Justified under certain circumstances?

Three questions.

1. Can mob violence against unarmed citizens, including women and children have ‘other side’...like they might have done something to offend this mob, so they deserve this violence by them?

Can we say, mob violence against unarmed citizens can be justified under certain circumstances?

2. Do we honestly accept that the same rules must apply to everybody, including us?

Now mob violence is no longer something that happens only to other people. There is no telling what about us might offend somebody enough to want to kill us. Our language, our origins, the Gods we worship, the clothes we wear or whether we drink tea, coffee or something else, what we read, which movies we watch, what artwork we create … do we think this is understandable … under certain circumstances?

3. Do you think Gandhi was not entirely correct in preaching non violence?

Advertisements

89 thoughts on “Justified under certain circumstances?

  1. Three answers.

    “We must never kneel down before the tyranny of a majority.”

    @ Can mob violence against unarmed citizens, including women and children have ‘other side’…like they might have done something to offend this mob, so they deserve this violence by them?
    Can we say, mob violence against unarmed citizens can be justified under certain circumstances?

    No, Mob doesn’t have any sense of judgment and purpose, they are mostly in a provoked by someone with religious / political capacity generally, hence this is not at all justified. If anyone is offended there are court(I know they don’t work that efficiently) but there is a system in place.

    2. Do we honestly accept that the same rules must apply to everybody, including us?

    I honestly can say, same rules must be applied across, mobs are made of what? They are made of 4-5 people with a motive and rest sense less people in frenzy, so I believe before we jump blindly in a mob and take our angers, frustrations out on people, remember as well that victim could have as well be you some day. So at least you will stop.

    3. Do you think Gandhi was not entirely correct in preaching non violence?

    Personally, I think, each question has a different answer. Gandhi ji, with all due respect, was very liberal in being inspired from, philosophy of Henry David Thoreau, and he could never actually, have a visible change in attitudes of the brits, and after 1995 brits were too, weak to support there own country let alone a colony.

    “Majorities do not decide what is right or what is wrong, Your conscience does.”

    Like

  2. without implimentation of law peace can not be achieved.
    Silence never won rights. They are not handed down from above; they are forced by pressures from below.

    Like

  3. While the answer of the first two is obvious…

    The third one… well I have some very strong thoughts about…

    Maybe Gandhiji was right about preaching Non-Violence…

    But I think precisely that is the reason why we do not value our freedom…

    If we would have won our freedom over and forced the Britishers out… it would have been a lot better…

    As a matter of fact… they left the country… dividing it into two halves…

    Thing is freedom should not be granted… it must be taken…

    I believe in that…

    Infact I am at wits end.. how today’s mob can get together and rape women and kill children…

    but tht mob never took on the British and threw them out !!!

    Like

  4. Violence including mob violence has no place in civilized society…
    The problem with mob violence is that the mob usually doesn’t know why they are being violent…

    Like

  5. Yeah,even I too happened to see this disturbing vid on ndtv.. 😦 But what I feel is,every action of every human being might be offending to some ther person somewhere in this earth.So,I ges we have to start living with all this..

    But having said all that,MOB VIOLENCE HAS NO PLACE IN SOCIETY and its preachers should be hanged beyond doubt,be it be democracy or autocracy..

    Nikhil

    Like

  6. 1. Can mob violence against unarmed citizens, including women and children have ‘other side’…like they might have done something to offend this mob, so they deserve this violence by them?
    Can we say, mob violence against unarmed citizens can be justified under certain circumstances?

    ANSWER : Phrased in this manner,the unequivocal answer would be NO.
    Violence can never have ANOTHER side. Very true.

    However, when we choose to look at only one side and overlook the other we are doing a great injustice to other victims too.
    Victims DO NOT have religion or caste or region or any other as their identity. They are Just victims. IT is when people categorise/compartmentalize/weigh/
    Certain victims as being more victimized than others that is when I see red.

    Ca some victims be MORE mourned than others????
    Are we justified in playing around with facts?.twisting facts to suit our viewpoint?
    CAN human suffering be ever measured on a scale? To see whether one victim suffered more than the other?Both died.So how can one have sufferd more than the other?
    Or are we measuring suffering according to religion in India???

    2. Do we honestly accept that the same rules must apply to everybody, including us?
    Now mob violence is no longer something that happens only to other people. There is no telling what about us might offend somebody enough to want to kill us. Our language, our origins, the Gods we worship, the clothes we wear or whether we drink tea, coffee or something else, what we read, which movies we watch, what artwork we create … do we think this is understandable … under certain circumstances?

