Indian Interests

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 04 Nov 2012 04:06

Venkat, good post. The ancient tamilians did have a different social system, before the influence of chaturvarna from NW India. So did many other subcultures in the subcontinent.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 04 Nov 2012 07:39

^ oh boy! Now we are into AIT?

Can you please summarize the ancient tamilian system, whatever that means and provide some date line of how the "chaturvarna" got introduced to Tamilian society?

What is the ancient tamilian society, by the way? Current day Tamilnadu only or entire dakshinapatha?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 04 Nov 2012 08:13

From wiki

...
Oran's Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as "...[a]...citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation]." In many nations, it is also often considered treason to attempt or conspire to overthrow the government, even if no foreign country is aiding or involved by such an endeavour.

Outside legal spheres, the word "traitor" may also be used to describe a person who betrays (or is accused of betraying) their own political party, nation, family, friends, ethnic group, team, religion, social class, or other group to which they may belong. Often, such accusations are controversial and disputed, as the person may not identify with the group of which they are a member, or may otherwise disagree with the group leaders making the charge.....

High treason is against the king which in modern times is the state.

So lets discuss how preventing the recovery of POK is treason or not.

pentaiah · Post by **pentaiah** » 04 Nov 2012 08:15

all bad things came from NW one of them is Chatura varnanam

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 04 Nov 2012 08:29

Rji

What about the treason of our latest Viceroy MMS., who says Muslims have the first right on Indian resources.

After Sonia Gandhi could not become the queen of India, we moved to the viceroy system, where the die-nastic Gandhi-Nehru family will nominate the viceroy.

Our independent India is moving in the right direction, marching forward into the past.

Now we have 540 principalities with dynastic representation, our own brown Hindu reformers like (RajaRamamohan) Arundhati Roys and dhuggs of Gujarath and so on...

By the way, did I say Hindu terrorists Bhagat Singh and Vir Savarkar?

johneeG · Post by **johneeG** » 04 Nov 2012 08:57

RamaY wrote:^ oh boy! Now we are into AIT?

Can you please summarize the ancient tamilian system, whatever that means and provide some date line of how the "chaturvarna" got introduced to Tamilian society?

What is the ancient tamilian society, by the way? Current day Tamilnadu only or entire dakshinapatha?

Saar,
'we' are not 'into' it. It is evident that the whole narrative is based on that only. Infact, your question is redundant, because the post answers it. The post says that it came from 'NW India', so it must have spread to 'SE India'. That means, entire south and even east has been included in the zone. Rest of the 'southies' did not lap up this idea(or ideology), otherwise there was potential for secession...

PS: Cho and Swamy mention that this attitude has gone overboard. It is another case of, "Yatha raja, thata praja". Parties in power have been pouting this ideology for more than a generation, masses were bound to lap it up sooner or later.

---
Caricaturing of people based on castes is getting sickening, IMHO. I think, certain amount of generalization is understandable but absolute caricaturing of groups(and people within the groups) simply misses the mark apart from being poor analysis.

Also, broad claims like '75% of dalits are christians' is really unfair portrayal. The fact is that, in India(not just AP), thew number of christians is under-reported. No one has clear idea about the number of converts from various communities. It is also a fact that missionaries are targeting all communities with equal vigour. Of course, they may find more audience among economically or socially vulnerable segments. But, it is not as if only one caste is being converted or as if all of that(or majority of that) caste has converted.

Now, reservations have been extended for christian 'dalits'(yep, it seems caste does not change even when you convert out of caste ridden Hinduism

). So, when reservations are given to them also, there is no real reason for them to declare themselves as 'Hindu'(and hide their identity), except as part of broader missionary tactic to keep the extent of conversions under the carpet. I would think that nobody, not even the church nor the Govt has any clear idea about the numbers. It is all assumptions at this point. And assumptions are partly based on bias and conjectures.

The number of converts maybe much more or much less than the assumptions. But, nobody knows, so why make a caricature of one group/community? Was YSR's father a dalit? The only charitable explanation for this kind of 'analysis' is that they are extrapolating the trends around them onto the rest of the population. But, such extrapolations are flawed.

More importantly, thinking that only one group is being converted(or has already converted) is not beneficial from Hindu perspective. Because:
a) The others groups become lax thinking that they are safe. And that the conversions are result of inherent flaw(or weakness) in the other group. This thinking would blind them to the incursions of EJs into their own group. The other groups become complacent and may become vulnerable. While, the originally caricatured group may survive the EJ attempts due to increased vigil, the other groups may succumb.

b) The group that is being caricature start thinking that other Hindus don't even consider them Hindus anymore. This indirectly encourages them to convert. That means, when people keep saying that a group X has been converted(75% converted), it may turn out to be a self-fulfilling prophesy.

Certain amount of paranoia and caricaturing is alright. But, I think, it is crossing the lakshman rekha.

