Army General GD Bakshi's speech equated to 'hate-mongering' by IIT-Madras student

[A_Poster]

Who invited him to IIT? May be the IIT-M admin should issue an apology letter for their mistake.

Who started humanities department in an Engineering college? IIT-M admin should issue an apology letter for their mistake and promptly close down this den of freeloaders and failures of life.

 

[livingdead]

Who started humanities department in an Engineering college? IIT-M admin should issue an apology letter for their mistake and promptly close down this den of freeloaders and failures of life.

without those 'freeloaders and failures' most indians will be bots...

 

[MilSpec]

Is it hate speech? Yes. But if people aren't able to distinguish what is good and what is bad, and deal with it, it is they who need help, and not the speaker.

I am referring only to what he is reported to have said about Pakistan. About his whacky history, in a land that has seen the likes of P. N. Oak, what difference does a G. D. Bakshi make?

The third issue is people's reactions to him. That is interesting, and I have a clinical interest in it.

I hope you don't take this as me standing in support of GD Bakshi, I have no dog in the race. What I am interested in though, a double standard which I perceive.

People who claim themselves to be in defence of free speech, in case of JNU luminaries, are fine with delivery of views like 40% India under military occupation, even if they don't subscribe to it. The point being being in a democracy, everyone has a right to their views. That school of thought wouldn't be construed as hate speech, or facism, and anyone who does will be labelled as intolerant.

But here when an exact opposite precedence is set, this becomes hate speech or fascist ideology, Am I just wrong or is there double standards here?

 

[Director General]

Everybody knows GD Bakshi is an idiot, but he has the right of expression so no one can gag him.

 

[adil_minhas]

I hope no one takes this the wrong way, and I have the deepest respect for him as a soldier, but GD Bakshi is definitely a bit unhinged. Maybe it is PTSD, which I don't think was adequately treated given he is a General Saab and who would have the gumption to suggest such? I am in no way referring to this topic. Just how I have observed him flying off the handle. For some reason I always imagine Joe Shearer looks like that pounding away on his keyboard. Froth flying, eyes bulging, face in a rictus , teeth bared, flowing white mustache bristling.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I hope you don't take this as me standing in support of GD Bakshi, I have no dog in the race. What I am interested in though, a double standard which I perceive.

People who claim themselves to be in defence of free speech, in case of JNU luminaries, are fine with delivery of views like 40% India under military occupation, even if they don't subscribe to it. The point being being in a democracy, everyone has a right to their views. That school of thought wouldn't be construed as hate speech, or facism, and anyone who does will be labelled as intolerant.

But here when an exact opposite precedence is set, this becomes hate speech or fascist ideology, Am I just wrong or is there double standards here?

This is an abstraction that you have used, and the point surely is that hate speech is not defined in a vacuum, but to a large extent by what that speech contains.

Is it all right to propose that Pakistan be broken into four fragments? Is it all right to claim that 'we' broke Pakistan into two fragments? What is the left wing lunatic equivalent to these two statements?

If we get sufficiently abstracted, we can equate anything with anything. In practice, things usually sort themselves out very nicely without much fuss beyond a point.

 

[Maira La]

With students like these who needs enemies? His mother should have been stabbed in her stomach with a bayonet when she was pregnant with this student.

Thanks for reminding us what you are capable of. It's been a while since Gujarat 2002.

 

[MilSpec]

This is an abstraction that you have used, and the point surely is that hate speech is not defined in a vacuum, but to a large extent by what that speech contains.

Is it all right to propose that Pakistan be broken into four fragments? Is it all right to claim that 'we' broke Pakistan into two fragments? What is the left wing lunatic equivalent to these two statements?

If we get sufficiently abstracted, we can equate anything with anything. In practice, things usually sort themselves out very nicely without much fuss beyond a point.

Again it's not the content but the approach of labelling the content as anti national or fascist in this case.

It doesn't matter if I agree or disagree with the content. But denouncing some some one as anti-national for their anti-India views seems similar to denouncing someone as fascist for their Anti-Pakistan view.

Isn't labelling Gen Bakshi as a fascist, intolerance? The point being you may disagree with his views, but labeling his views as hate speech seems like there is a different yardstick for folks in JNU/DU/J&K Seperatist vs rest of the citizenry.

