Ramjas, Umar Khalid & “Free Speech”

Ramjas College proposed a seminar “Culture of Protest.”

It invited Umar Khalid who had, in 2016, intended to hold a programme on Afzal Guru in JNU. Guru was Kashmiri separatist who was convicted for the 2001 attack on the Parliament of India. Umar Khalid later the same year praised Burhan Wani, the Hizbul Mujahideen commander who was killed by Indian security forces saying, “Burhan wasn’t scared of death, he was scared of a life lived in subjugation. He detested it. He lived a free man, died a free man …..”.

Khalid was to speak on the people of Chattisgarh whom he described as “the most oppressed people in the country”.

Chattisgarh, part of the Red Corridor, is affected by Naxalite-Maoist insurgency and has been described as the epicentre of the conflict. Khalid’s interest in it is therefore not surprising. In April 2010 the Maoists killed 76 CRPF policemen in one of the most vicious attacks on Indian security forces in Dantewada district of the state. In May 2013 they attacked a convoy of the leaders of the Congress in the Sukma district of Chattisgarh killing 27 people including a former central minister, a state minister and the Chattisgarh Congress chief. The problem festers it being said that the long term goal is to establish a Marxist state in India. And Pakistan’s ISI is allying with the Maoists to destabilise India from within.

Notice the convergence of the Khalid’s comments on Burhan with his empathy for the “oppressed people” of Chattisgarh.

One Debraj Mookerjee writing in the Indian Express admitted that Khalid may not have talked about Bastar alone though that was the subject of his Phd work. Mookerjee said there was a possibility of Khalid making “politically contentious” points while speaking of Bastar but Khalid has the right to his views. And “protest” being nothing but the expression of disapproval or dissent is sanctified by the right to free speech.

The unstated major text of this view, however, is that terrorists can be rhapsodised, insurgents  can be glorified, and carnage in and subversion of the country can be celebrated under the honorific title “Culture of Protest” with the aid of “free speech”. In other words the protagonists of this view, like the teachers of Ramjas, believe that it is indeed a laudable exercise for students to “think critically” whether India should remain undivided or should there be a secession at the bidding of separatists or division at the instance of guerrilla armies because the integrity of India is not an incontestable fact and such differences of opinions need to be protected.

If this is the real agenda why then hide insidiously behind seemingly innocent topics of discussion like “Culture of Protest”? Is honesty in discourse less important a value than freedom? Or is speech to be seen only in its contest with violence? The motivation behind claims to free speech must be transparent if the contest of ideas has to be real.

Protest is first induced surreptitiously and then a direct attack is launched at the protest itself on the ground that the protest is unjustified! The chaos which was actually intended is then presented as a misbegotten reaction to something which could not reasonably be anticipated. And with guileful disingenuity the provocateur is eventually presented as the victim.

Let us not fetishise free speech. The unquestioned reverence to speech can only be conceded when it is justified in the context of its critique. Truth may not be fixed but the integrity of India is. And that will not be subject to inquest, review or scrutiny.

Salman Khan & Pakistani artistes…

“Ideal situation should have been of peace. But now reaction to an action has happened. It was a proper action because they were terrorists. But in this day and age I think if we lived in peace and harmony it would have been better for everyone especially for the common people.” Thus spoke Salman Khan protesting banning of Pakistani artistes.

For Salman Khan the Uri attack and killing of 19 Indians was merely “an action” – a physical fact to which one can be indifferent and which can carry not attribute of right or wrong!  This is a flawed premise which cannot but doom the conclusion which follows.

India, according to him, did not respond (that is did not act in a thoughtful or reasoned manner) but “reacted” that is acted thoughtlessly and impulsively to the action which brings both countries at par with nothing to distinguish between them. India responded not reacted as it moved mindfully against specified targets to prevent infiltration into the country which Pakistan has no right to permit.

I presume what he called “proper action” actually implied “proper reaction” unless he feels that terrorist infiltration into India is proper with which point of view I cannot have a reasoned discourse. If however the reaction was “proper” then he cannot simultaneously rue the want of “peace and harmony” because a proper reaction is a restore a disturbed equilibrium and impose restraint to curb injuries of excess.

Peace and harmony can be an end in itself only if the intention is shared. It is always the preferred state of existence but in an interactive environment that goal can be achieved only when actions are conducive towards that end. The Pakistani track-record (to which Salman Khan does not allude) needs to take the blame for want of peace and harmony. Pakistan has to be condemned for Pakistani artistes losing work in India. Have any of the Pakistani artistes spoken? If they are not affected whose case is Salman Khan espousing?

Pakistani artistes may not be terrorists but who amongst them have called the terrorists terrorists? And will these artistes not endorse the official Pakistani line both on Kashmir and terrorism on which Pakistan justifies the repeated disturbances in India? How can Pakistan be defeated unless the mindset which drives Pakistan be vanquished? And how can that mindset be vanquished without quelling those who endorse it overtly or covertly? This is not a question of mere politics but survival of India as India and art cannot be the Trojan Horse for India’s defeat in its battle for existence. India wants its position to be accepted as that acceptance gives India the justification to resist Pakistan. If we host those who are not aligned with India’s interests how can we isolate those hostile to it and prove the seriousness of our intent to do it?

Salman Khan may feel sorry for Pakistani artistes friends. But he should also wonder whether his friends feel sorry India.