I think, rustic and simple folk are easier to be brought back into Hindu fold even if they deviated from it. Because, they are honest about their motives of conversion(money or 'miracle' or ignorance or some social issue). And, they respond very positively to any move from the Hindu side(particularly Swamijis or Peetadhipathis). So, they are easier to re-convert, even if they have been converted by some stratagem. It is the sophisticated and 'modern' ones that are really dangerous. Because, they mask their true motives and also become more zealous missionaries themselves.

Lastly, 'Church' is not one monolithic body(with absolute mind control over its flock). It is like any other 'modern' organization. So, I am sure that it will be afflicted with all the problems that afflict any 'modern' organization like nepotism, corruption, ego clashes, imbecile(or inefficient employees)..etc. I suspect that these problems will more aggravated in case of organizations like 'Church' at all levels. In fact, many missionaries seem to be motivated by the prospect of making money rather than be motivated by the religion.

In short, my point is that people should not make too many caricatures or generalizations in the name of analysis. Analysis based on such logic is bound to be superficial and lacking in depth.

While certain amount of generalization is understandable and unavoidable, it does get nauseating when it becomes the be all and end all.

PS:My view is that the conversions, in AP( including Dalits), are not as high as people are imagining. Then, most of these converts are 'drifters' who can easily be reconverted if and when Hindus. It is very much like people voting to a party by taking money, similarly people have taken their religion due to certain conditions. It does not signify lifelong commitment. The real problem is state support to EJ activities. IF and WHEN that umbilical chord is cut, everything will automatically fall in its place. Infact, I would say that IF and WHEN it happens, even the 'original' X-ians will find Hinduism attractive.

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 04 Nov 2012 09:04

johnee G garu,

I couldnt find any relation between the quote and the reply. Are you sure you answered with the right quote?

johneeG · Post by **johneeG** » 04 Nov 2012 09:21

Virupaksha wrote:johnee G garu,

I couldnt find any relation between the quote and the reply. Are you sure you answered with the right quote?

In my post, the part before "---" is related to the quote. Part after "---" is in reference to another post in another thread(Assembly elections). But, I thought, replying there woulds be OT, so posted here. Sorry for confusion.

svenkat · Post by **svenkat** » 04 Nov 2012 09:42

pentaiah wrote:all bad things came from NW one of them is Chatura varnanam

Good one.

svenkat · Post by **svenkat** » 04 Nov 2012 09:52

ramanaji,
what does sri ragotthaman impute?
I read the news report linked.I have no other source.

Or, why did the IB chief not share the tape in which Dhanu was visible with him? Ragothaman's book raises questions about the whereabouts of the video in which Narayanan admitted to have seen the assassin.Had there been such questions about anybody else, the book says "he would have been booked under Section 201 IPC for concealing the evidence and screening the offender".
Ragothaman wrote that he had not been taken into confidence by his superior Karthikeyan about the recovery of the tape by IB.In a book authored by him, Ragothaman said that although a "preliminary enquiry" had been conducted in connection with the missing video, Narayanan, who is now West Bengal governor, had been "allowed to go scot-free" by the chief of the special investigation team (SIT), D R Karthikeyan.

The just-published book, "Conspiracy to kill Rajiv Gandhi - From CBI files", claims that the tape, which had been taken from the videographer by IB the day after Rajiv Gandhi had been blown by Dhanu on May 21, 1991, was never shared with SIT in the investigation of the assassination.

Ragothaman wrote, "The assassin gang as per our investigation was very much in the sterile zone for more than two and half hours waiting for its target." The suppression of the video evidence helped the Tamil Nadu police get away with the claim that Dhanu had sneaked into the sterile zone after Rajiv Gandhi's arrival at the venue around 10 pm

The alleged manipulation, according to Ragothaman, was meant to erase video evidence of the kind of people Dhanu had interacted with at the venue, thereby sparing embarrassment to the Congress party in the middle of the 1991 Lok Sabha election. He asked: would Narayanan have dared "to damage the goal of the Congress party, irrespective of his personal affiliation to Rajiv Gandhi's family?"
.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 04 Nov 2012 20:36

JohneeG garu,

I am lost! I will read your post few more times to get the message. If not, you will have to help me connect the dots.

svenkat · Post by **svenkat** » 04 Nov 2012 22:50

ramanaji,
After all my pontification,I am still lost.Was Narayananan just trying to suppress a video showing some 'low level' congress functionaries talking with the would-be assassin for protecting electoral interests of Congress party?

Perhaps you can give some pointers.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 05 Nov 2012 03:23

First I really dont have sources. Am just like you.

I think the tape showing Dhanu two hours before the deed would be bad news for all the security folks. It would be total negligence.
Secondly I recall that press reports at that time had indicated some sundry Congress people had facilitated the proximity breach. Its possible these folks were "do gooders" and didn't know Dhanu's motivation.

The case was solved without recourse to the evidence in the tape.

So most likely the tape was made unavailable.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 05 Nov 2012 13:26

>>Was Narayananan just trying to suppress a video showing some 'low level' congress functionaries talking with the would-be assassin for protecting electoral interests of Congress party?

