If you are truly patriotic, you will never use violence against mere words. The TRUE

If you are truly patriotic, you will never use violence against mere words. The TRUE "anti-nationals" are those using and cheering on violence against JNU students who are non-violent. India will not be destroyed by words. But if you disregard its core principles like due process, non-violence, and free speech, you will be her murderer.

Only Anti-Nationals Proudly Use Violence

I don’t care whether Kashmir is part of India or not. For me, the only value is military. If it makes India less secure to have Pakistan or China control that area, then keep it. Otherwise I could give a damn whether it stays with us or not. Same for any state.

This does not make me anti-national. Do you know why? Because “India” isn’t about physical land. India is about being an oasis of democracy, stability, and freedom in a very disturbed region consisting of Pakistan, China, Afghanistan, Russia etc. So if JNU protesters want freedom for Kashmir, I couldn’t care less.

You know who is the true anti-national? The people getting violent and recommending violence. The lawyers. The Internet trolls asking for lynch mob justice. They are far, far more dangerous than the harmless JNU students who have never once gone on a rampage, have never once physically hurt anyone, have never picked up a gun, have never asked for someone to be tortured.

If India was a person, she would catch these guys by the scruff of their neck and say “You love me? You piece of shit, then WHY are you using and advocating violence?

These fake nationalist assholes are the true “anti-nationals” because they do not believe in the ideals of India. They do not believe in due process. They do not believe in free speech. They do not believe in non-violence. These are the same lunatics who recommend “fake encounter” killings for people suspected of being terrorists. They are okay with murder, they applaud the police for barbaric acts, and love authoritarian state control. This…THIS, is the real threat to India. People who don’t believe in its ideals.

If India was a person, she would catch these guys by the scruff of their neck and say “You love me? You piece of shit, then WHY are you using and advocating violence? How DARE you? You don’t love me – you love something else and are putting my name on it. You don’t deserve to be called an Indian.”

You want to find the anti-nationals in India? Then search out the flag waving jingoists who go on a rampage and advocate for violence and murder, and who cheer the police, and who want to shut down free speech. If anything ends up destroying India, THAT will.

The JNU students are no threat. What is going to happen? Let them praise Pakistan if they want – that will not destroy India. India is stronger than that. As long as they don’t use or advocate violence everything will be ok. They are a non issue. A complete waste of time. If one of them tried to pick up a gun, they’d probably shoot themselves accidentally. Mere words are not going to destroy India. The SC will dismiss the sedition charges against them (as it has done before), and all will be settled.

But violence can, and will destroy India. Especially violence proudly carried out and publicized. The enemy within are those for whom India is just a piece of land, with no meaning behind it. For them, the word “India” consists of boundaries and nothing more. Not due process, not “innocent until proven guilty”, not non-violence, not free speech, not rule of law.

These are your anti-nationals. Look no further.

What do you think of this post?
  • Agree (12)
  • Don't Agree but Interesting (3)
  • You're an asshole (3)

Comments

  1. Good one. The way the so-called patriots or nationalists carry out their agenda is more detrimental to India than the so-labelled antinationals.

    Reply

    • In reply to matheikal

      Far, far more detrimental! Nothing the JNU guys have done so far has actually harmed India. Nor will it ever.

      But these goons and thugs hiding shameless under the banner of “patriotism” have already harmed our faith in the law, and have undermined our faith in the police.

      Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        Bhagwad,
        Totally agree.

        Just to play the Devil’s advocate..
        How do we know that what JNU guys have said in the past had not harmed India ? This is type-2 statistical error. We do not know the value of lost-opportunity.

        The obvious right-in-the-face violence and harm is easily measurable, discussed and taken action on. The harm of 0.5% drop in GDP is probably 100 million staying back in poverty. A flawed agricultural policy is a few 1000 suicides. A misguided (or opportunistic) revolution is a few hundred’s life & career…. far more violent in effect.

        When 2 kids are fighting.. we shouldn’t assume the one crying is right and the one who is caught with his hand in the cookie jar is the only one wrong.

        Reply

      • In reply to Murali

        What’s the worst side effect we’re looking at? Some guys ruining their own lives…at best. Not harming anyone else, not stopping others from going about their own day. When taken in the larger scheme of people who ruin their own lives anyway – drunkards, criminals (who also harm others), bad career choices, accidents etc etc, the number of revolutionaries who spoil there lives must be a vanishing error!

        I really don’t think we can criminalize “lost opportunities” :) . Especially when those opportunities are only restricted to the people themselves and have no spill over effect.

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        How do we know the worst case scenario ? Why do we assume there is no spill over effect ?

        Andhra Pradesh was split into 2 states based on a false sense of victimhood. No objective evidence found from innumerable studies. It started almost similarly with slogans in Osmania and other Universities, milked by political parties. 600 students died in process. 1000s of crores wasted/lost. 1000s of students who should’ve been studying were left out of competition which students from other state students might have taken away. One cannot even measure the loss of potential. 1000s would have suffered hunger and loss of earning due to bandhs. This is real pain and real loss. Just that the correlation is difficult to see.

        I am saying.. lets not assume the effect of these, good or bad.

        Violence is a crime and no to ways about it. Lawyers or goons whom you criticized are to be punished. Absolutely. I have no argument here.

        Reply

      • In reply to Murali

        There could well be an undocumented effect. In cases like this I would say the burden of evidence lies on the one proposing the hypothesis. One can’t prove a negative after all…

        Reply

  2. You couldn’t be more wrong. Let me translate the slogan “Bharat ki barbaaadi tak jung rahegi” for you. It says, we will fight a WAR against the state till it is destroyed. Clear incitement to violence. And sedition is not legal in any country on this planet, including the United States of America.

    I am shocked that you think these JNU guys have never harmed and will never harm India. Clearly you don’t know what these organizations are. These are members of AISA, a branch of CPIML Liberation started by Kanu Sanyal and Charu Mazumdar, both certified terrorists with countless murders to their name. Not to mention that Commies have left a trail of death and destruction the world over. We will never get the accurate numbers of how many millions they killed. In India itself, Commies have a massive military infrastructure spanning several states.

