Where do you draw the line?
Today I saw a video that someone posted on Twitter. It was a program on NDTV in which a guest was quoting Gurmehar Kaur. On Twitter or somewhere, Gurmehar Kaur had said that she supported the assassination of the Russian ambassador by the Turkish security guard.
The anchor, Nidhi Razdan, nodded her head in an all- knowing manner and said, “So? She has a political point of view.”
When it comes to having a “political opinion” where do we draw the line? Does it mean, just because we have a “political opinion” we can support assassinations, suicide bomber attacks and carnages?
Being a Sikh I highly resented the fact that the Indian government under the misgovernment of Indira Gandhi badly damaged the Golden Temple to rid the place of terrorists who had taken refuge there?
The worst part was that the terrorists could have been flushed out without damaging the centuries-old structure and without martyring so many of our soldiers. But doesn't it make me anti-social, a criminal, or even a terrorist in disguise, if I publicly declare that Beant Singh and Satwant Singh did the right thing?
If I find such assassinations acceptable as a political opinion, why shouldn't someone be able to call my murder some day a political expression? Then why can't all the calls for violence be termed as political opinion? If you find violence acceptable, why do you expect a civilian government to be civil with you? Then why shouldn't persecuting you be a political stand?
Here is the tweet containing the controversial statement by Nidhi Razdan.
|