The Urban Naxal debate: To read or not to read?

must be combated with utmost seriousness. But violent uprising against the state has to be made distinct from dissent.

This is what the Supreme Court observed in the Bhimakoregaon case, and was also the reason why research student Lois Sofia, who was arrested for raising slogans against the BJP while disembarking from a flight in Chennai, was given bail.

Merely shouting slogans doesn’t make somebody a Naxal or an enemy of the country. Anna Hazare did it for instance, as did Baba Ramdev and Arvind Kejriwal. Whatever the compunctions or convictions about their bona fides, to accuse them of being Naxals is a mighty stretch.

Civil rights activists who support the socially deprived and marginalised – directly or indirectly – include eminent people like Retired Supreme Court Justice P B Sawant and Retired High Court Judge B G Kolse Patil among others. It is outrageous to think they would do anything remiss where national interest is concerned.

Acts against state have to be established with solid evidence. The onus for this is on the law machinery, which can’t be used cavalierly. To be fair, this is not the first government to show a very thin skin against dissent. The previous dispensation was similarly inclined too.

Generally, those in authority dislike being challenged. But allowing space for a different point of view is of the crux in a democracy, whatever the ideological pursuit. To say that dissent panders to ‘liberals’ is nonsensically selfdefeating. (As an aside, most who protest vehemently about the pitfalls of liberal education send their children and wards to liberal institutions. One can fill up this page with names of politicians, ideologues, business people, journos etc all who practice such hypocrisy with aplomb).

Which leads me back to my peeve this week: what’s really the problem with reading books, of whichever kind? If the purpose of education is to expand the mental horizon, understand the world better, constricting such activity limits growth, makes for a lesser person.

For instance, I may know the laws of cricket, all the bios of players, all match and tournament stats. But as CLR James put forward in this immortal axiom, “What do they know of cricket who only cricket know?’’