Desicritics Comments on Why Do We Criticize Our Nations?

Comment by Aaman

Wed, 25 Oct 2006 12:21:24 EDT

Anshuman/Grim, if you'd like to be Desicritics, please email me

Comment by A = Anshuman

Wed, 25 Oct 2006 11:15:27 EDT

Dear grim sunshine, IS there some place else you can post it? or you can email me at anshumandc at gmail dot com. I created this just for desicritic five minutes back

Comment by Aaman

Wed, 25 Oct 2006 11:09:08 EDT

Grim Sunshine, various spam words (used by spammers) are added to the stopwords list that can block larger words containing them - methinks you have the commie word (social...) in your comment - if so, please confirm, and the erectile drug will be removed from the stop list.

Comment by grim sunshine

Wed, 25 Oct 2006 08:46:20 EDT

For some reason, my response for you cannot be posted on the site Anshuman. So my apologies that we are unable to continue our discussion. The adminstrators obviously feel that a reasoned debate is more dangerous than the insults traded on the forum.

Comment by Anshuman

Tue, 24 Oct 2006 22:15:28 EDT

Ofcourse when I talk of liberty, I mean at all times that the actions of individuals do not impinge on the liberty of others, do not cause physical harm to the person and property of other individuals. In that sense a hasty and ill thought out partition, like the one in 1947, is criminal and ruling something like that does not constitute suppression of an individual or groups liberty. A protracted, well planned and peaceful secession, if such a thing even exists, will be consistent with not violating any individuals liberty.

Comment by A = Anshuman

Tue, 24 Oct 2006 21:34:24 EDT

Dear Sujai: I don't think the learning ever stops. Some of the top mathematicians I have had the opportunity to interact with seldom refer to themselves as masters of the subject. They mostly think of themselves as students of mathematics. I think teaching and learning go on simultaneously. I think everybody brings something to the table.. if not their thoughts or analysis then their experiences. But I think it is not a simple matter to see a learning opportunity when it presents itself. It is great that you do not shy away from taking a stand. One needs to have the courage of ones convictions. I will definitely check your blog out and I look forward to discussing things with you. Dear Temporal: Thank you. I will check out the article about becoming contributors. Dear Atlantean: Thank you for your welcome. I am happy that you agree with me that a nation state is a man made institution whose purpose is to serve man. I agree with you that one shouldn't abandon an institution(all religions included) simply because the people who we gave the responsibility to run it are abusing their power. We should however either change the people or alter some features of the institution. I understand the need for a government, an institution which protects its citizens from external and internal monsters, provides a forum for discussion, provides mediation and regulation etc. I certainly do not advocate abandoning the nation state. I just advocate more vigilance on the part of the citizens and a healthy mistrust of the people who are in a position of power. We should rely on efficient contracts and other institutions to provide the right incentives for those in power. We should never accept their (or anybodys) statements on face value and be very very critical of their actions. Yes I agree that we need a politically stable environment for business to flourish and once business flourishes, the arts will find more partons and advances will be made in science and technology. I agree that we need political stability and economic growth to be able to develop our faculties both as individuals and also at a community level. You mentioned the Gupta empire, the golden age of India. I would like to also mention the tremendous cultural advances were made by the Cholas, the golden age of tamil culture. Both of these empires were strong and stable while never encompassing the whole subcontinent. I completely understand your concerns. It is bleeding both the Indian and Pakistani economies to fight this protracted war over kashmir. Young people are dying on cold barren mountains. Shopping malls and trains are being bombed. Kashmiris( hindus and muslims) have seen their heaven on earth transform into a hell. It is terrible and everyone agrees that something must be done about it. So you suspect that initiating a secession of Kashmir will lead to a domino effect where most of north east will opt to secede, the maoists will demand one third of the country( bihar, orissa, andhra,chattisgarh, jharkhand and parts of maharashtra) The tamils will want to form a country around the palk strait and so on. And if this happens there will be forced migration of people from one place to another, there will be looting and theiving, the economy will basically collapse and it will take the region several years to recover from the chaos.And then there will be the subsequent wars, water disputes etc etc. Certainly, if there is indeed such a domino effect then it would be disasterous for most Indians. Perhaps you and sujoi and others could talk about why there may or may not be a domino effect. It would be great for all of us following this discussion. But I suppose I disagree with you about the rights of groups of people to demand self-determination( if not in a nation-state, then in a true federal setup). I believe that a nation is a false god but I support your right to stop the break up of India( for reasons of political stability and peace)just as much as I support their right to create a Nagalim or Kashmir( for reasons of self-determination). I don't think it is correct to dictate terms to people and make decisions on their behalf. I think a much more useful thing to attempt would be to create a consensus, to create grounds for reconciliation. Ofcourse it takes two to tango. But I belive it can be done, must be done. I am not talking about the specifics of kashmir because I don't know too much about it. I think individual liberty is too fundamental a right to be sacrificed even if your intentions and goals are honourable. Tell Atlantean, do you believe that ends justify the means?