    ANSWER:- The same rules apply to everyone including us. Me for sure. Any day.
    You know my views on freedom of expression.Which is why I do not think that anyone be it majority or minority should be treated like different people no matter how much they may have suffered in the past.Minorities cannot be cosseted and pampered when we talk of EQUALITY in India.
    So yes, for me The rule applies to all.Want to be equal?Give up privileges.reservations /what have you.
    If one is offended we can take the legal recourse . Violence is never an answer.

    3. Do you think Gandhi was not entirely correct in preaching non violence?

    Yes,In today’s context Gandhiji does seem out of place.I do not believe in violence.I believe in criticism and polite criticism at that.I believe that we can criticise and put our viewpoint across.But not in an inflammatory or derogatory manner.

    But let me extend the non violence principle further and ask.

    If a country were to attack us.Would we still be staunch supporters of non violence.

    How many Mumbaikars did not feel angry and furious when they were attacked?

    So non violence is contextual in today's world.

    All threee questions as I see it IHM are open ended. They depend on the context in which they are being asked.
    Without that, its almost impossible to give answers in a country like India.

    As for the video.yeah ssaw it in parts. MAde me depressed:(
    couldnt finish it.

    in context of such inhuman crimes mob violence can never be justified.

    MOB violence is only possible when state machinery breaks down,when law and order go for a toss.(as they frequently do in India)

    Were the questions in context of the video?:O
    then my answers would be
    Ans1:-NO a big NO Mob violence can never be justified.NEVER.

    Ans2.:-yes,same rules should apply to everyone..(but curious about which rules and which country?)
    this question is the same as question 1 …no violence/killing is never justified no matter how offended wemight feel.In a country with proper law and order there is always a legal recourse.ALWAYS.

    SO again answer would be NO>

    ans3:-In today's world Gandhiji's ideas do seem out of place which however does not mean that we should all become violent.It merely means that we should not be fools.
    Int his dog eat dog world of today.

    I am still curious about the context IHM.Because the questions and the video are very different.
    I got confused in there.

    Becasue I could only think of India and our conditions here.the mayhem that we see everyday.

    And I also saw the video note at the end.

    Like

  7. IHM the video shows what happens when religion rules our lives ina ny manner.Popel become beasts in the name of religion.

    Honour and izzat and what not!all absolute crap!

    Which is also why India has to be secular country more than ever today not just inletter but in spirit.

    Sorry I saw edited to add after almost ahving finished my comemnt…have added a note

    Like

  8. I would just say this which I have always maintained.

    ‘Violence can never be justified’. Killing of innocents can never be justified.

    If you ask the perpetrators and the victims then there are always 2 sides for most riots. One side is they were treated badly for centuries or their family was robbed/raped hence the revenge. Now these victims will go on to torch someone else with same excuse.

    Excuses never end. That’s why I say that there is no excuse to human bombings or torching. Never justify that from minority or majority point of view. When one showcases a piece of art to a general but still unlearned audience, try to bring a rational point where in you make them understand that reality of this tit for tat game instead of instigating it further. Common man gets instigated fast and that’s why it is easier to incite them to create riots.

    Like

  9. I would just say this which I have always maintained.

    ‘Violence can never be justified’. Killing of innocents can never be justified.

    If you ask the perpetrators and the victims then there are always 2 sides for most riots. One side is they were treated badly for centuries or their family was robbed/raped hence the revenge. Now these victims will go on to torch someone else with same excuse.

    Excuses never end. That’s why I say that there is no excuse to human bombings or torching. Never justify that from minority or majority point of view. When one showcases a piece of art to a general but still unlearned audience, try to bring a rational point where in you make them understand that reality of this tit for tat game instead of instigating it further. Common man gets instigated fast and that’s why it is easier to incite them to create riots.

    Like

  10. IHM,
    I totally agree with Indyeah’s answer. I think mob violence is an absolute NO and unequivocally NO. It cannot be justified under any circumstances. However, I do believe that when that occurs both sides of the story be presented.

    Secondly, as a firm believer in no-violence, I believe that non-violence is a much better way of dealing with issues than violent methods. However, it depends on who the person we are fighting against. For stable govts. and reasonable people I think that should be a preferred method. However against tyrannical regimes, I think the answer is somewhere in between.

    Again I agree with Indyeah about religion making beast out of people provided of course we can call Islam a religion and not a political ideology

    Like

  11. IHM,
    I totally agree with Indyeah’s answer. I think mob violence is an absolute NO and unequivocally NO. It cannot be justified under any circumstances. However, I do believe that when that occurs both sides of the story be presented.

