Arbit Thoughts on Democracy

i saw an interview of the congress general secretary digvijay singh on youtube some time back. digvijay was for 10 years the chief minister of undivided madhya pradesh (i.e. when chattisgarh was a part of madhya pradesh). right now he seems to have become an attack dog for the congress. it is his job to take on the bjp in particular. as when he ridiculed sushma swaraj, bjp leader of opposition, for dancing on raj ghat (samadhi of mahatma gandhi) and asked her to apologize to the nation.

anyways, digvijay said something interesting in this interview of his which i saw. he said that when advani's rath yatra had entered madhya pradesh he was at the time a minister in the state government and moti lal vohra was the congress chief minister. digvijay was of the view that advani's rath yatra should never be allowed inside madhya pradesh. vohra disagreed and allowed advani's yatra to traverse through the state. digvijay opined that whereever the yatra went, it sowed the seeds of communal hatred between hindus and muslims. he said police men asked to maintain law and order by accompanying the yatra were moving with tilaks on their forehead. this created some kind of fear psychosis in the muslims.

eventually, of course, the yatra was stopped by laloo yadava in bihar. prior to this the left govt. in bengal had denied advani the permission to take the yatra to west bengal.

Some will say that in a democracy, advani's yatra could not be denied permission to traverse whereever advani wanted to go. after all we are a democracy. this is also what Vohra, the then congress C.M. of M.P. thought. But in my opinion, any attempt to create communal strife has to be nipped in the bud. And pre-emptive action has to be taken. And i agree with Digvijay that the yatra should have been stopped as soon as possible-- long before communal hysteria gripped the nation.

Rashmun wrote:Some will say that in a democracy, advani's yatra could not be denied permission to traverse whereever advani wanted to go. after all we are a democracy. this is also what Vohra, the then congress C.M. of M.P. thought. But in my opinion, any attempt to create communal strife has to be nipped in the bud. And pre-emptive action has to be taken. And i agree with Digvijay that the yatra should have been stopped as soon as possible-- long before communal hysteria gripped the nation.

Sir, I have lost my faith in humanity after reading your views. Don't you realize that Sadhvi Rithambara's freedom of speech and Shri Advaniji's right to incite the chaddi masses are far more important to democracy than the lives and property of the victims of the resultant strife??

Shame on you for not realizing that those who protest for a temple at Ramjanmabhoomi have a hallowed status, superior to yours or mine, guaranteed in the Indian constitution because is it such protesters who form the bedrock of democracy.

Your petty concerns about loss of life and property are common excuses trotted out by regimes to crush democracy and the Most Important Freedom of Speech.

so who is going to decide when govt can allow a mass movement? Is Anna's movement an acceptable expression of people's will? Or is it out of bounds because Sonia does not like it?

Govt that use state power arbitrarily and for political purpose, move towards state of emergency and autocratic rule.

No sir, you're absolutely right. When confronted by any large body of protesters, elected governments should respect their hallowed status as a bedrock of democracy and immediately abdicate such banal responsibilities as protecting the lives and properties of its citizens. Such PVN-like masterly inaction would surely strengthen democracy and prevent any move towards a state of emergency and autocracy.

Merlot Daruwala wrote:No sir, you're absolutely right. When confronted by any large body of protesters, elected governments should respect their hallowed status as a bedrock of democracy and immediately abdicate such banal responsibilities as protecting the lives and properties of its citizens. Such PVN-like masterly inaction would surely strengthen democracy and prevent any move towards a state of emergency and autocracy.

Nice job on the sarcasm, but you haven't answered the question. So, who is going to decide when a government should and should not allow a mass movement? Do you also buy Indira Gandhi and her cronies' assertions about Emergency that they needed to crackdown on people's rights in order to preserve the union?

Rashmun wrote:But in my opinion, any attempt to create communal strife has to be nipped in the bud.

OK, then do you think Rajiv Gandhi's shilanyas nonsense should have been nipped in the bud? Had he not taken sides in a communal dispute that was sub judice at the time purely for political gains in the '89 election, the BJP wouldn't have grown into the force it did. Once Rajiv Gandhi opened Pandora's box, there was no way the issue could be resolved in accordance with constitutional norms.

Laloo Yadav stopped the rath yatra in Samastipur. What did that achieve? Advani still went to Ayodhya, the mosque was demolished, and thousands were killed. Stopping the rath yatra in MP would not have prevented what happened on 12/6/92 any more than stopping it in Bihar did. Advani could still get his message across, and his communal message held appeal to the majority population primarily because of the pseudo-secularism of the ruling party. Once BJP gained appeal -- thanks primarily to the opportunism and corruption of the Congress -- the only democratic way in which they could be brought down to earth was by them gaining power and failing in the eyes of the people. And what is precisely what happened. Preventing people from organizing politically, and restricting free speech, are tools of dictators and wannabe-dictators.

Merlot Daruwala wrote:Shame on you for not realizing that those who protest for a temple at Ramjanmabhoomi have a hallowed status, superior to yours or mine, guaranteed in the Indian constitution because is it such protesters who form the bedrock of democracy.

Sir, you are getting carried away. You are unable to distinguish between peaceful, unarmed protestors, and trishul-wielding crowds chanting loudly that they will destroy property.

Merlot Daruwala wrote:Your petty concerns about loss of life and property are common excuses trotted out by regimes to crush democracy and the Most Important Freedom of Speech.

Unfortunately, they are common excuses trotted out by regimes to crush democracy and free speech. Mubarak and Gaddafi both use(d) the very same excuses.

charvaka wrote:

Merlot Daruwala wrote:No sir, you're absolutely right. When confronted by any large body of protesters, elected governments should respect their hallowed status as a bedrock of democracy and immediately abdicate such banal responsibilities as protecting the lives and properties of its citizens. Such PVN-like masterly inaction would surely strengthen democracy and prevent any move towards a state of emergency and autocracy.

