In reply to my posting, T. Viswamitra writes:
>your crave for defense-free nations assumes the
>world full of states that are "unplugged" with
>one another. with a reasonably good defense we
[some stuff deleted]
>within our rein. let us not lure others into
>unethical exploitation (of us) by apparelling
>non-violence. we are not trying to live in the
>"highest" way, but in a reasonable way. when
>we succeed in the latter, we can aim for the
>former.
I am not advocating defense free nations given the current world situation.
But, in the same breath, let me add that no "revolution" of any kind has
occurred without somebody or group giving up the existing mode of thinking.
I took objection to Arvind Pandey's original posting of equating strength
with a strong military. I agree with the gist of your point, however.
>as i said earlier, in reply to Parthasarathy's
>questioning of "tolerance", let us be tolerant
>towards the ignorant & the innocent, not the
>wicked & the unjust. we are good enough to
>distinguish between the two.
This point that you make about "we being able to distinguish between the
two" is a trap that humankind has never gotten out of. Except for a few rare
cases in history (Hitler is one recent example), what is "wicked and unjust"
is primarlily in the eyes of the beholder- the articles in this newsgroup
itself bear testimony to this fact- for example, consider the range of opinions
expressed on India's role in Kashmir, its role in Sri Lanka,
its handling of the Punjab problem- the nature of India's actions is deemed
just or unjust depending upon the person or group that you talk to. And, it
is in such cases that I question the actions of the army or the police which
has a "mob mentality" even in dealing with atrocities.
[STUFF DELETED]
>no form of crime punishing legal clause seeks
>"revenge". it is restriction of misuse of "freedom"
>through compulsion of the individual to live without it.
>the system, without any qualms, is weakly implemented.
>but the system is *not* weak. sliding to the "humani-
>tarian" grounds, before questioning the right to punish
>the criminal, why not question the violation of somebody's
>freedom by the same criminal ?
You have completely mistaken my idea here. I am not against apprehending and
punishing the criminal. My point is that the present criminal justice system
is based on retribution (if you think that the word revenge is too strong but
I do not see a difference between the two). Revenge, IMO, fosters anger and a
further spirit of revenge in the criminal (for e.g., I would attribute this
reason for the large number of repeat offenses by criminals). The spirit of
revenge might satisfy some animal lust within us but is surely an ineffective
weapon against crime. If not for humanitarian considerations, at least for
effective purposes, we ought to come up with an alternative way to combat crime.
I am happy that punishment thro such steps such as "education", "rehabiliation",
and "addressing social inequalities" are being taken, albeit hesitantly,
nowadays.
Arvind Pandey writes:
[Stuff Deleted]
>Also what gets my ire is that the same people who are protesting
>against crimes today, protest against capital punishement to.
>( d n Jaysimha's posting). Let every bride burner hang, and
>this shall be gone in no time. Let murderers hang, instead of
>getting parole after ten years. Again 'deterrance' is needed
>to make sure that people conform to accepted social norms
>an values ( in so much as respecting other people's freedom).
I am sorry if my postings "get your ire". I would rather get your ire than
Viswamitra's :-) <-- TV, I hope you don't mind my taking a potshot at your
namesake. Though I have not stated it before on SCI, you correctly infer
that I am against capital punishment. As an answer to the points that you raise
above, please see my reply to Viswamitra's posting (my earlier paragraph).
Also, there is an inherent flaw in your argument. Why do you think that
"bride burning will be gone in no time" if the bride burners are sent to the
electric chair? Murderers are sent to the electric chair but that has not
stopped people from murdering! The answer to bride burning lies not in knee
jerk reactions such as "maaro usko" but in effectively challenging
the accepted social and religious norms that promote inequality between men
and women. The religious leaders of India have a role to play in this
reformation but their near silence is deafening!
>3. I don't agree with the indian left, in their know-towing a western
>line of thougt, without ever studying how the western country's
>government policy, differ from their much acclaimed philosophies.
You are factually wrong here. As Sanjeev Mahajan has already pointed, the
Indian left has not "kowtowed" to the Western line of thought. In fact,
they see, to put it strongly, the West as the cause of all problems.
[Stuff Deleted]
d n jayasimha (jaya...@cis.ohio-state.edu)