Comment by Atlantean

Tue, 24 Oct 2006 16:23:42 EDT

Dear A, I think we have finally met a person here who is openminded, one who wont involve in circular reasoning, sophistry, deviousness and keep on blabbering about personal attacks like kids, in you. A warm welcome :) Yes, the idea of a nation state is artificial. However, just because it is artificial, it doesnt mean it shouldnt exist. Most institutions, judiciary, municipalities, banking systems etc. are artificial. They're necessary. There are many plusses that come from a nation state. They can be misused as well. I dont deny it. The world is full of examples. Everything can be misused, including religion. Religions are artificial - created by man himself (an exception may be Islam as Muslims believe their religion has been given by Allah.) That's no reason they should not exist. Even I hope for the day when all human beings will eventually unite into a world spanning entity - when all boundaries, imagined or otherwise, of religion, culture, language, race etc. will be dissolved by love and mutual respect. However, that requires humans to rise above their animal instincts. Today, we have a world in which unspeakable crimes are committed daily by humans belonging to all religions, races, cultures etc. It's a world in which people belonging to one nation want to bleed others "through a thousand cuts." There are heads-of-state who speak and mean things like "Israel should be wiped off the face of the earth." There are nations which give false evidences to justify unwarranted invasions. In such a world, it is important to form large and powerful entities to act as bulwarks against entities which intend to cause harm. If you notice, most foreign invasions in India took place during times when there was no single entity spanning the entire Indian subcontinent, from the Greek invasions to the British. And whenever there was a single entity (for ex. the Mauryan Empire under Ashoka The Great, the Gupta Empire under Samudragupta, the Mughal Empire under Akbar The Great and even British India), the subcontinent was far more immune to foreign invasions (which often resulted in unspeakable bloodshed. These were periods of stability in which the arts, sciences, humanities, religion etc. all flourished. Even in British India, western science made inroads and religious reform movements took place. Also note that India was safe during WWII from Japanese marauders because of the efforts of the BIArmy. But the periods in which there was no political unity were often marked by war, bloodshed, decadence of social and cultural institutions. Coming to our era, nation states are the "in thing" in the world today. There are only a few kingdoms, the rest being nation states. I feel the unity of India and its identity as a nation state is of paramount importance and needs to be protected, NOT because I'm a slave to the idea of a nation state but because of practical reasons. I guess you understand why. Just give a thought about what the situation would be if the subcontinent is full of nation states with different religions and interests. The creation of Pakistan, Bangladesh out of India based on religious lines has already done immense harm to the people of all nations in the subcontinent. Wars have been fought. Money that should've been used to provide food to the starving masses has gone into buying arms and building nukes. And today, there's a threat of nuclear war in the region, which may result in the killing/debilitation of hundreds of millions of human beings, whose first concern everyday is to earn two square meals and a little water. Though it's a resource rich region, there has been little economic growth. A large majority of the people of all these countries remain poor. This is the reason I am against an independant Kashmir or an independant Bodoland, Nagaland or Manipur. I dont want a patchwork of hostile (to each other) states in the subcontinent that build armies and want to go to war, which may ultimately end up as failed states. We're already facing huge problems with two of our neighbouring countries, they're such a drain on us and more Pakistans in the form of Independant Kashmir, Nagaland, Bodoland, Manipur etc. are detrimental to our strategic interests. It all comes at a cost, yes, at times even individual freedom but that's the sad reality of today's world. As long as there are people in this world who want to kill and harm others (not because of some genuine problem but just because the "others" belong to a different religion, class or political system), we have little choice. It's a VERY hard choice. That doesnt mean I condone the violation of individual freedom. I choose, however, to be more practical. The parents of children involved in child labour have little choice but to resort to something illegal and as inhuman as child labour, not because they support the violation of the dignity of the child but because of practical reasons (which are obvious.)

Comment by Atlantean

Tue, 24 Oct 2006 15:47:19 EDT

Sujai, Strange. What's the big difference between ridiculing a group and a person? By ridiculing a group, you're effectively targetting the members of that group. That's so obvious. I dont have to explain further. However, they do not think it is realistic to go back to those lands given the conditions in those regions. Unfortunately, there are many who want to go back and even form a Kashmiri Homeland. Here's a website that talks about it: http://www.panunkashmir.org/resolution.html Do take note of these lines in that resolution: That all the seven hundred thousand Kashmiri Pandits, which includes those who have been driven out of Kashmir in the past and yearn to return to their homeland and those who were forced to leave on account of the terrorist violence in Kashmir, be settled in the homeland on equitable basis with dignity and honor. Anyway, I think this is a fruitless debate. We often hit a deadend. I think it's better for us if we stop arguing and wasting our times. We have completely different ideas. I stop. I agree to disagree with Sujai.

