Shehla Rashid Shora: Hate Speech

What is hate speech? What hate speech is not.

A few years ago, a prominent (upper-caste Hindu woman) journalist tweeted: "Ram was an asshole", referring to Lord Ram's treatment of Sita, of having suspected her chastity, etc. Immediately, she was castigated, endlessly abused by right-wing Hindutvawadi trolls, branded as a whore of Pakistanis, issued rape threats, etc. They said she engaged in hate speech. She might have hurt sentiments of Ram's supporters, sure, but it was not "hate speech", in the strict sense of the term. All progressives stood by the journalist unflinchingly, upholding her right to offend.

Obviously, the trolls would not appreciate that what THEY were engaging in was actual hate speech against a living woman (not against a dead religious figure). We know that hate speech against women or sexual minorities is never recognised as hate speech at all, and is totally justified as a punishment for hurting "religious sentiments" --- because, religious sentiments are the only "sentiments" that exist; women, sexual minorities, transgenders, disabled, etc. do not have sentiments and can be abused at will!!

Now, did she really engage in hate speech against Hindus?
I have a few thoughts and a limited point to make about this- limited, because I'm not giving away my dissertation topic in this post itself! Contrary to what Bhakts say, I do study :D

1) Hateful speech is not necessarily hate speech. There's a distinction. Example:

"I hate Modi." --- it can be termed as hateful, but it does not technically qualify as hate speech, because there is no imminent threat of violence.

"I hate Modi, therefore Modi should be beheaded/killed for a reward." --- in front of an audience of 10,000 who are holding swords outside Modi's house --- qualifies as hate speech.

2) Hatred for a certain religious figure is not necessarily hate speech. It can be blasphemy, but not necessarily hate speech, unless said in a context where imminent violence based on the statement is a real possibility. Example:

"Ram was an asshole." ≠ hate speech.
"Mohammed was a pedophile." ≠ hate speech.

"Mohammed was a rapist, so all Muslims are rapist." = hate speech. [incitement to discrimination]

"Is katuey ko hamare hawale kardo; isko subah tak gayab kar dete hain.", said by those who assaulted Najeeb, in presence of a crazed mob of over 40 ABVP goons = hate speech.

"Gay people should be killed, because a book says so." = hate speech.

"Kashmiris are pigs and should be bombed en masse." = hate speech.

"All Hindus living in Lahore should be killed." = hate speech. [incitement to violence in a context where violence based on the statement is imminent]

"Muslims living in India are haramzade." = hate speech. [incitement to discrimination in a context where discrimination based on the statement is imminent, and already present]

"This Muslim bitch should be raped." = hate speech [incitement to violence in a society where majority of the women women are in real danger of being raped, & Muslim women are likely to be raped during a riot-like situation.]

3) Can historical figures who lived in the past be evaluated in terms of principles that we cherish today? Now, my position on the subject is YES. We must be free to evaluate how colonialists, conquerors, religious figures, reformers like Marx, Bhagat Singh, Vivekananda and Ambedkar, did on certain counts. If we are free to praise, we must also be free to criticise. We should be able to evaluate Akbar's secularism as well as his feudalism, just as we can evaluate Hitler or Curzon or Churchill. We must be able to evaluate the imaginative skill of an emperor just as freely as we are free to condemn how he chopped off the hands of his workers.

However, if your position on No. 3) is NO, then please stick to it in a consistent manner. But don't switch sides based on convenience. If we are free to ask savarna feminists to criticise the Hindu religion and caste system and Hindu religious figures, we can also ask "Islamic" feminists to criticise Muslim history and ideology in the same manner. Either none or both. Be consistent.

4) The question of "respect" -- We should generally practise respect and restraint and not say extreme things, that's my normative position on the subject! However, you cannot demand respect for your religion, while conveniently disrespecting other religions/religious ideologies. It's just sheer hypocrisy. If you demand respect for your religion, then please also stand by women who are abused by followers of your religion.

More than gods, people deserve "respect".
Gods can protect themselves, but people, women, authors/artists, critics of religion, are defenseless in the face of hate speech and have to face actual violence (which gods do not have to face).

If you think MF Hussain should not have been hounded out of the country, then please also stand by Taslima Nasreen and Salman Rushdie.

If you believe that the journalist (mentioned at the beginning of the post) was right in saying "Ram was an asshole", then please also respect the right of others to suggest that Mohammed was feudal, etc. or whatever.

Don't hide your religious superiority complex or bigotry in the guise of third-wave feminism. I do understand how Muslims are a minority and Hindus are a majority, and the respective power equations between the two communities. However, do not use this to simply outlaw discussions of patriarchy in Islam. It doesn't help. Because if you understand "power" and "hierarchy", then please also understand that it exists in its starkest form between men and women.

We oppose Modi, not because we are Muslims, but because we are Marxist, Ambedkarite, feminist.

Those who shield the religious bigots in the name of being progressive, please don't patronise us Muslims as being touchy and not capable of criticism or of handling criticism. We are quite capable of it.

