Thought Policing

At the Nazi Concentration camps, Viktor Frankl (a doctor by profession) and other inmates went through endless and unbearable torture. Many of his colleagues in the camp withered away and died. With immense strength of his mind and love for life, Viktor survived. Whenever he was being tortured, Viktor would often think of halls at universities, where he or someone else taught poetry and literature. After WWII and his release Viktor wrote a profound book “Man’s search for meaning”. His endurance of the torture of the concentration camps is recognised as “pro-active” thinking when his control over his mind did not allow the torture to conquer him. It has led many insightful writes to state: “It’s not what happens to you, it’s how you respond to it that counts”. And Viktor Frankl responded to torture and suffering with great courage, an invincible mind and came truly came out a “victor”. A short summary from his book:

No amount of abuse, torture, violence or hatred can uproot a mind that is firm in its conviction. The worst that can happen is one will die – which is an uncertain certainty in any case. In Iran, there is a famous case in which a man was sentenced to death for “thought crimes”. One would wonder what exactly such a crime would be. His name is Youcef Nadarkhani:

What was his crime? Nadarkhani “thought” he was a Christian wrongly born into Islam. So, he finally converted and became a pastor. There were others arrested with him but were released. He was also offered the choice to return to Islam but he declined.  Nadarkhani was first arrested in 2006 and released and arrested multiple times. After many appeals and failures of prosecution, Nadarkhani was released in 2013 and is now a free man. He’s a lucky man.

Many have been executed in Iran and the Islamic world for apostasy. It is not strange that humans can be executed for merely thinking of a different pursuit to reach God or whatever they were trying to reach. Men make religions, men make stupid laws and rules too. The harsh truth, though, is that you CANNOT stop a person thinking from what he or she wants to think. You CANNOT stop a Vedika Chaubey of TheHindu chopping a 40sec video into 8secs and portraying a man saving a woman as her molester. You cannot stop her mind from thinking filth even in the Elphinstone stampede tragedy. You cannot stop a Suprateek Chaterjee of TheQuint wanting PM Modi dead. And the guy expressed it clearly on Twitter. Wanting someone dead is certainly filth. But you still cannot hang for merely thinking of wishing it. People have been burnt at the stake for thinking the earth is round or that it revolves around the sun. Most scientific discoveries were made through what would appear at first sight or hearing as idiotic or illogical or even blasphemy. And that is why we should be concerned when two lawyers peddle a case and argument for strangling and regulating social media to the SC:

 

Most judges, courts or even the Supreme Court don’t have a presence on SM. I am not sure the SC has an official Twitter account, though there is an unverified one. Consequently, our judges are often led by the whims, fancies and ill-conceived arguments by prominent lawyers who want to strangle the freedoms of ordinary people, crush their freedom to think and constantly want them policed. And how did this argument before the SC to regulate and strangle SM come about? That must the greatest of ironies:

 

The related case is one of Azam Khan of Samajwadi Party who abused victims of gang-rape calling it a “political conspiracy”. Is Azam Khan on SM? Did he make this vicious statement on Twitter or FB or some blog? No! He made it in public and reported by the MSM. And the SC knows all too well that politicians make more obnoxious and hate-filled statements collectively than ordinary people make on SM. From SoniaG to Diggy to that “Boti Boti” guy to Azam Khan, there is no dearth of abusive, filthy statements in politics. I cannot, though, recall anyone being sent to jail even when there are enough laws to prosecute them. So why does the SC want to express an intention to act on the frivolous claims by these fat-moneyed lawyers?

There are many of us who think often that some people should die and die soon. The moment I see the face of a terrorist or those loveable media-darlings that kill people, I want those guys to die. That’s a thought but it’s not a crime. And if I express in writing that I want such people dead. It is not a crime either. It would be a crime only if I acted upon my thoughts and carried out an unauthorised killing. Protracted court proceedings for known terrorists makes people they be killed in encounters rather than be tried. It’s a natural thought. Some of the worst abuses come not from ordinary folks but from the MSM crooks whose hatred is limitless for ordinary people, some ideologies and politicians, and even for SC judges:

Sunetra is over the moon to hear Modi has swine flu. She probably hoped he would die. Sagarika peddles vicious nonsense of Muslims being killed across the country. She also calls a judge a “Crackpot”. Sagarika has called Lord Ram a “Divine encroacher” in RJB. Has passed racist comments like all Indian males are ugly. Earlier, Sagarika was so agitated with the Allahabad HC judgement on Ayodhya, she called it a “Panchayati” judgement. In the bottom left pic, Priya Ramani of TheMint calls Lord Ram a D*** and Sita a C***! Our courts are blind to the consistently wanton abuse coming from those in the MSM.