Comment by Sujai

Tue, 24 Oct 2006 14:09:22 EDT

Dear A: Each of us go through learnings. Some of us become adults too soon - that means we stop learning after that. Some of us are avid learners for a lifetime. I try to learn. But when does the learning stop, when does the teaching start, is a difficult thing to know. While teaching, are your learning, is another difficult question to answer. Having said that, I do not shy away from taking a stand. I would have doubts, but I am willing to make my opinion clear. That doesn't mean I wouldn't change my opinions. My favorite quote, which I live by, is: "The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in times of great moral crises maintain their neutrality."- Alighieri Dante I tell myself to stand up, take a stand on all moral crises. In the present scheme, I see Kashmir issue as one of those crises. I am all for solving it, not for keeping it with us while it is bleeding. I invite you to read some of my thoughts at my blog. E=mc^2

Comment by temporal

Tue, 24 Oct 2006 14:04:43 EDT

A, grim sunshine, durgesh: you guys would make for nice contributors here please check THIS out, join and write posts instead of reacting to posts:)

Comment by Sujai

Tue, 24 Oct 2006 14:00:25 EDT

I guess, I will take the cue from A, get inspiration to restrain myself and answer the following: Grim Sunshine: For example, advocating dissolution of the nation state is sedition under the law. I do not advocate dissolution of nation state (here, India). However, I ask for better treatment of its people, I ask for freedoms to certain peoples, I ask for end to killings of people and security personnel. I do recommend, suggest and believe one of the ways to solve Kashmir problem is granting independence to it. While I ask this, I expect this to happen within legal framework of India, where in India will take the necessary steps towards this step. Some leaders in Great Britain, prior to Indian independence, supported and suggested giving independence and freedom to India. Their voice was feeble in the beginning but then gathered momentum to become a practical reality. I want to say that I am aware of the consequences of writing and suggesting such a solution and that I am prepared for it. And most journalists would be aware of the fine line between free speech and sedition. I will not discard this argument but I am not sure if the journalists are more worried about their jobs than being tried for sedition. In India, the people, the mobs and gangs react faster than the law. While writing about A, you write: He manages to posit the following ridiculous statement that he doesn't understand how "the glory of Indian civilization will be diminished by the balkanization of the Indian state." I don't find this ridiculous at all. In fact, I believe the same. I don't think Indian civilization will lose its sheen or glory by losing small tracts of lands and small populations. On the other hand, I believe that it is the greatness of a nation and civilization to let go of certain people if they want freedom from us so badly. Balkanization is accompanied by ethnic cleansing, genocide, mass rapes - all war crimes which diminish ALL civilizations. Yes, balkanization has a negative connotation attached to it. But I think when A referred to it, he was overlooking that negative connotation to generally refer to break up of a big empire or a big nation. The breakup of Soviet Union is referred to as balkanization. It did not result in the same bloodbath that Yugoslavia did. Strange however that "thinkers" like you never entertain the idea of enlarging the boundaries of the Indian state without yelling blue murder, while gleefully anticipating its diminishment. I would be happy to know if Bhutan or Nepal or Sri Lanka would like to join Indian Union. Will we annex them because they like it or because we want it? If increasing the borders involves aggression, war and rape, I am not for it. If it involves a peaceful coming together (with minor encumbrances, which are unavoidable) like in case of Germany, I am all for it. Which Indian will not be proud of such a scenario? The poster you were so enthusiastic about begins his post talking of "REALPOLITIK" I will let A answer this. I think he has answered some of your views above.

Comment by A

Tue, 24 Oct 2006 13:42:02 EDT

Hey Sujai, Yeah, some of the other comments seem to be a bit over the top and completely frivolous. The problem with most discussions and most discussants( and here I am talking about most people, people from the left, right, religious people, liberals, conservatives, nationalists, nihilists,anarchists, libertarians, etc, myself included, everyone basically) is that they sometimes think that they have a monopoly on the truth(especially when they have put considerable thought on the matter). When their arguments are attacked they take it personally. When they are personally attacked then a discussion degenerates into a debate. Opinions which were possibly flexible become rigid and the objective becomes the defence of our opinion instead of us learning from each other, which should be the point of a constructive discussion. I like your article and I agree with what you say. But more importantly, we need to be able to figure out a way to discuss things and learn from each others experiences. somehow that never happens. I suspect that most of us put insufficient effort as far as trying put ourselves into the other persons shoes. Again, please don't take this personally. I am making general comments here. Perhaps I am the only one in the world stuggling with this.. perhaps I am the only one who finds it hard to consistently be sensitive to another persons perspective and history while at the same time trying to get my perspective across to them. Ultimately I think it is our unique sets of experiences which will shape our thinking. It is hard to learn from other peoples experiences but it is worth trying.

Comment by Sujai

Tue, 24 Oct 2006 13:24:46 EDT

Hello A: I think I have overreacted. There has been mention of 'treason', 'sedition' and comparison with the terrorists of US by different readers. Usually, I practice restraint. I brush off many remarks. But sometimes it gets to me. Especially when it comes from someone whom I have taken up seriously to answer the queries/questions. Look at the some of the comments that I received at some of my previous articles. You will get the picture.

