It’s obvious that the charges of sedition against Aseem Trivedi cannot stand. If anything, he loves the country too much – not too little. Only someone who is emotionally invested in a nation will take such pains to consistently spread the word about what’s wrong with it. No – it’s pretty damn obvious that sedition is not the problem here. Even Binayak Sen was granted bail and the courts are pretty strict about the specifics of sedition.
The real charge facing Trivedi is for “disrespect to national symbols”. He showed the Ashoka chakra with wolves instead of lions, showed the parliament as a toilet and Ajmal Kasab peeing on the Constitution. We’ve all been taught in civics classes that we must “respect” the flag and other national symbols. But is this good? In my opinion, these stupid laws need to go as well.
How can you mandate respect? Can you create a law saying “Respect this!” And how do you enforce it? Look at the following list of actions and tell me which you think is illegal:
- I merely think to myself “I disrespect the flag” – legal or illegal?
- I merely think of something bad like peeing on the flag – legal or illegal?
- I tell someone I disrespect the flag – legal or illegal?
- I tell someone I want to pee on the flag – legal or illegal?
- I write that I want to pee on the flag – legal or illegal?
- I draw myself peeing on the flag – legal or illegal?
Can merely thinking something be a crime? If so, then we’re all screwed. No – a mere thought cannot constitute a crime. But that is exactly what the law makes it! “Respect” and “Disrespect” are thoughts. You can’t criminalize a person’s thoughts and emotions. And if you’re thinking something, it’s natural that you say it. Words are only an expression of what you feel. And writing is merely words on paper. Cartoons are just thoughts laid down in ink.
All of these are victim-less actions. No one is hurt, no one’s freedoms are being taken away. In my opinion, every law should ask the question – does this protect anyone? Will some specific person’s life become better because of this? Sedition laws and rules preventing the “disrespect” of national symbols fail this test. I don’t care if someone does something to the Indian flag. How is my life affected?
Thought crimes are the worst kind of laws. And expression is merely thought being manifested in the real world via books, paintings or speech. All of these should be protected because if you don’t allow them, you have to ask – is thinking about them illegal too? Imagine that the government had a monitoring device for your thoughts and it could prove that such and such an idea came from you. Can you think of the kind of laws it would create? *shudder*
Sedition laws need to go. Laws regarding national symbols need to go. They don’t make anyone’s life better and are insufferable violations of the Freedom of Expression guaranteed to us by the Constitution.
@ bhagwad,
Once again you so cleverly ignored my questions. You seem to put points for the sake of arguments without replying to my questions. As you mentioned about the anti-stalking law, would you want it struck down as well as it is based on the thoughts of the person being stalked?
Only the people who create violence should be punished. I agree. They are punished. But what about those innocent people who lose their lives in such acts of violence? Those who dont have anything to do with the dispute whatsoever? Just punishing the criminals would bring back the dead to life? NO. But a person’s right to freedom of speech should be preserved even if people lose their lives for no fault of theirs. Right?
Since you are so obsessed to ‘such developed’ countries, i would like you to go through the right to freedom of expression in the USA which clearly states that the right is NOT absolute. The Supreme Court of the United States has recognized several categories of speech that are excluded from the freedom of speech. So, before blindly aping what you see and hear of other ‘developed’ countries, do try to know the details too. And your view about me implying Indians to be inferior shows that you have no concept of ‘difference’ in populations. You are bent on viewing things in black or white, superior or inferior.
And about the comparison between a flag to human beings, you still have not answered my question about what you actually want. Complete freedom irrespective of living or non-living OR selective and restricted freedom considering human feelings.
I didn’t mean the military people would follow the law of the land in beating a person black and blue if he dared something of the sort. But that is exactly what would happen.
In reply to Arun P
” As you mentioned about the anti-stalking law, would you want it struck down as well as it is based on the thoughts of the person being stalked?”‘
Stalking is always associated with the threat of physical violence. You can’t be stalked by a five year old can you? http://www.bhagwad.com/blog/2012/rights-and-freedoms/would-supergirl-need-protection-against-emotional-abuse.html/
“But a person’s right to freedom of speech should be preserved even if people lose their lives for no fault of theirs. Right?”
Yes.
“The Supreme Court of the United States has recognized several categories of speech that are excluded from the freedom of speech.”