It could well be that that was indeed the case. But remember that we are talking with 20-20 hindsight. Actually, even hindsight is not 20-20 in this case...

kmkraoind · Post by **kmkraoind** » 05 Nov 2012 14:42

‘Respect Gandhi If You Will, Don’t Sentimentalise Him’ - Outlook

Worth reading in full of a long interview.

Gist is Gandhi's time is over, but with heavy p-sec vomitus.

member_23692 · Post by **member_23692** » 07 Nov 2012 23:49

http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.co ... tarization

While our politicians are busy robbing us blind on the inside, this is what they are plotting on the outside.

Who among us has any moral authority to call this treachery and call for a massive overhaul (internal, external, internal to each Indian's soul and external) ?

This is not the first time, nor is it the 50th time, this is perhaps the 100th time, we as a people are indulging in suicide - and this, only in the last 65 years.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 08 Nov 2012 07:44

Views from the Right

Threat gallery

It is Deepavali special edition time for both Sangh Parivar journals. While Panchjanya has carried columns related to socio-political challenges, the latest issue of Organiser has given prominence to economic issues. An interview of senior VHP leader Ashok Singhal in Panchjanya has declared “secularism” the “biggest threat” to the country among five dangers outlined by him. Singhal lists “expansionist Church”, “violent Islam”, “Chinese Maoism” and “secular Media” as the other four big threats to Hinduism, in that order.

“Secularism is a threat to the country. It is a conspiracy to finish off the Hindu community... if this country continued to practise secularism it will end Hinduism altogether,” says Singhal. Another column asserts that the “dangerous appeasement of secular parties are endangering national unity”. However, elsewhere, Panchjanya underscores the “threat of Naxalism” and the need for non-partisan unity against the menace.

Reform cronyism

Unlike the BJP, the Sangh Parivar appears keen on debating the nature of economic reforms. The Deepavali special edition of Organiser seeks to initiate a debate on economic reforms, with its cover wondering “Is Reform Degenerating to Cronyism?” and cartoons caricaturing UPA leaders.

While Janata Party chief Subramanian Swamy, in an article, suggests that “reform without governance norms is cronyism”, RSS ideologue S. Gurumurthy, on the other hand, has raised fundamental doubts, suggesting economic reform is “outdated economics”.

Gurumurthy highlights the difference between the “equity-driven free market financial model” of the US and the “continental ‘bank-based’ model” practised in southern European countries. In this context, Gurumurthy says Indian’s economic model was close to the “bank-based” model of Japan and Germany, and other continental European nations. “Yet the ‘bank-based’ India still looks at the `market-based’ US only for its ‘reform’ agenda,” he laments.

In contrast, Swamy has sought to claim himself as the author of Indian reforms by highlighting that it was his “Draft Economic Reforms of Trade” that was accepted by the cabinet when he was Union minister of commerce in the Chandra Shekhar government. This, Swamy claims, paved the way for the reforms widely attributed to P.V. Narasimha Rao and Manmohan Singh.

Besides, Swamy emphasises reforms will become cronyism in the absence of governance, which he describes as a fine balance between “the norm of minimal government” and its “multi-dimensional obligations”. In this context, he highlights the broad principles that should govern key areas of reforms — privatisation, safety net, competition policy, environment, labour standards, and decentralisation — and suggests that “the priority of reforms has to be to eliminate methods where political and bureaucratic discretion in allocation of resources and projects exist. It is this discretionary power which causes cronyism”. Another article in this issue has described cronyism as the “biggest stumbling block” in the Indian success story.

Compiled by Ravish Tiwari

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 09 Nov 2012 05:05

From the Urdu Press

Obama win

It is too early for editorials, but there were cheerful headlines in the Urdu press about Barack Obama’s second term in Thursday’s papers. “Obama ki karishmati fateh (Obama’s charismatic win)” is Rashtriya Sahara’s headline, while Inquilab refers to the celebratory mood in its headline: “Amreeka mein jashn ka mahual”. Hamara Samaj says “Obama ko phir mila taj (Obama wins again)”.

Gadkari and the BJP

The multi-edition daily Inquilab, in its front page commentary on Nitin Gadkari (November 7) writes: “The BJP has tried its best to give its president an honourable exit by giving him a clean chit. Gadkari has got a reprieve until his term expires on December 20... Following the senseless comparison between Swami Vivekananda and Dawood Ibrahim... the Sangh has used its right to suppress political tremors in the BJP.”

Rashtriya Sahara writes on the same day: “Even before the BJP could recover from the Purti group revelations, it became involved in another shocking situation... One does not have to be very wise to realise, after looking at Swami Vivekananda’s portrait (on Narendra Modi’s rath), that there would be repercussions from Gadkari’s remark.” The daily Siyasi Taqdeer says, “Gadkari’s chair is shaking and the front against him in the party has become strong. And, Advani has the chance to lead the party.” The weekly Jadeed Markaz reminds its readers of former BJP president Bangaru Laxman accepting a bribe. It says: “Efforts are being made to make Gadkari announce his resignation after elections in Himachal Pradesh and Gujarat.”