Nice job on the sarcasm, but you haven't answered the question. So, who is going to decide when a government should and should not allow a mass movement?

my tentative answer to your question is that this needs to be decided on a case to case basis. So, for instance, Narasimha Rao should not have remained a spectator while the BJP/VHP Kar sevaks brought down the Babari Masjid after having earlier promised that it would be a peaceful protest. Rao had explicitly told the police that no bullets should be fired on or around these Kar sevaks.

Ramdev from whatever i have been able to gather was trying to create chaos and destabilize the govt. for the specific reason that certain opposition parties with whom he is secretly aligned with may benefit. He has no patriotic agenda and his so called crusade against black money and corruption is a sham since he himself harbors black money and is himself corrupt to the best of my knowledge. For instance, he refuses to give financial details of his companies which are worth thousands of crores and all of which money was accumulated within less than 10 years. he also refuses to give the list of donors to his organizations.

The govt. sent four senior ministers to negotiate with Ramdev--it is not that they adopted a stern attitude towards him from the beginning. They were bending over backwards to please him. He agreed in a written agreement that he would call off his protest since the govt. had accepted all his demands, but then went back on his word, made a series of fresh demands, and asked more and more of his followers to join him in Ram Leela ground. So many people accumulated (and this--it is alleged--included many RSS/VHP/BJP workers) that the administration decided that 'a single spark could have resulted in a conflagration'. At night the cops came to disperse the crowd.

Instead of facing the cops and courting arrest like a true satyagrahi, Ramdev sought to flee in women's clothings using his disciples as human shields. In the cops' quest to nab Ramdev, a few disciples of this fake baba got hurt.

I understand your concern that a crackdown on a crook and a thug, and a crackdown on a genuine patriotic people's movement may not be easy to distinguish--in both cases the govt. could claim that they took the action to safeguard life and property. That is why these govt. crackdowns need to be reflected on in a case to case basis before making up one's mind on whether the govt. action was right or wrong.

but in certain situations pre-emptive action to nip unnecessary civil strife instigated by crooks with vested interests deserve to be applauded. and this is certainly the case with respect to the govt. crackdown on Ramdev.

charvaka wrote:Nice job on the sarcasm, but you haven't answered the question. So, who is going to decide when a government should and should not allow a mass movement? Do you also buy Indira Gandhi and her cronies' assertions about Emergency that they needed to crackdown on people's rights in order to preserve the union?

Nice job on the red herring but you haven't quite proposed any better response from the state when a self-styled leader gathers tens of thousands of protesters at one place, ready to be whipped into an emotional frenzy, other than abdication of responsibilities.

PS: Talk about mass movements is a red herring. Gathering 10,000 people for a purported yoga camp and using them as human shields in a cheap publicity stunt does not a mass movement make. The very fact that not even a small fraction of those masses felt motivated enough to take the 4-hour ride to Haridwar to be with their "leader" should have told you by now how "mass" this movement was. I guess loyalties to Bibi R and hatred for the Empress are clouding an otherwise sound judgement.

Merlot Daruwala wrote:

charvaka wrote:Nice job on the sarcasm, but you haven't answered the question. So, who is going to decide when a government should and should not allow a mass movement? Do you also buy Indira Gandhi and her cronies' assertions about Emergency that they needed to crackdown on people's rights in order to preserve the union?

Nice job on the red herring but you haven't quite proposed any better response from the state when a self-styled leader gathers tens of thousands of protesters at one place, ready to be whipped into an emotional frenzy, other than abdication of responsibilities.

PS: Talk about mass movements is a red herring. Gathering 10,000 people for a purported yoga camp and using them as human shields in a cheap publicity stunt does not a mass movement make. The very fact that not even a small fraction of those masses felt motivated enough to take the 4-hour ride to Haridwar to be with their "leader" should have told you by now how "mass" this movement was. I guess loyalties to Bibi R and hatred for the Empress are clouding an otherwise sound judgement.

Merlot makes a good point about the fact that when Ramdev took his fast to Haridwar--where his ashram is located and where he should have had the maximum support-- it quickly fizzled out because very few people turned up.

charvaka wrote:You are unable to distinguish between peaceful, unarmed protestors, and trishul-wielding crowds chanting loudly that they will destroy property.

So according to you, governments should carefully parse whatever the crowds are chanting and accordingly allow or disallow the assembly of those crowds at a single location. And of course, in your ideal world, these crowds will unfailingly chant loudly and honestly, their intentions to cause loss of life and property while openly brandishing their weapons and tools, so the government can then step in and break their shins and disperse them before they convert intent into action.

Yes..haha..that'd be fantastic..haha..but..excuse me, have to go now - too much LOLing just before bed does get in the way of my sleep.

Merlot Daruwala wrote:

charvaka wrote:You are unable to distinguish between peaceful, unarmed protestors, and trishul-wielding crowds chanting loudly that they will destroy property.

So according to you, governments should carefully parse whatever the crowds are chanting and accordingly allow or disallow the assembly of those crowds at a single location. And of course, in your ideal world, these crowds will unfailingly chant loudly and honestly, their intentions to cause loss of life and property while openly brandishing their weapons and tools, so the government can then step in and break their shins and disperse them before they convert intent into action.

Yes..haha..that'd be fantastic..haha..but..excuse me, have to go now - too much LOLing just before bed does get in the way of my sleep.

If you think there is no difference between the crowds that got together in Ayodhya and the crowd of peaceful, unarmed protestors in Ramlila Maidan, it just shows wilful blindness. That is not funny, but it just makes me a little sad that you should so forcefully shut yourself in from the truth just because the idiots who were leading the crowd were clad in saffron.

Merlot Daruwala wrote:Nice job on the red herring

What is the red herring here? Let us see if you precisely articulate what you were calling a red herring. In a thread on the rath yatra and government's power to restrict political gatherings, the question "who makes the decision what's legitimate political protest" is a red herring for you? Perhaps you need to consult a dictionary; let me advise you red herring does not mean "difficult question that one is incapable of answering and hence needs to dance away from."