Only those resulting in specific and immediate physical harm. So again, it all comes down to physical harm. So if I say that I want to murder the president, even THAT speech is allowed because I can’t carry out the statement. You don’t seem to have read the specific US supreme court judgments at all, otherwise you wouldn’t be talking like this.
Complete freedom of expression is what I want.
Hello. You are right. Respect needs to be commanded. But why talk of respect for National Flag or any other National symbol. Moot question is: Do the powers that be have any semblance of respect to Nationalism? Nothing said about our National behavior is better. That’s what is India. KRV
@ KRV,
You are absolutely right sir. Thats what my point is that no one is forcing anyone to respect the so called national symbols. It is perfectly fine if one doesnt respect those symbols. What I’m trying to question is that what is the real need to disrespect it. One is not expected to go to his or her neighbor’s house everyday and touch the neighbor’s feet. But yes, going to the neighbor’s house everyday to abuse the neighbor is unacceptable. That is my only point. No one becomes a more nationalist by respecting the national symbols and no one becomes any less a nationalist by not respecting those symbols. But why to disrespect?
In reply to Arun P
So if I even think about disrespecting the flag do you think that should be illegal?
@ bhagwad,
Once again you are happily contradicting your own statements. About threat of physical violence in stalking, ‘threat’ is a perception of thought. It is not the physical hurt. One person may feel threatened of something the other person may not. So it comes down to the thoughts of the person involved. Yet you agree to this law.
About talking of your threat to the nation’s president it is contradicting your first statement. Because now you call your threat a speech. Why do you think a security agency would not consider your speech as a threat and detain you?
Are we discussing judgments here or are we discussing laws? Judgments had to be made only when the cases were brought as per the law. Just for your information, judgments are NOT laws. They are the result of a case as per the best knowledge of the existing law by the judges concerned. I was pointing out the laws. And your initial post was about the laws too, not judgments. So let the Indian courts judge as per the existing Indian laws. But you want the laws to be changed. I hope you understand the difference now.
And about your want of freedom at the expense of innocent lives, it just goes to show your sense or lack of it about the right to life of fellow citizens.
In fact your consistent effort to press for your right to abuse, offend and disrespect somehow portrays the troubled state of your mind. All you want is freedom to do what you want without any sort of responsibility of the consequences of your actions. And looking at the things you want your freedom to be ABLE to do shows a rather destructive frame of mind. No. It will NOT be illegal if you merely think of disrespecting the flag. But why your mind is so vitriolic that it makes you want to do something like that is something i would not want to ascertain. This discussion we are having will not end up you agreeing to my views or vice versa. But i think you will rather form stronger beliefs about what you think is right if we continue to debate which i now feel seems futile.
In reply to Arun P
Stalking is a well known psychological phenomenon. The danger of violence is proven to be high enough to warrant a law against it. You didn’t read the URL I linked to did you? I can tell.
“Why do you think a security agency would not consider your speech as a threat and detain you?”
The shouldn’t. In once case, the court reprimanded the security agencies for doing just that.
“Are we discussing judgments here or are we discussing laws? Judgments had to be made only when the cases were brought as per the law. Just for your information, judgments are NOT laws.”
There is something known as judicial precedent and case law. A judgement is law. This is not a matter of debate. It’s a fact.
“All you want is freedom to do what you want without any sort of responsibility of the consequences of your actions.”
There are acceptable consequences such as social ostracization which I’m perfectly willing to accept. There are unacceptable consequences like physical violence which no right thinking person will accept.
“It will NOT be illegal if you merely think of disrespecting the flag.”
Wonderful. Now suppose I tell someone I disrespect the flag. Illegal or not?
@ bhagwad,
You said that the danger of violence is proven to be high enough to warrant a law against it. So why do you think this logic should be applied to things like stalking only? If there is danger of violence or riots resulting from an offensive piece of written or drawn material, shouldn’t this be applied there as well?
Agreed that judgments become equivalent to a law when passed by a supreme court. So even if judgments have been passed by the American supreme court, have they changed the law in the USA? The right to freedom of expression still is NOT absolute and there are restrictions regarding certain forms of expressions. Though if anyone has an objection with someone, the case is brought to the court and the judgment is given taking into account preceding judgments. They have still NOT changed the law there which you wish to change here according to your views. And since you are so obsessed with the freedom of speech in developed countries you can take a look at http://www.freewarehof.org/speech.html It is sure to break the myths you have about freedom of speech in the developed countries to refer to.