    Secondly, as a firm believer in no-violence, I believe that non-violence is a much better way of dealing with issues than violent methods. However, it depends on who the person we are fighting against. For stable govts. and reasonable people I think that should be a preferred method. However against tyrannical regimes, I think the answer is somewhere in between.

    Again I agree with Indyeah about religion making beast out of people provided of course we can call Islam a religion and not a political ideology

    Like

  12. 1. Mob violence or any violence can never be justified – no matter who the perpetuator is.
    2. The same rule should apply to everybody including us.
    3. Gandhiji was NOT wrong in preaching non-violence.

    Having said that, I do think it is necessary to do a proper root cause analysis to see why such incidents are erupting.. By pushing it all under a blanket, would we not be increasing the seething within – however justified or unjustified it might be.. So in that sense – I think ‘looking at the other side’ is necessary.

    Like

  13. 1.M.O.B = Mentally oblivious ba&^%ds, they are not human and definitely not rational, just a pack of animals and have to be treated as such: no explanation, no justification
    There are no sides…just insane frenzy

    2.I honestly dont think same rules can apply to all – it never works that way. Idealism is good … but does not translate into ground reality

    3. Non violence does not work, some folk dont understand that language and need to be made to understand in the language of power and violence … it is a sad fact, but true

    Like

  14. 1. No mob violence of any sort is justified…
    2. Rules need to be implemented same – but unfortunately that doesn’t seem to be happening…
    3. non-violence all the time? no, i think…
    sometimes – we need to strike back…
    but, it depends on how well we know when to use what…

    I also put up 13 questions… but, of course they are not this serious! 🙂

    Like

  15. The topic has been chosen for a one-sided debate. I don’t know of anyone who will oppose it. Except those who have a grudge against your views on other issues and argue for the sake of arguing. My request is – take up something more balanced – like:

    Can you be Pro-Choice yet oppose female foeticide?
    Should India have something similar to the American Presidential debates?

    Like

  16. The topic has been chosen for a one-sided debate. I don’t know of anyone who will oppose it. Except those who have a grudge against your views on other issues and argue for the sake of arguing. My request is – take up something more balanced – like:

    Can you be Pro-Choice yet oppose female foeticide?
    Should India have something similar to the American Presidential debates?

    Like

  17. @Chirag I could never have expressed it as well as you have done!!
    Mob doesn’t have any sense of judgment and purpose, they are mostly provoked by someone with religious / political capacity generally, hence this is not at all justified. If anyone is offended there are court (I know they don’t work that efficiently) but there is a system in place.

    I honestly can say, same rules must be applied across, mobs are made of what? They are made of 4-5 people with a motive and rest sense less people in frenzy, so I believe before we jump blindly in a mob and take our angers, frustrations out on people, remember as well that victim could have as well be you some day. So at least you will stop.

    “Majorities do not decide what is right or what is wrong, Your conscience does.”

    @astralwicks I absolutely agree! I wish we could all see the wisdom of these words, we’d be living in a much better worl! “there is no way to peace; peace is the only way M.K.Gandhi”

    @sm without implementation of law peace can not be achieved. I agree 🙂

    Silence never won rights. So do you think mob violence should be used to win rights?

    They are not handed down from above; they are forced by pressures from below.
    How? I didn’t understand …

    Like

  18. This is a very complex subject. If one is talking of this from the point of view of a lawmakers and the police, yes they need to take root causes into account, see if they can do something to calm passions. But ofcourse this is only when riots are spontaneous and does not apply when political parties plan and organise riots. In any case it is very rare for people to go out and kill and loot and rape if they are just ordinary people, even if they hate somebody. Why, even when people lose their family members to riots, they do not go and burn the house of someone from the community which is responsible.
    IHM, I was personally witness to the Sikh riots in 1984. I saw Sikhs burn, I saw them being murdered, in front of my very eyes. These images are fixed in my head, forever. I saw a few feet away from me the kind of people who do this. They are goondas and criminals. They are not normal people. They were all paid to do it. They were told to do it and being of that nature, they wanted to, they enjoyed it.

    Like

  19. Just want to add. If one has to present the “other side’ as you asked, what then is the other side? We need to present the fact that our politicians create divisions of religion and of caste for vote gains. This is the other side as I see it. The victims are never to blame.

