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

[livingdead]

What profession are you hinting towards- Military service ?

I am sure you understand Politics on on campus since you are the one advocating It- Objection is not uncommon- and every one has the right to object- It helps in clarifications of objectives of the objecting person has in his political agenda- So It is healthy and good-

i already yielded on that point, in case you did not observe.

 

[DesiGuy1403]

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?

Perfectly put sir.
This is whole point of me posting this thread.
The revulsion of certain sections to "others" Freedom of speech is shocking.

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?

You should write blogs sir.
To add, this double standards is not unique to just universities. This double standards when it comes to Right wing ideology and ecosystem is very rampant.

I know you won't subscribe to this but I want to point at this as well..When Dadri happened, BJP & RSS had nothing to do with it. Yet, they got castigated and the whole thing turned into something much more dangerous than it was.
BUT
Contrast that when ever a BJP leader or RSS person is killed by the opposing ideology. Not a peep.

 

[Joe Shearer]

If LUMS invites hafeez sayeed and he proceeds to exhort the students to break up India... and one student writes a strongly worded letter to LUMS admin calling it hate speech, will it be intolerance?

Ok, let me understand your question before I answer it. If LUMS invites a Terrorist with UN bounty on his head, accused of perpetrating an attack which killed 166 people and injured 600, calls to break up India, which has never initiated a unilateral offensive on Pakistan since it's inception, will that be Hate speech, You might have answered your own question , but sure yes. That would be Hate speech.

What I am amused with is the example, where you had to draw a comparison with Gen Bakshi of the Jammu and Kashmir Rifles, who was awarded Vishisht Seva Medal for commanding a battalion in operations in Kargil (incidentally against Pakistan - the same country he is speaking against), Sena Medal for distinguished service in Counter terror Ops ( again against Pakistani backed insurgents) and has published 35 books and authored over 200 papers in many research journals and has been a faculty at the the Indian Military Academy, Dehradun and the prestigious Defence Services Staff College at Wellington; With Hafiz Saeed.

Wow. .

just wow.
As far as IIT madras, you may agree or disagree with him, its not hate speech and sorry but it's not fascism. He has the authority to speak on strategic matters, he has the credentials to do so. If you find that as hate speech, you would find most of Indian military views quite hateful and I would highly advice to tread with caution while interacting with defense circles. Their views on strategic matters like redrawing maps of other countries for strategic planning might quite severely offend you.

If Facism is charecterized by the following defination;
Fascists believe that liberal democracy is obsolete, and they regard the complete mobilization of society under a totalitarian one-party state as necessary to prepare a nation for armed conflict and to respond effectively to economic difficulties.Such a state is led by a strong leader—such as a dictator and a martial government composed of the members of the governing fascist party—to forge national unity and maintain a stable and orderly society.Fascism rejects assertions that violence is automatically negative in nature, and views political violence, war, and imperialism as means that can achieve national rejuvenation.Fascists advocate a mixed economy, with the principal goal of achieving autarky through protectionist and interventionist economic policies.

I tried to explain, I thought very politely, that Fascism never, ever got a formal definition during its life, by its interpreters and practitioners. ANY definition of Fascism, unlike a corresponding definition of Marxism, and of its dependent descriptions of the evolution of states, is an attempt to put turbulent, unpredicted events into a framework. By going back again and again to a textbook, and by ignoring the historical background completely, you aren't doing yourself a favour. The discussion does not go anywhere.

Do you want to continue by imposing a strait jacket of your own design over the arguments, and insisting that we both continue in those circumstances?

I find his views on National security as over imaginative, and very aggressive, how is it nationalist or utra nationalist.

Clearly, they resonate so strongly with your own that you do not wish to hear anything different. If your position in an argument is that no explanation contrary to your understanding and your 'finding' is legitimate, why are we wasting time?

And by taking the extreme nationalism as a subset of facism to justify Gen Bakshi Being Facist, wouldn't he also classify as a Nazi, afterall extreme nationalism was also a feature of Nazism. (Also lets not forget revolutionary patriotism was a key feature of Stalin)

After reading this passage above, I was really in shock. Seriously.