The stupidity with which you contradict your own self is evident when you have serious problems with any form of violence or even a danger of violence, but when i asked you if a person’s right to freedom of speech should be preserved even if people lose their lives for no fault of theirs, you replied with a big Yes. Do you mean to say people can be killed without the use of violence? Are you really the same person replying to comments here?
As regarding your obsession with disrespecting the flag, your thinking wont be illegal as long as you keep it in your own head. When you start to publicize your thoughts is when you can be held guilty as per the laws. And since you applied your logic of being able to disrespect the flag because it doesn’t have feelings, are you just asking for freedom to disrespect/burn the flag or do you want such freedom regarding all the national symbols?
In another of your posts, We need two separate laws for women in India, please read again what you wrote in the last paragraph. You wrote that India is a complicated country. People are clearly divided into two sections – those were liberated and those who still need special protection. Having a single law to cover both these groups of people is just stupid. It doesn’t make sense. So why not have separate laws and ask people to choose which one they want to have applied to them? There are advantages and disadvantages of being free. It might well be that not everyone desires to be free at all.
So, there you have a different concept of freedom. But for expression, you want absolute freedom and you forget the difference in people which you yourself mentioned earlier. You yourself mentioned that freedom has advantages and disadvantages, but now you want complete freedom. And you want a single law of complete freedom of speech for everyone.
It is better if you stop contradicting yourself just for the sake of debate and think logically. And as it looks like you are itching to move to a developed or a more free country, you have the right to do so.
In reply to Arun P
“You said that the danger of violence is proven to be high enough to warrant a law against it. So why do you think this logic should be applied to things like stalking only? If there is danger of violence or riots resulting from an offensive piece of written or drawn material, shouldn’t this be applied there as well?”
Because stalking violence is done directly by the person doing the stalking. Violence is not carried out by the person who writes offensive things. I have no problem with locking up people who can start rioting though.
Personal responsibility. It’s not valid to point to someone and say “He made me do it”.
“So even if judgments have been passed by the American supreme court, have they changed the law in the USA?”
Yes – just like the Delhi HC’s order decriminalizing homosexuality in India has changed the law even though Section 377 is still on the books. The law has been changed in a very real sense. Remember, parliament is not supreme in India. The Constitution is supreme. And when the courts interpret the Constitution, those judgments are binding on the government and become law. This is as it should be since it prevents parliament from making stupid laws.
“As regarding your obsession with disrespecting the flag, your thinking wont be illegal as long as you keep it in your own head. “
Great. Now suppose I tell another person that I disrespect the flag. Is that illegal? After all, I’ve publicized my disrespect right?
“In another of your posts, We need two separate laws for women in India, please read again what you wrote in the last paragraph.”
That post of mine was sarcastic and meant to show people the absurdity of the situation. Read the first two comments on it.
“It might well be that not everyone desires to be free at all.”
Tough luck. They will be dragged kicking and screaming into freedom because this is India. Anyone who doesn’t want to be free can leave my country.
“And as it looks like you are itching to move to a developed or a more free country”
What I want is India to become free. I love it too much to see it disgraced with uncivilized laws and attitudes.
@ bhagwad,
According to you, only the person who directly takes part in violence is to be blamed and punished. You dont think a person who incites maniacs to turn violent is at fault? By that logic, the commanders and trainers of the terrorists beyond Indian borders should not be blamed as they are not directly taking part in violence activities in India. Right? I am sure you will agree to this. Because they cant be blamed if a captured terrorist says ‘he made me do it’. Likewise, the law regarding abatement to suicide should be deleted too because it will also fall under the category of ‘he made me do it’.
You want the laws to be changed as per your views. Just like you said that an eve-teaser is within his rights to freedom of speech as long as he does not follow or become violent. You will be disappointed to know that the section 509 of IPC says – Word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman – Whoever, intending to insult the modesty of a woman, utters any word, makes any sound or gesture, or exhibits any object, intending that such a word or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture or object shall be seen, by such woman, or intrudes upon the privacy of such woman ; shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.
