Sunday, February 27, 2011

Krishna Iyer makes an argument to free Binayak Sen cogently!

For a change Krishna Iyer makes an argument which has a reasonable amount of logic and sanity. Is it because he wrote it cogently or the editors @ cHindu used their tools for a change?
Anyways its a good read check it out.
Philanthropy is not fascism and public commitment critical of the state administration should not be confused with a traitor operation. I therefore view Dr. Sen as eligible for tribute, not to be condemned for sedition. Was Gandhiji or other critics of the state that hardly cared to wipe the tears of the poor, guilty of sedition? There is often grave confusion between criticism of a government demanding its overthrow — not by violence but by positive service and commitment to the people. Operation patriotism is not sedition.


CodeNameV said...

Well the Grand Old Man of Indian Judiciary is back and how!

I agree that the piece has logic etc. But what I find most disturbing is that this same logic was not shown by him or his fans in case of Sadhvi! A vehicle on her name which she sold off 3 years earlier to the incident is the most important evidence placed by agencies to call her terrorist. I would like to know from Krishna Iyer, why he didnt use similar tone and logic in case of Sadhvi.

Or may be he did and The Hindu didnt find it good enough for publication. We will never know!

froginthewell said...

I am puzzled - isn't "Philanthropy is not fascism" etc. strawman? That wasn't why Binayak Sen was arrested at all.

cbcnn_Pilid said...

Krishna Iyer talks about clemency and pardon highlighting his service to the people. However, if he is actually a Maoist, I doubt that this ought to be a ground for much sympathy at all. Many movements attempt to generate support for their cause through charitable and philanthropic activities but the fact remains that this aspect is unmistakably associated with their darker side. The LeT, for example, employs several thousands of people and runs schools and hospitals. In fact, I would argue that this so-called service is what makes these organizations doubly dangerous. Most of such organizations do not maintain any firewalls segregating social and financial from terrorist operations. In fact, it was precisely this logic that (among other things) was cited by the US Supreme Court in a recent case.