I had not suspected you of such fundamental ignorance. I really, sincerely regret having wasted my time on you. You evidently don't have a clue about political philosophy, nor have you read my earlier posts responding to you. You will find the answers to the questions you have raised within my posts, if you are too lazy to consult a basic textbook or to ask someone knowledgeable.

Given the entireity of the philosophy it certainly doesn't fit Gen Bakshi. and there are multiple staff colleges which carry exercises of redrawing maps to explore strategic permutations, Gen Bakshi finds it fit to take the fight to Pakistan and he might be wrong, but still in my opinion doesn't make him fascist.

This is not a staff college exercise of redrawing maps. This is not strategy. This is not war. This is formulation of national policy. It is not taking the fight to Pakistan; history is filled with examples hundreds of wars fought by one nation against another. They do not set out to dismember each other as a measure of 'taking the fight' to the other; division of an enemy happens due to a prior mental determination that nothing will fit the situation other than a complete destruction of the enemy. Such an urge emerges out of political demands, not out of military strategy. Soldiers do not fight to destroy the enemy nation, they fight to destroy the enemy's military capability.

Lets not forget the life he has led, nothing in his service seems to be of fascist tendencies.

Let's be realistic. Soldiers coming into politics is an age-old phenomenon. Their personal lives are often, even typically blameless. That has nothing to do with their political ill-effects.

How you have the acute vision to detect the absence of fascist tendencies by looking at his military record is incomprehensible. Does the reverse apply, and would a life of brutality and harsh and cruel behaviour have somehow vitiated his political views? Or formed an influence on our assessment of such views? If not, then his blameless life also has nothing to do with it. If so, then you have breached one of the key philosophies that guide judgement in law; that the personal characteristics of either plaintiff or defendant should not form part of the facts leading to a judgement.

 

[DesiGuy1403]

I can't for a moment comprehend people shaming this general.

This General has served our country in ways most here could never. Yet, population opinion in certain sections is that he should not be allowed to speak in institutions.....

People commenting on this general are ONLY worth to wash his underwear in my honest opinion.

A lot of posts here have reaffirmed my opinion that these certain sections of people are extremely intolerant of contrarian views.
Their thinking goes like this.... 'how dare these people contradict us intellectuals. We know better, we are better. These people speaking against our views don't deserve to be given any decency'..

These clowns have unfortunately proven me right....

 

[MilSpec]

This is not a staff college exercise of redrawing maps. This is not strategy. This is not war. This is formulation of national policy. It is not taking the fight to Pakistan; history is filled with examples hundreds of wars fought by one nation against another. They do not set out to dismember each other as a measure of 'taking the fight' to the other; division of an enemy happens due to a prior mental determination that nothing will fit the situation other than a complete destruction of the enemy. Such an urge emerges out of political demands, not out of military strategy. Soldiers do not fight to destroy the enemy nation, they fight to destroy the enemy's military capability.



Let's be realistic. Soldiers coming into politics is an age-old phenomenon. Their personal lives are often, even typically blameless. That has nothing to do with their political ill-effects.

How you have the acute vision to detect the absence of fascist tendencies by looking at his military record is incomprehensible. Does the reverse apply, and would a life of brutality and harsh and cruel behaviour have somehow vitiated his political views? Or formed an influence on our assessment of such views? If not, then his blameless life also has nothing to do with it. If so, then you have breached one of the key philosophies that guide judgement in law; that the personal characteristics of either plaintiff or defendant should not form part of the facts leading to a judgement.

Actually this not formulation of national policy, this is just a speech.
If national policies were formulated by speeches, then we have quite a few speeches from JNU, dont we? If a lecture at a university > constitutes as formulation of a national policy, what would be a professor teaching in a renowned university day in and day out preaching India as a imperial occupiers be construed as?

What does interest me is that a General saying what he said ticked you off to label him as a fascist, and there was literally zero response from you when I specifically inquired from you about the JNU professor. I asked for you your opinion on both the fringe left and fringe right. and as always I might be wrong, but I do see a disproportionate response.

