What were you posting about, did Soumitra post something? I got so bored of his dreary rubbish that I just put him on the ignore list.
Just for your edification - please do not construe this as any kind of response to that boring old git, as it will give him a new lease of life to trudge after me for another million years - this is what amuses me about him.
Some posts ago - it was post #6 of this thread - he made a self-contradictory statement (incidentally, most of his statements are self-contradictory, but he is so dull that this never occurs to him - he is really one of the three dullest on the Indian side); the statement was -
I think we should scrap the sedition law and bring a law for Anti national activities. There is a space for dissent in a democracy but it should be within the 4 walls of the constitution
Source:
https://defence.pk/threads/the-myth...use-as-a-political-tool.446705/#ixzz4IskIg7N9
The pathetic part of this is that he got it half-right and half-wrong.
The sedition law should be abolished, no doubt about that, because it is ambiguous and there is no concrete offence that it punishes, before any punishment can be awarded, a very refined interpretation has to be made, namely, did the supposedly seditious remark lead to a directly connected act of violence?
- If I want India dismembered, and some young people attack a police picket, is there a direct connection?
- If I say that India is a dar-ul-harb, and some young freak interprets it to mean that he should set off a bomb in a market place, is there a direct connection?
- More ironic, if I say that, and an arch-Hindu sets off a bomb in a market place, purportedly as a fanatic Muslim, to blacken my reputation, is there a direct connection?
- If I saw something negative about India during a seminar in Hawaii, and somebody in India reacts to it by setting a third person on fire after dousing him with petrol, is that a direct connection?
There is little doubt that this very undecided kind of law should be thrown out of the statute books without much more discussion. The political parties each think that they might some day benefit from the exercise of this law, so none of them move very hard to abolish it. The bureaucracy is charmed at the possibility of typing somebody uncooperative, especially a Kashmiri or a Manipuri or a Naga. So we are done with that. What about his unfortunate half-wrong part?
He says, earnest and plodding as always, digging the first part of the deep pit that he digs for himself,
Any act or words which are against the constitution as anti national. So I wont call what Ramya said or someone visiting ancestral homes across the border as sedition
but "Bharat Tere tukde honge inshaallah" is clearly sedition and anti nationalism.
Source:
https://defence.pk/threads/the-myth...-a-political-tool.446705/page-2#ixzz4IspbwYTS
First, the phrase: Any act or words....anti national.
How is this to be defined? Article 370 is an integral part of the Constitution: an 'atoot ang', as it were. How about all those dogged hunters of the snark, who go around proclaiming that abolition of Article 370 would immediately open the floodgates for very many solutions to the very many problems besetting Kashmir? Far from convincing them that this is legally impossible, one now has to ask them how they can, simultaneously, say that anything against the Constitution is anti-national, but anything against Article 370 is not.
There was a song my mother sang for us two brothers when we were very, very young: "Soldier, soldier, will you marry me?" The soldier in question found one sartorial reason after another to proclaim himself unqualified to enter into the holy state of matrimony, but the resourceful maiden was not to be baulked: "Then up she went to her grandfather's chest, and ...." ; every desirable article was found and bestowed upon the soldier, one after the other.
Somehow, that is how I felt, as if I was listening to that lovely, lilting tune; up he went to his Sarsanghchalak's chest, and so on.
In this case, I had to deal with the truly dimwitted response, Ah, but there is something called an amendment to the Constitution. We have amended, the phrase was intoned at me in the most portentous tones, the Constitution 112 times! (all right, there might not have been an exclamation mark, but the sheer idiocy of this exchange is getting to me)
The defence in full?
There is a mechanism given within the constitution itself by which it can be amended. So call for removal of article 370 and using the constituional provisions to do the same are not anti national
Source:
https://defence.pk/threads/the-myth...-a-political-tool.446705/page-2#ixzz4IssEfMgt
For fucks' sake! How do you know when you set out to oppose a vital part of the Constitution, one that exudes menace and foreboding, that you will succeed in getting the Constitution amended and that part rescinded? What is your status in the interim? Are you not, while you are proclaiming a section of the Constitution wrong, and until it has in fact been rescinded, anti-national, according to your sweeping 56" chesty flourish? When Arundhati Roy pours scorn on the sedition law, and when our resident moral hazard also, from the diametrically opposite pole of the political world, also pours scorn on it, and thinks that it should not exist, and it still happens to be on the statute books, is that not an attack on the Constitution, and is that not again an anti-national act?