Incidentally, you are the person who brought in Ramdev at all into this thread -- and talked about red herrings! Hahaha, etc.

Merlot Daruwala wrote:PS: Talk about mass movements is a red herring. Gathering 10,000 people for a purported yoga camp and using them as human shields in a cheap publicity stunt does not a mass movement make. The very fact that not even a small fraction of those masses felt motivated enough to take the 4-hour ride to Haridwar to be with their "leader" should have told you by now how "mass" this movement was.

Read the thread opener by Rashmun very, very carefully. Do you see any references to Ramdev or Hardwar? Rashmun was talking about Advani's rath yatra. Now, will you have us believe that that was not a mass movement?

Merlot Daruwala wrote:but you haven't quite proposed any better response from the state when a self-styled leader gathers tens of thousands of protesters at one place, ready to be whipped into an emotional frenzy, other than abdication of responsibilities.

What is the difference between a "self-styled leader" and other types of leaders?

Based on your argument, ANY political gathering of tens of thousands of protestors is something the government should breakup with violence. Goodbye free speech, hello we-love-big-brother-as-long-as-he-isn't-wearing-a-chaddi!

Merlot Daruwala wrote:I guess loyalties to Bibi R and hatred for the Empress are clouding an otherwise sound judgement.

I won't speculate about your motivations, because it doesn't advance the discussion. What I will say is that you are being wilfully blind -- not that there is anything wrong with that. The government used force against a peaceful gathering at midnight, had no arrest warrant, and did not charge anyone with a crime. Suffice it to say that many freedom-loving people who despise Ramdev and what he stands for totally oppose what the government did to his Delhi protest. Perhaps Rashmun can supply the relevant quote from Voltaire.

Rashmun wrote:Ramdev from whatever i have been able to gather was trying ... in the cops' quest to nab Ramdev, a few disciples of this fake baba got hurt.

Same old Mahabharatam, but again you ignored the important questions. Did the government have an arrest warrant? Did they charge Ramdev with any crime? Do they have any proof of any violent activity planned by Ramdev or his protestors? Or did they resort to violence merely to prevent the opposition from gaining political advantage?

Rashmun wrote:I understand your concern that a crackdown on a crook and a thug, and a crackdown on a genuine patriotic people's movement may not be easy to distinguish--in both cases the govt. could claim that they took the action to safeguard life and property.

Governments routinely claim that. Give me one example where a government that felt threatened did not claim that a crackdown was required on a movement that was against its political interests. Digvijay Singhs of the previous generation were giving similar reasons for the imposition of Emergency. Do you buy those reasons as well?

BTW, you have preemptively nipped in the bud a very uncomfortable thread of discussion, by not responding to my questions to you. I applaud your foresight in avoiding a discussion on Rajiv Gandhi's role in creating the conditions for the demolition of Babri Masjid.

Rashmun wrote:but in certain situations pre-emptive action to nip unnecessary civil strife instigated by crooks with vested interests deserve to be applauded.

So, let's see if you have fully thought this through. Can you draw up some guidelines to determine what those certain situations? Do not give examples, but tell me what criteria need to be fulfilled when it comes OK for the government to crackdown violently. Also, specify whether the government can break the law when a combination or those criteria are met.

Unless you can articulate the set of conditions under which governments out to have the right to use force against a peaceful, unarmed crowd, this debate is pointless. It just boils down to "Rashmun: I believe what the Congress people are saying about the potential for communal strife coming out of an anti-corruption protest" and "Charvaka: I don't believe what the Congress people are saying; I think they used force because they were scared of the political impact of a protest, not of any communal strife." We can both keep our beliefs then.

charvaka wrote:

Rashmun wrote:Ramdev from whatever i have been able to gather was trying ... in the cops' quest to nab Ramdev, a few disciples of this fake baba got hurt.

Same old Mahabharatam, but again you ignored the important questions. Did the government have an arrest warrant? Did they charge Ramdev with any crime? Do they have any proof of any violent activity planned by Ramdev or his protestors? Or did they resort to violence merely to prevent the opposition from gaining political advantage?

--> I do not think the cops need an arrest warrant to take pre-emptive action in a situation where they believe things could go out of control and result in loss of life or property. Ramdev was punished in that he was forbidden to enter Delhi for a period of 15 days after he was evicted from Ram Lila ground and packed off to Haridwar.

charvaka wrote:

Rashmun wrote:I understand your concern that a crackdown on a crook and a thug, and a crackdown on a genuine patriotic people's movement may not be easy to distinguish--in both cases the govt. could claim that they took the action to safeguard life and property.

Governments routinely claim that. Give me one example where a government that felt threatened did not claim that a crackdown was required on a movement that was against its political interests. Digvijay Singhs of the previous generation were giving similar reasons for the imposition of Emergency. Do you buy those reasons as well?

--> it is not for the government but for people like me and you (and Merlot) to determine whether someone trying to whip up populist anti-establishment sentiment is a genuine patriot or a fraud. In the case of Ramdev, it is obvious that he is a fraud.

charvaka wrote:BTW, you have preemptively nipped in the bud a very uncomfortable thread of discussion, by not responding to my questions to you. I applaud your foresight in avoiding a discussion on Rajiv Gandhi's role in creating the conditions for the demolition of Babri Masjid.

--> As far as i am concerned Rajiv Gandhi's role in the demolition of Babari Masjid is tangential to this discussion. We are discussing in this thread the legitimacy of government intervention in cracking the whip on frauds and crooks who try to befool the people and attempt to whip up populist sentiment in a bid to destablilze the government so as to benefit themselves or to benefit the opposition political parties with which they are overtly or covertly aligned with.

charvaka wrote:

Rashmun wrote:but in certain situations pre-emptive action to nip unnecessary civil strife instigated by crooks with vested interests deserve to be applauded.