In my humble opinion!

Parzania (Banned Movie)

https://youtu.be/dhO0C-pcWCA

Appropriation of Dr Bhim Rao Ambedkar

Let us talk about the 'appropriation' of Dr. Ambedkar!
Arundhati Roy wrote the introduction of Dr. Ambedkar's 'The Annihilation of Caste', published by Navayana in 2014. It caused outrage in some Ambedkerites, who argued that Arundhati Roy, being a non-Dalit, has no right to write the introduction of the AoC and that it is nothing but 'appropriation' and 'colonization' of Ambedkar. We may agree, disagree, criticize or even rubbish the Arundhati Roy's introduction to the AoC, but arguing that she has no right to write about Ambedkar is symptomatic of the prevailing sectarianism among a section of Ambedkarites and goes against the very democratic principles for which Dr Ambedkar fought throughout his life.
For the mainstream political parties Dr Ambedkar was just a Dalit leader until very recently, whose only contribution was to help draft the Constitution of India. Every communist party in India rejected him as a petty bourgeois liberal. Possessed by an abstract and unhistorical idea of class struggle not knowing what it means in a society like India that was subjected to the colonial rule for more than two centuries, the communist parties of all hue miserably failed to understand that the fight for the annihilation of caste is very much internal to class struggle in Indian sub-continent .
Dr Ambedkar is now haunting the brhaminical ruling classes in India. The growing importance of Dr Ambedkar in contemporary Indian politics is mainly due to two reasons that of course are interrelated. First: post 1947, the ruling Congress party as well as the Left believed that the institution of caste was the remnants of our feudal past and that it would automatically wither away in post-colonial India under the weight of the forces of ‘modernization’ and ‘development’. The experience of the last seven decades has conclusively proved that it was an erroneously wishful thinking. On the contrary, the institution of caste has successfully Brahminized the ‘modernization’ and ‘development’ processes. Second: the majority of Dalits still lack dignified employment, access to health and education; they face daily violence and discrimination from the caste Hindus. The massive discontent among the Dalits and other oppressed castes has given rise to the powerful movement for social justice. In the last three decades, many Ambedkarite parties have come up in different parts of India making social justice as their main plank.
The ruling classes always try to appropriate the leaders and movements of the oppressed people. The appropriation takes place at different levels—the ruling classes, at times, accept some of the demands of the oppressed people, demands which don’t threatened the existing power structures; by consciously diluting the radical ideas and concept emerging out of movements; by giving privileges and power to those leaders of the oppressed people who clearly show the promise of not questioning the existing power relations etc.
The mainstream political parties in India are desperately trying to appropriate Dr Ambedkar. The RSS’ mouthpiece ‘Organiser’ brought out two special issues on Dr Ambedkar in last one year. The BJP government is organising a series of programme to celebrate the 125th anniversary of Dr Ambedkar.
In this context it is also important to talk about the appropriation of Dr Ambedkar by some so called Ambedkarite organizations and intellectuals, who in order to gain power and privileges in the existing brahminical system, consciously abandon Dr Ambedkar’s vision of the annihilation of caste. We see today a number of big Dalit leaders, from Ramvilas Paswan to Ramdas Athawale, Udit Raj to Jiten Ram Manjhi have joined hands with the RSS/BJP. They are just mute spectator in the face of growing violence against the Dalits.
In the fight for the emancipation of the oppressed people the question of representation is extremely important. However, if the fight for representation becomes an end in itself, it ends up reproducing the existing power structures. Barack Obama is the president of the US for the last eight years. However, the violence and discrimination against the racial minorities in the US have continued unabated.
Coming back to the appropriation of Dr. Ambedkar, let us agree for a moment that the Arundhati Roy’s introduction to the AoC is an act of appropriation of Dr. Ambedkar. But I am unable to make sense of the disproportionate expression of ‘hatred’ towards her for writing the introduction of the AoC. I don’t see such hatred towards the RSS/BJP, which is a pan Indian organization, for its attempt to appropriate Dr Ambedkar. Is Arundhati Roy more powerful than the RSS/BJP?

#URIATTACK_______shweta raj

Condemn the Terrorist Attack on # Uri Army Camp!
Govt Must Shun Jingoist Rhetoric and Ensure Actual Security for Army and Strategic Bases!
# AISA condemns in strongest terms the terrorist attack at Uri in Jammu and Kashmir that has claimed the lives of 17 Indian soldiers, and extends condolences to the families of the soldiers who have been killed.
The attacks at Pathankot and Uri underline that the Modi Government’s rhetoric on national security is in contrast to its failure to secure even the bases and camps of security forces. It has chosen to deploy armed forces to deal with civilian protests in Jammu and Kashmir, while leaving army camps vulnerable to terrorist attacks.
The Indian Government should not use the Uri attack to cover up its own inadequacies and failures to address and resolve the Kashmir situation in a democratic way and to secure military bases from terrorist attacks. Uri attack should not be used as another pretext for violence on Kashmiri civilians.
Instead of war-mongering rhetoric and attempts to justify the repression unleashed on Kashmiri people, what is urgently needed is securing army bases from infiltrators and terrorist attacks without undermining the efforts for democratic dialogue with all sections of Kashmiri people, towards a political solution of the Kashmir dispute.