Cabinet reshuffle

Rashtriya Sahara in an editorial on October 30 writes: “There is no doubt that the latest cabinet reshuffle is a political act, more than it is connected to administrative governance. It is clear that the Congress has its eyes on the 2014 elections.” The paper adds: “Rahul Gandhi’s influence is clearly seen in the reshuffle... It is the first time that OBC, Dalit and Muslim groups have been kept in view... Salman Khurshid has been given the extremely important portfolio of external affairs. By promoting him, perhaps the Congress has tried to indicate that it does not care about the allegations of corruption against him...”

The daily Siasat in an editorial on October 30 writes: “Generally, it is seen that whenever any Muslim gets a high and powerful position, he becomes rather secular (sic)... The three Muslim ministers who have been given important portfolios should do some significant work for the country and the community so that they become role models and a part of history.”

Death of comedy

Many papers have paid tributes to the satirist filmmaker, Jaspal Bhatti. The daily Aag, in an editorial on October 26, writes: “He told those trying to fool the common man and exploit him... that whatever they considered doing cleverly was understood by the common man, but he was fearful. So Bhatti put a mirror before politicians by saying everything through jokes and laughter.”

The paper adds: “Today, many purportedly pious people have launched campaigns against corruption. But their actions make it obvious that their objective is... gaining popularity to achieve power... Jaspal Bhatti cannot be forgotten even if an attempt is made to forget him... Now there are only tears left. Laughter has died.”

Compiled by Seema Chishti

lakshmikanth · Post by **lakshmikanth** » 09 Nov 2012 07:24

^^^ the above is Views from the Left

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 09 Nov 2012 07:29

^^ Sorry..It should be from the Urdu Press...I will edit it.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 09 Nov 2012 08:33

ramana wrote: High treason is against the king which in modern times is the state.

So lets discuss how preventing the recovery of POK is treason or not.

It shall be treason (for someone working against the interests of the state), if the state is involved in the active recovery of the region and has shown seriousness demonstrated through action over a period of time in a consistent manner.

Also, in a democracy, elected representative leadership of the state who make policy, cannot be accused of treason - if their acts are lawful as determined by the courts.

What we have in the case of PoK is a situation borne from a failed policy in 1948-49 and an LoC, which India has not actively sought to change unilaterally to its benefit in 60+ years, the 1992 resolution notwithstanding. Do not wish to go into the innumerable opportunities to act on this issue, which were not taken up and using that sole resolution to demonstrate the intent of the state, is hollow. In fact a reasonable view based on the actions of the state would be to presume that the state has NO intention of recovery of the lost areas of J&K.

Treason as per Indian law is indeed acts against the government. The issue of PoK is an issue of sovereignty. Only the people can force its representative government to act to recover or negotiate to cede this sovereign territory.

I have reported a number of posts in the Siachen thread that use this word traitor and other epithets, used callously against posters, ex military, elected high officials of GoI. Treason is a punishable offense under IPC and foreign codes, not to say grossly wrong and unfair to use in opposing arguments. Many such posts were acted upon by moderators, many were not.

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 09 Nov 2012 08:52

kmkraoind wrote:‘Respect Gandhi If You Will, Don’t Sentimentalise Him’ - Outlook
Worth reading in full of a long interview.
Gist is Gandhi's time is over, but with heavy p-sec vomitus.

I, for one, would certainly discount the whole interview just because of this counter-factual statements from Prof. Perry Anderson.

Firstly, that the idea of a subcontinental unity stretching back six thousand years is a myth. Secondly, that Gandhi’s injection of religion into the national movement was ultimately a disaster for it. Thirdly, that primary responsibility for Partition lay not with the Raj, but Congress. Fourthly, that Nehru’s legacy to Republic was far more ambiguous than his admirers will admit. Lastly, that Indian democracy is not contradicted by caste inequality, but rather enabled by it. This is a crude summary. Obviously, in each case, much more is said than this.

I did not get past that answer to the interviewer's first question. Thank you professor saab for summarizing so that we would not waste our money and more importantly time on the book.

By the way, it is well known that Gandhi ji was very much against Marxist philosophical thought and is mightily hated by the extreme left. I would not put any credence into these people.

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 09 Nov 2012 23:41

About PoK, it is for unknown reasons, obviously because there are no reasons, that no efforts are made to recover PoK. Other than of course playing politics and more tracks to diplomacy that do not benefit the nation as a whole and therefore not in the interest of India, unlike recovery of PoK.

But then if PoK is recovered, what would the educated establishment do? pakis and chini do not want to politicize issue and create disputes out of own interests and occupied or own lands.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 10 Nov 2012 00:39

ShauryaT wrote: I have reported a number of posts in the Siachen thread that use this word traitor and other epithets, used callously against posters, ex military, elected high officials of GoI. Treason is a punishable offense under IPC and foreign codes, not to say grossly wrong and unfair to use in opposing arguments. Many such posts were acted upon by moderators, many were not.