So, let's see if you have fully thought this through. Can you draw up some guidelines to determine what those certain situations? Do not give examples, but tell me what criteria need to be fulfilled when it comes OK for the government to crackdown violently. Also, specify whether the government can break the law when a combination or those criteria are met.

Unless you can articulate the set of conditions under which governments out to have the right to use force against a peaceful, unarmed crowd, this debate is pointless. It just boils down to "Rashmun: I believe what the Congress people are saying about the potential for communal strife coming out of an anti-corruption protest" and "Charvaka: I don't believe what the Congress people are saying; I think they used force because they were scared of the political impact of a protest, not of any communal strife." We can both keep our beliefs then.

-->One obvious criteria is that one need not bother if government intervention puts an end to attempts by a crook and a fraud to whip up nonsensical emotional and sentimental hysteria, xenophobia, communalism, etc.

Rashmun wrote:

charvaka wrote:

Rashmun wrote:but in certain situations pre-emptive action to nip unnecessary civil strife instigated by crooks with vested interests deserve to be applauded.

So, let's see if you have fully thought this through. Can you draw up some guidelines to determine what those certain situations? Do not give examples, but tell me what criteria need to be fulfilled when it comes OK for the government to crackdown violently. Also, specify whether the government can break the law when a combination or those criteria are met.

Unless you can articulate the set of conditions under which governments out to have the right to use force against a peaceful, unarmed crowd, this debate is pointless. It just boils down to "Rashmun: I believe what the Congress people are saying about the potential for communal strife coming out of an anti-corruption protest" and "Charvaka: I don't believe what the Congress people are saying; I think they used force because they were scared of the political impact of a protest, not of any communal strife." We can both keep our beliefs then.

-->One obvious criteria is that one need not bother if government intervention puts an end to attempts by a crook and a fraud to whip up nonsensical emotional and sentimental hysteria, xenophobia, communalism, etc.

That's not a criterion. "Whether the group of protestors is led by a crook or a fraud" and "whether the protestors are engaging in communalism" can both be criteria. My challenge to you was to come up with a set of criteria where it is legitimate for a government to use violent force against a peaceful, unarmed crowd of political protestors.

Rashmun wrote:a situation where they believe things could go out of control and result in loss of life or property.

Is there any evidence -- apart from the declarations by those responsible for the violence -- that things were about to go out of control and result in loss of life or property?

Rashmun wrote:Ramdev was punished in that he was forbidden to enter Delhi for a period of 15 days after he was evicted from Ram Lila ground and packed off to Haridwar.

Punished by who, and under what authority? Punishment is supposed to be after someone is tried and convicted of a crime; arbitrary punishments are undemocratic.

Rashmun wrote:it is not for the government but for people like me and you (and Merlot) to determine whether someone trying to whip up populist anti-establishment sentiment is a genuine patriot or a fraud. In the case of Ramdev, it is obvious that he is a fraud.

Does one now need a Certificate of Patriotism from you, me and Merlot before he can lead a peaceful, unarmed protest? What is the legal basis for this requirement of patriotism?

Rashmun wrote:We are discussing in this thread the legitimacy of government intervention in cracking the whip on frauds and crooks who try to befool the people and attempt to whip up populist sentiment

Is populism a crime? Do you understand how democracy works?

Rashmun wrote:so as to benefit themselves or to benefit the opposition political parties

Is it illegal to benefit oneself or benefit the opposition parties? If that is the case, Hitler and Stalin would both be right; they regularly cracked down violently against anyone who tried to benefit the feeble opposition they encountered. Your notions of democracy are seriously flawed if you think "benefiting the opposition" is an activity that justifies violent government reprisals!

charvaka wrote:

Rashmun wrote:a situation where they believe things could go out of control and result in loss of life or property.

Is there any evidence -- apart from the declarations by those responsible for the violence -- that things were about to go out of control and result in loss of life or property?

--> Ramdev had taken permission for 5,000 people to attend the yoga camp. Instead of 5,000 the allegation is that more than 20,000 people (Chidambaram's figure) had collected. Digvijay Singh estimates the number of people who had collected on that spot to be 50,000. What was indisputable was that Ramdev was asking upon his followers from all parts of the country to come to Ram Lila ground and add to the number already present.

--> Also, Ramdev had taken permission for a yoga camp but there was no yoga at Ram Lila ground; instead of yoga, the entire event was converted into a political propaganda session.

--> since you talk loudly of democracy, is it acceptable to you that a person fraudulently obtains permission for teaching yoga at a venue and then proceeds to do political propaganda at that same venue. Moreover, when permission had been given for 5,000 people to attend the yoga camp and when more than 20,000 people (Chidambaram's figure) or else 50,000 people (Digvijay's figure) had collected, what business did Ramdev have to call upon more and more people to collect at this venue?

charvaka wrote:

Rashmun wrote:Ramdev was punished in that he was forbidden to enter Delhi for a period of 15 days after he was evicted from Ram Lila ground and packed off to Haridwar.

Punished by who, and under what authority? Punishment is supposed to be after someone is tried and convicted of a crime; arbitrary punishments are undemocratic.

--> punished by the cops. if the punishment was illegal and ramdev had a problem with this he could have taken it up in the courts and we would have heard about it. but Ramdev accepted his punishment and so should you.

charvaka wrote:

Rashmun wrote:it is not for the government but for people like me and you (and Merlot) to determine whether someone trying to whip up populist anti-establishment sentiment is a genuine patriot or a fraud. In the case of Ramdev, it is obvious that he is a fraud.

Does one now need a Certificate of Patriotism from you, me and Merlot before he can lead a peaceful, unarmed protest? What is the legal basis for this requirement of patriotism?

--> my words were said in a specific context. unfortunately, you ripped out YOUR words to which i had responded and written the words for which you now seek to make a fuss over. kindly avoid this tactic in future.

