Jai, that can be tested only in courts, usually by the losing party. Until then frenzy for power is a good thing. And it only works as long as the judiciary is neutral. So any dictator’s first target is the judiciary, before opposition candidates, like, say during Indira’s days right before emergency or the current Gen. Mush’s emergency.

What is ironical in all this is that these mullah forces, who now challenge the commies, have been fed and sustained by the commies themselves over decades in their consolidation of power over Bengal.

{quote} ……and to remember that, in the past, those who foolishly sought power by riding the back of the tiger ended up inside. {unquote}

- John F. Kennedy.

You wrote:
Secs. 295-298 of the IPC should be re-examined, and if found violating free speech rights, must be rendered unconstitutional.

I guess the legislative route is out of the question. But can it be challenged in the judiciary? I don’t know…perhaps someone could throw some light on this.

Lajja was just was the last straw for the bangla mullahs as Nasreen broke the code of silence that prevails in bangladesh regarding the relentless hindu minority persecutions there over decades.

link 1, link 2

All this talk about Nasreen insulting the islamic prophet is bullshit. Nasreen is a target because she broke the code and refused to follow the script.

What is instructive is the near total solidarity of these muslims, residents of India mind you, with the bangla mullahs. There is something for us all, that is the kafirs, to learn from here.

Thanks.

*Mere* frenzy for power (RF at #15) ~= frenzy for power not constrained by constitutional limits (Chandra at #16).

My unfortunate ability to spot non-differences usually earns me no friends but is a public service . Agree with RC that ‘infighting’ is a normal thing to have and diktats from a High Command is undemocratic. Am not sure RF has anywhere sounded very different, or even commented on it.

regards,
Jai

>> … Only way to make democracy work is frenzy for power within the limits of constitution. Frenzy for power within a party, frenzy for power among parties, frenzy for power between executive and legislature (with Judiciary being neutral protector of constitution). Without frenzy for power (and in India’s case swiss bank accounts, as a bonus, for most) what is left in a democracy? And why would anyone want to perpetuate the system? >>

Clap Clap !!

This is exactly why the much reported “infighting” within the BJP is actually healthy and the “undisputed leadership” of the Congress is not.

We really do have it backwards.

Why shouldn’t Congress and Communists be made to be “embarrassed” on this issue? You don’t believe that it was ok for the CPIM to make a scapegoat of Taslima for its crimes in Nandigram, do you?

This is the second time I heard such comment recently. I think you have it backwards. Only way to make democracy work is frenzy for power within the limits of constitution. Frenzy for power within a party, frenzy for power among parties, frenzy for power between executive and legislature (with Judiciary being neutral protector of constitution). Without frenzy for power (and in India’s case swiss bank accounts, as a bonus, for most) what is left in a democracy? And why would anyone want to perpetuate the system?

Democracy is not some noble activity that needs to put on high pedestal (or horse). It’s all about the rough and tumble nature of things (and humans). Of all systems, only democracy allows ‘all’ people to get in a frenzy for power – reason why, someone said (Churchill, was it?), it’s the least bad system. Inherently most Indians understand this frenzy for power and swear by democracy while cursing it in the same breath.

It is, however, extremely difficult to arrest this race, and impossible to roll it back, within the current system. Time to mount a sustained campaign against India’s professed neutral secularism in favor of strict separation of the state and religion. Secs. 295-298 of the IPC should be re-examined, and if found violating free speech rights, must be rendered unconstitutional.

I see competitive intolerance as an arms race: There are liberal and intolerant factions and individuals within every party, but the corporate output of the political party caves in to intolerance. The mere existence of liberal individuals and factions does not guarantee a liberal outcome, and conversely the existence of intolerant individuals and factions need not lead to an intolerant outcome. Disincentives for intolerance need to be found within the current system. That’s why Taslima as a precedent is important.

So I wouldn’t think high or low horse. I’d just think arms race and how it might be arrested.

Huh? And what does this have to do with anything? Would your private armies take up to streets, if, say, atheists are banned from India?

High-horse or not, BJP has every right to take it’s stand. Welcome to the land of politics. In fact, one has to be really dumb to compare BJP actions with UPA actions when it comes appeasement policies of the day. Without BJP’s action, when it was government, Rushdie would still be banned from visiting India. That’s what competitive politics is all about. It’s about correcting excesses of other political entities. To say that someone has to be consistently on a high-horse is bogus. There is a reason why most people hate politics, but it’s the only way to make democracy work without violence on streets every day and tyranny, however well intended and consistent.

… What is that vested interest [of BJP]?

The BJP cannot claim to be on the high-horse here. It’s position on Taslima is a cynical attempt to embarrass the Congress and its communist allies, that’s all. Wasn’t this the same party that hounded out Deepa Mehta and her production crew for The Water (imho, a much hyped film that cannot hold a candle to Nagesh Kukanoor’s Dor on a similar subject)? Why did the Vajpayee Government not lift the ban on the Satanic Verses, when it was in power? The party and its’ private armies bristled and took to the streets, when their beloved Ram’s existence was questioned, did they not? And, the fellow who questioned Ram’s existence and character, of course, would not hesitate burn down Chennai, if any resident dared to cast aspersions on his idol, Kannagi. Sectarianism, I am afraid, is the time-honored refuge of Indian politicians, regardless of their party affiliations.