4 ms·
India has a very complicated relationship with censorship that's compounded by underlying communal and religious tension. It looks idiotic when you hear about p
by sudhirj 13y ago
India has a very complicated relationship with censorship that's compounded by underlying communal and religious tension. It looks idiotic when you hear about people being arrested for tweets and likes, but what gets lost is the fundamentalist barbarianism that underlies it: the grim truth that people might die otherwise. That unemployed youth will take to the streets and violently protest at every imagined slight to their <insert religious ideal / figurehead / motto / policy here >. That leaders will tacitly encourage the violence and terrorism that their own minions commit.
We don't care too much about privacy rights yet because we haven't got that far on whatever pyramid diagram of priorities you'd judge by. A majority of the population lives in poverty, is hungry and thirsty, does not have access to non-toxic food and water. The urban population is still very concerned with making ends meet, putting their kids through college and hoping that their dreams will be fulfilled through the lives of their offspring.
Those with money, influence and clout don't care. They can either simply buy their way out of this kind of monitoring or laugh at it over dinner.
Besides, we really don't have the capability to pull this off well enough to be a danger to anyone.
- npalli 13y agoVery true. I remember last year around this time, there was mass chaos in Bangalore due to some twitter images being sent around. Tens of thousands of people had to leave the city because of threats. All because rumors began to spread about some attacks. I would think most ordinary people would support censorship in such cases. http://zeenews.india.com/news/nation/over-30-000-north-east-people-flee-bangalore_794366.html http://zeenews.india.com/news/nation/over-30-000-north-east-...
- eshvk 13y agoThe sad thing of course is that even when your country solves the lowest requirements on Maslow's pyramid, it will have lost a lot of learning as a society that needs to happen. Learning on how to accept that democracy comes with free speech, a requirement for privacy etc. These are not just matters of mere legislation but something a society should cherish and aggressively protect against the depredations of politicians.
- revelation 13y agoCountries have never morphed from oppressive regimes into democratic wonderlands without violent overthrows in between. The idea that you would oppress now while you are poor so you can be free later on is bizarre.
- purplelobster 13y agoThere have been instances of relatively peaceful transitions. Sweden comes to mind only because I'm Swedish, but I'm sure there are plenty others. One could argue the level of oppressiveness beforehand though, maybe exteremely oppressive regimes require great violence to change.
- quanticle 13y agoWhat about South Korea?
- throwawaykf02 13y agoFact is, in India, the poor are already oppressed, just nobody realizes it. They have no real rights, they have no food and they have no prospects. The only thing they have is votes, which are a sham, because they are given away willingly to the politician that makes the most encouraging promises, which, of course, are never fulfilled. However, when your constant concern is "where's our next meal coming from", keeping track of empty promises is probably pretty low on your list of priorities. So, the real choice is being oppressed and desperately poor... or being oppressed and making progress. I personally believe democracy is not suited to India at the moment because (or so it seems to me at least) politicians spend all their efforts in fighting amongst themselves to stay in power (and on the side, siphoning away money for themselves), while no real progress ever happens. The rich get richer, the middle class continues along in blissful ignorance, and the poor get poorer. On the other hand, in China (or so, again, it seems to me) politicians do engage in corruption for selfish reasons, but the rest of the time they are focused on bringing their country ahead, and I believe that's in a big part because they don't have to worry about staying in power. I, for one, would welcome an "oppressive" regime if it meant progress. Oppression is not a good thing, but when your alternative is half a billion people starving every night, I don't think it's all that bad.
- shubhamjain 13y agoAlso the fact that a major part of population may even support such program in midst of terror attacks that happen now and then. For most people, any such tactic will be seen as improving their security, not invading their privacy.
- karangoeluw 13y agoMy 2 cents: Indians want change, but they are not ready to fight for it! They think 1 person (a good PM) can bring that change, which is more than just wrong and stupid.
- general_failure 13y agoDo you know why Obama came into power?
- karangoeluw 13y agoWhatever. He did apparently kill Osama within 10 years of 9/11. Indian government is still unable to even locate Dawood Ibrahim after 2 decades of terror and mafia attacks.