I don't recall you saying sheila rashid or the JNU professors views as antinational, though you dis agreed with those views,

In this case, you don't just say that you disagree, but do go a step further and label his views as fascism. It is his perception that dis-integration of a potential security risk for India into smaller states will mitigate concerns that threaten Indian interests. He has the right to his views, why should he be labeled as a fascist for that. He may be wrong, deluded, or just too optimistic about the power equation or even potential indian interest in the region. But that just makes him wrong, not a fascist.

 

[Spectre]

@MilSpec what are you referring to is nothing new, novel or even surprising

Media for as long as i remember - which is post 60s has always had a liberal/left bias in almost all countries where it is relatively free like US, UK, Europe and to an extent India outside of DD

Just look at coverage of trump vs hillary, Kennedy vs Nixon, modi vs rahul gandhi - you can go as far back as you wish or just read todays newspaper to have a look at the bias. Ofcourse in opposition to mainstream bias certain counter bias will occur like in Fox news, Times Now, The sun

Now that we are done with bias confirmation, lets look at the reason for this bias -

Left/Liberal ideal stands for appeasement of weak at expense of strong - not necessarily majority vs minority politics as it is today. Such causes are often eyeball grabbing just like Poverty **** is. The other thing is that those who are strong are often content with status quo where as weak would like to change it thus giving them a cause. Cause is always exciting - unlike the humdum of right wing politics.

 

[MilSpec]

I don't give a flying F about the Media, I care for what @Joe Shearer has to say, because on number of occasion what i perceive has been absolutely wrong. This entire conversation is to check for holes in my perception.

@MilSpec what are you referring to is nothing new, novel or even surprising

Media for as long as i remember - which is post 60s has always had a liberal/left bias in almost all countries where it is relatively free like US, UK, Europe and to an extent India outside of DD

Just look at coverage of trump vs hillary, Kennedy vs Nixon, modi vs rahul gandhi - you can go as far back as you wish or just read todays newspaper to have a look at the bias. Ofcourse in opposition to mainstream bias certain counter bias will occur like in Fox news, Times Now, The sun

Now that we are done with bias confirmation, lets look at the reason for this bias -

Left/Liberal ideal stands for appeasement of weak at expense of strong - not necessarily majority vs minority politics as it is today. Such causes are often eyeball grabbing just like Poverty **** is. The other thing is that those who are strong are often content with status quo where as weak would like to change it thus giving them a cause. Cause is always exciting - unlike the humdum of right wing politics.

@MilSpec what are you referring to is nothing new, novel or even surprising

Media for as long as i remember - which is post 60s has always had a liberal/left bias in almost all countries where it is relatively free like US, UK, Europe and to an extent India outside of DD

Just look at coverage of trump vs hillary, Kennedy vs Nixon, modi vs rahul gandhi - you can go as far back as you wish or just read todays newspaper to have a look at the bias. Ofcourse in opposition to mainstream bias certain counter bias will occur like in Fox news, Times Now, The sun

Now that we are done with bias confirmation, lets look at the reason for this bias -

Left/Liberal ideal stands for appeasement of weak at expense of strong - not necessarily majority vs minority politics as it is today. Such causes are often eyeball grabbing just like Poverty **** is. The other thing is that those who are strong are often content with status quo where as weak would like to change it thus giving them a cause. Cause is always exciting - unlike the humdum of right wing politics.

My question really is

JNU Professor/students/intolerance brigade > Practices Freedom of speech> get criticized as anti national> people who criticized are labelled intolerant>

Gen Bakshi>> Practices Freedom of speech> get criticized as hate monger> silence by intolerance brigade.

Why?

 

[Spectre]

I think I just answered the why - Bias. Plain and simple.

There is nothing wrong or right about it. Just like you @Joe Shearer has selective bias.

The other part is - who are you referring to when you say "intolerance brigade" - quite obvious it is the left wing community which includes major networks and leftist intellectuals such as joe shearer. When they self identify themselves themselves as liberals - then the further questions about objectivity become moot.

