The right to protest against the state, and even against the constitution, is a fundamental human right.
It is a human right to even speak about dividing the "country (i.e. proposing a new geographic division for governance).
It is a human right to speak against the government, the court, and other gods.
The state is an institution, frequently despotic. The state is not equivalent to the "nation". The nation is its people. The state is the ruling class and its institutions.
The state confounds people by confusing an attack on itself as against an attack on the nation and its people. This confusion is particularly egregious when the state does not represent the people but has appropriated their consent.
One can be patriotic in an act of sedition.
Was the Indian Freedom Struggle seditious? It obviously was. But it was not thereby wrong.
The protest might lead to crimes, but the protest itself is not a crime.
Thought, speech and publication must be protected even at the cost of displeasing the majority. Otherwise there is no freedom worth its name.
The state in India is deeply criminal, unjust and corrupt. To protest against the state is not just a right, it is the duty of every right-thinking Indian.
The state continues to bloviate about "Tolerance". The Intelligentsia continues to protest against "Intolerance". But nobody talks about the intolerance enshrined in the Constitution of India: blasphemy, sedition, criticism of the court, nudity, offensive speech, "hurting of sentiments" are all intolerable by Indian law.
Those who say that anti-nationals must be done to death are the real anti-nationals.
The nation and what is or is not "patriotic" is not to be defined by the state.
The state's function is to serve the nation. The nation is not to be servile to the state and its dealers.
It is a human right to even speak about dividing the "country (i.e. proposing a new geographic division for governance).
It is a human right to speak against the government, the court, and other gods.
The state is an institution, frequently despotic. The state is not equivalent to the "nation". The nation is its people. The state is the ruling class and its institutions.
The state confounds people by confusing an attack on itself as against an attack on the nation and its people. This confusion is particularly egregious when the state does not represent the people but has appropriated their consent.
One can be patriotic in an act of sedition.
Was the Indian Freedom Struggle seditious? It obviously was. But it was not thereby wrong.
The protest might lead to crimes, but the protest itself is not a crime.
Thought, speech and publication must be protected even at the cost of displeasing the majority. Otherwise there is no freedom worth its name.
The state in India is deeply criminal, unjust and corrupt. To protest against the state is not just a right, it is the duty of every right-thinking Indian.
The state continues to bloviate about "Tolerance". The Intelligentsia continues to protest against "Intolerance". But nobody talks about the intolerance enshrined in the Constitution of India: blasphemy, sedition, criticism of the court, nudity, offensive speech, "hurting of sentiments" are all intolerable by Indian law.
Those who say that anti-nationals must be done to death are the real anti-nationals.
The nation and what is or is not "patriotic" is not to be defined by the state.
The state's function is to serve the nation. The nation is not to be servile to the state and its dealers.
2 comments:
What is the solution if the constitution itself is INTOLERANT? And the state argues that they are merely protecting the Constitution?
@venkat, exactly.
http://harmanjit.blogspot.com/2011/10/police-in-india-part-vi.html
Post a Comment