    At a time when large sections of Indian territory are under military occupation by Commies, dont you think its a little too much to expect the state to take it lying down when fellow Commies declare war against the state in our capital? Which country under physical occupation and invasion would tolerate this? If Texas and California were occupied by the Soviet Union, are you seriously telling me that the US would take it lying down if Commie students in Seattle declared war on the US government? Why impose such an impractical standard on India?

    And don’t forget that JNU is a university campus. Living in America, surely you know the state of free speech on American campuses.

    Reply

    • In reply to Sumit

      Well, a war doesn’t necessarily mean a physical war no? It could be political. It could be ideological too. I think “war” is too general a term to automatically mean violence.

      In the US, the Brandenburg v. Ohio decision in 1969 held that even seditious speech advocating violence is legal. Only if it’s going to lead to imminent lawless action, is it illegal. That is, the person has to say something like “Let’s go now, pick up some guns, and take over parliament!”.

      Gotta love the US. We really need to be more like them.

      We can’t judge someone merely because they belong to a group. For me, this is not only a moral stance, but also a legal one. The Indian SC has held the same when it came to Naxalite supporters. I view each person as an individual, not as part of a group.

      Are you referring to Kerala when you say “commies”? That’s not military occupation is it?

      Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        Kerala is just a case of Commie snipers and scouts.. I am talking about Commie military occupation across large tracts of India. Which country under military occupation would tolerate such an act in its capital and major cities?

        But let’s come to your core hypocrisy. Let me get this straight. If you are fine with “seditious speech advocating violence”, then what’s your problem with “fake nationalist assholes” advocating violence as well? See here:

        “The Internet trolls asking for lynch mob justice. They are far, far more dangerous than the harmless JNU students who have never once gone on a rampage, have never once physically hurt anyone, have never picked up a gun, have never asked for someone to be tortured.”

        Internet trolls are also just advocating, no? If people are tweeting and posting on FB advocating violence, that’s not a gun either, is it? And how can you possibly say that Commies have “never asked for someone to be tortured”? Got a little carried away over there, didn’t you? What do you mean by not “judging” them for being part of a group? They are card carrying Commies, they proudly say that they are Commies and hence I only came to the conclusion that they are Commies. Are you objecting to this? And well…Commies advocate violence…it’s practically tautological. Violence is the most beloved and often used weapon of every Commie. At the very least, isn’t it sheer madness to come to the conclusion that you drew that these students have NEVER asked for someone to be tortured?

        Reply

      • In reply to Sumit

        One, I don’t know which commie military occupation you’re talking about. Two, the JNU students themselves are not occupying anything, so this is pretty irrelevant no?

        I’m not asking for the “fake nationalistic assholes” advocating violence to be jailed am I? I’m just calling them assholes, which is my own free speech! I said they’re dangerous – that doesn’t mean I want them to be taken to court or anything. Free speech rules after all.

        The lawyers of course, are a different matter. They actually used violence.

        What “commies” as a general group ask for and do doesn’t matter to me. I only care what the specific JNU students ask and do. Let them be card carrying communists. Let the communist philosophy advocate violence. To me, I judge each person on their individual acts and words. Not on the acts and words of the group they claim to be a member of.

        If you can show me a video of one of these JNU students asking for someone to be tortured, I will stand corrected.

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        Bhagwad, you didn’t just go after the lawyers. Here’s what you said:

        “You know who is the true anti-national? The people getting violent and recommending violence. The lawyers. The Internet trolls asking for lynch mob justice.”

        How come internet trolls asking for lynch mob justice are classified as threat to the country but you say that seditious Commies are not a threat?

        Here is you again:

        “You want to find the anti-nationals in India? Then search out the flag waving jingoists who go on a rampage and advocate for violence and murder, and who cheer the police, and who want to shut down free speech. If anything ends up destroying India, THAT will.
        The JNU students are no threat. What is going to happen? ”

        But didn’t you just say that advocating violence and murder is fine when seditionists do it? And cheering police, waving flags, jingoism are all forms of free expression. Just as wanting Communism is free expression, so is wanting to shut down free speech.

        When you say:

        “The JNU students are no threat. What is going to happen? ”

        By saying: what is going to happen, you are talking about possible threats in the future. Assuming that you don’t have a time machine, you are talking about likelihood here. What is the likelihood of Commies doing violence? ROFL…

        How can a sane person trying to guess the future of Commies possibly come to the conclusion that they present “no threat”? That too when talking of Commies who are members of AISA and AISF which are literally affiliated to organizations like CPIML? Yet somehow you manage to rule them out as threat. Ha!

        Here is another one of your statements, explaining how the “fake nationalist assholes” are a threat:

        “They are okay with murder, they applaud the police for barbaric acts, and love authoritarian state control.”

        Wow..thanks for describing the basic features of every Commie society that has ever existed. But hey…Commies are not a threat. Only “fake nationalist assholes” are a threat when they believe those things.

        Reply

      • In reply to Sumit

        But where did I say I want the Internet trolls put in jail?? So what’s the problem exactly?

        I’m not going to label the JNU students as “commies” (even if they are) and assume they will do everything that communists have done in the past. Each person is a unique individual and I will make no assumptions about them or what they want to do (unless the specifically mention each act).

        Remember our earlier conversation where I said I don’t label people or judge them except on what they explicitly say/do? This is the same thing.

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        Bhagwad, where did I say that you said put the trolls in jail? I am only asking how come Internet trolls are a “threat”, but Commies are not? You were talking about the future, of “what is going to happen”? How can a sane person conclude that internet trolls are a possible future threat, but Commies are not? Why not just admit your error and prejudices instead of desperate justifications?

        It is irrelevant if you want to label them Commies, these students are labelling themselves as Commies. They are self identified card carrying members of Communist parties. Refusing to “label” them as Commies is like me refusing to “label” you as “Mr. Bhagwad” despite you showing me an id card . It’s not a label I am putting on them, they have obtained membership cards for themselves that establish them as Commies.

        And speaking of labels, why label people as “threat” and “non-threat” ?

        Further, you say:

        “When taken in the larger scheme of people who ruin their own lives anyway – drunkards, criminals (who also harm others), bad career choices, accidents etc etc, the number of revolutionaries who spoil there lives must be a vanishing error!”