@Joe Shearer feeling nostalgic for the days of cronkite and murrow - and hardly if ever took up sides. We are so quick to dish out opinions these days.

 

[livingdead]

I don't give a flying F about the Media, I care for what @Joe Shearer has to say, because on number of occasion what i perceive has been absolutely wrong. This entire conversation is to check for holes in my perception.



My question really is

JNU Professor/students/intolerance brigade > Practices Freedom of speech> get criticized as anti national> people who criticized are labelled intolerant>

Gen Bakshi>> Practices Freedom of speech> get criticized as hate monger> silence by intolerance brigade.

Why?

ah the old 'is intolerance of intolerance, intolerance?' question...
gen bakshi can air his views.. an institution like IIT should not invite him...
most Indians will be pointing fingers if a premier pakistani institution did something similar... saying how decayed their insti are..

 

[Soumitra]

Is it all right to propose that Pakistan be broken into four fragments? Is it all right to claim that 'we' broke Pakistan into two fragments?

Tell me what is wrong in this? In one of the threads @hellfire was trying to defend you by saying that you always speak on facts.

is it NOT a fact that we broke Pakistan into 2 peices ? We trained and helped Mukti Bahni and then had a 13 day war with Pakistan at the end of which an independent nation of Bangladesh was born. this is a fact and a matter of historical record. Do you deny this?

Regarding the proposal to break Pakistan into 4 pieces. Do you serously want to nurture Pakistan? A nation which for the last 70 years has done nothing but needle us and try to break us up. Kashmir, Punjab insurgency, 26/11, Numerous other terrorist plots, '48 , '65, '71, '99. If after all this you still want to nurture Pakistan then I am sorry the word jaic***d which was used against you in another thread was 100% correct.

 

[MilSpec]

ah the old 'is intolerance of intolerance, intolerance?' question...
gen bakshi can air his views.. an institution like IIT should not invite him...
most Indians will be pointing fingers if a premier pakistani institution did something similar... saying how decayed their insti are..

Sorry but I disagree, you can pfft it as intolerance of intolerance. but is is not. It exactly is just intolerance of freedom of speech? same as intolerance of calling for disintegration of India into smaller states vehemently defended by intolrance brigade.
Tarek Fatah, who has been calling for disintegration of Pakistan can deliver a speech in IIT Bombay, No eybrows raised, but an ex-military guy calls for the same with a different tone and tenor, and he should not be invited by IIT Madras?

 

[Joe Shearer]

Again it's not the content but the approach of labelling the content as anti national or fascist in this case. (1)

It doesn't matter if agree or disagree with the content. But denouncing some some one as anti-national for their anti-India views seems similar to denouncing someone as fascist for their Anti-Pakistan.(2)

Isn't labelling Gen Bakshi as a fascist, intolerance? (3)

The point being you may disagree with his views, but labeling his views as hate speech seems like there is a different yardstick for folks in JNU/DU/J&K Seperatist vs rest of the citizenry.(4)

I don't recall you saying sheila rashid or the JNU professors views as antinational, though you dis agreed with those views,(5)

In this case, you don't just say that you disagree, but do go a step further and label his views as fascism.(6)

There are lots of points of disagreement, then. Let us take them one at a time.

(1) 'Anti-national' and 'fascist' are not the same thing; in fact, calling a fascist 'anti-national' totally contradicts the ideology.
(2) Before clarifying this, let me ask you a preliminary question: are you saying that these are my views?
(3) No. It is what he is, judging by his views. Unless his views are divergent from the ideology of fascism, and he has nevertheless been accused of being a fascist, it can hardly be 'intolerance' to call him a fascist.
It would be sound, however, if someone holding fascist views were called fascist, and then, a call is made to hang all fascists due to their holding views that happen to be fascist.
(4) Disagreeing with someone's views and defining them as hate speech are two different things. Why can they not be applied to the same statement? If they fit logically?
(5) Apply this to your next point, about Sehla Rashid, and about some of the JNU views (there are as many as I disagree with as there are views that I agree with). Disagreeing with someone and liking the expression of those views are different things. They may occur together; they did occur together.
(6) Agreeing and disagreeing, and the kind of statement and position that is held are entirely distinct.

Is this a little easier to understand?