The nation has been a hotbed of some grave political issues in the recent times. The violence in Ramjas College and the consequent row over Gurmehar Kaur’s comments on the same have left the political scenario in a mess. This mess is being spread around by various groups and organisations in order to satisfy their own propaganda. Amongst the innumerable debates, controversies, and hue and cry, the central topic of concern remains ignored. Irrespective of whether an individual knows about the complexities of the issue or not, he/she has an opinion about it. To top it off, all opinions are being twisted when represented, and facts are being thoroughly ignored.
Image courtesy : IndiazNews
As the topic suggests, we will talk about how Gurmehar Kaur is wrong, and how cautiously freedom of speech needs to be exercised. However, something that we must keep in mind is that it is not all that easy to colour the teams involved in this issue as black and white. Each side has a grey shade to it, but we must focus on logic.
Patriotism is a touchy topic in India. Half the people do not respect the nation’s forces as they should. Amongst the other half, we have a large chunk of people who use this term as a shield. And only the remaining minority of these understand the concept of logic with regards to political extremism. All three kinds of people have come into play in this situation.
As a 20 year old, Gurmehar Kaur has undergone a lot within a short period of time. No one can take away from her the suffering she has endured and the issues she is facing after her comments against ABVP. As a martyr’s daughter, she deserves empathy and respect. Her loss is inexplicable. Furthermore, it is crucial that we do not let her be a victim, for many political bodies are using her stance as a means of propagating their own agendas. Therefore it is important that she be talked about only as much as necessary, and not central to the whole issue. On similar lines, the rape and death threats that she has been receiving are highly uncalled for and such offenders need to be tackled effectively with immediate effect.
While all of the above holds strength, it is also necessary to understand that she is not ‘a poor thing’ who fails to understand the point she has raised. Simply for the sake of speaking or voicing an opinion, one cannot negate the larger picture and essential logic as such. Understanding the dynamics of one’s statements is significant, which Gurmehar seems to have not considered thoroughly. The first time she caught attention was when she claimed that it was War, and not Pakistan that killed her father. Here, she showed ignorance in understanding the depth of her own words. The Indo-Pak issue is not so simple that it may be shunned away under the philosophies of post- modernist theories. Furthermore, she is not the only child in India whose father was martyred at the hands of Pakistanis. There are thousands more who have undergone the same suffering and have their own views on the same; but we do not have each one of them holding a placard blaming war, fate, life, or gun machinery instead of the perpetrators (the Pakistani infiltrators) for the death of their fathers. Then why is it (or how is it) that she is the only one speaking up against this issue, that too in this light? There seems to be more to it than meets the eye. While the sentiment of voicing a martyr’s child’s opinion on peace is appreciated, the execution is unjustified.
Furthermore, she claims to be the daughter of a Kargil martyr. However recent findings state that she lost her father when a Rashtriya Rifles camp came under militant attack in Jammu and Kashmir in 1999. Six other soldiers also lost their lives trying to defend the camp. This does not take away the sensitivity of the issue. Yes, a martyr is a martyr. The question that troubles the mind is – “Why use the Kargil war as a specific stage to dramatise the effect of your statement?” She did the same thing when the ABVP case arose. Using her identity as a martyr’s daughter (and not a well- informed, mature, free individual), she spoke up against ABVP. If the intention is noble, one does not need to colour one’s own individuality or misrepresent the facts. This is where she takes the wrong route. Her statements come across as fallacious, ignorant, and unstable. In addition to this, she uses her identity as a martyr’s daughter only when it seems to be of advantage to her debate. Else, she is simply Gurmehar.
The irony of the situation reaches its peak when the people who oppose her views are branded ‘trolls’. Now these people who brand others as ‘trolls’ are the same ones who support Gurmehar by citing speeches on ‘freedom of speech’. If Gurmehar has the right to say whatever she wants, shouldn’t our celebrities and the common population be allowed to voice their opinion on it too? Why play a biased role and blow things out of proportion? Why it is dangerous to brand the ‘opponents’ as trolls, is because it takes away the depth of their opinion and makes only Gurmehar and her supporters sound like the serious ones. If we actually respect freedom of speech and individual opinions, there should not be any hypocrisy involved in the reception of those opinions. If Gurmehar Kaur with a placard is taken seriously, so should Virendra Sehwag with his words. It is possible that Gurmehar’s opinion is respected, but that does not take away from the fallacy in her argument. The media especially, has huge role to play in branding people who disagree with her as ‘trolls’ or ‘anti- nationals’. Tolerance should be practiced either for ALL, or for NONE.
