Do you think so JNU anti nationalist? - Page 2

Right to free speech is not absolute and unfettered. There are boundaries even in right to free speech, which a citizen of that country is not supposed to cross. If it were not so, then extortion calls made by the underworld, threats to coerce a person, all these should also be allowed. These students are Indians and yet they are talking about waging war against the country, wishing for destruction of the country and even hailing a foreign nation (which is openly hostile towards India) while denouncing India. If they destroy the country, help a foreign nation to subjugate a part or whole of the country, then are they not going to destroy the rights of a lot of people? Why do you think the general population of India, whose freedom they wish to take away, should care about the rights and freedom of some anti-national students?

If the students felt that Afzal Guru has been wrongly hanged, then there are better ways to express it. If they feel that Kashmir deserves independence, that can be discussed in better ways. If they feel that certain articles in the Constitution should be amended, even that can be discussed. Debating on it is fine. Criticising actions of the govt. and laws with reasons and facts is fine. Constitution has been debated and amended lots of times. Laws have also been reviewed and changed many times. Over the years, many people have actually supported independence of Kashmir or criticised the hanging of Afzal Guru, and not all of them are Kashmiris. Others might have criticised and opposed their views, but those people were never put in jail for voicing their views. And that is because, all these were rational discussions. After the discussion, the views may or may not have been endorsed, but the discussion was not stopped from happening, because it was a rational discussion. Therein lies the difference with what happened in JNU. Saying 'Tum kitne Afzal maroge, ghar ghar se Afzal niklega', essentially acknowledges that Afzal Guru was a terrorist but they endorse his terroristic ways and they are threatening that more such terrorists will be created to fight with India. Saying 'Bandook ke dum par azadi', 'Bharat ki barbadi tak jung rahegi', 'Hindustan tere sau tukde honge' are calls for armed war against the state. This is not rational discussion. This is not spreading of information to make the public aware of certain facts which the govt. might have hidden, in hope of winning the public's support for the cause. This is threat of using violence. This is supporting those groups who use violence. Sorry, that's not freedom of speech in any form. And it's ridiculous to demand that a country should allow it. Every country has a right to defend itself, including India. If someone threatens a country with destruction, then the country has every right to destroy that person. The person being a student or the venue being a university is no excuse to expect leniency.

Are the JNU students intentionally anti-national or are they people raging against systematic oppression but do not know how to do it?

Are they at genuine risk of actually harming the nation or are they all bark no bite annoyances that can reasonably be ignored?

Is squashing dissenting voices in this case beneficial to the country in the short and long run. Or are authorities making martyrs out of them?

While it is completely alright for civilians to be passionate, was it in the democratic interest of the country to have lawyers and policemen at the courtroom who acted in a clearly biased manner and executed violence against media? Irrespective of emotions and sentiments are some institutions expected to behave with reason not passion? Is it not a dangerous precedent when lawyers and cops are more than happy to break protocol and treat people "guilty until proven innocent"? Should the government at least ask more from lawyers and cops?