--> since the govt. is obviously in an adversarial position vis a vis Ramdev, it is ultimately not for the government but for the people of India and particularly the educated and enlightened people to judge whether Ramdev is genuine or if he is a fraud. and this is what my words implied.

Rashmun wrote:Ramdev had taken permission for 5,000 people to attend the yoga camp. Instead of 5,000 the allegation is that more than 20,000 people (Chidambaram's figure) had collected. Digvijay Singh estimates the number of people who had collected on that spot to be 50,000. What was indisputable was that Ramdev was asking upon his followers from all parts of the country to come to Ram Lila ground and add to the number already present.

Summary: no threat to life or property yet.

Rashmun wrote:Also, Ramdev had taken permission for a yoga camp but there was no yoga at Ram Lila ground; instead of yoga, the entire event was converted into a political propaganda session.

Summary: no threat to life or property yet.

Rashmun wrote:since you talk loudly of democracy, is it acceptable to you that a person fraudulently obtains permission for teaching yoga at a venue and then proceeds to do political propaganda at that same venue.

No, it is not. That is why I am asking, did the government prosecute him for his fraudulent mishandling of permissions? It should.

Rashmun wrote:Moreover, when permission had been given for 5,000 people to attend the yoga camp and when more than 20,000 people (Chidambaram's figure) or else 50,000 people (Digvijay's figure) had collected, what business did Ramdev have to call upon more and more people to collect at this venue?

I don't know. But calling more people to come does not equal imminent threat to life or property.

Rashmun wrote:punished by the cops. if the punishment was illegal and ramdev had a problem with this he could have taken it up in the courts and we would have heard about it. but Ramdev accepted his punishment and so should you.

Just because Ramdev is an idiot, I don't have to be one. The job of evidence gathering in support of prosecution rests with the cops, not the job of punishment. That is squarely in the hands of the courts.

Rashmun wrote:since the govt. is obviously in an adversarial position vis a vis Ramdev, it is ultimately not for the government but for the people of India and particularly the educated and enlightened people to judge whether Ramdev is genuine or if he is a fraud. and this is what my words implied.

So, we are back to the question of criteria which you don't want to answer!

charvaka wrote:

Rashmun wrote:Moreover, when permission had been given for 5,000 people to attend the yoga camp and when more than 20,000 people (Chidambaram's figure) or else 50,000 people (Digvijay's figure) had collected, what business did Ramdev have to call upon more and more people to collect at this venue?

I don't know. But calling more people to come does not equal imminent threat to life or property.

--> i don't know how much confidence you have in India's home minister P. Chidambaram but i find him bright and balanced. Chidambaram claims that the situation had become so tense that 'a single spark could have resulted in a conflagration'. That is why he said the cops decided to break up this illegally held political platform. Since you were not there in person, you have a choice of agreeing with either the Ramdev camp or with the Chidambaram/Digvijay line. I would go with the Chidambaram/Digvijay line because no such action was taken when Anna Hazare had gone on fast and also when numerous BJP dharnas and protests have taken place all over Delhi including the recent one at Raj Ghat at which Sushma Swaraj, BJP leader of opposition, faced criticism for dancing in front of Mahatma Gandhi's samadhi.

[quote = "charvaka"]

Rashmun wrote:punished by the cops. if the punishment was illegal and ramdev had a problem with this he could have taken it up in the courts and we would have heard about it. but Ramdev accepted his punishment and so should you.

Just because Ramdev is an idiot, I don't have to be one. The job of evidence gathering in support of prosecution rests with the cops, not the job of punishment. That is squarely in the hands of the courts.

--> the point is that if ramdev had been illegally punished for not being allowed to enter delhi for 15 days he would surely have taken legal recourse. after all, he has no shortage of money.

charvaka wrote:

Rashmun wrote:since the govt. is obviously in an adversarial position vis a vis Ramdev, it is ultimately not for the government but for the people of India and particularly the educated and enlightened people to judge whether Ramdev is genuine or if he is a fraud. and this is what my words implied.

So, we are back to the question of criteria which you don't want to answer!

--> your question requires more reflection. off hand one can say that these kind of incidents need to be classified on a case by case basis. With respect to a fraud who seeks to incite people's sentiments using fraudulent means and with fraudulent intentions one should not get upset if his desires are thwarted.

--> By the way please share your thoughts on the perpetrators of the Babari Masjid demolition who were giving hate speeches which resulted in communal killings and communal hysteria across the country and who are still roaming around free. Also, should Narasimha Rao have permitted the police to fire at or around the Kar Sevaks at Ayodhya? After all, the Kar Sevaks also claimed that they had come for a peaceful protest.

Rashmun wrote:i don't know how much confidence you have in India's home minister P. Chidambaram

Very little when he is trying to cover his ass for a huge mistake made on his watch. His explanations just don't add up. You tried to argue that Ramlila Maidan was in a communally sensitive area that is therefore not allowed for political rallies and that is what PC meant by conflagration. I pointed out that political rallies of all stripes are routinely held there with no conflagrations. You continue to believe in PC's words, without pausing to think what kind of conflagration he was talking about, and how likely it was.

Rashmun wrote:the point is that if ramdev had been illegally punished for not being allowed to enter delhi for 15 days he would surely have taken legal recourse. after all, he has no shortage of money.

You are attributing more knowledge and intelligence to Ramdev than he is in possession of. You will have a better understanding of his running away in a woman's garb, and all his other theatrics, when you stop giving him such credit.

Rashmun wrote:your question requires more reflection. off hand one can say that these kind of incidents need to be classified on a case by case basis.

That leaves too much latitude in the hands of the powers of the day. So why don't you reflect on the question some more? I am a patient man.

Rashmun wrote:By the way please share your thoughts on the perpetrators of the Babari Masjid demolition who were giving hate speeches which resulted in communal killings and communal hysteria across the country and who are still roaming around free.