This bozo has absolutely no intellect whatsoever; the reason why I made the supreme mistake of engaging with him is that unlike cynics like ranjeet and hinduguy, he is quite obviously sincere and earnest, and is not playing games. He is quite obviously upholding the only valid point of view in this whole wide world with all the grim determination at his command, and an occasion humiliation will not dissuade him, only drive him back for a quick chintan baithak to clear his mind to return to the fray with mental and physiological batteries charged again. So I thought I should clear at least the fundamental mistakes he was making. I managed to control myself and pointed out these same contradictions above.
I was brushed away.
He really thought that there was no contradiction, no paradox involved. I wonder what he would make of Russell's Paradox. Probably rule it out of consideration, on the grounds that something first pronounced by a member of an Abrahamic religion,and is not mentioned in the Vedas, the Puranas, the Mahakavyas or by Rajiv Malhotra.
<sigh>
Before following the main track of the meltdown of my brain when it came into contact with Soumitra's, there is that other point about actual arrests for sedition. I was told with very kind concern for my mental enlargement by Spectre that
There is an issue of non conformance and then there is an issue of willful harm to national interests, aiding and abetting the enemy and sabotage of National security.
1. Arundhati Roy, Kanhaiya, Aakar Patel and their ilk will not fall in the above category. They AFAIK are just exercising their right to free speech.
2. Geelani perhaps will because he does a lot more than speak but the situation is complicated because due to past miss-steps by Nehru
3. Bigger threats are guys like SP Tyagi who actively betrayed the trust nation placed in them but will be shielded by equally corrupt and treasonous brethern in polity.
4. Mani Shankar Aiyar, Salman Khursheed, IK Gujral form altogether another level of threat because they alone can actually destroy our country with a seat at the high table and dangerous policies but legally there is not much can be done
Source:
https://defence.pk/threads/the-myth...-a-political-tool.446705/page-2#ixzz4IsxZg4Gs
Oh dear.
Some days, the world seems to be filled with people anxious to educate me and set me right on various points and issues. Now that Spectre had infiltrated his ghostly presence into the discussion, it seemed appropriate to genuflect courteously in his direction, and so I did:
NONE of the people you have listed are liable to be either prosecuted or punished. Cases against them would fail. It is an infructuous Act.
Source:
https://defence.pk/threads/the-myth...-a-political-tool.446705/page-2#ixzz4IsyEomSN
I was referring mainly to the usual suspects, the ones mentioned in the first two paragraphs. But then, these characters from outside the sacred bhoomi, these Arabs named Gilani/Geelani, are slippery characters; probably something to do with the vast amounts of slippery stuff found in their countries thousands of feet below the surface, in black, viscous form. So Spectre had a Geelani, and I had a Geelani and we each had a Geelani (to be sung to the tune of Keel Row, which our Mounted Police Sergeant Jigme Dorji insisted had the words," My Daddy had a toothbrush, My Mommy had a toothbrush, and I had a toothbrush......").
Disaster followed. I was promptly reproved.
Others may escape on the technicality that there words dont incite direct voilence but geelani wont.
All these- arundhati Roy, Kanhaiya Kumar, Akar Patel will be following the letter of the law not its spirit
Source:
https://defence.pk/threads/the-myth...-a-political-tool.446705/page-2#ixzz4IszqBFjC
Huh?
Wozzat?
Geelani did not escape? The 'voilence' (yes, Ajit, Mona Darling is here, but just hold on, she's busy pandering to some seditionists, why don't you practice your speech to JNU meanwhile?) was considered to be directly incited by him? Where was that from?
Could there even be an FIR filed on that basis?
Our plodding apparatchik moved on at his glacial pace and explained:
Da, Tovarisch.
The FIR was filed and he was in jail for 10 days before he got bail. The case is right now in court.
so if you think this is stupid you are free to go and offer your legal advise to him and his buddies
Source:
https://defence.pk/threads/the-myth...-a-political-tool.446705/page-3#ixzz4It1W6jnJ
At this point, I felt sandbagged.
All along, we had been discussing S. A.
S. Geelani, prominent leader of the Hurriyat Movement. Now it appears that our Sir is discussing S. A.
R. Geelani, a rather more humble worthy, lecturer of DU, organiser of a conference when La Roy had spoken disdainfully about India, in the context of Kashmir and of Manipur.
I pointed out that his (lecturer Geelani) being jugged for this bailable offence merely reflected the prejudice of the Delhi Police, who were capable of any infamous act if egged on by its political bosses, took it on the chin and moved on.
Question to all reading this:
Do you suspect, as I do, that Soumitravitski didn't know the difference, and thought the DU lecturer who got jailed was the Hurriyat leader?
These were the preliminaries, and, like a Miura bull, with eight banderillas in my neck, and drooping due to loss of blood from that part, I was waiting for The Moment of Truth. But that later. The day must go on.
I am reminded of the way some whiney little school kids follow around people from a senior class, trying to get their attention. They are such little pests.