After reading this passage above, I was really in shock. Seriously.

I had not suspected you of such fundamental ignorance. I really, sincerely regret having wasted my time on you. You evidently don't have a clue about political philosophy, nor have you read my earlier posts responding to you. You will find the answers to the questions you have raised within my posts, if you are too lazy to consult a basic textbook or to ask someone knowledgeable.

Well, this is consulting someone knowledgeable. Thus the entire exercise, I apologize If this has been a waste of time for you. I thought the intent was of discussion, even if my view point is misguided, the intent is to learn not to demean or insult you. If you construe this as such let me know and I will keep away from further discussions.

Clearly, they resonate so strongly with your own that you do not wish to hear anything different. If your position in an argument is that no explanation contrary to your understanding and your 'finding' is legitimate, why are we wasting time?

Maybe i did not formulate my query properly, I asked how is this facism you replied extreme nationalism,
But then extreme nationalism is not just a trait of Facism, but other ideologies too, so asked again but this time gave my opinion, it pissed you off and you thin My thoughts resonate with GD Bakshi, just because I think he should have the freedom to express his opinion without being labelled as a fascist.

Now you are informing me that any act of creating turbulance in national policy is fascist political ideology, if really is that fluid, then every idea that is non conformal to national policy has the potential to create turbulence, even populist movements like the anna movement which I recall you were a critique of.

Bakshi says break Pakistan in 4 parts, he is facist, JNU student leader talks about Balkanization of India- they are exercising freedom of speech.

I find labeling of General Bakshi with a term closely associated by mussolini, offensive - Then the implication is that somehow I tacitly resonate his views. Doesn't that go against the grain of what you have been arguing for a while, that even though you are in disagreement with the views of the famed starlets of left wing politics in news these days, you defend their right to freedom of expression? Or defending a democratic right needs some convergence in rhetoric.

 

[Allen Iverson]

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

I think the boy who spoke against GD Bakshi should be spared for his comments since India is an Independent nation with freedom of speech granted by our constitution to every citizen.. But it also doesn't stop any one from issuing a counter statement ripping his *** off point by point..

 

[cloud_9]

Didn't both of them practice their right's?

 

[adil_minhas]

@MilSpec with all due respect sir, you are wasting your time.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Actually this And by taking the extreme nationalism as a subset of facism to justify Gen Bakshi Being Facist, wouldn't he also classify as a Nazi, afterall extreme nationalism was also a feature of Nazism. (Also lets not forget revolutionary patriotism was a key feature of Stalin)

Source: https://defence.pk/threads/army-gen...t-madras-student.443827/page-10#ixzz4HAbZGSd1not formulation of national policy, this is just a speech.

Nor was it a drawing and re-drawing of maps in a sandbox exercise. If you wish to plead an imaginary situation for yourself, try not to be such a precisian when that same device is returned to you with compliments.

If national policies were formulated by speeches, then we have quite a few speeches from JNU, dont we? If a lecture at a university > constitutes as formulation of a national policy, what would be a professor teaching in a renowned university day in and day out preaching India as a imperial occupiers be construed as?

What does interest me is that a General saying what he said ticked you off to label him as a fascist, and there was literally zero response from you when I specifically inquired from you about the JNU professor. I asked for you your opinion on both the fringe left and fringe right. and as always I might be wrong, but I do see a disproportionate response.

Are we discussing JNU, and, if so, what about JNU? I was under the mistaken impression that we were discussing IIT(M) and Major General Bakshi.

Let me put your mind at rest. You are wrong. None of my responses were about anything but this particular incident. And as far as the JNU is concerned, I have put on record my complete disagreement with what some dotty members of the academic establishment have had to say there. I have not said it here because I did not realise that your intention was to draw me out on the subject of the JNU.

If you have a problem with that institution, by all means mount a public campaign against them. Promote a signature campaign through the net and obtain 10,000 signatures, or whatever your fancy tells you is a round enough figure to satisfy your notions of how academic institutions should and should not be run. I was not aware until I read your paragraph above what your clandestine intention was. It leaves me furious at myself for being lured into a trap.