        Let’s keep aside for the moment the laughable idea that Communist revolutionaries have only ever ruined their own lives… I heard Mao and Stalin did rather well for themselves, though. Didn’t work out too well for the people around them…

        Okay, why not apply the same standard to these “fake nationalist assholes”? So five-six guys beat up one guy…it’s nothing in the larger context of all the crimes happening in the country, right? I heard that some guy in Thane just shot 14 people dead. Why make such a big deal about five-six guys beating up one guy? Unless you wish to label not just these 5-6 guys but a much larger group of people and break your own rule against labelling…

        Reply

      • In reply to Sumit

        “Commies” is too large a group. I judge the JNU students individually.Like I said, if you show me some evidence that the JNU students advocated violence, I will condemn them as well.

        It doesn’t matter if the JNU students call themselves part of ISIS even. I will still judge them based on individual actions. In fact, any court will do the same. You can’t judge a person for what their group did – only for what they did personally.

        This is the fundamental thing you need to understand. I judge on individual actions alone, and nothing else.

        There’s a line between nationalistic assholes in general, and the thug lawyers. The former should not be put in jail. The latter need to be put in jail. However, the former are still dangerous for supporting violence and encouraging it.

        This is really very simple, and there’s no need to over think things.

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        Yes, applying your standards to your own argument is “over thinking”. I agree.

        What’s “nationalistic assholes in general” ? Is that a label or not? I thought I was dealing with someone who only judges people on individual actions. And how come people are getting classified as “threats” and “non-threats”? What happened to not labelling people?

        Why not answer my question about how 5-6 thug lawyers could possibly be a threat to a country of 1.2 billion with a million man standing army? These 5-6 guys ganged up against 1 guy and still barely managed to injure him. And a country with a million man army is supposed to perceive these 5 men as a “threat”?

        It is you who came up with the idea of looking at events surrounding JNU in the wider context of criminality across the country. I believe this was you sir who stated:

        “When taken in the larger scheme of people who ruin their own lives anyway – drunkards, criminals (who also harm others), bad career choices, accidents etc etc, the number of revolutionaries who spoil there lives must be a vanishing error!”

        How come 5-6 guys slightly beating up one guy is suddenly such a big issue for you? When put in the “larger scheme”, why not categorize them as vanishing errors as well?

        Unless of course, you are not just worried just about 5 guys who slightly beat up 1 guy, you are worried about the threat posed by a larger group you have labelled as “fake nationalist assholes”. This group is such a big threat that you have been forced to break your own rule against labels and includes not only these 5 thug lawyers, but also various thought-criminals like jingoists and speech-criminals like internet trolls.

        Reply

      • In reply to Sumit

        I think it’s pretty clear that I’m only calling someone a nationalistic asshole if they advocate violence. I’m judging them on actual stuff they’ve talked about. Nothing imaginary. Where is the label?

        As for why 5-6 guys are a threat, that’s the whole purpose of my post. I’ve explained it in detail.

        I’m not advocating for anyone to be put in jail on the basis of thoughts, so what’s the problem?

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        What? You get to label people as “nationalistic asshole” based on what they say but you complain when I label people as “Commies” because they are proud members of Communist parties? I am literally using the name they use for themselves and you think that’s a “label” I am sticking on them. But you get to judge them based on what they have said and then conclude that they should be labelled “nationalist assholes”.

        Well, you think you have explained why you think those 5-6 guys are a threat. But in order for the explanation to make sense, you have to be consistent. You can’t apply different standards to the Commies students and the 5-6 thugs when deciding who is a threat and who isn’t. If you choose to judge the JNU Commies in the “larger scheme” of all the troublesome people and criminals in the country, you will have to offer the 5-6 thugs the same courtesy. All they did was beat up 1 guy they were angry at, that too not too badly. Petty petty crime.

        The problem is that you want one standard for judging the threat potential of JNU Commies and a different standard for judging the threat potential of 5-6 thug lawyers.

        Again, I did not judge the JNU Commies in the “larger scheme”. You did. I am only asking why you are not judging the 5-6 thugs the same way. I am only asking for consistency.

        Consistency. Consistency. Consistency. All I am asking for.

        Reply

      • In reply to Sumit

        Read again – I’m labeling them nationalistic assholes who advocate violence. I’m not making any assumptions about their behavior.

        In my book, anyone advocating violence is an asshole.

        And read again – my main point is that the JNU students were no threat to even a single person. At worst, they can be said to be ruining their OWN lives. Unlike the thug lawyers who interfered in other people’s lives.

        I said in the larger scheme of things, they may ruin their own lives – which even then won’t matter since it’s so small. But I wouldn’t care even if millions of students ruin their own lives. It’s their choice.

        Threat vs no threat. Violence vs non violence. You’re trying too hard to find contradictions. The consistency is there. Just read what I say carefully without taking quotes out of context.

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        Here are your words:

        “When taken in the larger scheme of people who ruin their own lives anyway – drunkards, criminals (who also harm others), bad career choices, accidents etc etc, the number of revolutionaries who spoil there lives must be a vanishing error!”

        You are judging the JNU Commies in the larger scheme of criminals. And all you have are 5-6 thugs who got angry at a guy and beat him up. Petty petty crime. How come a minor scuffle is not counted within a vanishing error? Instead, here is your rhetoric for these guys:

        ” If anything ends up destroying India, THAT will.”

        Whoa! 5-6 guys who ganged up against 1 and beat him up slightly are going to destroy India! Shame on our million man army if we can’t tackle these 5 guys armed with nothing but their fists.

        Now if you were not just talking about these 5-6 guys destroying India, but about a whole group of people you have “labelled” as “fake nationalist assholes” and further labelled as a “threat”… in order to be consistent..you must also talk about the entire military battery of Commie warriors who have occupied large parts of India by force. And then you should explain how an occupying Commie militia does not pose an existential threat to India, but fake nationalist assholes do…

        Reply

      • In reply to Sumit

        You’re simply trying too hard to find contradictions.

        Read the sentence I wrote before that: “Not harming anyone else, not stopping others from going about their own day”. It’s clear I don’t care whether they ruin their own lives or not. My sentence was a concession that even if it was wrong, it doesn’t matter.