    Like

  20. this probably will have a 100 page comment from me…but considering I have taken a decision not to care any more,my answer…

    majority isn’t always right…and people have no clue what they are doing…

    Like

  21. If you asked my son the 3rd question about 1 week ago, he would have answered with a very loud “NO!” His reason: that principle, led to him having to learn an extra 3 chapters in History for his Board exams!
    Having said that, I have a lot of admiration for the man. Mainly for shaking an empire with nothing more than the power of doing no harm. Amazing!
    Backtracking to the first question : absolutely nothing justifies violence, especially against the unarmed.
    As for the second, I find that we as a nation are increasingly becoming very touchy and hyper-sensitive.
    If something in a book offends you, dont read it.
    If something a person does offends you, boycott him.
    If a movie has scenes that offend your sensibilities, dont watch it.
    Simple!
    It’s high time we grew up, isnt it?

    Like

  22. @Winnie the poohi I completely agree.

    @ hitch writer You say, “While the answer of the first two is obvious… ” … do you mean violence should be unequivocally condemned?

    Hitchwriter what Gandhi meant was that if we keep retaliating the violence will never end, he had to explain this to the masses, and today when I see violence everywhere in India, I remember his words all the time, tell me if we followed his non violence , don’t you think, our violent mobs, bandhs, protests, everything will be replaced with some well planned practical solutions? What do you think?
    And see how much Martin Luther King achieved with non violence!

    @ Bones Violence including mob violence has no place in civilized society…
    The problem with mob violence is that the mob usually doesn’t know why they are being violent…
    I completely agree.

    @MultiMenon So true every action of every human being might be offending to some other person somewhere in this earth and if we start resorting to violence where will it all end ?

    And Nikhil, I think we really need to hear voices saying, loud and clear, “MOB VIOLENCE HAS NO PLACE IN SOCIETY” and ideally the preachers should simply be ignored. Otherwise we will not have democracy we will only have autocracy or mobocracy.

    Like

  23. First of all, I think we should thank you for raising questions that we never give a damn!!

    You will find that there are exceptions to the rules.

    1) Mob violence can never be justified against women and children no matter how grievous crime they have committed but yes I wont mind mob going mad at politicians who are making communal speeches and spreading hatred and not fulfilling given promises 😀

    2) I would say that we would like to think so but we seldom follow it.

    3) I think Gandhiji was right in preaching non-violence but the first question is how much have we read about his non-violence approach to understand it?

    As an Indian, I don’t think many of us are even aware of his teachings, unless one makes a point to do so. Passing a judgment on something that you don’t know about much is no better than ignorance.

    Like

  24. 1)Mob violence against unarmed innocent citizens can never be justified whatever may be the circumstances.

    At the same time, issues regarding the ‘other side’ need to be addressed as well.

    2)Same rules must apply to everybody and our constitution guarantees that.

    3)Non violence should be practiced in normal day to day life. But Gandhi carried the principle of non violence to ridiculous levels. I do not think non violence is an effective strategy in self defense or in an independence movement.

    Like

  25. 1. Violence of any kind in a civilised society is an absolute taboo, against anyone.

    2. Yes.

    3. Gandhiji was absolutely correct in teaching non violence. This non violence had the power to liberate many nations, it all started with India, and the collapse of the British empire.. followed by equal rights to blacks in USA (Martin Luther King) and then with South Africa (Nelson Mandela). Gandhiji and non violence have been the inspiration for all these. It will help many more in the future too, I believe.

    Like

  26. 1. Violence of any kind in a civilised society is an absolute taboo, against anyone.

    2. Yes.

    3. Gandhiji was absolutely correct in teaching non violence. This non violence had the power to liberate many nations, it all started with India, and the collapse of the British empire.. followed by equal rights to blacks in USA (Martin Luther King) and then with South Africa (Nelson Mandela). Gandhiji and non violence have been the inspiration for all these. It will help many more in the future too, I believe.

    Like

  27. @Indyeah
    1.
    ANSWER : Phrased in this manner,the unequivocal answer would be NO.
    Violence can never have ANOTHER side. Very true.
    Yes I agree Indyeah 🙂
    However, when we choose to look at only one side and overlook the other
    You mean the mob’s side? Can there be a side of the mob also? Paid hooligans, unemployed goondas, muderders and rapists – can their acts be justified under any provocation?
    we are doing a great injustice to other victims too.
    But Indyeah who are the other victims? The mob that is killing, looting, raping …? In a mob violence there are the killers and there are the killed… which ones are victims?
    Victims DO NOT have religion or caste or region or any other as their identity. They are Just victims.
    I agree, Indyeah. So true.
    IT is when people categorise/compartmentalize/weigh/Certain victims as being more victimized than others that is when I see red.
    I think anybody who is a victim of violence is a victim. And anybody who is attacking is the perpetrator. One needs support and the other needs condemnation, that is all. Don’t you agree?