Well, this is consulting someone knowledgeable. Thus the entire exercise, I apologize If this has been a waste of time for you. I thought the intent was of discussion, even if my view point is misguided, the intent is to learn not to demean or insult you. If you construe this as such let me know and I will keep away from further discussions.

Am I not entitled to even a minimal level of prior homework on the part of my interlocutor, forget about prior knowledge? Are you by any chance testing me? I don't expect you to have a PhD in the subject, but some BASIC knowledge is the least I should expect.

Maybe i did not formulate my query properly, I asked how is this facism you replied extreme nationalism,
But then extreme nationalism is not just a trait of Facism, but other ideologies too, so asked again but this time gave my opinion, it pissed you off and you thin My thoughts resonate with GD Bakshi, just because I think he should have the freedom to express his opinion without being labelled as a fascist.

Now you are informing me that any act of creating turbulance in national policy is fascist political ideology, if really is that fluid, then every idea that is non conformal to national policy has the potential to create turbulence, even populist movements like the anna movement which I recall you were a critique of.

Bakshi says break Pakistan in 4 parts, he is facist, JNU student leader talks about Balkanization of India- they are exercising freedom of speech.

I find labeling of General Bakshi with a term closely associated by mussolini, offensive - Then the implication is that somehow I tacitly resonate his views. Doesn't that go against the grain of what you have been arguing for a while, that even though you are in disagreement with the views of the famed starlets of left wing politics in news these days, you defend their right to freedom of expression? Or defending a democratic right needs some convergence in rhetoric.

As far as the passage above is concerned, as long as I am informed blandly that

... by taking the extreme nationalism as a subset of facism to justify Gen Bakshi Being Facist, wouldn't he also classify as a Nazi, afterall extreme nationalism was also a feature of Nazism. (Also lets not forget revolutionary patriotism was a key feature of Stalin)

Source: https://defence.pk/threads/army-gen...t-madras-student.443827/page-10#ixzz4HAbZGSd1

the rest of the sophistry on display is irrelevant. If you had a genuine desire to consult, and that is what I thought it was when I set out to put things down as carefully and precisely as I could, you would have looked at my responses even in a cursory way. Clearly, you did not. I am not aware what the purpose of engaging me in this discussion was. But it was not certainly elucidation; there would have been less hostility and more openness on display in that case.

You write:

"...I asked how is this facism you replied extreme nationalism,
But then extreme nationalism is not just a trait of Facism, but other ideologies too, so asked again but this time gave my opinion..."

The similarities between Fascism and Communism, specifically, the Communism in One State practised by Stalin has filled more textbooks than I care to even look at, timorously, from a great distance. To be informed that this is the case is really beyond tolerance. Those same textbooks also trace the growth of the fascist idea and ideology in careful detail. Perhaps some day you will have the leisure and the application to glance through at least one of them. That would spare those whom you engage in conversation on these topics. It would also help you if you consulted any good text on the tenets and foundations of Marxism and the kind of state it describes as a Communist state. There is such a deep and fundamental difference between the two that it is difficult to understand in an internet forum whether to make oneself ridiculous by launching into a futile attempt to detail the two, or it is preferable to be ridiculous to deal with each idea that is formed and thrown out on a piecemeal basis. Both unfortunately have the same point of termination.

Now you are informing me that any act of creating turbulance in national policy is fascist political ideology, if really is that fluid, then every idea that is non conformal to national policy has the potential to create turbulence, even populist movements like the anna movement which I recall you were a critique of.

No, I cannot say and I will not say that ANY act of creating turbulence in national policy displays fascist political ideology. Please do not distort what I say, in case you do not get the sense, refrain from false attribution. This is what I precisely said

ANY definition of Fascism, unlike a corresponding definition of Marxism, and of its dependent descriptions of the evolution of states, is an attempt to put turbulent, unpredicted events into a framework.

