HD: This was a terribly wrong thing to have happened and I’m glad it’s been handled so well by the Supreme Court Collegium. The flagging, at first sight, seems to be a benign remark by the IB. On a second look, however, it reveals something sinister about the recent much-written trend on the subject of ‘freedom of speech’. It’s a telling sign of what things are coming to and where this country is going.
Firstly, I don’t believe that the senior could have ever written anything that would be even in the realm of something against the country or would be anti-national. I don’t think he is capable of doing that or would ever do that. His article, I believe, was on the subject of freedom of speech.
Secondly, one fails to understand how criticizing either a politician or a government policy is anti-national or a threat to the country. Neither of these is or can be considered to be the ‘country’. Politicians and governments are being criticized every single day. That is not a big deal. I can understand if the criticism was mala fide and towards the President of India, but since when do politicians and governments become the country itself?
Also, since when have juniors become their seniors themselves? On a more important issue, it would be interesting to know how and why the IB felt the need to red-flag this and what compelled the IB to red-flag something like this. In fact, this episode does actually raise several red flags, but pointing in just the opposite direction. The boot is on the other foot. This episode was most upsetting.
I will, however, hasten to add that this is what we as a people have given ourselves, so we cannot complain. The less said the better.
Source: Barandbench