Though according to you, the topic of eve-teasing is not relevant here, but i wanted to mention this just to show how you contradict your own statements. Since in one of your previous post, – Would supergirl need protection against emotional abuse – you clearly stated that only physical hurt matters and not mental hurt. So i think now you would want the section 509 of the IPC to be deleted as well. For your information, eve-teasing is not a form of freedom of expression. It is a crime.
You say the constitution is supreme. But it is the constitution which says that India is a sovereign country. And a sovereign country has the right, above any law, to protect its sovereignty which includes having national symbols and protecting them from any sort of desecration. I guess now you will have a problem with India being a sovereign country.
You comfortably evaded my question where you wanted the right to disrespect/burn the flag only just because it does not have feelings or do you want the right to disrespect/damage all national symbols.
You say you love India too much to see it disgraced with uncivilized laws and attitudes. So according to you, abusing, disrespecting and dishonoring are aspects of civilized behavior and attitude and the laws which prevent such actions are uncivilized?
And how will you feel if an american, british or pakistani national disrespects or burns the Indian flag in India?
In reply to Arun P
“You dont think a person who incites maniacs to turn violent is at fault?”
Not if there is no specific exhortation to violence. So telling someone “Let’s go burn the house of xyz” is wrong. But showing offensive material where there is no call to action is perfectly fine. There has to be a violent “call to action” for it to be illegal.
Your terrorist handlers certainly had a very specific call to action.
“Likewise, the law regarding abatement to suicide “
Even more important, suicide itself should not be a crime. As the Indian SC recently noted.
“You want the laws to be changed as per your views.”
No – I want the laws to become more civilized, give people more freedom, and let people take responsibility for themselves. Because that is the way forward. That is what is responsible. How can more freedom ever be a bad thing as long as no one is being forced to get hurt? That in fact, is what India is supposed to be all about if you read the Constitution.
“And a sovereign country has the right, above any law, to protect its sovereignty”
No – the highest law is the rights of the people. Without that, a country doesn’t deserve to exist.
“So according to you, abusing, disrespecting and dishonoring are aspects of civilized behavior and attitude and the laws which prevent such actions are uncivilized?”
Laws which prevent uncivilized behavior ARE uncivilized. The civilized thing to do is to simply ignore bad behavior.
@ bhagwad,
As i expected, now you have a problem with the country’s sovereignty itself. At one hand you say the constitution is supreme and on the other hand you say sovereignty cannot be greater than the rights of the people. Wish you would stick to one thing.
Your strange views regarding the concept of civilized and uncivilized are your own. And though you have the right to have your own views, dont expect everyone to agree with your twisted logic. Are you sure you know what you wrote in the last sentence? Laws which prevent any sort of uncivilized behavior are uncivilized. Really? That means you want to do away with all preventive laws?
You say a violent ‘call to action’ is illegal. And in the same comment you say laws which prevent uncivilized behavior are uncivilized. So, do you mean to say a violent ‘call to action’ is civilized behavior? And if a violent ‘call to action’ is uncivilized behavior, should it not be prevented? Do you see the contradiction you make to your own words?
But since you say that there has to be a violent ‘call to action’ for something to be illegal, let me ask you. You think of burning the flag. Not illegal. You tell your friend you want to burn the flag. Not illegal. You tell a group of your friends that you all should go and burn the flag. Not illegal. Then you all actually go and burn the flag. Illegal or legal?
You have still not answered whether you want a complete right to damage/disrespect just the flag because it has no feelings or do you want that right for all national symbols.
And how would you feel if a foreign national burns the Indian flag in India?
In reply to Arun P
Why does a country exist if not for the people? When the people are not free, a country has failed it’s purpose and must either change or dissolve itself. For the Constitution, the rights of the people are the most important thing. The country comes second.
In my ideal world, even “calls to action” would be legal. Only the person who actually pulls the knife or fires the gun will be responsible. I’m making a concession that strictly speaking I dont’ have to. Take it how you will.
For me, symbols have no meaning. What is a flag but a piece of cloth decorated in some way? It’s meaningless. As for a foreign national burning the Indian flag – why is that even an issue?
@ bhagwad,
You need to wake up from your dream of the ideal world you seem to have.
Just in order to hold your flimsy stand, you have and will continue to argue using logic which start at being ridiculous and end up being preposterous. Since you have now come to accepting ‘calls to action’ as legal, it is not far when you may include murder under the right to freedom of expression.