Comment by A

Tue, 24 Oct 2006 12:07:17 EDT

Dear Grim Sunshine: You make a lot of valid points and I will comment on them one by one. There are also several aspects of my post that you have misunderstood or misread and I will clarify those as well. You're right about journalism maintaining certain standards which bloggers are not required to meet and they seldom meet them. A better comparison will be with articles or papers written for academic journals, since print journalism standards are much lower than one would imagine. Academic papers go through two to three years of refereeing by the top academics in the profession are are typically very rigorous, the arguments are presented within a framework( even if the purpose of the article is to depart from the framework)and usually the arguments made in the article are treated on their own merit. YOU WROTE:"There is a measure of responsibility and restraint that they exercise in their opinion, even when they may appear radical." I agree with you that atricles must be written with responsibility but I disagree when you mention restraint. The purpose of an article is not to be nice but to illustrate a point of view. You're absolutely right when you mention that advocating the dissolution of a nation state is sedition and is illegal in all countries. Perhaps I wasn't explicit in my writing but I never suggested that the Indian Union SHOULD be dissolved. I was saying that there is no inherent logic or natural law which defines the geographical boundaries of most nation states. Within most sufficiently heterogenous nation states there will be competing claims for political power and there is nothing obvious or optimal or natural about the shape and size of countries. My purose in talking about the balkanization of India was not to posit it as a practical or meaningful or desirable solution to the problem of political representation. My purpose was to make the very important distinction between culture, civilization and a nation state. My point was to highlight that cultures and civilizations are important and worth preserving and developing, not arbitrary boundaries. YOU WROTE: "isn't it slightly presumptuous for a blogger to claim - however implicitly - the privileges of journalists when even this site has been happy slamming them and supporting bloggers?" If you're talking about Freedom of Press then I would like to remind you that article 19 of the Constitution of India actually only mentions a citizen's right to freedom of speech and expression. There is no mention of freedom of press and one needn't have to be employed by a news agency to be able to freely express ones ideas. IF you're talking about something else then please do explain. YOU WROTE : " I have no problems with your ideological position about nation-states being artificial entities. However your leap from a philosophical position to a series of practical steps is incomprehensible." Ok, so we're on the same page here. I am not sure where in my post did I suggest that I was talking about balkanizations as a practical solution to the problems of competing claims? The whole point I was trying to make was to remove from a nation state this god-like or parent-like status that we are brainwashed to give because of our schooling. Instead we should look at it as a very useful but potentially dangerous institution which needs to be nurtured and developed but also kept in check to make sure that it serves its purpose, that it serves us. YOU WROTE: "You enthusiastically hang to the support of the earlier poster A - whose own logic is tenuous. He manages to posit the following ridiculous statement that he doesn't understand how "the glory of Indian civilization will be diminished by the balkanization of the Indian state." Like many bloggers - use of political terms seems to be random if not mistaken. Balkanization is accompanied by ethnic cleansing, genocide, mass rapes - all war crimes which diminish ALL civilizations." You need a historical perspective here. The Indian subcontinent, for thousands of years, has seen empires build up and then break apart. The process has been violent both ways. The process (of consolidation and dissolution) and the accompanying disruption in the lives of people has been costly in every sense. But Indian civilization, though shaped and shaken by these internal power stuggles or outside invasions has a much much longer half-life than any of the political entities or empires that formed in the past several thousand years. The genius of the Indian civilization, amongst other things, lies in its ability to abide.. to imbibe .. to assimilate and to improve. Most of all, it is the ability to co-operate, to live together. Our culture which has continuously evolved for thousands of years( though perhaps at varying rates) has been more influenced by outside forces than any other cutlure. The Iranians had a great culutre before Islam arrived and completely replaced it. Indian culture has seen the arrivals of the greeks, turks, europeans, several religions.. all of which have shaped us but we have learnt and evolved from them.. made them our own without being colonized and abandoning all that was ours before the arrival of a new Idea or force. This is the genius. This is much bigger than any nation state. So yes, a balkanization or consolidation, if it happens, will be disruptive and costly but in historical time, it will be little more than a corner turned by the Indian civilization.. another chapter, though painful, but not something that it hasn't seen before. YOU WROTE:" Strange however that "thinkers" like you never entertain the idea of enlarging the boundaries of the Indian state without yelling blue murder, while gleefully anticipating its diminishment." You're absolutely right here. I have noted this as well. If you'd read carefully, you would've seen that I wrote: "The Indian civilization will continue to exist for a long long time even if the number of nation states existing in the same geographical area increases or decreases." Increases or decreases. Yes I see absolutely no reason why ,if say the Nepalese consent to join the Indian union and if the Indians do not object to it, India and Nepal should not become one country. Or India and Nepal and Srilanka and Pakistan and China. I absolutely agree and was pointing out that self-determination is what is important. Not the direction in which the process takes us. YOU WROTE : "The poster you were so enthusiastic about begins his post talking of "REALPOLITIK" - If you support the idea of realpolitik, your posture on Kashmir is automatically undermined." Umm... I had said that all nations are guided by real politik and then in the next sentence I proceeded to call it reprehensible. So clearly I am not enthusiastic about real politik. So if Sujai entusiastically supported me then how does he support the idea of real politik? I'm afraid I do not follow your logic here. Perhaps you read my post in a hurry and thought that I was supporting real politik. Please do clarify. YOU WROTE:" He - like you - then goes off on an ideological position regarding nation-states and free speech, which is OBVIOUSLY not about realpolitik." Yes very obviously. I think you just skipped the second line where I called real politik reprehensible. thats why you got so confused. YOU WROTE: "I have no issues with your right to free speech. I do challenge your inability to retain a clear line of thought. Either your reasoning is based on "realpolitik" in which case your argument on Kashmir above does not hold." It seems the problem is not my ability to retain a clear line of though but your inability to speed read without skipping whole lines. Clearly, my argument was NOT based on real politik. YOU WROTE: " OR you take an ideological stand where facts are coloured incessantly by ideology and mean very little and open yourself to criticisms from the "realists" who find your ideological stand untenable." This I agree with. YEs, there is an ideological stand which the realists can find untenable. I acceopt. But my point was not to suggest a practical solution to Kashmir. My point was about something which I think is more important. My point was about the difference between a culture, a civilization and a administrative unit we call the nation state. YOU WROTE: "I dont expect you to answer this post. This is not meant to be a contest. However, since you obviously love writing and sharing your opinion in public, it would be more constructive for you to actually READ and think about some of the responses (not obviously the personal attacks) before coming up with a knee-jerk reaction." WEll, I have been honest and serious about reading your post carefully and line by line. I have tried not be frivolous by just being (too) rude and attacking you rather than your arguments. OK I am sorry I challenged your speed reading skills but it is really tiring to be mis read. I mean, I called real politik reprehensible ! How can you say that I am spporting it. anyway. Please do tell me if I have failed to understand what you were talking about or if I have failed to make my point clear to you. Dear Sujai: Thank you for your support. Sorry you family was jailed but I think that would've happened in any country. A genuine federal structure to me seems like the way to go. Also, perhaps you and grim sunshine have a history. I did not see his mentioning sedition as a veiled threat. Perhaps it was but based on just his last post, I did not see it as a threat.