If those people were breaking laws by giving hate speeches, they should be prosecuted. My stand on that is no different from my stand on Varun Gandhi that I expressed on old CH.

Nice job with quoting dictionaries but after according "mass movement" status to Advaniji's rath yatra, you still haven't exactly explained why an unarmed, peaceful crowd of kar sevaks should not have been allowed to gather at the Babri site in Dec 1992 to witness what was billed as a peaceful, symbolic foundation laying ceremony.

Carvaka wrote:Read the thread opener by Rashmun very, very carefully. Do you see any references to Ramdev or Hardwar?

No, but just like you get to bring in your moral indignation (arthaat outrage) over government crackdowns in a light-hearted LOL at Bibi Ramdev's antics, other might like to drag him into threads of their liking. Do I sense some objection to that?

Carvaka wrote:

Merlot Daruwala wrote:but you haven't quite proposed any better response from the state when a self-styled leader gathers tens of thousands of protesters at one place, ready to be whipped into an emotional frenzy, other than abdication of responsibilities.

What is the difference between a "self-styled leader" and other types of leaders? Based on your argument, ANY political gathering of tens of thousands of protestors is something the government should breakup with violence.

Read my quoted words again carefully. Do you see any argument there at all? I just pointed out that you are merely faulting governments (first the PVN govt for allowing peaceful kar sevaks gather at Babri and now the current govt for breaking up the Ramdev circus) without coming up with any concrete alternative - other than that entirely hilarious suggestion that a crowd's stated intent from slogans and chants should be the basis for allowing or disallowing large gatherings.

Carvaka wrote:The government used force against a peaceful gathering at midnight, had no arrest warrant, and did not charge anyone with a crime.

Sure, the cops whisked away the ring-leader and defused what could have been an explosive situation down the line once that fellow went on his fast. I thought it was admirable they did it with minimal use of force and well before the tension escalated.

You're welcome to continue expressing your indignation over the action and asking your "pointed questions" on whether they went by the rulebook - as if you actually wanted the cops to arrest people and charge them with vague crimes just to be procedurally correct. I'm curious though, why your indignation and outrage is directed solely at the Indian government on events tens of thousands of miles away, while in your own backyward - in the greatest democracy on earth and in the land of free speech - the government routinely prevents and breaks up peaceful protests.

Have you considered the possibility that extreme fetishizing of the freedom of speech is possible only in idealistic imaginations and can't be practically upheld in any real-life state, even ones where such freedoms enjoy the most respect?

MD wrote:Read my quoted words again carefully. Do you see any argument there at all?

Haha. We could say that about most of what you said on this topic.

MD wrote:whether they went by the rulebook ... to be procedurally correct.

If the government itself breaks the law, that is something that bothers me. You are entitled to not be bothered by such trifles, as long as they beat up people you don't like.

MD wrote:I'm curious though, why your indignation and outrage is directed solely at the Indian government on events tens of thousands of miles away

Because I am a citizen, and I have a right (and responsibility) to call out the government's excesses. Even if those excesses are committed against people I can't stand. Because if we start applauding government violence on peaceful crowds today because we don't like the leader of those crowds, tomorrow a BJP government can follow that precedent to crackdown on rallies they don't like.

MD wrote:while in your own backyward - in the greatest democracy on earth and in the land of free speech - the government routinely prevents and breaks up peaceful protests.

That is really LOL-worthy. Here are a couple of differences to keep in mind: (a) consistency with which permit-violation is tolerated or not tolerated in the two countries, and (b) how much of a thorn in the side of the government the protest is.

Carvaka wrote:Haha. We could say that about most of what you said on this topic.

Aha, so you agree that you've just been talking from both sides of your mouth - bashing PVN for his inaction on the peaceful kar sevaks and MMS for his action on the peaceful Ramdev bhakts - without coming up with any concrete alternative on how large, volatile crowds of protesters are to be handled. As the lord of the high moral ground and the high-priest of principles, why not just say so, instead of side-stepping the issue slimily with this low blow? Btw, who is "we"? Are you now god or just the queen?

Carvaka wrote:You are entitled to not be bothered by such trifles, as long as they beat up people you don't like.

For someone who was loftily proclaiming his intent not to assign motivations just a couple of posts ago, this is a rather quick climbdown. Anyway, since you are - unlike me - a man of high principles and will always oppose the beating up of any people, even those you don't like, tell me: what Carvaka-approved action would you have liked the authorities to take in Dec 1992, once it was clear that the one lakh plus kar sevaks who had already gathered at Ayodhya were not there for the stated intent of a symbolic ritual, but were all set to actually demolish the structure instead?

Carvaka wrote:

MD wrote:while in your own backyward - in the greatest democracy on earth and in the land of free speech - the government routinely prevents and breaks up peaceful protests.

That is really LOL-worthy. Here are a couple of differences to keep in mind: (a) consistency with which permit-violation is tolerated or not tolerated in the two countries, and (b) how much of a thorn in the side of the government the protest is.

Haha..man of principles, this is not expected from you - you're living up to Luke Unkil's assessment of can't-see-wood-for-trees by engaging in trivialities while willfully ignoring the 600-pound gorilla of the fact that even in the greatest democracy in the world, where freedom of speech has most respect, you see the government curtail peaceful protests without a second thought, so all that moral indignation over something similar happening in a third world country where freedom of speech does not exist in the first place is plain silly. Your consistency-of-toleration argument is akin to breaking a red light and then arguing with the cop that he should not ticket you because he does not always ticket others who did the same thing. Surely one expected better from you.

Merlot Daruwala wrote:so you agree that you've just been talking from both sides of your mouth - bashing PVN for his inaction on the peaceful kar sevaks and MMS for his action on the peaceful Ramdev bhakts

Nothing of the sort. Any sensible person can understand the difference between trishul-wielding crowds whose hostile intent was clear from their words ("mandir WAHIN banayenge!"), and a sleeping unarmed crowd. That you choose to blind yourself to that distinction is your choice, and you are entitled to it.