By the way, why are you so particular about physical violence? Everything seems to be alright according to you as long as a person is not physically touched. What is it about physical violence too? Maybe you can apply a bit more of your logic and realize that physical violence should be fine too as long as the person does not get killed. Or is it about something in your past that has made you so particular about physical hurt? Anyways, i am not the least interested in your past life.
And maybe you don’t know but India has more than the few non-living/hypothetical national symbols which include several real and living examples. Such as the national animal, aquatic animal, bird, etc. i am not going to ask you whether you would want to damage/kill those living creatures as well, because i know then you will bring in the ‘cruelty to animals’ logic. But if you do put up such a logic, you should better edit your initial post to refer to only hypothetical/non-living national symbols.
Though i should expect a kindergarten kid to know more about the value of a flag than you seem to. You will be surprised to know that a flag is the symbol of a person’s identity in international events and visits to a foreign country. It is NOT always a piece of cloth. Maybe you should tear up your passport, which i assume you do possess looking at your obsession for more developed countries, because it bears the national emblem of India. In fact, ‘India’ is also a name. It is nothing of physical reality. A name is not a real material. Then you should even oppose the use of the word ‘Indian’ attached to your identity. Whenever you land up in a foreign country, just show them your birth certificate or any other proof of identity which doesn’t bear a national symbol. i hope they will recognize you.
Why would you need to be identified as an Indian by the use of a national symbol anyway? You can just say that you are the citizen of a free country. According to you, symbols are meaningless.
And before you proceed to trouble your mind to argue about the concept of identity by putting up some ghastly logic, i should ask you to refrain from going through the trouble. In your answer to the question of a foreign national burning the Indian flag in India, you say its not even an issue, in other words it doesnt matter to you. i thus realize that your head is just too scrambled for me to continue this discussion with you.
Too bad your intellect didn’t grow simultaneously with your age.
In reply to Arun P
“What is it about physical violence too?”
Choice. You can ignore words and shut the door. You can’t walk away from an axe. Loss of choice means loss of freedom. That is why physical injury matters and “spiritual injury” does not.
“because i know then you will bring in the ‘cruelty to animals’ logic.”
Duh.
“You will be surprised to know that a flag is the symbol of a person’s identity”
If a person’s identity and security are dependent on something so flimsy, then they deserve to be rudely awakened when someone demonstrates that their self worth depends on an inanimate piece of cloth. There are countries in the world where people wear their flags as underwear and are still very proud of who they are. They don’t care about stuff that doesn’t matter.
“Maybe you should tear up your passport”
It’s a legal document that I need for travel.
“Then you should even oppose the use of the word ‘Indian’ attached to your identity. “
I do. If a person’s worth depends on a set of arbitrarily random lines drawn by someone else hundreds of years ago, then…well you already know what I’m going to say :)
“You can just say that you are the citizen of a free country.”
I do. Unless someone specifically asks me which country I was brought up in.
@ bhagwad,
You are still going at it ever so stupidly, aren’t you?
Choice you say? So, you still have choice after being hit by an axe. Simply run away if you can’t take the physical pain anymore. Just like a sound of an abusive word has already entered your head via your ears before you close the door, similarly an axe has gone into your skin before you run away. As long as the axe doesnt kill you, you still have a choice to run away. Too bad if one gets killed or bleeds to death after being hit by an axe, just like another person may have a nervous breakdown and dies of a heart attack or is debilitated for life after being insulted. It may come as a news to you, but there are people who are physically strong but emotionally fragile just as there are people who are emotionally strong and physically fragile. Just because you claim to be one of the second type of people, your blanket expectation for everyone to be emotionally strong and physically fragile is absurdity of a very high grade.
Are you trying to suggest you couldnt understand my point about animals? India has national animals and birds which are national symbols too. So would you go ahead and kill a tiger or a peacock? Just as you would burn a flag? If you wont kill an animal just because it is also a national symbol, you need to edit your post and refer to only those symbols which are inanimate.
And from where did you manage to create a relation between identity and self worth, i cannot understand. When you prove your identity to an officer in charge, are you actually proving your self worth to him? Are you really that dumb?