        But it’s not wrong to begin with. Not only that, I follow up and say ‘I really don’t think we can criminalize “lost opportunities”‘. Meaning I don’t think it’s a problem at all.

        Violence vs non-violence.

        As for why I find people who advocate violence a threat, you’ll need to read my article (and understand it) for that.

        Your problem is that you’re labeling the JNU students as “commies” and assuming that they advocate violence. I however, am not assuming anything about the fake nationalistic assholes who advocate violence. I am expressly targeting those who advocate violence.

        Your comments are full of logical holes. Assumptions, straw man arguments. Maybe instead of responding to your comments, I should simply start listing down your fallacies. That might be a better approach.

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        You are the one giving the rhetoric of “If anything ends up destroying India, THAT will”. And if you are only focused on violence, what’s your problem with “flag waving jingoists”? Which part of flag waving and jingoism is violent? Do you mean people are getting physically hurt by flags waving too hard in their faces?

        You have only 2 options to stay consistent:

        1. Acknowledge that JNU students sloganeering are not a threat (which you did) and also acknowledge that the 5-6 lawyers who beat up one guy can’t possibly be an existential threat to India.

        2. Acknowledge that BOTH JNU Commies and the 5-6 lawyers are part of a much larger group. The lawyers are part of a larger powerful group of “flag waving jingoists” and “internet trolls” and ideologues who are a threat to the nation as a whole. And that the JNU Commies are part of a massive Commie network that includes military bases and has occupied large parts of India by military invasion.

        What you have done here is judge the lawyers as part of a larger group that might “destroy India” and then judged the JNU students as individuals. Now look what you wrote here:

        “The people getting violent and recommending violence. The lawyers. The Internet trolls asking for lynch mob justice. ……They do not believe in due process. They do not believe in free speech. They do not believe in non-violence. These are the same lunatics who recommend “fake encounter” killings for people suspected of being terrorists. They are okay with murder, they applaud the police for barbaric acts, and love authoritarian state control. This…THIS, is the real threat to India.”

        See how nicely you have mixed up non-violence with violence here. Not threatening murder nor committing nor inciting murder, but simply being “okay with murder” is free expression, no? Applauding police for barbaric acts and loving authoritarian state control are all forms of free expression. Not believing in non-violence, not believing in due process and not believing in free speech are all forms of free expression. But getting violent is not free speech. The lawyers beating up the guy wasn’t free speech. But see how nicely you have blended together people who were violent and people you accuse of not believing in an idea.

        Do you see the problem now? The lawyers have been embedded into a larger group, but you have pulled the JNU students out of the wider Commie context. You can’t judge one side by individual acts and the other side as a group.

        Reply

      • In reply to Sumit

        Again – how many times do I have to repeat this – I only have a problem with flag waving jingoists who advocate violence. Read my post.

        I think I see your confusion. You’re assuming that just because I’m ok with free speech, it means what they say is not a threat. You’re assuming that just because something is legal, it means it’s not dangerous.

        If so, here’s my chance to correct you. The nationalistic assholes have free speech. However, they are ok with murder. They don’t like non-violence. This makes them a threat. They still have the legal right to say what they want. But they’re still a threat.

        And yes, I group them all together. The lawyers and the people who support them. Not arbitrarily like you are doing with the JNU students, but on the actual basis of the fact that they support violence.

        There is nothing illogical about that grouping – they have provided a very convenient criteria for me to group them together. Namely supporting violence which will destroy India. Even while I accept their right to support violence.

        Do you understand? It’s legal to support something that will destroy India. As it should be. I think that’s the point you’re not understanding.

        You trying to group the JNU students together as “commies” is just ridiculous. There is no single specific idea or action that all of them have demonstrably shown.

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        Now we’re talking :)

        1) “Again – how many times do I have to repeat this – I only have a problem with flag waving jingoists who advocate violence. Read my post.”

        Ummm….. to “advocate” means “to speak or write in favor of; support or urge by argument; recommend publicly”. Free speech.

        Since you are a writer, you have no excuse for mixing up the meanings of “to advocate” and “to incite” or “to threaten”.

        2) As for the part where you neatly mixed up lawyer goons with people you accuse of not believing in an idea, thanks for your honest admission:

        “And yes, I group them all together. The lawyers and the people who support them. Not arbitrarily like you are doing with the JNU students, but on the actual basis of the fact that they support violence.”

        So, after all these comments, you finally admit that you were addressing two forms of guilt in your post: individual guilt based on individual actions and group guilt based on a mixture of thoughts, words and actions. Don’t worry, I forgive you :)

        Finally, what can I even say to your comment that I am “arbitrarily” grouping proud card carrying members of Communist parties as “Commies”? Perhaps this was a typo and you were looking for some other word here?

        Reply

      • In reply to Sumit

        Of course it’s free speech. So?

        I have no idea what you’re trying to say. The lawyers support violence (and carry it out). The fake nationalistic assholes support violence. They are a group – duh. A very specific group based on a specific criteria.

        That group is a threat. It’s free speech sure, but still a threat.

        “Commie” means nothing – too general. You can’t group people on that. You can only group people based on specific actions or ideas that they individually hold.

        My grouping is valid. Yours is invalid. I have specific criteria for my grouping. What criteria do you have? Nothing but a vague label of “commies”. That kind of lazy thinking will get you nowhere.

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        “My grouping is valid. Yours is invalid.”

        You know, I once asked a Shia friend of mine what is the difference between Shias and Sunnis. He thought for a long time and gave me this answer:

        “We Shias are very open minded. Sunnis are close minded”.

        :)

        Communism is a very well defined and specific ideology with a very established worldwide footprint. Amazing that referring to card carrying members of Communist parties as “Commies” is too vague for you. All you have to do to justify my grouping is check their printed membership card from a Communist party. Wow…those are some really vague criteria.

        Meanwhile, “fake nationalist assholes” sounds like a very well defined and precise grouping.

        Reply

      • In reply to Sumit

        Again – fake nationalistic assholes who support violence. The last phrase is the basis of the grouping. The first is merely a judgment on the group.

