And when they come for me...

The columnist wrote:
First they went after police officers and bureaucrats who were saying things that didn’t match with the official version of the story, and none of us said anything, because government officials, after all, must follow service rules and not speak to the media. If they speak out of turn, of course the law must take its own course.

Then witnesses in the Asaram case started dying, but surely it was all a coincidence; India is after all a large country, and deaths happen.

Then witnesses and others involved with the Vyapam case started dying—one drowned, the mouth of one started foaming and he collapsed—but there was not much to be said because, you know, I didn’t live in Madhya Pradesh, so how was I to know what was really going on?

Then they released Maya Kodnani on bail, but you know, that’s understandable; she has health issues, and one should have compassion, and in any case that woman did no harm to me.

Then a prosecutor said she was told to go slow on cases against some Hindus who were accused of exploding bombs, and we shrugged it off because the prosecutor must have acted suspiciously—there must be something dark in the lentil (daal mein kuchh kala hai) because she must have been denied a promotion; and in any case Hindus are non-violent, so why should they be persecuted?

Then they banned beef in the state, and there was not much to be said, because, you know, red meat is bad for health in any case. You know, cholesterol.
Then they shouted ghar wapsi and we thought that’s how they described the Prime Minister returning from one of his trips overseas.

Then they stopped Priya Pillai from boarding a flight to London, but then what else was the government to do, come on, why did she have to go to a British parliamentary meeting to speak against India? How unpatriotic is that?

Then they froze the accounts of Greenpeace, but what was weird about that? Of course they should; after all, India has to develop, no? And doesn’t Greenpeace stop all development everywhere? Who funds them anyway?

Then they got Gajendra Chauhan, Mahabharata’s Yudhishthira, to run the Film and Television Institute of India, and the students protested; but that’s ridiculous, why should the government run subsidised schools for students to learn how to make films? And shouldn’t students spend time learning, rather than picketing and protesting?

Then they removed Amartya Sen from running a university, but of course that was the correct thing to do; after all, Sen was spending all his time at Harvard or Cambridge or wherever, and telling everyone he was against the prime minister. I mean, how could you be the chancellor of a top university and disrespect the prime minister? And why should people who lived abroad most of the time run India’s premier universities? What did Sen know about universities in India, anyway? Harvard? Where is its academic freedom? They stopped Subramaniam Swamy from teaching—you call that academic freedom, huh?

Then they tried to arrest Teesta Setalvad, but wasn’t that the right thing to do? Why was she persisting with filing cases in courts even after the Supreme Court had given a clean chit? Who was paying her bills, anyway? And look, India is a democracy; the Supreme Court said she was not to be arrested, and she wasn’t, so what was the problem?

Then they raided Setalvad’s home, spending more than a dozen hours there, and some say they even went through her children’s room, but you know, you can’t take chances these days; how was anyone to know what she may have hidden and where? The Central Bureau of Investigation had a job to do, of collecting documents and information she had already offered to provide, so what was wrong if they came to collect it, and saved her postage money? Why is she complaining? She must have something to hide, for otherwise she would have disclosed everything, no?

Now isn’t that plain and simple paranoia? Such things happen in China and Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, not in India, and excuse me, look, India is the world’s largest democracy. This is not some banana republic, you know?

We will become the next superpower. OK, if not the next, then next-to-next. If not in five years, then in 25 years. After all, you gave 60 years to those guys. It is our turn now.

Hellsangel wrote:Godwin's law went into effect even before the discussion started.

Hellsangel wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...

brie wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:Godwin's law went into effect even before the discussion started.

no.

tell me how?

brie wrote:all things said and "understood"... nice example of hysteria and thank you for promoting it on "social media." you are the ultimate citizen -- a role model to say. start a twitter account -- friendly advice. then you can boast you have 6 lac followers like the bjp-assam or so.

brie wrote:all things said and "understood"... nice example of hysteria and thank you for promoting it on "social media." you are the ultimate citizen -- a role model to say. start a twitter account -- friendly advice. then you can boast you have 6 lac followers like the bjp-assam or so.

brie wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...

should i talk to engineer propagandhi instead? will you kindly make him an alibi and request him to WRITE something in this thread in your defense?

swapna wrote:

brie wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...

should i talk to engineer propagandhi instead? will you kindly make him an alibi and request him to WRITE something in this thread in your defense?

sorry, programmer poopa711 is busy masturbating over the pictures of distant women that he found on the internet. at the height of his ecstasy, he was heard to exclaim, "ayyo, amma! this is better than gongura!"

swapna wrote:

brie wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:Godwin's law went into effect even before the discussion started.

no.

tell me how?

your teacher, mrs sharma, was wrong when she told you, in sixth grade, that every sentence that contains a "how" (or a what, which, where, when, or why) is a question, and therefore, should end with a question mark. but clearly, "tell me something" is not a question; it's a request, and it's wrong to end that sentence with a question mark.

northindian idiocy hatao! uttar gaaNDoo ka choothyapa hatao!! bimaru ignorance hatao!!!

brie wrote:

swapna wrote:

brie wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:Godwin's law went into effect even before the discussion started.

no.

tell me how?

your teacher, mrs sharma, was wrong when she told you, in sixth grade, that every sentence that contains a "how" (or a what, which, where, when, or why) is a question, and therefore, should end with a question mark. but clearly, "tell me something" is not a question; it's a request, and it's wrong to end that sentence with a question mark.

northindian idiocy hatao! uttar gaaNDoo ka choothyapa hatao!! bimaru ignorance hatao!!!

you are wrong and a dolt. 

write 100 times...

tell me how?
tell me how?
tell me how?
tell me how?
.
.
.

swapna wrote:

brie wrote:

swapna wrote:

brie wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:Godwin's law went into effect even before the discussion started.

no.

tell me how?

your teacher, mrs sharma, was wrong when she told you, in sixth grade, that every sentence that contains a "how" (or a what, which, where, when, or why) is a question, and therefore, should end with a question mark. but clearly, "tell me something" is not a question; it's a request, and it's wrong to end that sentence with a question mark.

northindian idiocy hatao! uttar gaaNDoo ka choothyapa hatao!! bimaru ignorance hatao!!!

you are wrong and a dolt. 

write 100 times...

tell me how?
tell me how?
tell me how?
tell me how?
.
.
.

this last post of yours only proves that you have a keyboard, but not that you have a functioning mind.

on writing something 100 times, you may feel a little better about yourself if you exercise an iota of originality.

brie wrote:

swapna wrote:

brie wrote:

swapna wrote:

brie wrote:
no.

tell me how?

your teacher, mrs sharma, was wrong when she told you, in sixth grade, that every sentence that contains a "how" (or a what, which, where, when, or why) is a question, and therefore, should end with a question mark. but clearly, "tell me something" is not a question; it's a request, and it's wrong to end that sentence with a question mark.

northindian idiocy hatao! uttar gaaNDoo ka choothyapa hatao!! bimaru ignorance hatao!!!

you are wrong and a dolt. 

write 100 times...

tell me how?
tell me how?
tell me how?
tell me how?
.
.
.

this last post of yours only proves that you have a keyboard, but not that you have a functioning mind.

on writing something 100 times, you may feel a little better about yourself if you exercise an iota of originality.

ok. but you are still wrong and (ha ha, excuse me, ha ha ha) still a DOLT.