Comment by Durgesh

Tue, 24 Oct 2006 10:49:35 EDT

Grim Reaper, Suppose you are having coffee with a friend in silence and the other person barks out suddenly "how dare you call me a Fu##nut". Now i would say its a bad idea to hang around with such characters. Because when the going gets tough, these characters use words like "why did you insult me" "dont abuse me" or the gem "i wont stoop to your LEVEL". Its a difficult job to carry on a discourse with a guy who imagines insults and threats where none are made. Words are deliberately twisted to be used against you. You should read the manual of the brotherhood i referred to in comment 49 to understand this silly parlour game. Thanks.

Comment by Durgesh

Tue, 24 Oct 2006 10:39:56 EDT

Kind Sir, Please write out a list about those who are welcome and those who are NOT WELCOME while "we" build this great nation of ours. Your inputs will be very precious in eliminating those who are NOT WELCOME. Please oblige. [i am as polite as i can get]. _________ Note to publisher: Please sir, remove the media, culture politics and all the other blah blah between the title tags. it should be replaced with: Desicritics: where the entertainment never ends. Thank you.

Comment by Durgesh

Tue, 24 Oct 2006 10:34:12 EDT

I missed the last para of comment 55: [quote] This country wasn't made possible by weak-hearted people like you. Please, stay in your safe cocoons, and let us face the consequences of our actions and words. Your advice, note of caution, insults and threats are NOT welcome! More than anything, they are irksome and act as irritants obstructing a good debate, and most often a distraction while we are building this nation![unquote] This guy seems to surpass himself at every turn. Talk about being polite and all the rest of the bull. And no, paranoia is not the word.

Comment by Durgesh

Tue, 24 Oct 2006 10:29:23 EDT

Hello again, Now comment 55 is a gem. it is a combination of tricks used by the brotherhood. 1] Make claims that your opponents never made. Constantly misinterpret and de-contextualize what your opponent says. In the end, toss in a nice, liberal sounding lament to brew up the coffee and look pink oneself: Do Read this [from 55]: [quote] Using threats words like 'sedition', calling names like 'traitor', 'ISI agent', 'Pakistani', saying that you will go for my jugular, etc, do not show maturity on your part. [unquote] and then, the lament: [quote] It only emphasizes how intolerant we have become.[unquote] Thank you.

