Soumitra
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2011
- Messages
- 8,415
- Reaction score
- -17
- Country
- Location
I don't think a very narrow definition of Anti National is necessary or even possible. The UN has not been able to define who is a terrorist as yet.Then pass the legislation under current constitution.
First you have to define what "anti-national" is very precisely and what level of "support" warrants govt action on an individual regarding this...and be prepared to deal with the consequences of other parties down the road reversing it etc etc...and applying govt enforcement of what they deem to be "anti-national" against other groups of people....using what you did as the precedent.
Or you can simply create a better minimalist system that allows people to think as they want and talk as they want...and only apply authority where there is clearly delineated harm to individual...and debate and build up (bottom - up) from there as it portends to direct harm on individuals.....rather than being the instigator of using govt lever in such broad fashion (and allowing that lever to exist for others to use in ways you do not forsee today).
People also have to become naturally independent and resilient by use of logic and reasoning....rather than simply latch onto big govt dependency for notions of nationalism and nationhood. This is always far more resilient long term...given it comes from within not from outside in top-down way.
Given where India has come from (with massive pilfering and extraction of wealth) ...I agree there is an argument for greater use of govt-national "glue"..till the society is sufficiently wealthy and developed to revisit this debate genuinely at a core level.....but there must be some recognition of what the long term ideal we are striving for is....it should never be big govt....because big authoritarian enabled govts have tendency to turn against its people with enough time.
My basic argument here anyway is more regarding the developed western countries anyway. But there are examples of a greater concept of what I am getting at that I can use India (which is in a nebulous transition right now) as well to illustrate to Joe and anyone else reading....why things may not be as they seem w.r.t the easy way to silence people that think differently to you....but have not commited any (recognised by all) crime per se.
But I think it is pretty easy to spot an Anti National behavior. For example consorting with the enemy like Pakistan, glorifying separatists and stone pelters, actually being separatist or stone pelter, calling for the active insult to national emblems, encouraging or taking part in Maoist activities, sympathizing with Maoists, filing 3 AM petition to help terrorists, calling "Bharat tere tukde honge, inshallah" etc.
I think you get the general drift. all the activities which are detrimental to the nation are anti-national.
I also feel you are wrong in comparing western issues with Indian issues. The two are not linked as they have totally different backgrounds and circumstances.