Comments on: A Pre-Emptive Defence of an Idea of India

By: Jyotirmoy Chaudhuri

Jyotirmoy Chaudhuri — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 09:08:51 +0000

Gautam thanks: makes sense: There are other kinds of surveillance: eyes on the streets, relations of trust between communities, feelings of city and national solidarity across difference. This kind is a mutual surveillance, not an act of power but of reciprocity.

By: “Mindless,” “Muslims” « Kafila

“Mindless,” “Muslims” « Kafila — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 12:33:48 +0000

[...] These words of Gautam Bhan should be inscribed in gold: Let us look at arms trades, transnational networks of terror, but at actions and actors, not people, nations and communities; through active investigation based on real evidence, not discursive battles that target identities, faiths and belief systems. [Spot on!] [...]

By: Sunny Joseph

Sunny Joseph — Sat, 29 Nov 2008 05:46:03 +0000

… but I agree with this part of your analysis: “Let us look at arms trades, transnational networks of terror, but at actions and actors, not people, nations and communities; through active investigation based on real evidence, not discursive battles that target identities, faiths and belief systems.”

By: More Reactions at Blogbharti

More Reactions at Blogbharti — Sat, 29 Nov 2008 05:22:28 +0000

[...] Kafila, Gautam Bhan urges us to expand our view of ‘the idea of India’: Analysts have called the strikes on hotels and state [...]

By: Sunny Joseph

Sunny Joseph — Sat, 29 Nov 2008 05:17:57 +0000

I’m not an apologist for the right wing, so you don’t need to look for any agenda behind my comments here. Many civil rights groups disapproved of the British Government’s decision to compile biometric data during visa applications. It’s nothing, in fact, it is just a five-minute procedure, but civil rights groups made it look like harassment. But the procedure seems to be working — Britain has not had a single attack after the last series of blasts.
Similarly, when they decided to install CCTV cameras all over the place, there were plenty of protests by people who assumed it infringed on their civil rights. CCTV surveillance cannot prevent an attack, but it helps establish patterns and is crucial evidence.

Why do you assume tighter laws necessarily mean the crackdown on peaceful civilians (Hindu/ Muslim)? Why do you bring religion into the picture? Why do you tie the government’s hands even before it has contemplated action? The government is lax as it is. Its human rights record is terrible, but what you should be talking about is harder steps without impinging on human rights.

I’m willing to forego some of my civil liberties if it means better security. I don’t mind being checked at airports or shopping malls or theatres. These are essential procedures in this world. Please remember that the only visuals we have of the terrorists is through the CCTV at CST.