But what about the speeches that non-internet users hear?

So some internet sites have been blocked and amongst other things, now some users are not able to access any wordpress.com blogs.

Read more: India’s Net nannies run amok.

But what about the speeches that non-internet users hear?

Let me share some bits from a conversation with an auto-wala.  What do you think of the speeches that convinced him of all this (and worse)?

The autowala: They have four-four wives and ten-ten children, they want to increase their numbers and become the majority and make us a minority in our own Bharat. Age chal kar inhika raj chalne wala hai… siwai ek Gujarat ke har jagah inhiki chalti hai. (They are going to rule in the coming years, apart from Gujarat, they get there way everywhere) [Possible influence: http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article3419147.ece?homepage=true]

IHM: The more the education, awareness and opportunities, the less the chances of anybody having children they can’t feed and educate. 

My mom’s maid, a Hindu, has had eight children; my one cook, also Hindu, had six kids. My one maid in Kerala had only two daughters – she was educated, and had been to Dubai. And most middle class Indians I know have one or two children, no matter what their religion. 

He had a lot more to say. I disagreed politely, and in the end he expressed what I am sure he always suspected,

The autowala: These neta-log (political leaders) care for no one but their kursi (votes). 

IHM: True. 😡

* * *

Speeches are also made against some Indian citizens or ‘outsiders’ (often Biharis and North Indians) in Maharashtra.

And let’s not even begin about the statements that convey support to violence and crimes against women. 😦

Since it’s almost impossible to control what people hear, maybe it would help if they could also hear the other side?

By this logic, should it be free speech for all, for those who spread hate and violence, and those who fight to spread peace?

What do you think?

Related posts:

How do you decide which Indian state you belong to?


22 thoughts on “But what about the speeches that non-internet users hear?


    This is something I see everywhere. Esp anger against illegal immigrants. Like, let them call back all the Indian illegal immigrants to 1st world countries n then talk stuff like they do.

    Seeing their righteous rage, one would think that Indians never illegally immigrated ANYWHERE at all.


        • Asian is a broad defination .Asian could be anybody,, Pakistani ,chinese , arab etc And BTW taking land of local people engaging in riots and becoming part of crime world are two different things.Anywhere in world there is going to be massive conflict if illegal immigrants enter your country and start taking your land


        • I’m talking about mostly south Asian men, if that wasn’t clear. They may be two different things, but both are equally not good in my eyes if you accept the notion of nation and nationalism. I guess so, again if we accept the notion of nation and nationalism. I don’t hate illegal immigrants, though – partly because I think the concept of nationalism just divides us all. Also because have we ever thought about WHY they do the things they do? Personally, I have a lot of sympathy for minorities of neighbouring nations coming to India (they are, after all, persecuted and raped and forcibly converted). I put humanity above nationalism.
          Also, instead of venting our anger at illegal immigrants, let us vent our anger at the low border security and corrupt people guarding us (they allow people to pass the border for a thousand bucks or so).
          That would be more helpful IMO.


  2. Well I am not sure about the maharashtra state, I have a question to all of them, what shud happen to all the maharashtra people who live out of the state and work outside, lets hope a answer is given..

    It is sad that we are aliens in our own country, and this I have experienced in my own country , being called “OYE SARDAR”.. sad, No wonder we all want separate states for our own kinds .. and sometimes I do feel it is the RIGHT WANT..

    we are anything punjbai-bihari-sikh-muslim-hindu-pandit-jat-shudra BUT indian..

    and even the so caleld leaders ALL of them, especially all the khadi wearing people, they are the worst lot


    • Oh forget the khadi-wearing coutry-selling fellows, why do we distinguish so much amonst ourselves ???

      Have we forgotten that every citizen in this country has the right to live in the state of his choice, pursue the career of his choice and can speak the language of his choice ??? Why is differentiation based on looks / language ?? we are just providing the groundwork so that the netas can build their political agendas over it.

      And on your comment on being called a Sardar .. i understand , ppl easily call me OYE MADRASI.. I feel sad, but i come back to the same question, why do we differenciate ourselves ??


  3. We are easily the biggest hypocrites in the whole world. For the north indian, everyone down south is a madrasi, for others, someone is a gulti, the other is a bhaiyya, gujju, chinki, mallu etc. The stereotypes are forced in by the political class. And we morons are so good at fighting against ourselves and kill each other saying “my imaginary friend is better than your imaginary friend”.

    What has happened to the 65 odd years of national integration teaching? Has all the money gone down the drain?

    And the govt who jumps up and down trying to censor social media doesn’t want to censor the stupid politician who whips up communal passions and divides communities based on their vote banks. The govt is simply barking up the wrong tree.