I understand your feelings sir, but what is this fanaticism with reporting posts? (I dont know if I am one of them).

How many times you reported posts for using the "Genocide" word by the so-called secular posters? How many times did you report posters based on "Fanatic or fundamentalist words"? Because most of these actions are also punishable under IPC and foreign codes.

I am asking because YOU used Genocide 6 times and fanatic once and fundamentalist 6 times.

Vipul · Post by **Vipul** » 10 Nov 2012 04:57

Come on RamaY, How many times did anybody here on BRF take someone's stand seriously and not hand over err evict Siachen? How insensitive can someone be to the Pappi jhappi and bhaichara.
How can someone possibly mention a person as a traitor if he is just and merely asking to act against India's self interest and do the enemy's bidding?
How insensitive can a person possibly be.(sorry i did not mention that i feel like like vomiting).

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 10 Nov 2012 05:02

RamaY wrote: I understand your feelings sir, but what is this fanaticism with reporting posts? (I dont know if I am one of them).

How many times you reported posts for using the "Genocide" word by the so-called secular posters? How many times did you report posters based on "Fanatic or fundamentalist words"? Because most of these actions are also punishable under IPC and foreign codes.

I am asking because YOU used Genocide 6 times and fanatic once and fundamentalist 6 times.

RamaY: doing a search count on the number of times a word has been used without ANY relevant context is somehow an intelligent response to the subject matter at hand? Let alone reading the IPC and foreign codes to understand them in context of the discussion at hand.

IMO, your response does not elucidate any POV on the topic. Please look at ramanas post and stay on topic.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 10 Nov 2012 06:08

ShauryaT wrote:
ramana wrote: High treason is against the king which in modern times is the state.

So lets discuss how preventing the recovery of POK is treason or not.
It shall be treason (for someone working against the interests of the state), if the state is involved in the active recovery of the region and has shown seriousness demonstrated through action over a period of time in a consistent manner.

Working against the interests of the state is not a treasonable act by law. You have to endanger the existence, integrity of the state. Indian law - currently is a copy and codification of 19th century Brit laws in its majority. The IPC and related "foreign codes" give nothing more than this.

Also, in a democracy, elected representative leadership of the state who make policy, cannot be accused of treason - if their acts are lawful as determined by the courts.

They can be accused - if their actions threaten the integrity and existence of the state. Whether the accusation has merits or not can be judged by a court - but the courts cannot prevent accusation.

Treason as per Indian law is indeed acts against the government. The issue of PoK is an issue of sovereignty. Only the people can force its representative government to act to recover or negotiate to cede this sovereign territory.

No, acts against the government is not treason - it comes under disruption of "public order". The act has to be shown to be aimed at overthrow of the state - not just the government, to qualify for treason as per the Brit-heir IPC. Since current Indian law follows the British law in its foundation, the precedence/foreign-use line implies - that "government" NOT EQUAL TO "state". Ruling regimes or the state functionaries try to pretend as if these two are identical- but legally or constitutionally government is not the state.

I have reported a number of posts in the Siachen thread that use this word traitor and other epithets, used callously against posters, ex military, elected high officials of GoI. Treason is a punishable offense under IPC and foreign codes, not to say grossly wrong and unfair to use in opposing arguments. Many such posts were acted upon by moderators, many were not.

If the posts were made of accusation of treason or claiming that any intended action will be "treasonable" - and criticized real or imaginary action by the government, then nothing in IPC prevents such accusations as illegal. Suspecting the governments actual or potential actions as treasonable is not illegal either. Loyalty of the citizen is to the state first, and only then to the government.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 10 Nov 2012 06:08

Why are you firing at me guys? All I am asking is is reporting necessary?

Is it treason if one acts against the interests of the dispensation in power or if one acts against the interests of nation

If it is against dispensation in power, then the govt = India and India = govt. Then people cannot complain if I say Indira = India = Sonia = India = MMS = India.

Just to want to make things clear for me.

Thanks Bji...

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 10 Nov 2012 11:57

brihaspati wrote:Working against the interests of the state is not a treasonable act by law. You have to endanger the existence, integrity of the state. Indian law - currently is a copy and codification of 19th century Brit laws in its majority. The IPC and related "foreign codes" give nothing more than this.

These interests will differ based on peoples and groups views of the interest of the nation. It does not mean that an opposing view becomes treason. It is just a different view of interests. These interests pursued by the party or dispensation in power pursued lawfully cannot be grounds for treason is the heart of the matter. The IPC and foreign codes have certainly originated from Brit laws but subsequently amended and opined upon by the courts. Although a new set of national security laws will help, it is not like we are running dark here.

Ref: http://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/1-50/Report43.pdf

They can be accused - if their actions threaten the integrity and existence of the state. Whether the accusation has merits or not can be judged by a court - but the courts cannot prevent accusation.

