This debate is the basic crux of all the infighting going on in our country since the current government came to power. A discussion was long due `coz of the degeneration of public discourse in recent times when everyone has to take sides without getting the holistic picture of any damn issue. The extant blog is against the backdrop of the protest in Ramjas College and the violence that ensued following clashes b/w ABVP and AISA. There is hardly any novelty as such clashes have become the order of the day. Clashes between co-students can be traced back to the JNU fiasco almost a year back. The recent FIR against teachers for staging a play by MahaDevi Verma in Haryana University or an FIR against teachers in Udaipur University are fresh cases.
The ABVP`s version of events :- "Terrorists like Umar Khalid"should not be allowed to speak in the D.U Campus. Further there was no permission for the events from the administration. The virus of Anti- Nationalism which started in J.N.U. has spread to many campuses in the nation. Unity and Integrity of the Country cannot be compromised at any cost. Inciting the mob to "break the nation into many parts" or "singing songs for a convicted terrorist as if he was a martyr "cannot be protected under the garb of Freedom Of Expression. The violence that ensued in Ramjas was a result of provocation and stone pelting by AISA.
The AISA says;- Umar Khalid is a scholar on Kashmir Issues and he has not yet been chargesheeted by the Police. Inviting him was not anti-national. The violence was started by ABVP and the police was a mute spectator. Normally in any protest of this kind, video recording of the place is made by the police. The same was not being done to shield the attackers. This is a violation of Freedom of Expression and is forceful imposition of the "RSS form of Nationalism". They further allege that the government is vitiating the university campus to suit its political ends.
Our Constitution has guaranteed us the right to "ptotest peacefully". The ABVP or for that matter AISA had the right to protest peacefully against each other. The police had to do its job in checking violence of any kind and ensuring that the perpetrators are brought to book. Umar Khalid is not a convicted criminal and thats a fact. His presence on any stage is not anti-national. However the choice of Umar Khalid over many towering personalities and experts on Kashmir can throw some light on the intention of the organisers. But they were within their rights nonetheless. Creating ruckus over a person even though he hasn`t spoken a word is idiocy of the worst kind. Its like mking a mediocre guy famous for no reason, But again the ABVP was within its rights in doing so.
Lets broaden the scope of this discussion. Why every such issue is made out to be a Nationalism Vs Freedom of Speech debate and we are compelled to take sides.Our Civilisation boasts of its "Shastrarth Parampara". Academic questions must be discussed academically. Dont end the discussion because you dont like it. Put your arguments and try to persuade the audience. Trust their judgement. It is the academic duty of teachers to give a platform to their students to explore multiple worldviews. Teachers have complained of shrinking of academic space due to threat of violence. The recent cases of F.I.R`s exemplify it.
The final argument that I want to put is-"Nobody has the right to act on behalf of the state unless authorised by the same". Private citizens can articulate their form of Nationalism but fighting anyone doing anything less that that and branding them as Anti-National is not correct. Similarly acts of Bajrang Dal on Valentine`s Day and so on are actually Anti-National and must be dealt accordingly.I would like to close the argument by cautioning the "liberals"about the restriction to Freedom of Expression enshrined in Article 19(2) of Our Constitution. Criticism of the government is allowed but inciting a mob to an uprising against the country by breaking it into smaller parts is NOT COOL . It must be dealt as per law of the land and let the judiciary have the final word
Our Constitution has guaranteed us the right to "ptotest peacefully". The ABVP or for that matter AISA had the right to protest peacefully against each other. The police had to do its job in checking violence of any kind and ensuring that the perpetrators are brought to book. Umar Khalid is not a convicted criminal and thats a fact. His presence on any stage is not anti-national. However the choice of Umar Khalid over many towering personalities and experts on Kashmir can throw some light on the intention of the organisers. But they were within their rights nonetheless. Creating ruckus over a person even though he hasn`t spoken a word is idiocy of the worst kind. Its like mking a mediocre guy famous for no reason, But again the ABVP was within its rights in doing so.
Lets broaden the scope of this discussion. Why every such issue is made out to be a Nationalism Vs Freedom of Speech debate and we are compelled to take sides.Our Civilisation boasts of its "Shastrarth Parampara". Academic questions must be discussed academically. Dont end the discussion because you dont like it. Put your arguments and try to persuade the audience. Trust their judgement. It is the academic duty of teachers to give a platform to their students to explore multiple worldviews. Teachers have complained of shrinking of academic space due to threat of violence. The recent cases of F.I.R`s exemplify it.
The final argument that I want to put is-"Nobody has the right to act on behalf of the state unless authorised by the same". Private citizens can articulate their form of Nationalism but fighting anyone doing anything less that that and branding them as Anti-National is not correct. Similarly acts of Bajrang Dal on Valentine`s Day and so on are actually Anti-National and must be dealt accordingly.I would like to close the argument by cautioning the "liberals"about the restriction to Freedom of Expression enshrined in Article 19(2) of Our Constitution. Criticism of the government is allowed but inciting a mob to an uprising against the country by breaking it into smaller parts is NOT COOL . It must be dealt as per law of the land and let the judiciary have the final word