Source: https://defence.pk/threads/army-gen...t-madras-student.443827/page-10#ixzz4HAfbJfgN

Is your comprehension of English so infantile that you cannot distinguish between an attempt by academicians to put "turbulent, unpredicted events" into a framework, and a claim that creating turbulence in national policy displays fascist political ideology? Where do those turbulent, unexpected events come into national policy? Did the March to Rome formulate policy? Was the Beer Hall Putsch national policy, or an element injecting turbulence into national policy?

And what gives you the impression that populism doesn't carry elements of fascism? Have you read about Juan Peron?

Please do take the trouble of distinguishing between a critic, which I am, and a critique, which I might compose.

Bakshi says break Pakistan in 4 parts, he is facist, JNU student leader talks about Balkanization of India- they are exercising freedom of speech.

Source: https://defence.pk/threads/army-gen...t-madras-student.443827/page-10#ixzz4HAhOdrVf

And if this is bothering you, why not take it up with the perpetrators? Why do you cite it as if it might be my formulation? If I were to describe the political roots of those idiots at JNU, you would not even understand.

Contrary to popular opinion, I do not think that they are Marxist, Marxist-Leninist or Maoist. I think that their ideology is so confused, and so influenced by unseen and unknown influences that it beggars description. And that there are influences, very deep and academically potent influences, which they might not even have identified properly. Do you know much about Anarchism? Or will you copy and paste a line from some convenient on line textbook?

 

[Allen Iverson]

Maybe i did not formulate my query properly, I asked how is this facism you replied extreme nationalism,
But then extreme nationalism is not just a trait of Facism, but other ideologies too, so asked again but this time gave my opinion, it pissed you off and you thin My thoughts resonate with GD Bakshi, just because I think he should have the freedom to express his opinion without being labelled as a fascist.

Extreme nationalism..??? With all due respects to you sir, May be the stalwarts of Commiee gangs rallying about freedom of speech should understand the meaning of that word first.. extreme nationalism is the thing that every soldier exercises while left with a rifle and less than a bottle of water less than 20 rounds of ammunition and his whole bunker surrounded by aggressors.. Extreme nationalism is the thing that is exercised by sailors who choose to go down into the sea along with their navy ship inorder to finish one final impossible task assigned by their Commanding Officer..Extreme nationalism is the thing that every pilot in his fighter knowing that he doesn't have fuel for returning back to his base, still chooses to push ahead to destroy atleast one radar station of the enemy.. These traits didn't win the whole war but had helped our forces to safeguard our country and our borders in such a way that, Commiee stooges sitting inside their houses safely don't even feel how much these soldiers have given to them for them to be safe..
Extreme nationalism is the most important and essential trait of a soldier as well as a patriot because that is what is going to push any individual to make any kind of sacrifice for his country.. If that can be labelled as fascism, then even god can't save this country..

For god's sake the general talked about splitting a country which has been killing our soldiers covertly and overtly from the day we got independence.. Now what is wrong in that..??

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

Congrats!! You waited for four pages and 50 posts to find one like this and jump in and start bringing the shit filled wormhole of Gujarat riots again???
while we talk about that, tell me how much atrocities happen in your country everyday for Hindus, in the hands of Jamaati filths..?? First wipe your own *** clean and then start sniffing around others.. Fcuk off!!!

when donald trump is presidential candidate you should know america has changed.. still I think his views are dumb and his followers are dumbers...

Guys for god's sake he is a general.. He knows how to order and how to die for his country... That's it.. What else do you guys expect him to do?

 

[DesiGuy1403]

Bakshi says break Pakistan in 4 parts, he is facist, JNU student leader talks about Balkanization of India- they are exercising freedom of speech.

Let me rephrase that.

Bhakshi talking about breaking up an enemy country so that we can live in peace is a fascist.
Where as the JNU professors and kids who shouted breaking up India(own country) and pro-terrorist slogans are exercising their freedom of expression.

Is anyone else is coming to the opinion that these people are mental?

 

[911]

Bakshi says break Pakistan in 4 parts, he is facist, JNU student leader talks about Balkanization of India- they are exercising freedom of speech.

Now for him these two issues are entirely different and he completely disowns whatever he stood for few months back. A typical hypocrite. Quick searching his posts will give an idea.

