Some of the issues that are giving rise to serious debate and unrest in the country today have assumed the present day dimensions due obviously to the lack of governance or permissive governance during the 10 year UPAI/II regime. For example, it is being pointed out by JNU students that anniversary of Afzal Guru’s hanging and the burning of Manu Smriti were regular events during the previous few years. Similarly, the painting of JNU walls with sectarian slogans like ‘Jai Bhim’ was also the done thing. Again, it has been pointed out by some that although a ban on cow slaughter was in force during UPA regime, its defiance did not lead to the kind of fall-out it does now. In other words, the law was not enforced.
Such instances go to show that the UPA Government did not wish to antagonize some sections of the populace even if they indulged in activities prejudicial to the country’s integrity or law and order, unmindful of the long-term consequences.
It has been suspected by some agencies and responsible personages for quite some time now that some subversive forces interested in breaking up India are moblising resources and cultivating people in opinion building institutions and organs like universities, media etc. to achieve their nefarious ends. What happened in JNU on the 9th of February, was a mild demonstration of the fact that the efforts of the subversive forces were being rewarded and it was time they were checked. Viewed from this angle, the change in Government at the Centre in 2014 has occurred none too soon.
Dalits were no better of during the UPA regime than they are now.In fact the present regime is showing a greater degree of concern for their uplift. However, every effort is made to make the present regime look anti-Dalit as Dalits are a sizable vote bank. Thus even though the events leading to the suicide of the Hyderabad University student Rohith were traceable to the protest against the hanging of another terrorist Yakub Menon organised in that University under the leadership of Rohith, the action taken by the University against Rohith was fast dubbed as an anti-Dalit measure making it a case of a Dalit being persecuted to commit suicide.
The mainstream Congress party is so blinded by its hatred for BJP that it rushed to support the actions of the students both in Hyderabad and JNU overlooking the anti-national aspects of their activities and the threat posed to the country’s integrity. The attitude of some other smaller opposition parties is also driven by their hatred for BJP.
Regardless of the recent (apparently motivated) campaign against intolerance and lack of freedom of speech by a section of the intellectuals, the fact remains, as affirmed by several respectable foreign commentators, that there is too much tolerance and freedom of speech in India. This is demonstrated, for example, by the actions of some students of various institutions. The students of FTII did not accept the Chairman of that Institution appointed by the Government and went on a prolonged strike. The students of JNU defied the restriction on organizing the event of February 9, then refused to accept the committee of inquiry unless constituted as per their choice, refused to respond to show cause notices, refused to accept the University’s Registrar. The students of Hyderabad university are refusing to accept the University’s Vice Chancellor. This is nothing short of a situation of anarchy and can perhaps happen only in India.
The complaint that fringe elements of the ruling BJP are resorting to illegal actions, including murders even on rumors of beef slaughter appear to be genuine. The BJP had better rein in its followers on pain of strict action to avoid heavy electoral costs. The Hindus of this country, who are the bulwark of BJP are secular in nature and are likely to recoil from supporting such actions. The party men must first resort to legal actions against defiance of law.
The highly anti-national slogans raised in JNU on 9th February are being sought to be provided the veneer of freedom of speech by some anti-regime intellectuals. I, for one think, that such unrestricted freedom of speech is simply impermissible.Whatever Voltaire may have said about this, it cannot be denied that speech is likely to be followed by action and dangerous speech can lead to dangerous action.