Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The shame is on you for you for you don't feel for those innocent people who are getting killed by the Kashmiri militants and the maoists.For you are safe, inside the comfort of your own home.Utterly shameful.
There is no quota, no limit on our human rights, on our constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech, for instance. And nothing in what she has said qualifies her for designation as an enemy of the state. Not in the eyes of the law; it is quite another matter that she actively opposes the Indian state.
These issues are not determined by our individual exasperation but by a court adjudicating the rule of law.
It is worrying to read supposedly responsible people advocating lynch law.
So the UK government collecting taxes from Britons and any Xyz colonial power going over to the UK and collecting taxes from the Britons is the same thing? Are you suggesting that the tribal and Maoists are so alienated that for them the Indian government or any other European colonial power is essentially the same thing?
If she and her ilk are taking a moral stand regarding the "exploitation of the tribal and local people", how can they justify things like colonialism(Goa) and oppressive monarchy (Hyderabad). A moral stand should be unflinching, regardless of who your audience is or what your topic is. Its not like in India you speak for the plight of "oppressed", and once you are in the UK speaking to a European audience you change your moral stand. You start saying how evil and hegemonic of India it was to kick out the colonial powers and how it was against the so called "diplomatic rules of engagement", which mind you were formed by these very colonizers in the first place.
The fact that they brutally oppressed the local population looted and pillaged the countries wealth doesn't matter of course, we should have just left them to stay here as long as they wanted to say, cause you know this world is a Utopian lala land according to the Indian leftists. What a joke.
The shame is on you for you for you don't feel for those innocent people who are getting killed by the Kashmiri militants and the maoists.For you are safe, inside the comfort of your own home.
Why is it that people like you are most concerned about the citizen's rights of a traitor like Arundhati Roy, and not extend the same concern towards the people who are in the receiving end of the terrorists who she supports so affectionately ?
You may say, I condemn both..Portraying oneself as an impartial person may be a style statement for the likes of you.In reality, you choose sides, and I choose the side of my country.
I am well aware of what the rule of law says.The law has limitations, that's why she is still breathing free air.I am of the opinion that when you are running a big institution, you just cannot do everything by the book.
Its not a question of right or wrong, for in this World, its all a matter of perspective and there is very little which can be differentiated as right or wrong. It's a question of national security, the country's image, and damage control, before that attention seeking woman goes on to doing something even more embarrassing and devastating.
@Joe Shearer at least we are not in Stalin's Soviet Union where liberal intellectual fascists were rounded up and shipped to the work camps in Siberia in their thousands if we were I would bet my bottom dollar her name would be at the top of the list
Well I mean how else did this fine specimen of a woman come to be? it must be her superior genetics what other explanation can it be?
My objection is only to this kind of excess. Would you consider it a misplaced objection?
Have some compassion for the men now please.Someone, marry her . .. . . . .plz !!
its not an easy thing to live alone . . .
I beg your pardon? Are you basing these statements on my views, or what you think might be my views? Can you show me a single post of mine where I have expressed these sentiments?
Actually, can you show me a single post of mine where I have not said exactly the opposite?
What makes you think that supporting somebody's right to free speech implies that I have to agree with that person's views?
You obviously know nothing about my views, because I have been on record, in this forum, day in and day out, about the victims of terrorism, both in Kashmir and in Maoist territories.
Again, that is your concoction.
I don't condemn both. I condemn the terrorists. Period. Don't make up things to suit your present rush of blood to the head.
Fortunately, very fortunately, your views are not what prevail.
It's not a question of right or wrong.
It's not a question of perspective either. It's a question of constitutional guarantees of free speech. That has nothing to do with national security, the country's image, damage control or any of the hysterical charges you have made.
And it's not a crime for her to seek attention, or to embarrass you or devastate you with her views.
That's your problem.
Try to deal with it with maturity and good manners, instead of making a public exhibition of your patriotism and your intensity of feeling. None of that has anything to do with the rule of law. It has everything to do with your being able to handle judgements judiciously.
You try to hide behind the rule of law and freedom of expression when it comes to covertly supporting the anti-national elements.
A terrorist sympathizer is a terrorist.Even more dangerous than the brainwashed gun-totting individual because that person has the ability to reach out to masses using media.Your judgements are clouded.
You try to hide behind the rule of law and freedom of expression when it comes to covertly supporting the anti-national elements.
A terrorist sympathizer is a terrorist.Even more dangerous than the brainwashed gun-totting individual because that person has the ability to reach out to masses using media.Your judgements are clouded.
Not misplaced at all, maybe misdirected on the choice of subject but certainly not misplaced. I prefer expending my own energy on defending the likes of Zakia Jafri rather than this particular subject, who if the article penned by her was read closely, pretty much says similarly strong stuff as the line quoted, only in slightly better presented language.
It still does not disqualify her from the protection of the human rights portions of our constitution. All the rest is opinion; your opinion, my opinion, the opinion of some guttersnipes, and all equally eligible for protection as free speech.
The man has done his fair share for our country. His very famous father, much more than a fair share. Disagree if you want with his views but to call him a supporter of anti-national elements is unfair & bordering on the absurd.
Unparalleled concoction of maoist, ultra left leaned, socialist, communist, Hindu hater - yeah that sums it all
At least one thing is for certain- she grabs people's attentions and inflames passions at least on this forum
have you noticed my avatar, btw?
Never get defensive. Our constitution guarantees you to have considerable margin of freedom of thought and speech(if not total). I have often spoken about the excesses of AFSPA in Kashmir - does not make me anti national.You were challenged before, and you ran away.
I am challenging you again.
Show one post of mine where I support - covertly or otherwise - anti-national elements.
I have never been a terrorist sympathiser. So get your facts straight.