I hope you are not proposing the callous, ungrounded use of one of the most heinous crimes against a nation-state on people who have spent their lives in the service of the nation. By those standards every deal with a foreign nation can be called treason by some group or the other, based on how they see Indian interests.

No, acts against the government is not treason - it comes under disruption of "public order". The act has to be shown to be aimed at overthrow of the state - not just the government, to qualify for treason as per the Brit-heir IPC. Since current Indian law follows the British law in its foundation, the precedence/foreign-use line implies - that "government" NOT EQUAL TO "state". Ruling regimes or the state functionaries try to pretend as if these two are identical- but legally or constitutionally government is not the state.

Ofcourse not any act. The act has to be a "crime against national security". These crimes are defined in foreign and penal codes.

If the posts were made of accusation of treason or claiming that any intended action will be "treasonable" - and criticized real or imaginary action by the government, then nothing in IPC prevents such accusations as illegal. Suspecting the governments actual or potential actions as treasonable is not illegal either. Loyalty of the citizen is to the state first, and only then to the government.

Yes but these criminal accusations have to be based on some idea of the laws in question and not feelings and emotions. None of these charges have any substantiation and are more on the lines of - I do not trust Pakistan and MMS, the IA is opposed to something and hence anyone that talks of compromise on a certain matter such as Siachen is a traitor including the PM! A charge of treason is not just any charge. It is one of the gravest crimes known to society with severe punishments. More so disgusting when made against ex-military persons on a board that prides itself as being Bharat-Rakshak. It brings down the level of discourse, violates rules of the board and narrows the space for differing views of national interests to be discussed.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 10 Nov 2012 21:11

^
Accusations are not illegal. IPC does not prevent you from accusing. Of course someone can go to the courts - but not all charges of treason can be brought to a court by any member of the public. Typically the details of the "amendments" you refer to - simply make it more difficult for anyone other than the functionaries of the gov to bring charges of treason that is required to be taken congnizance of by the court.

But any member of the pubic can express his/her opinion that so-and-so act is/should be deemed to be - treasonable act. The fact that such an opinion or demand need not be taken into cognizance by a court of law- does not take away the right of the member of the public to express his opinion.

Moreover, it is incorrect to say that opposing the gov is tantamount to treason. The "amendments" have mostly brought the scattered laws into a common framework, and more in consistency with prevailing/post-19th century British perspectives on treason laws together with "foreign countries" having penal statements on treason - laws/precedence. No signficant indigenization move has been undertaken.

The logic - that just becuse of a past position or official role - someonce cannot be suspected or accused of possible treason in the opinion of a common citizen, is similar to the outdated claim of divine right of kingship and immunity from critcism of religious icons.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 10 Nov 2012 21:48

brihaspati wrote: The logic - that just becuse of a past position or official role - someonce cannot be suspected or accused of possible treason in the opinion of a common citizen, is similar to the outdated claim of divine right of kingship and immunity from critcism of religious icons.

By all means criticize, even severely and harshly. A charge of "treason" is a grave accusation of a "crime against national security". If done without any substantiation of the charge based on laws and practices not feelings, emotions and views of interests, amounts to gross defamation and slander. An awareness that the accusation is a charge of a high crime would be helpful. In the case of Siachen, can you show me how and on who there is a case for this charge of high crime based on laws or practices of the country?

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 10 Nov 2012 21:54

^^^ resorting to legality, I repeat, is hardly the way to respect the word and the spirit of the the same.

Just saying.

IMVHO etc (with regards to Hari garu)

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 10 Nov 2012 22:05

Sanku wrote:^^^ resorting to legality, I repeat, is hardly the way to respect the word and the spirit of the the same.

Just saying.

IMVHO etc (with regards to Hari garu)

The charge of a traitor is based on treasonous acts, which are high crimes against national security. These words are full of legal connotations and heinous charges. If the idea is to use some other sense a gross disagreement with the idea of indian interests then appropriate words have to be used. Cannot have it both ways of using legalistic words and then saying did not mean them.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 10 Nov 2012 22:10

ShauryaT wrote: These words are full of legal connotations and heinous charges.

No they are not, legality is one part of these words. The spirit is critical. In any case, I have no doubt that in hands of a eminent lawyer like Ravi Shankar Prasad -- and the people involved not clinging on like leeches to seats of power and the associated advantages, even the legality would be easily proven.

At least charges of criminal conspiracy should easily be established. However for that we have to throw out these people with a different view of Indian interests from positions of power.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 10 Nov 2012 23:59

ShauryaT wrote:
brihaspati wrote: The logic - that just becuse of a past position or official role - someonce cannot be suspected or accused of possible treason in the opinion of a common citizen, is similar to the outdated claim of divine right of kingship and immunity from critcism of religious icons.
By all means criticize, even severely and harshly. A charge of "treason" is a grave accusation of a "crime against national security". If done without any substantiation of the charge based on laws and practices not feelings, emotions and views of interests, amounts to gross defamation and slander. An awareness that the accusation is a charge of a high crime would be helpful. In the case of Siachen, can you show me how and on who there is a case for this charge of high crime based on laws or practices of the country?