Comment by Sujai

Tue, 24 Oct 2006 10:19:51 EDT

Few links related to this topic: Linguistic States in India Reconciling Linguistic Diversity

Comment by Sujai

Tue, 24 Oct 2006 10:03:55 EDT

#51: Since you did not provide the 'ample evidence'. Here are some notes which point the arrow the other direction. Wiki writes: Neither the constitution nor the laws of India accord the status of "National Language" to any language in India. There is a law which basically says no language will be made the National Language unless and until all the constituent states of the Union of India accept it. Out of the 28 states and 7 union territories, only 10 states and 3 union territories have Hindi as the principal official language. (emphasis mine) On official languages: India has a list of 24 official languages (including Hindi and English). These languages are entitled to representation on the Official Language Commission, and a candidate in an examination conducted for national government service may opt to take the exam in any of these languages. (emphasis mine) Article 343 of the India Constitution states that the official language of the Union (India) shall be Hindi in Devanagari script. As drafted in the constitution in 1950, English ceased to exist as an official language (on par with Hindi) in 1965, after which it was intended to continue as an "associate additional official language" until such time that a duly appointed committee can decide on a full-scale transition to Hindi, based on a periodic review. However, due to protests from South Indian states where there is low Hindi penetration, the "twin language" system is still in vogue. (emphasis mine)

Comment by Sujai

Tue, 24 Oct 2006 09:35:09 EDT

Using threats words like 'sedition', calling names like 'traitor', 'ISI agent', 'Pakistani', saying that you will go for my jugular, etc, do not show maturity on your part. It actually reflects badly on this great nation which was formed on the principles of freedom of speech and expression and tolerance of diversity. It only emphasizes how intolerant we have become. It doesn't mean I am not aware of the consequences of my words and actions. My father, along with other leaders of Telangana have been packed off to jail on similar charges in 1969 when they protested and launched agitation for a separate Telangana state within confines of Indian nation. Some of these leaders came out and later hijacked the movement to become the chief ministers of AP. In our region, every agitation for justice and welfare of downtrodden and backward people is crushed and people are put in jail under various Acts of India. We had Emergency in this nation; people protested and were jailed under similar laws. Mahatma Gandhi was tried under sedition and convicted during British rule. (BTW, many leaders of Great Britain suggested independence to India much before 1947) This country wasn't made possible by weak-hearted people like you. Please, stay in your safe cocoons, and let us face the consequences of our actions and words. Your advice, note of caution, insults and threats are NOT welcome! More than anything, they are irksome and act as irritants obstructing a good debate, and most often a distraction while we are building this nation!

Comment by grim sunshine

Tue, 24 Oct 2006 06:06:44 EDT

I dont expect this post to make much of a difference to the mindset of the author. However, in any case: Sujai, media columnists function under constraints which bloggers like you don't. That means journalists ARE internally edited and vetted before their columns go out to the public. When they reach a senior enough position, they do the same for others as well as for themselves. There is a measure of responsibility and restraint that they exercise in their opinion, even when they may appear radical. For example, advocating dissolution of the nation state is sedition under the law. And most journalists would be aware of the fine line between free speech and sedition. You - as most bloggers - obviously have no such restraint or sense of internal responsibility. So when you choose to publish your views, you face a greater challenge than most columnists do - simply because that internal control has not been exercised. Also isn't it slightly presumptuous for a blogger to claim - however implicitly - the privileges of journalists when even this site has been happy slamming them and supporting bloggers? TWO - I have no problems with your ideological position about nation-states being artificial entities. However your leap from a philosophical position to a series of practical steps is incomprehensible. You enthusiastically hang to the support of the earlier poster A - whose own logic is tenuous. He manages to posit the following ridiculous statement that he doesn't understand how "the glory of Indian civilization will be diminished by the balkanization of the Indian state." Like many bloggers - use of political terms seems to be random if not mistaken. Balkanization is accompanied by ethnic cleansing, genocide, mass rapes - all war crimes which diminish ALL civilizations. No one in politics assumes that Indian nation-state shall retain its current boundaries forever. Strange however that "thinkers" like you never entertain the idea of enlarging the boundaries of the Indian state without yelling blue murder, while gleefully anticipating its diminishment. If in principle you can stomach the dissolution of the Indian state as it currently stands, why can't you cope with the idea of an "greater" India including Nepal, Bhutan, Sri Lanka - even at a point in future, Pakistan and Bangladesh or even Afghanistan? After all regional expansion is part and parcel of economic and political growth. (Do note that the above question is purely THEORETICAL) The poster you were so enthusiastic about begins his post talking of "REALPOLITIK" - If you support the idea of realpolitik, your posture on Kashmir is automatically undermined. He - like you - then goes off on an ideological position regarding nation-states and free speech, which is OBVIOUSLY not about realpolitik. I have no issues with your right to free speech. I do challenge your inability to retain a clear line of thought. Either your reasoning is based on "realpolitik" in which case your argument on Kashmir above does not hold. OR you take an ideological stand where facts are coloured incessantly by ideology and mean very little and open yourself to criticisms from the "realists" who find your ideological stand untenable. I dont expect you to answer this post. This is not meant to be a contest. However, since you obviously love writing and sharing your opinion in public, it would be more constructive for you to actually READ and think about some of the responses (not obviously the personal attacks) before coming up with a knee-jerk reaction. It might help clarify your own thought process as well as your writing. Just remember - your reader does not have to agree with you. He/she simply has to be impressed by a compelling case that you construct. And one major component for that is actually taking criticism and using it!

