I left out of social media (FB / Twitter) a few months ago. This was to focus on something more core, something more useful.
I successfully managed to keep my mind away from the beef, intolerance and award wapasi periods. But it seems media and some "liberals" with political agendas want to keep the unnecessary debates about ones rights alive (responsibility is only left for the government because it does not belong to their preferred party).
Last few days, due to available time and inability to use the time for my prime work, I got involved into the current situation again. And well the extent is such that I am writing this post.
Yes its the JNU row which made me get agitated again.
The issue surrounds on the rights of those few students to conduct a "cultural event" in support of a convicted terrorist of the country sentenced to capital punishment.
No I am not referring to the slogan shouting (cause even the liberals with anti-govt agenda would not want to support that part.)
I successfully managed to keep my mind away from the beef, intolerance and award wapasi periods. But it seems media and some "liberals" with political agendas want to keep the unnecessary debates about ones rights alive (responsibility is only left for the government because it does not belong to their preferred party).
Last few days, due to available time and inability to use the time for my prime work, I got involved into the current situation again. And well the extent is such that I am writing this post.
Yes its the JNU row which made me get agitated again.
The issue surrounds on the rights of those few students to conduct a "cultural event" in support of a convicted terrorist of the country sentenced to capital punishment.
No I am not referring to the slogan shouting (cause even the liberals with anti-govt agenda would not want to support that part.)
I feel strange that those defending the students are using their right to express dissent. My question is plain and simple - what about the responsibility? Responsibility of those student to not set precedent where every convicted terrorist, murderer and rapists will get supported/felicitated through public cultural event, Responsibility towards families of those who where martyred due to these terrorists, Responsibility towards the the men in uniform who are still standing in the line of fire from colleagues of these terrorists.
When it comes to responsibility everyone is talking about govt's responsibility of protecting rights of these students. Is the Govt responsibility only towards these set of few students? Does Govt has no responsibility towards the families of the martyred soldiers, to the men in uniform still fighting in line or towards the sentiment of rest of the populations?
Ohh well to the defending liberals of these students, sentiments of these students matter more than those protecting our nation. For them "Bharat Mata ki Jai" is merely seen as a chant used by right wings to certify nationalism. Little do they know that regiments in Army use these phrases as war cries. For these liberals, standing up to National anthem or saluting a flag is a fake gesture to support fake nationalism. Little do they know our men in uniform would either kill or die to protect this flag from getting disrespected. Their argument is that they don't need a certificate to be nationalistic. However they would immediately certify others communal based on whether they are wearing saffron or are carrying green flag with star and moon.
They bat for right to dissent but the moment you oppose their views, they would paint you illiterate / uneducated / right wing and so on. They would mock people driven by emotion and passion. Seems they forget that it was the emotions and passion of our freedom fighters which provided them their rights. Right to express has become a tool for these liberals to cover insult/disrespect/abuse.
Its not just these certified liberals but there are certified intellectuals who do not understand the difference between conviction and sentencing. In JNU case one of the argument given by these intellectuals to justify the students action of supporting Afzal Guru is because as per them, Afzal Guru was made a scapegoat due to "collective public conscience". And they very easily refer to part of statement of the Supreme court judgement to support these view.
They bat for right to dissent but the moment you oppose their views, they would paint you illiterate / uneducated / right wing and so on. They would mock people driven by emotion and passion. Seems they forget that it was the emotions and passion of our freedom fighters which provided them their rights. Right to express has become a tool for these liberals to cover insult/disrespect/abuse.
Its not just these certified liberals but there are certified intellectuals who do not understand the difference between conviction and sentencing. In JNU case one of the argument given by these intellectuals to justify the students action of supporting Afzal Guru is because as per them, Afzal Guru was made a scapegoat due to "collective public conscience". And they very easily refer to part of statement of the Supreme court judgement to support these view.
Strangely if someone really reads into the statement, he would realize that the reason of "Collective public conscience" is used by SC to award capital punishment and NOT the conviction. The statement of conviction clearly states that even though there is no direct evidence to link Afzal with the terrorist organization, there is enough evidences before the court that prove "beyond reasonable doubt" that he was part of the conspiracy.
Most courts in various country has the notion of reasonable doubt. This notion is provided with a simple intent - "Let 10 criminal set free but 1 innocent should not get convicted"
So if SC says that all the evidence before the court link Afzal guru to the conspiracy "beyond reasonable doubt", that means there has to be some merit to the conviction. Yes one can protest the the capital sentence awarded but that does not make Afzal guru a martyr. He still stays a convicted terrorist.
However strange part is that these intellectuals are using two unrelated statement and combining them together to misguide those who do not understand these details of court judgement. Before defending the rights of the student, aren't these intellectuals have responsibility to not misinterpret the judgement eventually misguiding people?
Presently, there is another parallel case of rights and responsibility in news. Its about Apple Inc.'s stance of putting "right to privacy" over an above its responsibility to help govt agencies in social justice and national security.
Today the debate is not about national vs anti-national or right wing vs left wing or secular vs communal, rather I feel the world today is actually divided into only two parts - those who only talk about right ignoring the responsibilities and those who keep responsibilities above their rights. And the world is still working because of later ones.
Disclaimer: The liberals and intellectuals referred in this post are those sitting in media creating these debates and then keeping them alive till they get the next topic to create a debate on.
Disclaimer: The liberals and intellectuals referred in this post are those sitting in media creating these debates and then keeping them alive till they get the next topic to create a debate on.
