your mom and all your sisters? you will smile and say freedom of speech or punch him on hid face?
This kind of post shows that you have no respect for the freedom fighters who gave their life for the country. Impotency has come into your mind body and soul.
People like you never say Jai Hind or stand in national anthem, nor do they have respect for their own religion. Your existence on earth is neither useful to the people, nor to yourself. You better kill yourself now and ask god to give you a better life next time.
“If some guy comes and tells you, i will rape your mom and all your sisters? you will smile and say freedom of speech or punch him on hid face?”
As long as there’s no real threat, I will definitely say “freedom of expression” and not interact with that person any more.
Perhaps you should know that our freedom fighters fought for…you know…freedom! Freedom of speech in this case.