.jpg)
These days it is fashionable to talk about and debate over freedom of speech, with the release of PK, accessibility of AIB knockout on youtube, screening of Messenger of God or the banning of the documentary on the Nirbhaya Case, India's Daughter.
Today I was reading up on a debate between the distinction between Morality and Law which really started with questioning morally bad laws such as genocide during World War II during the Nazi regime. Nazi Regime was between 1930s to 1940s where a bunch of people allowed or joined hands to murder the Jews. So obviously there was something really wrong in the mindset of people then. Among theorists writing in 1950s and 1960s there was basic understanding of the fact that what happened in history in Nazi Germany was morally repugnant globally. In the 1970s and 1980s in America, when a serial killer like Ted Bundy was accounted for his crimes where he raped and murder, there was general dislike and hatred for Bundy in America, as it would be for any such criminal, one is likely to think. I am talking about Bundy because he was interviewed prior to his execution and he did seem to be remorseful for his acts. He admitted what he did was wrong and condemned pornography. And raping and killing and watching pornography was considered wrong.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vlk_sRU49TI
But we are living in 2010s where a rapist, one among a gang of brutal murderers, goes on camera and blames his victim for his crimes.
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-31698154
And our government has a problem with allowing such documentary to be viewed. And why? During Nazi regime, secret laws were passed and for a very long time the murders happened in secrecy. However, post the war the German government did not try to hide that something really wrong happened. We are not living in a state of war. But should that mean that we have the liberty to hide the demons that live within our land? Are we hiding the demons because, most Indian men, relate with the rapist and very few have the guts to voice it out loud. Javed Akhtar did. Is he less of a man or a patriot? Or does what he say not matter because he is a Muslim?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRqIHNpkdyY
It was surprising for me to read about condemnation of not what was said in the interview but because of condemnation for the documentary being made, for the TV channels which debated for the release of the film and the production house. The most absurd argument was that it makes India look bad and to release such a documentary on International Women Day is itself a political plot against India by this British network. Why are they not targeting an Arab state? (The implication being that India was being targeted because it is a Hindu nation).
I am sharing some of the post in which I debated here. These discussions were not started by me although these contain some of my intellectual property. In order to hide the identity of the other participants of the debate, both opponents and supporters, from whom I do not have permission to post yet, for I have not asked them, I have tampered with the posts. Or lets just say the names mentioned or hidden here do not refer to any person dead or alive. However, these views other than my own do represent a thought which might be prevalent among many others.
Had such statements been made by some random politician, my blood won't have boiled so much. What upset me was that these views were vehemently expressed by a woman, a peer from Philosophy and a friend and classmate from school.
The thread was initiated by someone who has lived in Delhi, got educated in a convent, went to one of the best colleges in South Delhi, got an education abroad. In fact this made me think about the actual state of affairs and the real problem our country is facing today. That we are not conscientious or are indifferent are not words which leaders and media persons say to get into the TV frame. It is actually a very pathetic reality. It is the reason why crime happens. Why crime will continue to occur, repeatedly and perhaps with even more brutality if something is not done.
Today I was reading up on a debate between the distinction between Morality and Law which really started with questioning morally bad laws such as genocide during World War II during the Nazi regime. Nazi Regime was between 1930s to 1940s where a bunch of people allowed or joined hands to murder the Jews. So obviously there was something really wrong in the mindset of people then. Among theorists writing in 1950s and 1960s there was basic understanding of the fact that what happened in history in Nazi Germany was morally repugnant globally. In the 1970s and 1980s in America, when a serial killer like Ted Bundy was accounted for his crimes where he raped and murder, there was general dislike and hatred for Bundy in America, as it would be for any such criminal, one is likely to think. I am talking about Bundy because he was interviewed prior to his execution and he did seem to be remorseful for his acts. He admitted what he did was wrong and condemned pornography. And raping and killing and watching pornography was considered wrong.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vlk_sRU49TI
But we are living in 2010s where a rapist, one among a gang of brutal murderers, goes on camera and blames his victim for his crimes.
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-31698154
And our government has a problem with allowing such documentary to be viewed. And why? During Nazi regime, secret laws were passed and for a very long time the murders happened in secrecy. However, post the war the German government did not try to hide that something really wrong happened. We are not living in a state of war. But should that mean that we have the liberty to hide the demons that live within our land? Are we hiding the demons because, most Indian men, relate with the rapist and very few have the guts to voice it out loud. Javed Akhtar did. Is he less of a man or a patriot? Or does what he say not matter because he is a Muslim?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRqIHNpkdyY
It was surprising for me to read about condemnation of not what was said in the interview but because of condemnation for the documentary being made, for the TV channels which debated for the release of the film and the production house. The most absurd argument was that it makes India look bad and to release such a documentary on International Women Day is itself a political plot against India by this British network. Why are they not targeting an Arab state? (The implication being that India was being targeted because it is a Hindu nation).
I am sharing some of the post in which I debated here. These discussions were not started by me although these contain some of my intellectual property. In order to hide the identity of the other participants of the debate, both opponents and supporters, from whom I do not have permission to post yet, for I have not asked them, I have tampered with the posts. Or lets just say the names mentioned or hidden here do not refer to any person dead or alive. However, these views other than my own do represent a thought which might be prevalent among many others.
Had such statements been made by some random politician, my blood won't have boiled so much. What upset me was that these views were vehemently expressed by a woman, a peer from Philosophy and a friend and classmate from school.