People may and do wear underwear with the colors of their country’s flag, but they still have to prove their identity through their national symbols and flags when they are in a foreign land. At least while entering a foreign country. Or would you simply boast of your worth in your professional field to the immigration officer and expect him to grant you entry according to your worth? No one needs nor can prove their worth by symbols. Symbols are not for that purpose. Though maybe people like you would try to prove their identity by their underwear.
You wont tear up your passport because it is a legal document for you to travel. So you are ok with having a symbol on that document as long as it serves your need. But in an earlier comment you said that symbols are meaningless. So does that mean after you are done with fighting for your rights to abuse the symbols, you are going to fight to get those symbols removed from passports as well? And why do you think you need a passport to travel? Why dont you expect the officers at a foreign airport to let you in without one? In other words, arent you accepting the need to prove your identity as an Indian citizen? Something which is valid only if your passport has the national symbol?
Oh but i forgot, you love to contradict yourself. You have a problem being identified as an Indian. But as long as that helps you land in some countries which you are crazy about, you will bear with it.
And you end up with another contradiction saying you will name the country where you were brought up. That, after your immediately previous statement where you objected to the validity of the country whose boundaries were drawn by someone else hundreds of years ago. Do you have a certain time frame for things? Maybe you will want to change your name because it was thought of and decided by someone else many years ago as well. Or were you already so logically clever when you were born that you decided on your own name?
Your epic replies to the things i say actually provide me laughter for a few hours. So i am really enjoying this now.
In reply to Arun P
“So, you still have choice after being hit by an axe. Simply run away…”
Not if the other person is bigger, stronger and faster than you.
“Just like a sound of an abusive word has already entered your head via your ears”
Yeah, but adults are assumed to be not so emotionally fragile to be emotionally scarred by a single random word or painting entering their heads. If you don’t agree, I’d like to see you give some examples where this has happened. Only mentally ill people can claim to be “harmed” in any real manner in that way.
“just like another person may have a nervous breakdown and dies of a heart attack or is debilitated for life after being insulted.”
If such people exist, they need to be locked away in mental institutions and not be allowed to walk free on the roads.
“So would you go ahead and kill a tiger or a peacock?”
Does the concept of not wanting to cause pain to any animal resonate with you in any way?
But they still have to prove their identity through their national symbols and flags when they are in a foreign land.
I don’t remember claiming otherwise.
“But in an earlier comment you said that symbols are meaningless.”
From an emotional point of view. Their usefulness in the physical world for mundane matters is obvious.
“You have a problem being identified as an Indian.”
I have a problem with being identified with any nationality beyond merely legal purposes.
“Maybe you will want to change your name because it was thought of and decided by someone else many years ago as well.”
I’ve thought of it. But it’s too much effort and serves no purpose. A name is another thing that is just some sequence of words that someone else made up for you.
“So i am really enjoying this now.”
That makes two of us :)
@ bhagwad,
So, you finally agree that as long as the person with an axe is NOT bigger, stronger and faster than you, it is logical to run away. Right? But even if the person is bigger, stronger and faster than you, you should be fine with it until that person doesnt kill.
Your assumptions of adult humans are pathetically absurd. Just because you yourself claim to be emotionally strong, you want and expect the entire human race to be emotionally strong as well. Since you have the internet at your disposal, do take out time to find out that emotions are not something hypothetical. There are specific parts of the brain that control emotions. Since all humans are not built the same physically, there are differences in the structure of the brain as well. And that includes the parts which control emotions. So a person cannot merely decide to react in a particular way to a situation as there are differences in the structure of his brain leading to different amount of secretions of substances in his brain which ultimately decide his behavior. I hope you are not going to expect all humans to have the same physical structure as well. Because the brain is not hypothetical but a physical structure and will continue to differ from person to person. The above statement may be too complicated for your simple brain, but still try to look it up. Hopefully it will help to clear the absurdity in your own brain which expects all humans not to be emotionally fragile and be as thick-headed as you.
And just because a person is emotionally fragile he should be locked up? Mental asylums are for people who are mentally unstable and not for those who are emotionally fragile. It is evident that mental and emotional are synonyms as per your less than brilliant brain. But since you still insist of locking up emotionally fragile people, i guess you should also demand for locking up physically fragile people who otherwise run the risk of getting hurt physically. Of course freedom doesnt apply for emotionally or physically fragile people according to you who claims to be a champion crusader of the right to freedom.