I think we are moving rapidly from one point to another here. Originally, what I pointed was that
(1) opposing the gov was not equivalent to treason : even thretening to overthrow a government is not necessarily clearly a treasonable offence by current definitions
(2) expressing the opinion that a gov/military/rashtryia official would be committing treason if they talked of handing over territory - is not illegal.
(3) threatening national security cannot be tagged to a demonstration or even a nationwide demo gainst the gov or expressing opinions of suspicion/criticism/possible treason against a gov functionary.

You appeared to imply both that opposing the gov was equivalent to threatening national security/and accusing anyone who had held a state functionary position was illegal. If that impression is not correct please do correct my mistaken impression.

As I said, charges of treason could be taken up for defamation in a court of law - but that does not imply that you cannot raise the accusation and that you are legally prevented from doing so, unless the case is taken up by the courts and ruled in favour of the suitor and a specific gag order is placed.

As a cue, if someone said/says : "X will be committing an act of treason if he/she agreed to give Y part of India to Z", there is anothing to stand against this even in any court of law. Those interested can ponder on this line of presentation.

In fact one of the remnant British era induced IPC clauses about this - still remains in statute - "threatening territorial integrity", which is defined to be "high treason" - so such a statement will be perfectly legal.

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 11 Nov 2012 00:23

Shaurya, while I disagree with you fundamentally on the subject of Siachen, I think you are well within your rights to ask that posts ascribing your viewpoint to "treason" should be deleted, and that the posters concerned should be banned outright and permanently. After all as Brihaspati points out, defamation is an actionable offence; libel is even more so, and allegations *published* on an internet forum which gives them public visibility are prima facie libelous.

Should you take it up to defend yourself against such libel on a legal basis, the forum may find it prudent to do away with the posting privileges of those causing the trouble... for good.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 11 Nov 2012 04:09

brihaspati wrote: You appeared to imply both that opposing the gov was equivalent to threatening national security/and accusing anyone who had held a state functionary position was illegal. If that impression is not correct please do correct my mistaken impression.

B ji: To be clear. My position has nothing to do with opposing the govt or functionaries, actions or policies. It is about an unsubstantiated, unreasonable charge of treason labeled against high functionaries in the most callous manner. It is about using words like treason and traitor and then hiding behind obfuscations like "Please understand the spirit of it".

RD: This is not about me. It is really about the quality of discussions we want to have on this board that we all spend valuable time on. I hope no one acts on this unexpressed fear of mine, which you have written about.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 11 Nov 2012 06:24

ShauryaT wrote:
brihaspati wrote: You appeared to imply both that opposing the gov was equivalent to threatening national security/and accusing anyone who had held a state functionary position was illegal. If that impression is not correct please do correct my mistaken impression.
B ji: To be clear. My position has nothing to do with opposing the govt or functionaries, actions or policies. It is about an unsubstantiated, unreasonable charge of treason labeled against high functionaries in the most callous manner. It is about using words like treason and traitor and then hiding behind obfuscations like "Please understand the spirit of it".

RD: This is not about me. It is really about the quality of discussions we want to have on this board that we all spend valuable time on. I hope no one acts on this unexpressed fear of mine, which you have written about.

ShauryaT ji,
I understand. However, if someone writes that any high functionary - say X - "if he" proposes giving away territory deemed Indian, then X will commit treason - then that writing is not defamatory or illegal. As the current law stands, even talking/proposing to give away territory will constitute an intent to undermine territorial integrity, or alternatively proposing sharing the government of the said territory with a foreign nation - will all be "high treason".

In fact IPC treason statutes would be applicable to anyone who discussed in favour of ceding Siachen/or joint control with Paki gov even on this forum. That no such cases were slapped on to "civil society" and activist mouthpieces in the illuminated outside world of public discourse in the liberal walks of the capital - must be taken into account when we invoke the dangling sword of defamation over our heads.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 11 Nov 2012 07:59

brihaspati wrote: In fact IPC treason statutes would be applicable to anyone who discussed in favour of ceding Siachen/or joint control with Paki gov even on this forum. That no such cases were slapped on to "civil society" and activist mouthpieces in the illuminated outside world of public discourse in the liberal walks of the capital - must be taken into account when we invoke the dangling sword of defamation over our heads.

There is no joint control envisioned or proposed for Siachen, let alone ceding any territory. But, in context of treason, you did have to prove a high crime against national security. Differing views of national interests cannot be a pretext for accusations of treason. Context is important. Consistent actions and policies of the state forms the context. Abstract discussions alone are not enough to determine what is treason or not or for trivial and unsubstantiated charges of such heinous crimes on high functionaries to be labeled about frivolously.

