Defenders of Kanhaiya and Umar, the #IAmAntiNational brigade, are hypocrites
The skulduggery of the defenders of "free speech" and "dissent" in JNU was summed up by @bwoyblunder in precisely 140 characters: Free Speech > Students didnt say>ABVP said (fake video)>We were provoked> Sedition law must go>Kanhaiyya video edited> Zero Evidence.
From defending the principle of "dissent" to reducing the entire debate to an individual, the ability of the self-confessed and proudly #IAmAntiNational brigade to constantly shift the goalposts of the sedition debate to suit their agenda was admirable.
Deflection
This was also apparent in the case of the absconding student, Umar Khalid. It started with "it was Umar not Kanhaiya", then became "Umar isn't a jihadist but a Maoist", then became "Umar is an atheist", and finally, "Umar is being targeted because he is a Muslim"!
The whole idea behind such deflection was to run away from fundamental questions that had arisen. These questions include: Are there any red lines to activism, or are universities completely free of any restraint whatsoever? At what point does dissent become disloyalty? Is the concept of disloyalty alien in a democracy? Is there any rationale to restrict freedom of speech and expression?
What makes the #IamAntiNational hashtaggers kowtow to those who bay for blood of an alleged blasphemer, but rise up in defence of those who have allegedly committed sedition? Will red lines be drawn on the basis of some principle, or only on the basis of political, ideological, economic exigencies? If jihadist sloganeering is okay in JNU, why should students not be allowed to endorse and open branches of outfits like ISIS and al Qaeda?
These questions have been asked for a long time, but the #IAmAntiNational lot has never really joined the debate. As long as they were the "high priests" of public opinion, and from their perch could issue pontificatory fatwas of "shuddho" and "ashuddho" to their readers and viewers, they never felt the need to climb down from their pulpit. But time, technology and temerity of a new generation have challenged the monopoly over public discourse of the supercilious Leftist/liberal mafia.
Ironically, the same mafia which went into raptures over the concept of "The Argumentative Indian" was unable to handle the Indian who became argumentative with them.
Admittedly, once expressing of views and opinions became "democratised" and freed from shackles of ideological censors sitting in newsrooms, some of the arguments (and slogans) that started being raised were jarring, obnoxious, hateful and inciteful.
But for those who reject the #IAmAntiNational hashtag, slogans calling for "Bharat ki barbaadi" are just as offensive and unacceptable.
Argument
The dissent argument doesn't really gel. For one, the moment the defenders of dissent latched onto the alleged doctoring of an implicating video as a defence of JNUSU president, Kanhaiya Kumar their entire argument of dissent fell flat. After all, if it was dissent, it shouldn't matter at all whether or not the JNUSU president said what he is being accused of.
For another, the very same people kept saying that while they found the sloganeering extremely offensive, cracking down on the sloganeers was curbing dissent and hence unacceptable.
Clearly, there was a failure to distinguish dissent from disloyalty. The slogans in JNU were against the Indian nation, and if the defenders of such doctored dissent can't figure out the difference, or if they deliberately try and doctor the debate, it is clear they are either charlatans or cretins.
Certificates
The one silver lining to the entire JNU fracas was that people who have always been loath to terms like nationalism overnight started issuing certificates of nationalism.
But it is quite a bizarre sense of nationalism which supports secessionism, that endorses jihadism and Islamism, a crazy sort of neurosis in which freedom of speech, expression and thought is only extended to Leftist academic mafia on Indian campuses.
More serious, however, is the achievement of Marxist minions in carving support among a section of upper-caste middle-class folk who are needlessly guilt-ridden, selectively secular, pretentiously liberal and intellectually deracinated.
This is a class which has been raising the decade's old failed slogans that have neither succeeded in getting them "azaadi" nor will succeed in their plans for India's "barbaadi".
Although there is an age at which some of these slogans sound seductive, the people shouting these have absolutely no idea whatsoever on how to bring about social and economic transformation that they promise. Other than breaking up India, all these sloganeers have to offer is the mindless and failed communist model of thought and state control.
In the past, sloganeering on campuses could be ignored as esoteric rants of a fringe. But this is no longer an option as some of the universities are becoming incubators of terrorism and radicalism.
The government must, therefore, ensure it curbs all such nefarious activities on campuses without interfering in legitimate political activity and expressions of dissent. There is bound to be resistance, but the government shouldn't lose its nerve to cleanse the campuses of jihadis and Maoists present there in the garb of students.
(Courtesy of Mail Today.)