In my previous to previous comment, i pointed out specifically that you would bring up the excuse of prevention of cruelty to animals if i asked you whether you will kill an animal which is a national symbol. I clearly stated that “i am not going to ask you whether you would want to damage/kill those living creatures as well, because i know then you will bring in the ‘cruelty to animals’ logic.” To which you replied with a stupid ‘Duh’. But when i again asked you the same question, you replied with exactly what i mentioned in my previous comment. If you are so concerned about the cruelty to animals, at least now you should edit your post and state clearly that your right to abuse national symbols excludes animals which are national symbols as well.
According to you, symbols are useful for the legal purpose they serve. So you agree that national symbols are there for legal use. But you still want to abuse something that is legal.
Then you have a problem being identified with a country beyond merely legal purposes. But a few comments back you ended one of your comments saying “What I want is India to become free. I love it too much”. Love? i thought you were a sensible adult without any emotions towards something which was just a country whose boundaries were just a set of arbitrarily random lines drawn by someone else hundreds of years ago”. Since you so easily forget what you uttered a moment back, it is no wonder that you would have forgotten this statement of yours too.
I should have guessed that you had already thought of changing your name. If you are ashamed of even your own name, then i wonder why you decided to name this website on your name as well. i cannot wait to find the level to which you can go to make a complete fool of yourself. At least it serves the purpose to amuse others.
In reply to Arun P
“So, you finally agree that as long as the person with an axe is NOT bigger, stronger and faster than you, it is logical to run away.”
I did? Interesting. Must have missed that :).
To answer your question – no it is not. Physical hurt is real, measurable and cannot be faked. Moreover, you have no choice in feeling physical hurt. An axe to the head will hurt and draw blood for everyone. Not so with “mental” pain. There’s no way to tell if a person is faking it or not. No measure. And without some kind of measurement, you can’t do anything about it.
Also, in a civilized society, people are expected to deal with emotional hurt on their own. They are not expected to deal with physical hurt. The state exists to protect the body. Not the mind.
“Just because you yourself claim to be emotionally strong, you want and expect the entire human race to be emotionally strong as well.”
In reality everyone is strong. It depends on whether your country treats you as a child or an adult. In India, the state treats you like a kid. So people behave like kids. In other countries like the US, the state treats you like an adult. So people behave like adults.
Why do you think Muslims in the US are not rioting over the anti Islam films? Are they less religious? No. Please answer this question and we can reach the source of the problem. Why are Muslims in the western world not going around burning stuff?
“Since all humans are not built the same physically, there are differences in the structure of the brain as well.”
So you’re saying that everyone in the US has a superior brain structure compared to Indians? Do you have such a low opinion of your fellow countrymen?
Given the diferences between the behavior of Indians and the western world, as per your arguments the only explanation is that Indians are inferior. I refuse to believe that.
“And just because a person is emotionally fragile he should be locked up?”
Quesiton of degree. If it’s so fragile that seeing something can make a person pick up a stick then yes.
“i guess you should also demand for locking up physically fragile people who otherwise run the risk of getting hurt physically.”
The police exist to protect people from physical harm.
“at least now you should edit your post and state clearly that your right to abuse national symbols excludes animals”
Don’t be ridiculous. I still have every right to pee on a picture of a tiger.
“Love? i thought you were a sensible adult without any emotions”
What can I say? I know India is just a set of random boundaries, but I’m attached to it as well. Illogical yes. Relevant? No.
In reply to Arun P
If you want a nice explanation of why only physical harm is important, here is a blog post I wrote around two years ago: http://www.bhagwad.com/blog/2010/rights-and-freedoms/stop-harming-me.html/
In reply to Arun P
If you claim that it’s “human nature” to be deeply offended and suffer irrepearable harm from insult and offence, how do you explain that Muslims in the US are not demanding that the movie “Innocence of Muslims” be taken down? There are no riots and no shootings there.
Are Muslims in the US miserable? Do they have a poor quality of life because of all the insults? Are they less relgious than other Muslims? http://www.bhagwad.com/blog/2012/rights-and-freedoms/why-does-only-the-us-get-free-speech.html/
The US is proof that people are fully capable of controlling themselves. Unless you say that everyone in the US is someone genetically superior to the rest of us.