    Can some victims be MORE mourned than others???? Are we justified in playing around with facts?.twisting facts to suit our viewpoint?
    If some organisations and violent political groups do that, even then, does that justify the mob violence Indyeah? Do we then say it was okay for some children to be burnt alive? Isn’t that what these organisations will love to see us do?

    CAN human suffering be ever measured on a scale? To see whether one victim suffered more than the other? Both died. So how can one have sufferd more than the other?
    Or are we measuring suffering according to religion in India???

    Supposing, Indyeah these claims that suffering is being measured are correct, then would you say, does the mob violence then becomes right?

    2.
    Indyeah, I am glad you agree that no matter what violence is not the answer : )

    How many Mumbaikars did not feel angry and furious when they were attacked?
    Do you think they should have resorted to violence? And do think that would have solved nay problems? They reacted with peaceful protests at the gate way of India.

    All three questions as I see it IHM are open ended. They depend on the context in which they are being asked.
    Not really, Indyeah, just think, the first two have a very clear answer – mob violence against unarmed citizens is never, ever justified.

    MOB violence is only possible when state machinery breaks down when law and order go for a toss.(as they frequently do in India) Well said Indyeah, but violence still remains wrong, you agree?

    Hey Indyeah, I removed the video it was distracting from the questions, will put it up and discuss it later.

    And I agree with you, “ …no violence/killing is never justified no matter how offended we might feel.In a country with proper law and order there is always a legal recourse. ALWAYS.

    Like

  28. @Solilo Let me just highlight some parts of your comment, ‘Violence can never be justified’. Killing of innocents can never be justified.
    I totally agree with this Solilo.

    If you ask the perpetrators and the victims then there are always 2 sides for most riots. One side is they were treated badly for centuries or their family was robbed/raped hence the revenge. Now these victims will go on to torch someone else with same excuse.
    Excuses never end. That’s why I say that there is no excuse to human bombings or torching. Never justify that from minority or majority point of view.

    If only everybody could see this Solilo!

    Like

  29. Good Post.
    1. Nothing can justify mob violence.Those who are looking for the other side should realise that the other side would have still other side and that too will have other side.
    2. Same rules should apply to everybody including me
    3. Gandhiji’s non-violence was entirely correct. Its relevance is increasing day by day all over the World

    Like

  30. Violence is not justified, because it is post outrage, where the line has been crossed. being oppressed, upset etc etc is justification only as long as other people are not harmed, once that line crossed, there is nothing left to justify. And laws need be THE same regardless.Non-violence is a very powerful way to protest. Lets couple it with GENUINE causes.

    Like

  31. I mean violence must be condemned if against innocents….

    However bout Gandhiji’s issue.. I still think India would have done better to throw the British out… I think we should have brought that revolution on the basis of blood and not non-violence.

    I am not saying Gandhiji didnt shed blood but I think the sense of this freedom and the responsibility towards it would have been much much greater…

    Having said that, no Bhagat Singh’s didnt get our country free… he also came into prominence only when he surrendered and went on a hunger strike.. What Gandhiji has to back his theory is results and we must respect that…

    But if I had a choice…. I would anyday prefer killing and forcing the Britishers to get out of the country !! not the way they went !

    Like

  32. @Nitwit Nastik I think mob violence is an absolute NO and unequivocally NO. It cannot be justified under any circumstances.
    I agree.
    However, I do believe that when that occurs both sides of the story be presented.
    Nitwit Nastik Both sides meaning the victims side- which is obvious, they have been, beaten, burnt, raped or killed. And also the mob’s side of the story? And if the mob has sufficient reasons, strong reasons for the violence, then will the violence be justified?

    Secondly, as a firm believer in no-violence, I believe that non-violence is a much better way of dealing with issues than violent methods. However, it depends on who the person we are fighting against. For stable govts. and reasonable people I think that should be a preferred method. However against tyrannical regimes, I think the answer is somewhere in between.
    I agree.

    Again I agree with Indyeah about religion making beast out of people provided of course we can call Islam a religion and not a political ideology
    Hey nitwit nastik I have removed the Taliban video, I think your comment was in answer to that video? I removed it because it was confusing.
    THE POST IS ABOUT MOB VIOLENCE AGAINST VICTIMS OF ALL OR ANY RELIGIONS OR ATHEISTS/ BY VIOLENT MEMBERS OF ALL RELIGIONS, INCLUDING ATHEISTS VICTIMS.