Merlot Daruwala wrote:without coming up with any concrete alternative on how large, volatile crowds of protesters are to be handled.

That's rich, coming from you. I have offered the alternative way the government ought to have treated the crowd in Ramlila Maidan a number of times in various threads.

Merlot Daruwala wrote:Anyway, since you are - unlike me - a man of high principles and will always oppose the beating up of any people

Nice attempt to misrepresent my clearly expressed opinions. Some keywords that ought to help: peaceful, unarmed.

Merlot Daruwala wrote:once it was clear that the one lakh plus kar sevaks who had already gathered at Ayodhya were not there for the stated intent of a symbolic ritual, but were all set to actually demolish the structure instead?

Now you tell me whether "it was clear" that the crowd in Delhi gathered there with any violent intent. When did it become clear and how? Rashmun and you have been harping on Dec 1992 randomly, without offering any evidence why the two incidents are comparable. Never mind that the nature of the location, size of the crowd, their possession of arms, their prior behaviors, stated motivations were all radically different!

Merlot Daruwala wrote:you're living up to Luke Unkil's assessment of can't-see-wood-for-trees

And you to Rashmun's credo of using another poster's random accusations in attempt to gain points over the person you are talking to!

Merlot Daruwala wrote:by engaging in trivialities while willfully ignoring the 600-pound gorilla

That is precisely what I thought of your bwahaha on the occasion of the government using violence to break up a peaceful, unarmed protest at midnight, just because the protestors were questioning the government's honesty!

Like I said above, your wilful blindness to the differences between Ayodhya 1992 and Delhi 2011 is a choice you are welcome to. I don't intend to waste more of my time in making you see the obvious and repeating the same arguments back and forth. You may have the last word.

Carvaka wrote:

Merlot Daruwala wrote:so you agree that you've just been talking from both sides of your mouth - bashing PVN for his inaction on the peaceful kar sevaks and MMS for his action on the peaceful Ramdev bhakts

Nothing of the sort. Any sensible person can understand the difference between trishul-wielding crowds whose hostile intent was clear from their words ("mandir WAHIN banayenge!"), and a sleeping unarmed crowd. That you choose to blind yourself to that distinction is your choice, and you are entitled to it.

You can keep trying to draw up some artificial distinctions between the two events to justify your inconsistency, but the facts don't support it. The same Supreme Court which you were lauding recently for standing up to the allegedly "special constitutional rights" of Ramdev Bhakts had similarly stood up to the Ram Bhakts' right to conduct their Kar Seva in 1992, so regardless of what the crowd chanted**, the government was obliged to let them gather as long as they didn't actually indulge in any violence. Sure, parts of the two-lakh strong crowd which started gathering in Ayodhya in the days leading up to the demolition flaunted trishuls but so what? It's not like they demolished the masjid with those six-inch trishuls or even used those trishuls to harm anyone. On the other hand, the trishul had become the dominant symbol of Hindu resurgence all through of Advaniji's "mass movement" so surely, as a man of principles, you wouldn't rob those people of a key symbol of their religious identity simply because you dislike them, would you?

** It's now past funny and truly amazing that you are holding on to this stance that a crowd's stated intent should be the basis for disallowing their gathering. Do you really really believe any organized crowd will actually state their intent to create mayhem before the fact?? If yes, you're even more divorced from reality than one suspected.

Carvaka wrote:Now you tell me whether "it was clear" that the crowd in Delhi gathered there with any violent intent. When did it become clear and how?

Rub the dew off your eyes and think practically for a moment instead of rehashing your idealistic rhetoric. Have you ever observed any real-life, large-scale protest in India? In a society where the mere death of a local actor from entirely natural causes was enough to spark widespread riots and loss of lives and property in the most cosmopolitan of cities, are you really so foolish as to believe that a 10,000 strong, organized crowd of protesters will stay peaceful once their beloved Baba enters his fast and gets weaker and weaker or even passes away? Can you think of any practical way of defusing the situation after it escalates without the use of even more violence?

It's all very well for you to sit ten thousand miles away and at no personal cost, fetishize the freedom of speech in India (but not in your own backyard), but for resident citizens, such fashionable fetishes can carry a steep price in terms of loss of life, livelihoods and property. I'd rather trust the local authorities to prevent such mayhem and destruction even if it means sending the Ramdev bhakts packing their yoga mats and evoking much moral indignation and outrage from the diaspora.

Carvaka wrote:Rashmun and you have been harping on Dec 1992 randomly, without offering any evidence why the two incidents are comparable.

Rich coming from someone who has been harping on their incomparability while willfully ignoring well-documented facts that someone with your proven expertise in Google would have had no trouble retrieving in a flash.

Carvaka wrote:Never mind that the nature of the location, size of the crowd, their possession of arms, their prior behaviors, stated motivations were all radically different!

Bwahaha...this now is a hoot coming from you. In a free country, why should location matter? Are you now saying some cities should be off-limits for protesting citizens? Even after your beloved SC has okayed the protest?? Why is the size relevant? Is a 10,000 strong crowd any less prone to stampedes and mayhem than a 200,000 strong crowd? Is it easier to contain a 10,000 strong crowd once it goes on the rampage in old Delhi? Is there any means for anyone - even the organizers - to predict the turnout of any alleged "mass movement"? And in any event, what is a government to do after a large crowd has already gathered? Disperse them with minimal use of force? Isn't that exactly what happened at Ramlila grounds and caused you so much outrage?

And oh, what is this haha.."prior behavior" of a crowd? Is it your belief that there are these set-piece crowds composed ot the same set of protesters who go from place to place staging protests? Does one compile a dossier on each of the 10,000 strong crowd and then do some predictive emergent behavior simulation of the mob under different scenarios? Lastly, why are their motivations and causes germane? As a class making up your "bedrock of democracy" isn't every protester just as precious? Surely, as a man of principles, you wouldn't want to diminish the kar sevaks' right to protest just because you don't support their cause, would you?