        With your grouping, you cannot say with 100% certainty whether or not every single “commie” like the JNU students support violence. There are probably lots of them who hate violence and would never support it. Your grouping has a high failure rate.

        My grouping on the other hand – I can say with 100% certainty that they all support violence. Why? Because it’s there in the definition!

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        First, you should decide whether you want to talk about individual guilt or group guilt. Just look at this:

        “You know who is the true anti-national? The people getting violent and recommending violence. The lawyers. The Internet trolls asking for lynch mob justice. They are far, far more dangerous than the harmless JNU students who have never once gone on a rampage”

        Talk about fallacies!! Entire group on one side compared to individuals on the other side. Take one individual Nazi soldier or one small platoon of Nazi soldiers and compare it to the entire Allied Armed forces. Who is more dangerous?

        Now lets examine your latest argument: you say that the people who satisfy BOTH of the following conditions are a threat:

        1. Be a fake nationalist asshole
        2. Support violence

        Now why would No.1 be needed? Isn’t merely supporting violence enough to be a threat? Why does it need to be further qualified with the fake nationalist assholism :)

        Reply

      • In reply to Sumit

        I don’t think you’re reading anything I write. “Fake nationalistic asshole” is not a criteria. It’s a judgment. Only the “support violence” part is a criteria. I put in the nationalistic asshole part for my own amusement and to demonstrate my scorn. It has no logical value, and I never claimed it did.

        I specifically wrote this in my previous comment, which leads me to believe that you’re not reading what I write.

        And what is the fallacy exactly? My grouping is specific and 100% fail proof. So I can use it without problems. You have no similar perfect grouping, since you can’t say with 100% certainty anything about any individual.

        People who support violence = group. It’s specific, and it means something.
        Commie =/= group. It’s general, and means nothing.

        Ergo, I can treat the “fake nationalistic assholes who support violence” as a legitimate group. You cannot logically do the same with “commies”. Makes sense?

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        The fallacy lies in the fact that you switch to individual actions when talking of JNU and to group threats when talking of the other side. Pity I have to repeat this:

        “You know who is the true anti-national? The people getting violent and recommending violence. The lawyers. The Internet trolls asking for lynch mob justice. They are far, far more dangerous than the harmless JNU students who have never once gone on a rampage”

        As I asked you, could an individual Nazi soldier be more dangerous than the entire Allied forces?

        The fallacy is that you neatly switch back and forth between individuals and groups. You can’t compare:

        One Nazi soldier vs entire Allied forces

        But you can compare:

        Nazis vs Allies.

        Similarly, you can’t compare:

        All fake nationalist assholes who support violence vs JNU Commie students

        But you can compare:

        All fake nationalist assholes who support violence vs All Commies

        Now, who’s the bigger threat?

        And when you do the grouping, the actions of individuals become irrelevant. Did every single Nazi support violence? Who knows… The group can only be judged by its group characteristics and group actions. Not by actions of every specific individual. That’s the whole point of judging a group…ignoring the actions of specific individuals and only considering the overall actions/effects.

        Now if you want to switch back to individuals, you can also compare:

        Lawyer thugs vs JNU Commie students

        OR

        One Nazi soldier vs One Allied soldier

        Is it clear now?

        Reply

      • In reply to Sumit

        Oh, but I already have a “group” for the JNU students. It’s called…wait for it…the JNU students! Just because I refuse to group them according to your flawed criteria, doesn’t mean I’m not categorizing them at all.

        My “JNU students classification” is precise, exact, and has a 100% perfect predictive use – it accurately predicts whether or not they are students of JNU! If it’s not 100% accurate, I don’t group at all. Or if so, I specifically go out of my way to mention the flaws.

        The irony here is that even if you’re comfortable generalizing (which I’m not btw), I can guarantee you that your average “commie” JNU students don’t support violence regardless of whether or not communism itself supports violence.

        In fact, this is exactly how you insist on foolishly calling college students in the US “liberals”, when in fact they are anything but liberals. You can’t be a liberal if you’re against free speech. And so I refuse to call them liberals.

        And in the case of JNU, you’re making a whole host of assumptions about the views of JNU students simply because you couldn’t help labeling them as “commies” – without verifying whether or not they stand by the principles of communism!!

        Let me put this even more clearly. If you say that advocating violence is a core principle of communism, then the average JNU student is not a communist regardless of what they call themselves, what card they carry, or what party they belong to.

        So now you have a dilemma. Either you agree that communism mandates violence – in which case, out goes your tag of “commie” JNU students since most of them would never advocate violence. Or you agree that violence is optional in communism, in which case your “dangerous commies” label loses its sting.

        And before you ask – Yes, I know for a fact that most JNU students don’t advocate violence. I lived in Delhi, and stayed in the JNU campus during my college days on and off over a period of 2 years. and spoke to a wide variety of people. They were without exception non-violent and would shirk with horror at the thought of getting violent.

        Q.E.D.

        Quite a quandry for you huh? :D

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        Arguing whether Communism mandates violence is like the sterile debate on whether Islam is a “violent religion”. Various mullahs have various interpretations/excuses about the meaning of “jihad”. Totally pointless. We should only judge Islam by the fruit it bears. Just like we should judge Communism by its body count.

        Further, I can only laugh at someone using their personal revelations on JNU campus as a counter argument and saying QED. Next maybe someone will say Jesus appeared in a dream and said something about abortion and say QED. There are people who say hell is real because they had a “near death experience” and lived to tell the story. Another QED right there :)

        Let’s go by publicly verifiable evidence of Commie work, not revelations made privately to you.

        This time let me make two lists that will show you which comparisons are logical and which are fallacious

        Logical to compare:

        1) Thug lawyers vs JNU sloganeers
        2) Fake nationalist assholes vs All Commies
        3) 1 Allied soldier vs 1 Nazi soldier
        4) Nazis vs Allies

        Fallacious to compare:

        1) Fake nationalist assholes vs JNU sloganeers <—— This is the one you made.
        2) Lawyer thugs vs All Commies
        3) 1 Allied soldier vs Nazi military
        4) Allied Army vs 1 Nazi soldier

        Compare individuals to individuals and groups to groups. You are trying to make an excuse that JNU Commies are a group in themselves. The issue is political, but you are choosing to label them with their JNU student affiliation rather than their Commie affiliation. Let me show you how intellectually dishonest this is:

        Take mass murderer Stalin. He had many attributes:

        1) Communist
        2) Atheist
        3) Moustache
        4) Male, etc, etc.