 

[MilSpec]

Nor was it a drawing and re-drawing of maps in a sandbox exercise. If you wish to plead an imaginary situation for yourself, try not to be such a precisian when that same device is returned to you with compliments.

Still wasn't an attempt to formulate policy.

Are we discussing JNU, and, if so, what about JNU? I was under the mistaken impression that we were discussing IIT(M) and Major General Bakshi.

No we are not, this is what brought me in

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

Source: https://defence.pk/threads/army-gen...it-madras-student.443827/page-4#ixzz4HAlszYfd

and my response exactly was

"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?

Source: https://defence.pk/threads/army-gen...it-madras-student.443827/page-4#ixzz4HAmMQ4XH"

Let me put your mind at rest. You are wrong. None of my responses were about anything but this particular incident. And as far as the JNU is concerned, I have put on record my complete disagreement with what some dotty members of the academic establishment have had to say there. I have not said it here because I did not realise that your intention was to draw me out on the subject of the JNU.

If you have a problem with that institution, by all means mount a public campaign against them. Promote a signature campaign through the net and obtain 10,000 signatures, or whatever your fancy tells you is a round enough figure to satisfy your notions of how academic institutions should and should not be run. I was not aware until I read your paragraph above what your clandestine intention was. It leaves me furious at myself for being lured into a trap.

sir,
I did not lure you to any trap or anything, My contention from the get go was based on the perceived double standard as mentioned above, that literally was my first post on the subject.

Am I not entitled to even a minimal level of prior homework on the part of my interlocutor, forget about prior knowledge? Are you by any chance testing me? I don't expect you to have a PhD in the subject, but some BASIC knowledge is the least I should expect.

Again apologize for my limited knowledge in the subject, and Yes I haven't read any books on the topic either. Thus I don't have any issue with you showing me my place.

As far as the passage above is concerned, as long as I am informed blandly that

... by taking the extreme nationalism as a subset of facism to justify Gen Bakshi Being Facist, wouldn't he also classify as a Nazi, afterall extreme nationalism was also a feature of Nazism. (Also lets not forget revolutionary patriotism was a key feature of Stalin)

Source: https://defence.pk/threads/army-gen...t-madras-student.443827/page-10#ixzz4HAbZGSd1



the rest of the sophistry on display is irrelevant. If you had a genuine desire to consult, and that is what I thought it was when I set out to put things down as carefully and precisely as I could, you would have looked at my responses even in a cursory way. Clearly, you did not. I am not aware what the purpose of engaging me in this discussion was. But it was not certainly elucidation; there would have been less hostility and more openness on display in that case.

Where dis you get the hostile intent from. Given that your interest was clinical interest in people's reactions to him, I thought you would be interested in a layman's response to what he said.

The similarities between Fascism and Communism, specifically, the Communism in One State practised by Stalin has filled more textbooks than I care to even look at, timorously, from a great distance. To be informed that this is the case is really beyond tolerance. Those same textbooks also trace the growth of the fascist idea and ideology in careful detail. Perhaps some day you will have the leisure and the application to glance through at least one of them. That would spare those whom you engage in conversation on these topics. It would also help you if you consulted any good text on the tenets and foundations of Marxism and the kind of state it describes as a Communist state. There is such a deep and fundamental difference between the two that it is difficult to understand in an internet forum whether to make oneself ridiculous by launching into a futile attempt to detail the two, or it is preferable to be ridiculous to deal with each idea that is formed and thrown out on a piecemeal basis. Both unfortunately have the same point of termination.

Just a statement like "take it from me that it truly is fascism", and reference book or event to read would have been sufficient instead of the public drubbing, which I truly don't mind coming from you. What indeed is hurtful that you would construe that this was a deliberate attempt to test you, or bait you into something untoward.

No, I cannot say and I will not say that ANY act of creating turbulence in national policy displays fascist political ideology. Please do not distort what I say, in case you do not get the sense, refrain from false attribution. This is what I precisely said

ANY definition of Fascism, unlike a corresponding definition of Marxism, and of its dependent descriptions of the evolution of states, is an attempt to put turbulent, unpredicted events into a framework.