So, who are these lawyers pointing to? Is this another political gimmick to bat for the “Sickular” parties to get them a toe-hold in power? After all, both Harish Salve and Fali Nariman are not known to be friends of BJP. Nariman, in fact, agitated for the corrupt NDTV when CBI raids were made on Prannoy Roy. Who ARE these people and what are they campaigning for? Everyone knows who dominates the SM. Therefore, it is fair to suspect which voices these lawyers want to strangulate the most.

Truth is, many of these abuses from MSM folks can be prosecuted under many laws. But people don’t keep running to cops or courts all the time like Prashant Bhushan does. I, for one, certainly do believe Bhushan’s Rohingya PIL should have been thrown out by the SC. But the SC judges having entertained it, we do not question them and let them take the time to deliberate and rule on it. The only persons consistently questioning judgements of various courts are not ordinary people. They are Commies from IndiraG to RajivG to the MSM in these days. In a sentence I have underlined in the TOI report pic above, the SC judge has surprisingly claimed people think the SC is on the side of the govt. This is hardly the case. The SC has consistently knocked down some anti-people law, like 66A and given rulings like the one Triple Talaq widely applauded by everyone. On the contrary, people have often viewed the SC and govt being in a confrontation mode over many issues. Far from judges or courts being seen as a “pro govt” there is rather an increasing sentiment of judicial overreach as seen in regular reports from the media:

Freedom of expression is essentially freedom of thought. The lawyers who are provoking the SC to strangle this by unspecified regulations in a casual manner is unfortunate and probably motivated. And they are invoking SM in a case where Azam Khan is accused of public proclamation and not something on SM. The rich, famous and powerful have the money to buy media, they have public and media platforms, they can express themselves or vent their anger on issues at the drop of a hat. Even cops and courts respond to them faster. The ordinary man doesn’t have all that luxury. Millions of them have taken to SM platforms to express themselves. If there are indeed racist, obnoxious or abusive content, there are also enough laws to punish such acts. The problem is not the laws or remedies, the problem is an over-burdened police force and judiciary that simply cannot respond to every offence, whether on the ground or in the air on the net. SM is power to the people as it should be in a good democracy:

You have a choice on SM to TURN OFF the voice, noise and text that you don’t wish to hear or see. Nobody can complain about being INVADED. The real “Thought invasion” and “Privacy invasion” happens on the ground and remains a nuisance for a vast majority of people. No court, no govt has shown the daring to completely ban and eliminate the early morning nuisance of Azaan. There are thousands of people complaining, some have gone to courts too. What right do these mosques have to invade people’s sleep and their thoughts? This is nothing short of IMPOSING a religion on to others who don’t subscribe to it. Anti-Azaan protesters (They are anti-Islamic too) had taken up a novel way of protesting in Denmark by playing the Azaan loudly outside the Mayor’s residence (Video 0.30 seconds):

You can watch the full report on Youtube. Judges, ministers and politicians live in protected areas where trespassers and noises are controlled by cops. The common man has to face this nuisance every morning, early morning and throughout the day for about five times. SM is not very different from the real world. It has good, bad, ugly and the evil too. Just as law applies to crimes on the ground, there are enough laws to prosecute crimes on SM. We have multiple elections coming up – Gujarat, Karnataka, Rajasthan, MP, Chattisgarh and leading up to LS2019. SM has proved to be a platform for campaigning for parties and for individual candidates. It has voices, opinions, propaganda and those feeling the threat are usually those fearing losses.

Those losing since 2014 didn’t learn – “It’s not what happens to you but how you respond that counts”. The Congress and Sickulars only responded with mud-slinging, slander, fake campaigns and abuses. And that is why some want to silence voices on the SM. Still, all said and done, courts often prescribe a model way of living, a model code of conduct for most aspects of life. Our courts have ruled in even social customs from Dahi Handi to Jallikattu and that has brought a great level of defiance from the public. I just had to reminded of a famous scene from “Philadelphia” – in the case where Tom Hanks is sacked from his job because he has AIDS:

 

That’s right! The laws exist for almost every imaginable crime. Our courts and judges may want the most ideal society that has no evil or crime in it. Such a thing has never happened in the history of mankind. Because the answer is simple – We don’t live in courtrooms. And thought policing is not a remedy anyone should resort to in a free democracy. 

 

www.EducatingForward.com