        Which one would you pick up when talking about his massacres? As you well know, there are people who try to blame his massacres on being atheist. As Dawkins would point out, Stalin did what he did not in the name of atheism, but in the name of Communism. What the JNU Commies were doing here was related not to them being JNU students, but to them being Commies. As such, for purposes of this debate, it is a distraction to label them as JNU students rather than as Commies.

        Reply

      • In reply to Sumit

        I’m so glad you’re realizing that this is like debating whether or not Islam mandates violence (it does). That’s not a sterile debate, but the beginnings of maturity and common sense. It’s nothing but laziness to try and evaluate something based on its outcome regardless of whether or not the practitioners follow the philosophy or not.

        Indeed, you should use personal revelations as evidence – depending on where it comes from. Having a dream…is just a dream. Having a near death experience can also be passed off as not a real experience. You’re discounting the experience itself, not the contents.

        But if someone I know to be a sensible person said that Jesus actually appeared in front of them, I will listen to what I have to say. It won’t be enough, because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Certainly I won’t dismiss them outright.

        Moreover, there is nothing remotely extraordinary about saying that JNU students don’t support violence. That is a mere fact I am educating you over. It doesn’t break the laws of the universe or change your entire way of looking at things.

        Unless of course, it’s a major part of your life to think that all “commies” support violence.

        Ultimately you have to decide whether or not you wish to speak English. If you call a person a communist, you have to show that they adhere to the principles of communism. If you call someone a liberal, you have to show that they adhere to liberalism. If you call someone a Christian, you have to show that they at least believe, if not practice Christianity.

        It doesn’t matter whether or not a call myself a bird. I can’t “identify” as a bird. Where are my wings? The beak? I am a human regardless of what I call myself.

        Similarly, there is no chance in hell that you can prove that every student of JNU believes in the principles of communism. Not even the majority. You’re so far gone that you refuse to even answer the question of whether or not communism supports violence! Lazy, lazy. Most of your thinking is lazy thinking, false dichotomies, and strawman arguments. Combined with a generous dose of not reading what I wrote before.

        Nuance. Your arguments have none of them. They have all the blunt impact of a sledgehammer, and none of the precision. Sorry, but logic is a precise tool. If you use it, wield it properly. Or don’t bother.

        Reply

      • Abhishek says:

        In reply to bhagwad

        Bhagwad, I don’t think carrying on with this conversation (if it could be called so) is of any use as it is very clear that this person ‘Sumit’ seems to be trying very hard to find some logical (or even a literary) error in your article or your comments to prove you wrong. I don’t think he has much to discuss about the content otherwise. It is rather a waste of time to try to prove you wrong just because you don’t subscribe to his ideology which is very evident from the comments on many of your earlier articles. Just a suggestion from my own experience of years – you simply cannot debate on logic with such people. :-)

        Another sensible article, by the way!

        Reply

      • In reply to Abhishek

        @Abhishek
        You’re probably right. Thanks for the feedback :)

        Reply

  3. Hi Bhagwad,
    Commie student union thugs at University of Hyderabad cracked heads of policemen and vandalized the VC’s office yesterday. I came eagerly to your website hoping to see your swashbuckling post against the threat posed to India by these violent thugs and of course the fake pro-poor assholes waving the red flag!
    You must be very busy. No problem…but when you have some time, do express the extreme anger that you must be feeling towards these student union thugs…

    Best wishes
    Sumit.

    Reply

  4. Hello Mister Bhagwad,
    Salutations, congratulations, many salaams and pranaams. Good morning, Good afternoon and Good evening.

    Today in Patna, India, a man chanted “Bharat mata ki jai” and held up a black flag during a speech of Kanhaiya Kumar. Please note that this was an OFFICIAL event of AISA/AISF to celebrate Commie Day on May 1.

    The man who expressed dissent was beaten up severely at the official event of the AISA/AISF. The video of this is available with ANI and every other news organization. Mr. Kanhaiya Kumar has also tweeted out from his official account acknowledging that this act of violence did take place.

    I am eagerly waiting for your post now on “Commie assholes”, “red flag waving jingoists”. Hopefully, the Commie student union thugs have now graduated to the status of “threat” to India.

    Thanks,

    Your biggest fan.

    PS: Suggested language for your post is as follows (changes in upper case to your original text):

    These COMMIE assholes are the true “anti-nationals” because they do not believe in the ideals of India. They do not believe in due process. They do not believe in free speech. They do not believe in non-violence. These are the same lunatics who recommend “EXECUTION BY PEOPLE’S COURTS” for people suspected of being LOYAL TO THE INDIAN STATE. They are okay with murder, they applaud the NAXALS for barbaric acts, and love authoritarian COMMUNIST DICTATORS control. This…THIS, is the real threat to India. People who don’t believe in its ideals.

    You want to find the anti-nationals in India? Then search out the RED flag waving jingoists who go on a rampage and advocate for violence and murder, and who cheer the NAXALS, and who want to shut down free speech. If anything ends up destroying India, THAT will.

    Reply

    • In reply to Sumit

      If they openly advocate for violence, they are anti-national. What’s the controversy?

      Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        Respected sir, I didn’t say there was a controversy. I was just looking forward to your article excoriating the AISA/AISF Commie student union thug brigade for being anti-national.

        At least, why not update this blog post of yours with the words: “At least as of May 1, 2016, Commie student union thugs are a threat to India”?

        Please do not disappoint your biggest fan. Remember that as a self declared member of the enlightened “traditional intellectuals, the progressives, and the “politically correct” crowd. “, you have an enormous responsibility to save humanity through your fair mindedness.

        Reply

      • In reply to Sumit

        Oh? Could you point me towards the Facebook posts by JNU students celebrating this violence and justifying it?

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        Sir, you are disappointing your biggest fan so much :( Why do we need additional conditions now? I thought the mere use of political violence makes people anti-national.