Comment by Sujai

Tue, 24 Oct 2006 05:06:05 EDT

#52, A: Very nicely put. We do not know why there is such abhorrence to handle the issues of freedoms, and why we attach the existence of our civilization to a certain map and its shape. Each kingdom, empire, nation state has been changing its shape, increasing and decreasing through time- they were never inviolable. People belong to an entity called a nation because they want to, not because they are forced into it. The day they are forced into it, they no longer enjoy the freedoms (that are supposedly guaranteed).

Comment by A

Tue, 24 Oct 2006 02:15:41 EDT

Hi, I think that all nations have their foreign and domestic policy guided by real politik. I think it is reprehensible and I think it is our duty as human beings to stop worshiping this new deity called the nation state. We must recognize that there is infinitely more to a culture and a civilization than a mere nation state. The Indian civilization predates the concept of a nation state by a long long time. The Indian civilization will continue to exist for a long long time even if the number of nation states existing in the same geographical area increases or decreases. I fail to see why so much sanctity is afforded to the idea of a nation state. I do not see how the glory of the Indian civilization will be diminished in any way from the balkanization of the Indian nation state. Perhaps someone can explain why everybody is terrified of 'giving' the sikhs and the assamese or the Nagas the right to self determination. Firstly this right is not anybodys to give. Secondly, It is quite patronizing to think that such small nation states will not be capable of functioning by themselves. I do not see why the people of the Indian civilization should necessarily live under a unified political rule. It might be in their best interest to form a political union but ultimately is should be the decision of the people involved. Isn't individual Liberty (and self-determination of communities) the cornerstone of modern civilization, where unlike the communist or monarchist societies or Religious states like Iran/Saudi, the individual is not sacrificed at the alter of some kind of greater good( though in reality it is typically the interest of the ruling class or person(s) disguised as a greater good). For instance: I see absolutely no reason why Andaman and Nicobar is a part of the Indian Union. The tribals in these islands had no conception of european concept of nationhood. Whether they consented to join the Indian Union is not even a meaningful question to ask. I see no reason why Nagaland is a part of the Indian Union. The Nagas actually declared their independence a day before India did. They have been fighting the Indian and the Burmese government for over 50 years now. What about sikkim? At this point I would like to point out that I haven't yet compared the foreign and domestic policy performance of the Indian government with that of any other. I would like to point out that the records of most governments which have any power or influence is decidedly worse or atleast as bad. (China: tibet US:south ameria,vietnam, middle east etc, pakistan:Balochistan,bangladesh,kashmir, erstwhie USSR: eastern europe, central asia, Russia: chechnya, CIS, France: algeria,Rawanda UK: middle east, India, Ireland Iran: LEbanon) The list is long but I only mention a few names. If asked, I can explain what I am talking about by providing a huge list of reprehensible foreign and domestic policy actions of the above countries. I would like to explicitly say that I do not think that the actions of the Indian government are decededly worse or better than those of most governments. I think institutions are created by man to serve man. To help organize society and create support networks for people to leave together peacefully. But when the power of such institutions (such as the nation state or a church) grows beyond a certain thresh hold level and the right mechanisms for checks and balances are not there then these institutions take a life of their own. Then man serves the institution to perpetuate its existence. I think nationalism is one such beast. This really has nothing to do with India or Indians. It is the case everywhere. People need to realize that cultures will survive and flourish without the aid of some patron nation state and people need to the realize that a country and its government is created to serve the people and not the other way around.