जंग से किसी मसअले का हल नहीं होता, जंग तो ख़ुद में एक मसअला है !!

प्रिय मोदी जी
याद है
जब इस तरह की वारदातों पर मनमोहन सिंह चुप रह जाते थे, तो आप कहा करते थे कि डूब मरो !
आज निज़ाम बदला है, कुर्सी पर ख़ुद आप हैं और जनता आपसे सवाल कर रही है !
यही सच है कि देश की सबसे बडी कुर्सी पर बैठे हुए शख़्स की तमाम मजबूरियॉं होती हैं, दुनिया के तमाम मुल्कों का दबाव होता है !
ये दबाव पिछली सरकारों पर भी था !
लेकिन तब आपने बहोत मज़ाक उडाया था सरदार जी का !
वीर रस के कवियों ने तो कविता से ही पाकिस्तान फतेह कर दिया था !
चैनलों के पत्रकारों ने टी वी चैनल को जंग का मैदान बना दिया था
लेकिन आज जब ख़ुद जवाबदेही का वक्त आया है तो सिर्फ निंदा हो रही है !
मोदी जी और राजनाथ जी
बडबोलापन हमेशा आदमी को परेशान करता है, आज आपको परेशान कर रहा है !
अगर एक सर के बदले दस सर लाने का वादा आपने ना किया होता तो शायद आज आपसे इतने सवाल ना होते !
अगर आप लाहौर तलक घुस कर मारने की बातें ना किये होते भाषणों में तो आपका मज़ाक ना उडता !
जुमलों से सरकार बनाई तो जा सकती है
चलाई नहीं जा सकती !
अब भी आपसे गुज़ारिश है कि देश इस मुद्दे पर आपके साथ खडा है !
हम आपको जंग के लिये उकसा नहीं रहे हैं, क्यूँकि हमने हर रोज़ मुल्क में लहू देख रहे हैं, अब और नहीं देखना चाहते हैं !
बस ये है कि कुछ एैसा स्थायी हल निकाल दीजिये कि हमें अपने सैनिकों की लाशें ना देखनी पडें !

Terrorists came. Killed our 17 fearless soldiers___Ashish Singh

Terrorists came. Killed our 17 fearless soldiers.
What pains me more is Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar is more worried about next Goa Elections and is busy giving statements against Kejriwal and his throat surgery.
Horrible Home Minister Rajnath Singh, The official 'Kadi Ninda karte hai' Minister did kadi ninda as expected. He said 'we won't tolerate all these things....'
What did you do so that you don't tolerate this? Who'll take action against this? Why do you still behave as if you're still the opposition and not the Government?
Just watched a few pre-polls videos of Modi. He had said before elections, Wo humare Ek jawan marenge to hum 10 sar kat ke layenge. No, I didn't support your violent statement then, Nor will I request you to do that now. But Sir, Half of your tenure is over. Tumne abhi tak kya Ukhad liya? Forget about other promises to general public, What did you do to avoid cross border terrorism? WTF did you do?
You also said that Pakistan ko usi Ki bhasha me jawab dena chaiye. Kab denge? Kab tak logo ko aise bhashan dete dete Qutiya banaoge? Aur kab tak?
We are ashamed to have a coward PM like you. Where is all your Josh which you showed before elections? Ohohohoho kya achi achi baatein karte the. Bhakton ko Maza aa jata tha sun Ke.
Kyun? Congress Kaam Nahi karne deti Kya? Ya ab bhi opposition wali feeling aati hai?
Deshbhakti zabardasti Ki Bharat mata Ki Jai bolne se sidd Nahi hoti, Deshbhakti apne kamo se sidd hoti hai. Your former counter part Atal Bihari Vajpayee was brave enough to name Pakistan Govt for terrorist attacks in front of hundreds of countries in UNO meeting and You're just a coward who just speaks and does nothing. Stop fooling the country.
Sad day.
# UriAttack
via - Ashish Singhal

Is it me?? ____ ::Shams Kabir

IS IT JUST ME?
I was trying to look up the names of the 17 soldiers who died in the attack.
Cannot find any references. Help me there. Was going to try to personalise the loss. It seems I am alone. Lots of hoopla. Lots of statements. The army continues to suffer for equipment. For funds. For pay! For pension. No one will address their needs but they will grieve for them. Hell, you sent them to their deaths.
And yes. The debate will be about liberals. The hyper-nationalists will drone. You will notice all their reactions will be challenging. Challenging the liberals. The pacifists. Challenging the Kashmiris. The Muslims. So on.
Almost no thought to the personal losses sustained. No thought to the cavalier treatment of our army. Nothing.
As sorry as sorry can get.
# HelpTheArmy