There needs to be a high bar for it. In days of the past, actions against the Monarch or his interests were deemed treasonous. Many a persons, lost his neck due to the vagaries of how the monarch defined his interests or actions and words against the monarch. Dreadful will be the days if a government starts to use, such a charge for anyone opposing its views. This is what IG had done as pretext to impose an emergency with a biased and motivated interpretation of sedition laws, especially of IPC 124-A. She used the same IPC clauses to claim a threat to national security. These are serious and high charges, not to be trifled around with.

When JJ Singh moots the idea that "give and take" should be considered with regards to China - you quickly pounce upon him that it is treason to suggest such a thing? How so? It is an idea stated publicly and discussed by successive governments over many years. What is treasonous about it? Where is the crime? The LAC is not even a recognized border but a defacto and disputed one. Now, I may not agree with JJ Singh on this due to my own views of the Indian interest, but charge him of being a "traitor" an ex COAS? I mean, what right do we have to label such charges on men who have served?

What you are doing is not much different than charging every tom, dick and harry who does not agree with your views of what serves the national interest with charges of treason. Similar to what an erstwhile Monarch would have done and hang many well meaning souls in the process.

PS: I was in fact searching for JJ Singh's comments on China and your post on his comments came up on the first page on Google. http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 5#p1271804

My only pleading is we have zero tolerance for such frivolous charges for it accuses them of betrayal, a label not easily taken to by men who have given the best of their lives in the service of the nation.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 11 Nov 2012 09:23

ShauryaT wrote:
brihaspati wrote: In fact IPC treason statutes would be applicable to anyone who discussed in favour of ceding Siachen/or joint control with Paki gov even on this forum. That no such cases were slapped on to "civil society" and activist mouthpieces in the illuminated outside world of public discourse in the liberal walks of the capital - must be taken into account when we invoke the dangling sword of defamation over our heads.
There is no joint control envisioned or proposed for Siachen, let alone ceding any territory. But, in context of treason, you did have to prove a high crime against national security. Differing views of national interests cannot be a pretext for accusations of treason. Context is important. Consistent actions and policies of the state forms the context. Abstract discussions alone are not enough to determine what is treason or not or for trivial and unsubstantiated charges of such heinous crimes on high functionaries to be labeled about frivolously.

There needs to be a high bar for it. In days of the past, actions against the Monarch or his interests were deemed treasonous. Many a persons, lost his neck due to the vagaries of how the monarch defined his interests or actions and words against the monarch. Dreadful will be the days if a government starts to use, such a charge for anyone opposing its views. This is what IG had done as pretext to impose an emergency with a biased and motivated interpretation of sedition laws, especially of IPC 124-A. She used the same IPC clauses to claim a threat to national security. These are serious and high charges, not to be trifled around with.

When JJ Singh moots the idea that "give and take" should be considered with regards to China - you quickly pounce upon him that it is treason to suggest such a thing? How so? It is an idea stated publicly and discussed by successive governments over many years. What is treasonous about it? Where is the crime? The LAC is not even a recognized border but a defacto and disputed one. Now, I may not agree with JJ Singh on this due to my own views of the Indian interest, but charge him of being a "traitor" an ex COAS? I mean, what right do we have to label such charges on men who have served?

What you are doing is not much different than charging every tom, dick and harry who does not agree with your views of what serves the national interest with charges of treason. Similar to what an erstwhile Monarch would have done and hang many well meaning souls in the process.

PS: I was in fact searching for JJ Singh's comments on China and your post on his comments came up on the first page on Google. http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 5#p1271804

My only pleading is we have zero tolerance for such frivolous charges for it accuses them of betrayal, a label not easily taken to by men who have given the best of their lives in the service of the nation.

You are conflating two things together that should not be conflated.

As per law, you cannot talk of or propose to do - among other things - doing anything that jeopardizes the territorial integrity of India without such proposal being deeemed treason. Proposing giving territory away to a foreign nation is therefore potentially legally a treasonable act. If you note the language of my post - I have not mentioned the person.

Second, you seem to repeatedly claim that one cannot raise the possibility of treason or other similar acts - simply becuase so-and-so has served the nation in a certain capacity. This is incorrect both from ethical or legalistic position.

Yes, personally - anyone who propsoes to give any part of India claimed territory away to a foreign nation, regardless of whether it is in exchange or not, for me - it is unpardonable. I have no sacrosanct idols or icons in my life. No one is an unquestionable authority for me - regardless of what he or she has done before. I will give my open regards and acknowledgment for the positives of what he or she has done - and then condemn the negatives. There is no balancing of debit+credit in that sphere.

I have deliberately avoided naming anyone in particular - to show that it is not about the individual, and it should not be about the individual also from those who try to push the individual as above condemnation simply because of contribution/stature in some field.

Successive govs have proposed exchange of territories with China? On paper doc trail, the reverse seems to have been true. People have proposed ceding Siachen - so it is unnecessary to dismiss the fact. The matter of ceding territories - is and has been made very clear cut, each time the matter reached the parliament, even indirectly. The reaction from the representatives of the people, and constitutional "reaction" - should amply make it clear where such proposals stand.