Source: https://defence.pk/threads/army-gen...t-madras-student.443827/page-10#ixzz4HAfbJfgN

Is your comprehension of English so infantile that you cannot distinguish between an attempt by academicians to put "turbulent, unpredicted events" into a framework, and a claim that creating turbulence in national policy displays fascist political ideology? Where do those turbulent, unexpected events come into national policy? Did the March to Rome formulate policy? Was the Beer Hall Putsch national policy, or an element injecting turbulence into national policy?

And what gives you the impression that populism doesn't carry elements of fascism? Have you read about Juan Peron?

Please do take the trouble of distinguishing between a critic, which I am, and a critique, which I might compose.



And if this is bothering you, why not take it up with the perpetrators? Why do you cite it as if it might be my formulation? If I were to describe the political roots of those idiots at JNU, you would not even understand.

Contrary to popular opinion, I do not think that they are Marxist, Marxist-Leninist or Maoist. I think that their ideology is so confused, and so influenced by unseen and unknown influences that it beggars description. And that there are influences, very deep and academically potent influences, which they might not even have identified properly. Do you know much about Anarchism? Or will you copy and paste a line from some convenient on line textbook?

No, just like fascism, i dont know much about anrchism either, suggest me a book and I will read and learn a bit. My limited understanding of fascism was defined by conduct of Mussolini. What GD bakshi said contrary to what you might perceive DOES NOT resonate with me. My contention from the start was I felt labeling General Bakshi was inappropriate in the relative terms to the level at which the civil society went out to defend the JNU, and thus the query to you as you have much better understanding of such issues. May be your expectations are to high, yes I am not as well read, as qualified or have the same grasp over the language and grammar as you do, and thus have the tendency to gravitate to what you have to say. But rather than guiding us to a better understanding of the topic, you seem to be in the mood to kick the teeth out of me, so I will retreat.

 

[livingdead]

I think the boy who spoke against GD Bakshi should be spared for his comments since India is an Independent nation with freedom of speech granted by our constitution to every citizen.. But it also doesn't stop any one from issuing a counter statement ripping his *** off point by point..

also gen bakshi should be spared of any more humiliation due to his old age...

 

[Joe Shearer]

Still wasn't an attempt to formulate policy.





No we are not, this is what brought me in

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

Source: https://defence.pk/threads/army-gen...it-madras-student.443827/page-4#ixzz4HAlszYfd

and my response exactly was

"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?

Source: https://defence.pk/threads/army-gen...it-madras-student.443827/page-4#ixzz4HAmMQ4XH"



sir,
I did not lure you to any trap or anything, My contention from the get go was based on the perceived double standard as mentioned above, that literally was my first post on the subject.



Again apologize for my limited knowledge in the subject, and Yes I haven't read any books on the topic either. Thus I don't have any issue with you showing me my place.



Where dis you get the hostile intent from. Given that your interest was clinical interest in people's reactions to him, I thought you would be interested in a layman's response to what he said.





Just a statement like "take it from me that it truly is fascism", and reference book or event to read would have been sufficient instead of the public drubbing, which I truly don't mind coming from you. What indeed is hurtful that you would construe that this was a deliberate attempt to test you, or bait you into something untoward.






No, just like fascism, i dont know much about anrchism either, suggest me a book and I will read and learn a bit. My limited understanding of fascism was defined by conduct of Mussolini. What GD bakshi said contrary to what you might perceive DOES NOT resonate with me. My contention from the start was I felt labeling General Bakshi was inappropriate in the relative terms to the level at which the civil society went out to defend the JNU, and thus the query to you as you have much better understanding of such issues. May be your expectations are to high, yes I am not as well read, as qualified or have the same grasp over the language and grammar as you do, and thus have the tendency to gravitate to what you have to say. But rather than guiding us to a better understanding of the topic, you seem to be in the mood to kick the teeth out of me, so I will retreat.

I really have no wish to protract a discussion with someone whom I cannot trust. Any longer.

And I have no wish to kick people in the teeth or in any other part of their anatomy. If that had been important, academics would not have been my destination towards the end of my life.