Internet censorship in Indic Culture

Internet Censorship is not a happy news for the people of Indic culture. Internet censrship is a tool by the governments conspiring of taking over the regime permanently. Censorship started from the times of Egyptian Pharoes with the aim of removing the previous Pharoes from his throne even in his after life( that is, in his Pyramid after his death). The new victorious Pharoe would remove, etch out,and break all the memories of the previous Pharoe to ensure establishment of his reign against the old Pharoe both in this life and the after-life.Thus, Censorship, in my thinking, has come as a culture through the middle-eastern Abrahmic faiths. India, being an open faith cultre, had Kamsutra and Shiv lingam worship in their public behaviour and therefore never practised censorship. censorship genreally arrives around either of the three topics: those of sexuality, of religion and of politics. Since the Indic culture was open about sex, the first topic for censorship becomes irrelevant. Then, because there was no central book, central god, central belief, the religion-seeded censorship can also be ruled out in ancient India. The political censorhip is of more recent invention all over the world.

A debate and a dialectics between all the religions and other interest groups should be allowed in the modern free speech democracies so that a **cogent idea of justice** may continue to evolve itself on what is right and what is wrong and thereof a coherence may come around in the society. Censorship will cause shallow political debates between the people. Cogent Idea of Justice emerges when people engage in a debate. During a debate all sorts of thing come out,  "objectionble" and "objectionable", and for a very logic that the deciding principles for the "objectionable" and the "un objectionable" are itself obtained through debates between the people. Therefore censorship on Internet, which is the largest platform for debates to happen between people from all parts of the country and the world , will turn the debates one-sided by giving advantage to the one who is on the side of the subject-content which is "un objectionable" by some strange unknown standards to the topic of the debate. censorship cannot and should not be accepted where people are involved in debates because that (the public discussions) in itself is the process from where "the objectionable" and "the un-objectionable" keep waxxing in and then wanning out.