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

Eminent Follies

It has been a convention in India for long. The moment the word “Eminent” gets attached to a person in political domain, it is invariably a license to peddle falsehoods and, in some cases, extreme concoctions of lies. Arun Shourie had to write a whole book called “Eminent Historians” to expose the falsehoods of many Commie historians. Some of these eminent historians also concocted fake stories about Ramjanbhoomi and Ayodhya to the Allahabad HC. Their testimony to the court was largely based on the “Salma-Sabrina” model of fact-checking when they were just quoting each other and had no first hand evidence of a mosque pre-existing at the disputed RJB site. To understand the nonsense of such “eminences” I recommend you understand their techniques of deception:  “Babri demolition: How HC verdict discredited 'eminent' historians” by Prof R Vaidyanathan. Our media and establishment had bestowed the title “Eminent” to another celebrity: Fali Nariman (FN). He is known as an “Eminent Jurist” or “Eminent constitutional expert”. One does not dispute his expertise on matters of law and Constitution but even Shobha De is a political expert, so…

The eminent FN recently gave a lecture to the National Commission for Minorities. The Indian Express reported it with the headline “Hinduism losing its benign face… no one at top stepping in”. To clarify, by “top” FN does mean Modi-Sarkar because Hindus otherwise don’t have anyone at the “top”. Maybe Shiva or Vishnu can be considered being at the “top” but Hindus don’t have a Pope or a Grand Mufti to tell them what to do. They are and have been an unorganised lot for ages. It is only in the last century that many Hindu organisations have sprung up but they too don’t constitute the “top”. Here are some samples and interpretations of his speech as reported by IE:

“But — recurrent instances of religious tension fanned by fanaticism and hate speech has shown that the Hindu tradition of tolerance is showing signs of strain. And let me say this frankly — my apprehension is that Hinduism is somehow changing its benign face because, and only because it is believed and proudly proclaimed by a few (and not contradicted by those at the top): that it is because of their faith and belief that HINDUS have been now put in the driving seat of governance… We have been hearing on television and reading in newspapers almost on a daily basis a tirade by one or more individuals or groups against one or another section of citizens who belong to a religious minority and the criticism has been that the majority government at the Centre has done nothing to stop this”.

Nariman lauded the role of the Supreme Court in upholding minority rights on many occasions, describing it as a “Super Minorities Commission”. However, he said, the judicial outlook has undergone gradual change since the early 1990s when the BJP introduced the phrase “appeasement of minorities” in the political lexicon… “The label stuck; ‘minority’ became and has become an unpopular word. And after the same political party had included in its Election Manifesto in the general election of May-June 1991 the party’s resolve if and when it came into power to amend Article 30 to the disadvantage of minorities, ‘minority rights’ got less and less protected by Courts (including the Supreme Court of India) than they were before”

Firstly, the term “minorities” in India has invariably come to mean Muslims. If at all the NCM or media or any govt speaks for any minority it has always been the Muslims. I have not heard anyone from the establishment speaking for Sikhs. Did you hear anyone screaming about Saharanpur? And that wasn’t under a govt of the Hindu “top”. You don’t hear the NCM or media talking about Jews or Parsis. FN slams his own legal community by stating that the “judicial outlook” changed when the BJP introduced the phrase “appeasement of minority” in the 1990s. So the SC is swayed by political statements? And they sort of prove FN is right, don’t they? This report on the SC’s comment on “Sickular” actions of the Centre suggests so (read report):

The SC has stressed repeatedly on something that the so-called “minority” wages war against. This is from the same report I just quoted: “In the last two decades, the Supreme Court had stressed time and again the importance of enacting a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) as advised by the Constitution. Between the Shah Bano judgment in 1985, Sarla Mudgal judgment (1995) and John Vallamatom verdict in 2003, the court had thrice stressed the need for enacting a UCC, saying it would help forge national integration and remove dissimilarities”. I need not add that the “intolerant” Hindus have been unreasonably demanding this too. The UCC has been advised by the Constitution? Oh! But you see the Constitution doesn’t apply to certain communities who are being oppressed by Hindu fanatics. They have their own “Personal law board” which is superior to the Constitution. The “intolerant” Hindus refuse to see this fact.