    Like

  33. @Smitha
    //1. Mob violence or any violence can never be justified – no matter who the perpetuator is.
    2. The same rule should apply to everybody including us.
    3. Gandhiji was NOT wrong in preaching non-violence. //
    I agree with this totally.

    //Having said that, I do think it is necessary to do a proper root cause analysis to see why such incidents are erupting.. By pushing it all under a blanket, would we not be increasing the seething within – however justified or unjustified it might be.. So in that sense – I think ‘looking at the other side’ is necessary.//
    Smitha – By the other side you mean what led to the violence? But if you think there are very strong reaosn for the mob to be violent, will you say that justifies the violence and killing?

    Most mobs consist of hoodlums and unemployed youth, I have seen three kinds of angry mobs, in 1984, the way some common people described the Sikhs –(aggressive, they only buy from the shops owned by other Sikhs) –mob mentality id herd mentality, it made many people see something wrong enough in the victim, to burn them with tyres around their neck. The attackers were all from the slums and villages near Delhi. Later you could see people in the slums had VCRs and Televisions…Then after 92-93 riots people started saying similar things about Muslim victims, and in Maharashtra all Biharis and North Indians became within months ‘aggressive’. There are always some people ready to kill and loot, and such situations give them an opportunity.
    Do you think the slum dwellers were admirers of Mrs Gandhi? Or in 92-93riots, did ordinary Hindus attack or kill? Most of the time t he common man is ambivalent, or sometimes frightened of the violence (like I and many others I know were, it seems there is madness all around and all reason just stops).

    Like

  34. @Phoenixritu
    I agree ‘…they are not human and definitely not rational, just a pack of animals and have to be treated as such: no explanation, no justification. There are no sides…just insane frenzy’
    .

    I would have never put it so well, but you are right, “I HONESTLY DON’T THINK SAME RULES CAN APPLY TO ALL – IT NEVER WORKS THAT WAY. IDEALISM IS GOOD … BUT DOES NOT TRANSLATE INTO GROUND REALITY”
    So isn’t it better to totally condemn mob-violence under any provocation?

    @Pixie
    //1. No mob violence of any sort is justified…
    2. Rules need to be implemented same – but unfortunately that doesn’t seem to be happening…//
    I FULLY AGREE. AND SHOULDN’T IT THEN MEAN THAT IT WOULD BE BEST TO COMPLETELY AND UNEQUIVOCALLY CONDEMN ALL MOB VIOLENCE? WE DO LIVE IN AN UNJUST SOCIETY, WE CAN FIGHT INJUSTICE BETTER IF WE ARE ALL IN ONE PIECE?

    Like

  35. @Cherokee //The topic has been chosen for a one-sided debate. I don’t know of anyone who will oppose it. Except those who have a grudge against your views on other issues and argue for the sake of arguing.//
    How I wish this was true ..!! Please read some of the comments and you will see there are two views on this. I wish there weren’t.
    //My request is – take up something more balanced – like:
    Can you be Pro-Choice yet oppose female foeticide?
    Yes. Many of us are. I am.
    Should India have something similar to the American Presidential debates?//
    I can never make up my mind on this one Cherokee!!

    Like

  36. @Cherokee //The topic has been chosen for a one-sided debate. I don’t know of anyone who will oppose it. Except those who have a grudge against your views on other issues and argue for the sake of arguing.//
    How I wish this was true ..!! Please read some of the comments and you will see there are two views on this. I wish there weren’t.
    //My request is – take up something more balanced – like:
    Can you be Pro-Choice yet oppose female foeticide?
    Yes. Many of us are. I am.
    Should India have something similar to the American Presidential debates?//
    I can never make up my mind on this one Cherokee!!

    Like

  37. @ Nita
    //This is a very complex subject. If one is talking of this from the point of view of a lawmakers and the police, yes they need to take root causes into account, see if they can do something to calm passions. //
    I agree.

    //it is very rare for people to go out and kill and loot and rape if they are just ordinary people, even if they hate somebody. Why, even when people lose their family members to riots, they do not go and burn the house of someone from the community which is responsible.//
    I totally agree.