        Let me get this straight. There is an official event of a Commie students union. A man says “Bharat Mata ki jai” and gets brutally beaten up for it. They are cheering Stalin (score: 3 million dead) and Mao (score: 20 million dead) out there and you are waiting for their Facebook post on beating up one single political opponent? Still you need further evidence that these people might not believe in “due process” and applauding “barbaric acts” and “authoritarianism”?

        But let’s do the Commies a huge favor and forgive them for cheering Stalin and Mao (for no other reason other than the fact that you have arbitrarily decided to exclude it). I thought the mere use of violence makes them a “threat” and “anti-national”. You admitted it yourself. Why the second thoughts now? Why are additional conditions being placed?

        Reply

      • In reply to Sumit

        JNU students killed 23 million people and issued threats? When did this happen?

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        I said “cheering” sir. I wrote it in English.

        At least change your post to:

        “Only anti-nationals proudly use violence***”

        ***Conditions apply. Check political affiliations first for details.

        Reply

      • In reply to Sumit

        So JNU students were cheering for the death of 23 million people and also for the issuing of threats? Do you have a news source for this?

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        Why are you stalling, Bhagwad, why are you stalling instead of frankly eating your words? You chalk up people as “real threat” merely for “flag waving” and now you are trying to say that card carrying Communist party members cannot be connected to Stalin…

        Commie students…card carrying Communist party members….proudly supporting Stalin and Mao. Are you asking me to provide a reference to whether Communist parties support Stalin and Mao? Let me refer you to these things called “official websites” and “official party mouthpieces”.

        Anyway, Dear Bhagwad sir, I came to update you on Commie students at Jadavpur Univ in West Bengal today attacking Vivek Agnihotri’s car. Vivek Agnihotri had come to screen his movie: “Buddha in a traffic jam”.

        Speech vs Violence.

        At least NOW can we get the Commie thug students registered as “threats”? Or will further extra special criteria be tailor made to spare them somehow?

        Reply

      • In reply to Sumit

        Here, Bhagwad, poster of ruling AISA on JNU campus prominently displaying Che Guevara:

        box5-ca.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/ABVP-Makes-a-Rebound-at-JNU.jpg

        Now, can you stop stalling and list the JNU Commies as threats?

        Reply

      • In reply to Sumit

        You asked for it. Look what this capitalist thing called Google found:

        Poster of Commie DSU on JNU campus with “motivational words” from Chairman Mao Zedong (score: 20 million)

        aljazeera.com/mritems/images/2013/12/27/201312271215514614_8.jpg

        What now? You must have known your argument had no legs. Why were you stalling?

        Reply

      • In reply to Sumit

        But none of this shows JNU students openly supporting violence. Do you have some Facebook posts or news articles where these college members have said killing is a good thing, or that xyz person needs to be shot down?

        I’m not able to find this… :(

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        Awesome :) I knew this would happen. Ya…putting up posters cheering Mao and Che Guevara don’t prove anything. I knew I would be asked to provide written letters from JNU Commies supporting massacre of 23 million people signed in the presence of 3 independent witnesses each. Meanwhile, the other side is a “threat” merely for indulging in “flag waving”…

        And then you wonder why people of India are fed up of the “enlightened elite”. No, it’s not because your intellect is sky high like you think. It’s because of the obvious hypocrisy of people like you. Twenty articles appear in the mainstream media each week by liberals bashing the Right Wing for its connection to Golwalkar who may or may not have expressed admiration for Nazis at some point. Meanwhile, no one can see a connection between card carrying Communists with posters of Mao Zedong, with posters of Stalin (Hitler’s ally at the beginning of WW-2, remember?) and mass murderers….

        Remember how you yourself ended up describing 60 years of Congress scams, Emergency, blatant violation of rights of Hindus (and Muslim women), etc. all as “incompetence”? Meanwhile, a guy on the other side waves a flag and becomes a “threat”…

        Reply

      • In reply to Sumit

        No need for witnesses – just some Facebook posts will be enough to prove your point. I’m sure you can find something for me…

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        Why do you need further evidence after I showed you posters cheering Mao? A student sticks a poster on a wall, or a post on his FB page. What’s the difference?

        Reply

      • In reply to Sumit

        In your opinion, putting up their posters is enough evidence that they support the slaughter of millions of people?

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        Posters of Mao! Of Che! Of Stalin! If someone put up posters cheering Hitler, would you say: “No no…he just cheers Hitler…it doesn’t mean he supports the holocaust”. Are you saying these students put up posters of Mao to cheer their cricket playing skills?

        Reply

      • In reply to Sumit

        And, speaking of Facebook… see if you can identify the nice gentleman with the moustache on the extreme left (pun intended)?

        facebook.com/AisfAllIndiaStudentsFederation/photos/pb.264808383645001.-2207520000.1462587141./287161078076398/?type=3&theater

        That’s AISF, to which Mr. Kanhaiya Kumar belongs.

        Reply

      • In reply to Sumit

        Yes – if someone cheers Hitler, I won’t automatically assume they support the holocaust unless they explicitly say so. Who knows? Maybe he agrees with one particular aspect and not the others. In fact, if I remember correctly Golwalkar of the RSSdid just that – cheered Hitler on.

        People put up pictures of Gandhi. That doesn’t mean they support his sleeping naked with women to “test” his celibacy.

        Are you saying that everyone who puts up a poster of someone agrees 100% with every single action of theirs?

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        I knew this would be your last card. Yeah…I told you, they might be cheering Mao’s cricket playing skills instead. What if the person putting up the poster cheering Hitler had an official membership card from the Nazi party? Still not evidence that they support the holocaust?

        For comparison, here is how quickly a right winger gets damned by you:

        Waves Indian flag ==> Flag waving jingoist ===> “Threat”

        But hey, a card carrying Commie putting up a poster cheering Mao must give a personal statement in support of massacre before he can be labelled a threat. In fact, when I pointed out that the Commie thugs actually used physical violence in Patna, you wanted FB posts from them in support of the violence. It is not even enough to use violence, you must then go home and post on your own FB wall praising yourself for committing the violence…

        Meanwhile, wave an Indian flag too many times and you become a “threat”…

        This is the intellectual kangaroo court of liberalism with its apartheid laws against the Right Wing. And then you wonder why the liberals lost control of India…

        Reply

      • In reply to Sumit

        So you don’t have any Facebook posts from JNU students supporting violence? Unlike me where I can give you Facebook posts from flag waving jingoists openly supporting violence.