Comment by Sujai

Mon, 23 Oct 2006 09:26:53 EDT

#48: Grim Sunshine: I said in the above article: Most of us who criticize Indian rule in Kashmir, American aggression, Israel occupation, are not Islamists nor do we believe in radical Islam as practiced in certain nations or as promoted by some terrorist outfits. That does not mean I think those issues are all the same. I could have easily added many other topics to the list without diluting the purport of the above statement, like targeting Muslims based on religion in certain European nations, installing puppet governments in Islamic nations, and so on. Does that mean, I think they are all same in their modus operandi? If someone writes the following: Michael Moore criticizes US invasion of Iraq, US policies towards environment, Patriotic Act and anti-abortion policies. A reader X may quickly assume that the writer is equating these four topics. This X may conclude that the writer is suggesting that the way US suppresses and kills people in Iraq, it is also suppressing and killing pro-abortion (pro-choice) campaigners within US. This X gets infuriated and agitated for this comparison and baits the author. However, another reader Y may conclude quite differently. He infers that Micheal Moore is criticizing the common element in all these topics- George Bush and his executive team supported by his conservatives in Republican Party who seem to be responsible for these issues. Just because these three regions come in one sentence, it does not equate them. Readers like Y will have no problem in seeing this. I gave an example above in the comment # 41. You seem to be stuck on this and do NOT want to infer. Readers like X will continue to make false assumptions, wrong correlations and get frustrated. They beleaguer the author with such wrong interpretations. This is one of those cases. I am not comparing the ethnic composition, histories, types of governments, and other complexities of these regions. You are unnecessarily involving yourself in that exercise- trying to teach how they are different when I do not equate them at all. What I am saying is- just because we criticize certain nations and their actions (citing three examples) it does not make us Islamists. You write: So we come to the core of your argument: You can look up the core of my argument which comes out in some of my articles at Desicritics. Most of it is available at my blog. You write: Your idea of how no "Indian" had ever been to parts of Kashmir occupied by Pakistan and later sold to China is really clutching at straws... In fact, even today, MOST Indians have never seen many corners of the country. I am not sure where you are going with this. I stated few examples to say how we Indians do not know the whole story. (There is a difference between MOST Indians not seeing many corners of the country and NO Indian soldier or administrator ever putting a foot in a certain regions of the country which we think belongs to us. And I am NOT talking of just unpopulated regions here. Indian administrators or soldiers never set foot in Gilgit or Muzaffarabad which is populated.) My idea of bringing up this example is not to cite reasons as to 'why' Indians did not set foot there, but to say that Indians did not set foot there, and that we do not know this. You write: Few "Indians" - according your rather racist logic, because all it does is posit the heartland as a national identity at the expense of all other regions - have been to Arunachal. Who are the people living in Arunachal then? The level of travel or trans-regional consciousness is hardly is a logical reason to assume that the national territory is somehow falsely designed. I am not sure how or why my logic is racist here. I do not say whether it is right or wrong. I do not take a stand on whether Arunachal should be with India or not. I am not taking a moral or ethical stand on this issue- I am just saying that we do not write about the 'regions occupied by India', and hence most Indians do not know about it. That's all. It's like Indians not writing about Indian participation in WWII. By all means do hold opinions, but then be able to defend by rational means and facts. These are opinions. Some are defended by facts. Some are not. If my opinion is that 'there should be justice' in our country, a reader like you might point out 101 examples where the justice does not prevail in this country. There is no end to such argument- because its an opinion. It's a futile exercise when readers participate in nitpicking my article, take certain statements out of context, ascribe new meanings and then ask me to defend my 'supposed' argument that came straight out of their false and assumed interpretation. Finally - not every aspect of a democracy has to be enshrined in the constitution. Agreed. But when it is not, to assume it is, can lead to problems, as seen by reaction of Tamil people against enforcement of Hindi, or supposed mandatory singing of a National Song. When I give these examples in this article, I do not say whether it is right or wrong. I am just saying that knowing what is legally and constitutionally sanctioned helps understanding the issues and hopefully avoids misconceptions which rise up to become trouble spots. It may be 'generally agreed' that homosexuality is bad (because most Indians do not accept it), but unless it is known whether it is legal or illegal, one cannot deal with it, as a state [In India, it is illegal]. Hence, a need arises to either outlaw it or embrace certain notions. Keeping such option open for 'generally agreed' opinions is too dangerous. However, my intention of this article is not say whether those laws are right or not, but the ability to criticize nation's actions. Almost every fact, opinion and argument is arguable. One should come to a maturity to either agree or disagree. One does not have to win. There is room for all kinds of opinions. Its called diversity. When one opinion has to prevail over the others- you should know what it is. There is ample parliamentary and policy documentary evidence to prove it in a legal sense. Where is this ample evidence which makes it legal? Sorry, but you, like some others on this forum, tend to deviate from the topic under discussion, nitpick trivialities that do not have bearing on the original purport and meaning of the article, run on a wild goose chase on arguments that do not have any relevance to the topic under discussion, and ask for evidences while you do not provide any. It becomes exhaustive after some time and that's why I resort to 'Time out!' A discussion of point vs. counter-point need not go forever. That's why most discussion programs on TV are limited by time, and most opinions in newspapers and magazines have limited responses from readers. The authors of such columns do not go about corroborating every sentence they write. The discussion stops with one response from a reader and if needed, a follow-up response from the writer. That's all. A column in a newspaper assumes certain knowledge from the readers- they do not address every layman (unfortunately). On the other hand, a book may go into details corroborating many assumptions and other 'generally known' facts. This is not a book. The readers of Opinions are entitled to their interpretations. They can discard the article or care to read it, but such a prolonged discussion providing statements and counter-statements that have no bearing on the artilce, but only to prove who is 'smarter', is futile and exhausting.