Carvaka wrote:I don't intend to waste more of my time in making you see the obvious and repeating the same arguments back and forth. You may have the last word.

*shrug* Ok, thanks for playing.

MD wrote:In a society where the mere death of a local actor from entirely natural
causes was enough to spark widespread riots and loss of lives and
property in the most cosmopolitan of cities, are you really so foolish
as to believe that a 10,000 strong, organized crowd of protesters will stay peaceful
once their beloved Baba enters his fast and gets weaker and weaker or
even passes away? Can you think of any practical way of defusing the
situation after it escalates without the use of even more violence?

In such a society, is there any crowd of any size that can be guaranteed to stay peaceful? If there is no such guarantee, should any crowds be allowed to gather and protest peacefully at all? Without such a guarantee, the only way to ensure protection of life and property is through a dictatorial Emergency-like regime, which is probably OK as long as it is not composed of chaddis, right?

What criteria do you think need to be applied before government can use violence on a peaceful, unarmed crowd? Let us see if you can come up with a consistent set of reasonable criteria that qualifies violence only on the karsevaks and Ramdev bhakts' rally in Ramlila Maidan, but not on the Congress's or BJP's (much larger) rallies in the same Maidan. Your defense of the government so far has simply been to say "something like Dec 1992 could have happened." That's just plain bogus, no matter how much invective you lace that claim in. Whatever was "possible" here was also possible with every political rally that happened, none of which the government lathi-charged.

It is much, much more reasonable to believe that the government had a vested political interest in shutting the rally down because of the protests' focus on its corruption, and it abused its power by doing so with violence. This argument of "they averted some big disaster" is nothing but I'll-cover-the-Congress-government's-ass-because-the-Congress-won't-do-it-anymore.

charvaka wrote:Let us see if you can come up with a consistent set of reasonable criteria that qualifies violence only on the karsevaks and Ramdev bhakts' rally in Ramlila Maidan, but not on the Congress's or BJP's (much larger) rallies in the same Maidan.

See, political rallies and protest rallies are as different as chalk and cheese. The former doesn't involve any emotions or passions. It's just a well-orchestrated PR exercise that leaves everyone happy - the party leadership delivers lofty bhaashans and gets media mileage, the party office-bearers get to show off their organizational ability - measured by busloads of crowds brought in from the districts, the crowds themselves enjoy an all-expenses paid picnic to the big city and the media is thrilled to have a wonderful story.

The size of the crowds are managed down to a busload and the organizers have impressive logistics to make it a smooth affair - first aid stations for those who faint or fall sick, porta-potties, water stations, ambulances, paid-for police bundobast, barricades to control flow of the crowds, volunteers to watch over the crowds etc. After the day's festivities, the crowds make their way back home for a well-earned drink sponsored by the local party leader. So whether it is the right, the left or the confused, every political party has this process down pat and because of its predictability, there is never a law and order problem with having even large rallies.

Protests on the other hand are a different kettle of fish. Leading a protest in this part of the world involves delivering fiery rhetoric designed to whip the audience into an emotional frenzy so they can go out and cause as much disruption to civil society as possible. A protest is deemed a failure if buses and trains continue to ply, shops remain open and people continue to go about their daily lives. So any conventional, organized protest in India involves stone-throwing, effigy burning etc. Since violence is an integral part of the protest culture in India, rational protest organizers are careful not to cross the limits lest they be criminally prosecuted for the resultant damage. They never gather more than a couple of hundred protesters, so the total damage done is well within the accepted limits. Contrary to what you and Rawmotions believe, you'll never see a Raj Thackeray gather a 10,000 strong crowd in one location because he knows he won't be able to control the mob once it gets into a frenzy. Even in cases where the crowd is largely peaceful, a small section of frenzied activists can trigger panic and cause stampedes, so organizers tend to be very very careful with large crowds.

Which is why what that nutjob Ramdev did was sheer irresponsibility. What was the earthly reason to gather thousands of people at one location and put their lives and wellbeing at risk? Did Mahatma Gandhi do that when he went on his marathon fasts against the British? Why, even Anna Hazare had no more than a few dozen protesters during his fast. The size of the crowd has no bearing on the moral stature of the protest so he could well have protested with a handful of supporters at the designated location at Jantar Mantar - if his cause had any merit, he would had as much impact.

Instead, he broke the rules; that crusader for moral cleansing of India lied to local authorities on the reason for the gathering; by gathering such a large crowd with the express purpose of witnessing him fast, he put a lot of people at risk and it is only befitting that his circus was dismantled with minimal use of force - notwithstanding your speculation about the government's (or my) motivations and that laughable "consistency-of-toleration" argument. Indian democracy, contrary to your beliefs, is no weaker or any unsteadier from the event. After all, nobody stopped him when he actually went on a fast with a smaller crowd in Haridwar.

charvaka wrote:Your defense of the government so far has simply been to say "something like Dec 1992 could have happened." That's just plain bogus, no matter how much invective you lace that claim in.

There is a fundamental difference in worldviews here. You're welcome to continue living in your rose-tinted world where 10,000 strong crowds remain peaceful indefinitely, entertaining themselves with antakshari, yogasanas and bhajans while their rhetoric-spewing Baba goes faint or slips into coma. I'd rather go by observed norms of large crowd behavior at protests in India.

I do value the freedom of speech and the right to protest, but I also believe with rights come responsibilities. Gathering mammoth crowds with the intention of whipping them into a frenzy, IMO, is irresponsible behavior which doesn't deserve any sympathy. Anyone is free to protest in a democracy but they should play by the rules of civilized society. You seem to have no problem accepting this in the country of your residence, but when it comes to India, suddenly these basic civilizational norms become unacceptable tyrannies to you. That's just another instance of double standards you have shown in this thread.