    //IHM, I was personally witness to the Sikh riots in 1984. I saw Sikhs burn, I saw them being murdered, in front of my very eyes. These images are fixed in my head, forever. I saw a few feet away from me the kind of people who do this. They are goondas and criminals. They are not normal people. They were all paid to do it. They were told to do it and being of that nature, they wanted to, they enjoyed it.
    Nita I was in Delhi then, and I also saw angry mobs, they were all hooligans, and even the few ordinary citizens from all classes who did join were the misfits, like an unemployed boy in the neighbourhood, who said, they deserved it and he wanted to teach them a lesson, he hated Sikhs for emotional reasons like they only shopped from shops belonging to other Sikhs. He was not allowed to join the mob by his family, but others like him came out to loot TVs and VCRs – which were expensive and valued those days. So I agree with you.
    Anybody who has been unfortunate enough to see rioting will realise this.

    //If one has to present the “other side’ as you asked, what then is the other side?//
    The other side of the MOB Nita? The other side of why it might be okay for some men to kill, burn and rape?
    //We need to present the fact that our politicians create divisions of religion and of caste for vote gains. This is the other side as I see it.//
    Even that is not the other side, Nita – because even if we have caste/religion divisions, even if we have grouses, and even if we hate each other, CAN THAT JUSTIFY MOB VIOLENCE ? It is our ambivalence that the politicians will continue to use, so long as there are IFS and BUTS to whether mob violence is right or wrong, the violence will never stop.

    //The victims are never to blame.//
    ABOSOLUTELY NEVER. And there can be no excuses, no justifications of how the mob was provoked into violence , to excuse mob violence.

    Like

  38. @ Nita
    //This is a very complex subject. If one is talking of this from the point of view of a lawmakers and the police, yes they need to take root causes into account, see if they can do something to calm passions. //
    I agree.

    //it is very rare for people to go out and kill and loot and rape if they are just ordinary people, even if they hate somebody. Why, even when people lose their family members to riots, they do not go and burn the house of someone from the community which is responsible.//
    I totally agree.

    //IHM, I was personally witness to the Sikh riots in 1984. I saw Sikhs burn, I saw them being murdered, in front of my very eyes. These images are fixed in my head, forever. I saw a few feet away from me the kind of people who do this. They are goondas and criminals. They are not normal people. They were all paid to do it. They were told to do it and being of that nature, they wanted to, they enjoyed it.
    Nita I was in Delhi then, and I also saw angry mobs, they were all hooligans, and even the few ordinary citizens from all classes who did join were the misfits, like an unemployed boy in the neighbourhood, who said, they deserved it and he wanted to teach them a lesson, he hated Sikhs for emotional reasons like they only shopped from shops belonging to other Sikhs. He was not allowed to join the mob by his family, but others like him came out to loot TVs and VCRs – which were expensive and valued those days. So I agree with you.
    Anybody who has been unfortunate enough to see rioting will realise this.

    //If one has to present the “other side’ as you asked, what then is the other side?//
    The other side of the MOB Nita? The other side of why it might be okay for some men to kill, burn and rape?
    //We need to present the fact that our politicians create divisions of religion and of caste for vote gains. This is the other side as I see it.//
    Even that is not the other side, Nita – because even if we have caste/religion divisions, even if we have grouses, and even if we hate each other, CAN THAT JUSTIFY MOB VIOLENCE ? It is our ambivalence that the politicians will continue to use, so long as there are IFS and BUTS to whether mob violence is right or wrong, the violence will never stop.

    //The victims are never to blame.//
    ABOSOLUTELY NEVER. And there can be no excuses, no justifications of how the mob was provoked into violence , to excuse mob violence.

    Like

  39. @vishesh //this probably will have a 100 page comment from me…but considering I have taken a decision not to care any more,my answer…//
    Or just “No. We better. Gandhi as right”. : )

    //majority isn’t always right…and people have no clue what they are doing…//
    I completely agree Vishesh.

    @Sunita LOL @ the three lessons in History : )) My best wishes to your son, and I agree with him about the interestingness quotient of our History books. A wonderful subject is ruined by all rote, no analysis, no place for personal opinion – just facts to be swallowed and poured out on the paper : (
    //Having said that, I have a lot of admiration for the man. Mainly for shaking an empire with nothing more than the power of doing no harm. Amazing!//
    I am always happy to meet someone who agrees with this Sunita. Most people don’t understand the value and power of non violence and we need those lessons more than ever before, TODAY!

    I agree with your very well expressed views, so I will just highlight what you have said here,
    absolutely nothing justifies violence, especially against the unarmed.
    As for the second, I find that we as a nation are increasingly becoming very touchy and hyper-sensitive.
    If something in a book offends you, don’t read it.
    If something a person does offends you, boycott him.
    If a movie has scenes that offend your sensibilities, dont watch it.
    Simple!
    It’s high time we grew up, isnt it?

