Appreciating Dissent When it is Against Someone Else

Justice Chandrachud of the Supreme Court has made a remark which is apparently targeted at the ruling party in Government. He said, “Dissent is the safety valve. If you try to clam it shut, there will be a bigger build up of pressure. The Pressure Cooker is likely to burst and cause much larger damage." 

While the statement is very fine in isolation and without reference but when we look at it in the perspective of which it has been said, it takes a different meaning. The statement was apparently made in reference to the arrest of some communist leaders on the charges of plotting to kill India's popular Prime Minister. 

It is easy to say that dissent should be welcomed but it is easier said than done. We had seen how SC had handled its own dissenters - the 3 judges drama - by doing nothing.

It is nice to play with others' wounds, and when your own turn comes, then all the philosophy goes into steam. 

Judiciary these days is all the business of "preaching" a lot, while millions of cases remain pending and innocent people rotting in jails without verdict. The Supreme Court should focus on what is ailing the legal system of India and try to bring about positive changes. Merely serving sermons and playing "nice guy" by doing "nice talk" won't help much.

- Rahul

Hating Nehru and Teen Murti Complex Controversy

Some people are worried about growing lack of popularity of India's first Prime Minister - Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru. They fail to realize that 'Nehru' is not just a surname or a name of a dead person. It is a brand; it is a notion; it is a sentiment; and it is a legacy. Just like people who would love to soak in it, there would be people who would love to loath it. We have to come to terms with this phenomenon. Your position on Nehru may be in intellectual one; but the moment 'Nehru' word is read by readers, it 'triggers' a host of chain reactions in them. Thereafter, they can't objectively discuss the subject, because the brand becomes the subject in itself. 

As a personal figure, for someone, Nehru may be pioneer of modern India. For a juvenile, he may be a good uncle who wears costly white suits. For a netizen, he may be root cause of lots of our burden. For someone else he may just be a chapter from the history book. All may look at his different aspects. It is futile to force everyone look at him through one's own glasses. 

Nehru became a matter of discussion because of recent decision by a museum to include in it artifacts about other Prime Ministers as well. The whole controversy was unnecessary. You can read here: 

Museum director Shakti Sinha told The Indian Express: “I would humbly like to say that the objections are a little misplaced. Even in the present set-up, less than 2% of the books, documents and other items in our repository are about Nehru. When we expand the repository to include other PMs, we will be adding to Nehru as well in the process. Nowhere are we obliterating Nehru, we will make it Nehru-plus.”

https://scroll.in/latest/892158/museum-for-all-pms-at-teen-murti-complex-will-not-hurt-nehrus-legacy-says-director

Is there something wrong in it? I don't think so. 

Some people are lost in their love for Nehru because of his book "The Discovery of India". I would advise such people to also look at others who 'discovered' India as well and in different tastes than Nehru did. E.g. what about Ravindranath Tagore and his literature? Premchand and his literature? Vivekananda? Devdutt Pattanaik. Arun Shourie. Gulzar. RK Laxman. It should not always be only about Nehru.

- Rahul