    • The difference is not created by political class.It is the people that create differences.We humans have very strong tribal mentality and we love to feel superior .We are stronger than others,we are taller, fairer ,more educated, rich etc are feelings in humans through which they feel superior.and in that process we also start calling others names in casual ways which later on become insult
      Not only that many times your own people do favour to you which others don’t like.The most recent case is of India’ chief cricket selector Kris Srikant. There are plenty of allegations that he gave preference to Tamilian players and he was not alone almost all chief selectors do that


  4. There are times in a free country where we have to protect the most unpopular kind of speech. That’s because if unpopular speech is not protected, then no speech is safe. You can’t have FoE only for certain kinds of things and chain it for other types.

    Because sooner or later people will start using excuses to merely recategorize what they shouldn’t. Either everything is ok, or nothing is.


    • I mostly agree with you. The mark of a truly free society is when everyone gets to have their say, whether their viewpoints are popular or not, whether other people find their viewpoints offensive or not. The only instances where I feel speech should be restricted is
      1. when someone is using their freedom of speech to encourage harm against a person(s) or a community
      2. when someone is using their freedom of speech to intentionally degrade or humiliate a person(s) or a community
      3. when someone is using their freedom of speech to infringe on other people’s basic freedoms.


      • “…when someone is using their freedom of speech to intentionally degrade or humiliate a person(s) or a community”
        This is an problematic clause, since it can be interpretated in a way that restricts any form of honest criticism against an individual or a group of people.


        • I agree…It was a subjective statement. We cannot determine intent and we cannot objectively determine what constitutes humiliation. So, should there be any clause to restrict people from using their freedom of speech to degrade others?

          For eg: If a girl is walking by and someone makes lewd comments, can they defend themselves by saying they were merely exercising their freedom of speech? Would that be a valid defense? I don’t know…maybe I’m confusing things here…


      • This is a classic video for sure. But then again how can the above said comments be implemented in a society where the notion of caste/creed/language is ingrained to such an extent that we still practise them despite being educated and aware of it? we fail to question the norms of the society without being named an outlaw ??


  5. I would love to see a the Neta’s banned from making speeches…and those noisy campaigns banned too. If we intend doing something, we should do it WELL, right?


  6. Typical wishy-washy liberalism. Rather than platitudes, it would be better if somebody put up Census figures of population growth. Secondly, if other factors being constant (socioeconomic indicators, etc etc), one compared the growth of any two communities. Also, if one compared rates of female participation of in the workforce etc, etc. I do not see any reason why Assam, Bengal and then the rest of the country should be swamped by outsiders. No one likes to be a minority in his own area. Most liberals preach to the converted. I doubt if any one of them would have the b—s to mouth politically correct platitudes in Lal Chowk, Srinagar, Bhendi Bazar or Jama Masjid area. Obviously not. The liberal heart bleeds for Palestinians, South Asian Desis in Europe and America but not for Hindu minorities in Pakistan (what????) or Bangladesh or Fiji. Thus, liberals have their favourite victims, depending not what makes them sound and look more hep, cool and progressive.
    As far as stereotypes go, I would be shocked if some minorities did not look at horror at us as pagan polytheists, dirty and filthy. Stereotypes are a two-way street, something bleeding hearts forget. I would love to see our liberals here mouth their own stereotypes.
    Lastly, one gentleman referred to free speech, but conveniently took away with the left hand what he gave with the right hand. Who decides what is hate speech? For some feminists and feminism may be hate speech!!!!!!!!!!!! Should we ban it? Question for him.
    Nuff said,


    • Oh, please.

      Is there some semblance of *OMG* an actual point hidden behind that epic, rotting pile of rhetoric, or is it just that you’ve finally found your excuse for standing on a soap box and mouthing off your irrelevant and uninteresting political opinions?

      Your keyboard warrior act is every bit as tiresome as your breathtakingly bad “say it at Lal Chowk” argument (if one takes the liberty of calling it that), not to mention your implication that socioeconomic indicators somehow make it A-OK to demonize a group of people, your projection of your xenophobic bullshit on everyone else (“no one likes it”) and your what-aboutery (“but…but…but what about Pakistani Hindus?!”).

      Foam in the mouth is good for boxing matches, not intellectual discussion. I find your emotionally charged statements especially ironic in light of your stress on data and logic.

      Hypocrisy, unfortunately, is bog-standard all over the political spectrum


  7. There is a new way to fight wars using the internet as a force multiplier. Until we find a finer way to handle this new technology, we have to use brute force methods.


  8. Pingback: “Tell me will you ever think of putting any posts on facebook after this?” “No.” | The Life and Times of an Indian Homemaker

  9. Pingback: What do Raj Thackeray and Narender Modi have in common? | The Life and Times of an Indian Homemaker

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s