The Indian Express drags in speeches of Yogi Adityanath to the context of FN’s speech. It does seem the Yogi has rattled the “Sickular” club. They don’t have any answers to questions he raises but keep referring to his speeches as “hate speech”. For instance, the Yogi consistently mentions rioting by Muslims anywhere, anytime for any reason even when there is no relevance to India but these “eminences” have no answer why. This is an enduring image from the Azad Maidan riots by Muslims:

The rioters destroyed a Jawan memorial, molested five female cops and two people were killed at Azad Maidan in August 2012. And Hindus have become intolerant? For giving speeches which the “Sickulars” judge as hate speeches? In response to the Azad Maidan riots a female cop, Sujata Patil, wrote a harsh, sarcastic poem and she was penalised and accused of fanning “communal hatred”. The “eminent” complainant against her hatred was one Nazar Mohammed Siddique, an accused arrested in the Azad Maidan violence case, who was allowed bail. This is what “Eminent Sickulars” call intolerance; that everyone should stand by and watch the unprovoked violence, destruction of national monuments and shut up. If they speak up, they are branded intolerant.

There is not an iota of truth in anything that Fali Nariman said. It is deception at best to an audience who just wanted to hear exactly the kind of speech he gave. They want that their “victimhood” be encouraged even as they refuse the recognise minority failures. Predictably, the stupid editor of DNA immediately pounced on the opportunity of FN’s folly to splurge on. DNA’s editor makes an interesting observation: “Far from the bogey of minority appeasement that the Hindu Right energetically propagates, a recent report compiled by the DGPs of Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu and Uttar Pradesh warns of a gaping trust deficit building up among Muslims against the police forces”. It doesn’t occur to this editorialist that none of these states have a BJP or NDA govt. TN has never had an NDA/BJP govt. UP hasn’t had one in two decades. Maharashtra has had a Congress govt for almost 15 years. So the folly of this bogus argument is not evident to him. And for all this the “Hindu top management” is to blame? Whichever that is! Also, can this moron editor of DNA explain why the Maharashtra police was a mute witness to Azad Maidan? Or does he blame that on Modi-Sarkar?

What eminent celebrities like FN refuse and fail to recognise is that there is a widespread problem with “appeasement” of minorities (read Muslims) not just in India but in many parts of the world. There is unrest building in parts of UK and Europe. Anti-Muslim sentiment in the USA has peaked now. It is far higher than it was in the days immediately after 9/11:

That is not a poll conducted by Gallup or the “Hindu top”. That’s a poll by the Arab American Institute. How do our “sickulars” explain that? There are no conflicts in India between Hindus and Sikhs, Jews, Parsis, Christians or Jehovah’s Witness. There may have been stray ones in the past. So why is it always a Hindu-Muslim conflict? And if some “Hindu top” is responsible for “communalisation” one should ask the question: Who is the “Muslim top management”? The fact, as Najma Heptullah pointed out sometime back, is that Muslims are not “minorities” in this country anymore. They are no way comparable to other minority communities and in many towns and parts they are actually in majority or sizeable in population.

The recent floods in Kashmir have again revealed a regular behavioural pattern. The Army and NDRF were doing their best to help people and yet there were pockets where the rescue teams were pelted with stones and attacked. Ask our eminent Sickos to explain this behaviour and they won’t be able to. On the contrary, they foist a terrorist like Yasin Malik of JKLF as a “moderate” separatist and he is even reported to have hijacked a boat with food for flood victims. Here you go:

Yasin Malik is a darling at NDTV and other media houses. He is a darling of Commies like Suzy Roy and other Commie politicians. We are supposed to tolerant to such elements? I have to repeat what I posted about Karl Popper’s famous quote a long time ago:

"Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them… We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.”

That’s all there is to it. People like Shiv Aroor and Gaurav Sawant of Headlines Today are slowly starting to speak. Sickos can lie only so much. They call Yogi Adityanath a hate-monger because he moves around in saffron. In absence of any explanation to his questions they scream “polarisation, polarisation”. Wear a suit and a tie like the Fali Nariman types and get invited to annual lecture circuits and you will be hailed as a “Secular”. Lie long enough and they will prefix your name with “Eminent”. We have seen all of this before.