        Did I miss something?

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        Sir, we don’t even have an FB post from Stalin supporting massacre. How do we know that Stalin supported massacre? As head of a state, he signed on to some death penalties for those whom the courts/tribunals found to be criminals. Nearly every head of state has done that…. You can’t blame Stalin if Soviet tribunals were quick in delivering judgments…

        Thank you Mr. Bhagwad for opening my eyes.

        If there is a 15 year old boy who plays tennis in local tournaments and has a room full of posters of Roger Federer and Pete Sampras, where is the proof that he is cheering their tennis skills? If there is a young Commie in a college putting up posters of Mao and Stalin, it doesn’t mean he is cheering their regimes. It just means he could be admiring their hairstyles…

        Thank you for clearing this up. I have compiled a handy list of “likely explanations”:

        1) Event: Commie student thugs beat up dissenter in Patna.

        Likely explanation: Those were innocent boys who were hypnotized into committing violence by a secret remote control machine in the BJP office.

        Unlikely explanation: They beat up the dissenter deliberately.

        2) Event: Commie students are card carrying members of the Communist Party.

        Likely explanation: They don’t support Communist regimes. They were just looking for a name for their party, so they pulled out a dictionary and chose a word at random.

        Unlikely explanation: Those students support Communist regimes.

        3) Event: Commie students put up posters cheering Mao and Stalin.

        Likely explanation: They just happen to like Mao’s hairstyle and Stalin’s cricket playing skills very much.

        Unlikely explanation: They were cheering Mao and Stalin’s murderous regimes.

        In other words, if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and swims like a duck, it cannot possibly be a duck because if it was a duck then surely intellectually superior liberals would have realized it long ago…

        Reply

      • In reply to Sumit

        So if we ask a JNU student if they support the murder of 23 million people, they will answer with a resounding “Yes”, in your opinion?

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        Bhagwad sir, you have opened my eyes. Even Stalin never said he supports murder of 3 million people. Mao never said he supports murder of 20 million people. It is not poor Stalin’s fault if 3 million people were actively conspiring to violently overthrow his government….as head of state, he signed some death penalties…what other choice did he have?

        Reply

      • In reply to Sumit

        So if you ask a JNU student whether they support the actions that led to the killing of 20 million people, they will respond with a resounding “Yes”, in your opinion?

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        Of course not. JNU students are not a threat. You opened my eyes, remember?

        Bhagwad, you have been such a help! By applying your standard of evidence, I was finally able to clear my misconceptions about Stalin. And all these years, I used to believe such nonsense about an innocent dictator.

        Now that you have been so helpful, could I stretch your generosity just a little bit more? Remember your post about how Prashant Poojary’s murder did not receive outrage (compared to Dadri) for 2 reasons…and I quote your exact words:

        1) “In contrast, Prashant Poojary was neither a regular Joe going about his everyday life, nor were his murderers ordinary people on the street. Poojary was an active member of the Bajrang Dal, and was extremely involved in preventing the slaughter of cows. ”

        Was Kanhaiya Kumar a regular average Joe? He was an active member of the Communist students union. Is the average Indian Joe president of a Communist union? How come a beating of an active member of a Communist party matters more than the actual murder of an active member of another party?

        2) “Compared to the Dadri killing, Prashant Poojary’s murder doesn’t make the average Indian think “This could happen to me”. They are taught to keep their heads down and not take “panga” with anyone.”

        In that case, what is your explanation for the lack of outrage over the murder of a Class 12 boy in Gaya on Sunday in broad daylight?

        deccanchronicle.com/nation/crime/080516/gaya-road-rage-jd-u-legislator-s-son-kills-youth-for-overtaking.html

        The guy overtook a secular JDU leader’s car, at which the JDU legislator got out and shot the Class 12 boy dead (clearly for his “intolerance”). How come this is not making average people feel insecure? The victim was just a child studying in school.. is his life ordinary enough for common people to feel threatened by his murder at the hands of a secular leader? Why isn’t his murder receiving outrage of Dadri level? Or is there evidence to show that this child was an RSS agent of some kind?

        Thanks in advance for your brilliant and insightful response.

        Reply

      • In reply to Sumit

        So you admit that JNU people are not dangerous?

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        Bhagwad, be a magnanimous winner at least. Applying your brilliant new standard of evidence, we have established beyond all reasonable doubt that Stalin and JNU Commies were/are not dangerous. I admit it, man. The victor should be generous, especially in an intellectual battle.

        Now if you could help me out a little with the Prashant Poojary vs Kanhaiya Kumar part…

        Reply

      • In reply to Sumit

        Oh, I said Stalin was not dangerous?

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        Oh, I am sorry I didn’t realize that your new standard of evidence does not apply to everyone. For each person, one must design a specific standard of evidence tailor made to fit the conclusion we want.

        Another brilliant insight! Now, even the Prashant Poojary vs Kanhaiya thing makes sense!

        Brilliant. Simply brilliant!

        Reply

      • In reply to Sumit

        You’re really not reading anything are you?

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        You have already decided the answer to your question and justified it with a tailor made standard of evidence, haven’t you?

        Reply

      • In reply to Sumit

        You think using Facebook posts as evidence for both camps is double standards?

        Reply

  5. No way!.Just because someone doesnt use violence it cannot be correct.A country’s disintegration first begins ideologically.And if the seeds for it are sown in JNU,then it must be opposed tooth and nail.

    Reply

    • In reply to Subha

      If India is so weak that some ideas can destroy it…then we don’t deserve to be a country.

      Bad ideas need to be countered with good ideas. If you see an ideology you don’t like, spread your own, better ideas. When you try and use force to suppress ideas, you are admitting that you have no response to those bad ideas.

      And I cannot live in such a fragile nation.

      Reply

Speak Your Mind

*