    Like

  40. @Yogesh I should thank you for answering so clearly, and so boldly 🙂 We need such voices in today’s India.

    1) Mob violence can never be justified against women and children no matter how grievous crime they have committed
    I completely agree, Yogesh. .
    but yes I won’t mind mob going mad at politicians who are making communal speeches and spreading hatred and not fulfilling given promises 😀
    I hope we show our violence by voting against them ;D.

    2) I would say that we would like to think so but we seldom follow it.
    Yes. You are absolutely right. This is true!

    3) I think Gandhiji was right in preaching non-violence but the first question is how much have we read about his non-violence approach to understand it?
    Again I agree. If we understood his preaching we will not be half the problems we are facing today. Instead we have to listen to politicians who are creating divides and violence..

    As an Indian, I don’t think many of us are even aware of his teachings, unless one makes a point to do so. Passing a judgment on something that you don’t know about much is no better than ignorance.
    I AGREE

    Like

  41. @RGB
    1)Mob violence against unarmed innocent citizens can never be justified whatever may be the circumstances.
    I agree.

    At the same time, issues regarding the ‘other side’ need to be addressed as well.
    For mob violence against innocent citizens – there can no other side RGB, it’s like asking a child abuser or a rapist (and such violent mobs are only full of such people, committing such acts) what excuse did he have!

    2)Same rules must apply to everybody and our constitution guarantees that.
    I agree.

    3)Non violence should be practiced in normal day to day life. But Gandhi carried the principle of non violence to ridiculous levels. I do not think non violence is an effective strategy in self defense or in an independence movement.
    I will read more and write about this RGB, I just feel we need some lessons in non violence to keep this Democracy alive today, we are so surrounded by meaningless violence… if we all respected non violence our mobs, our hate speeches, our protests will not frighten us like they do today.

    Like

  42. @J P Joshi
    1. Violence of any kind in a civilised society is an absolute taboo, against anyone.
    2. Yes.
    3. Gandhiji was absolutely correct in teaching non violence. This non violence had the power to liberate many nations, it all started with India, and the collapse of the British empire.. followed by equal rights to blacks in USA (Martin Luther King) and then with South Africa (Nelson Mandela). Gandhiji and non violence have been the inspiration for all these. It will help many more in the future too, I believe.
    Mr JP Joshi I totally agree with everything you have said here. I wish more people understood this then our country would not have been in such a state. But we indirectly support this violence by trying to see the justification for , or the other side of cruelty and crime that mob violence is.

    @Indyeah Thanks : ) I will definitely take a look at this link.

    But Indyeah even if one does not quote Gandhi, violence can be seen as the biggest cause of human unhappiness and tragedy and inhuman cruelty. If we just sit and think, we will realise there can not really be any other side to cruelty, crime and violence and the moment we stop looking for “maybe the mob violence was caused by this or could be they were provoked by that …” we will be discouraging some calculating organisation/politician from using it.

    Like

  43. “For mob violence against innocent citizens – there can no other side RGB”

    I agree there can be no justification for mob violence . What I meant by the other side was the flash point that triggers a riot. In the context of Gujarat riots, the trigger was the burning of the train coach in Godhra. The incident in Godhra and the riots that followed were equally heinous and should be condemned equally. Unfortunately that has not been the case. Neither in the media nor in movies like Firaq.

    “I just feel we need some lessons in non violence to keep this Democracy alive today”

    I agree there is increasing level of intolerance and violence in our society and it must be curbed.

    Like

  44. Violence should stay where it belongs…in the mind. But it is only the mindless that resort to it, what ever be the reason…its a NO, NO.To Quote Mahatama Gandhi…’“Nonviolence is a weapon of the strong”……..
    Mob violence can never be justified..it can have many heads but has no brains.You are so right when you say..we need the lessons of nonviolence more than ever..Today.

    Like

  45. Of course IHM the answer to the first 2 questions, as I read from the responses is more or less decided.

    On the topic of Gandhi, I sometimes wonder what would’ve happened if Gandhi was born during the times of the Prophet! His words might have been a religion and what an awesome religion that would’ve been! Even the most radical Gandhi’ists would’ve only fasted themselves to death in protest without laying a finger on someone else. No guns, no bombs, nothing of that sort.

    But then again, not sure if it would’ve existed this long without violence.

    Like

  46. @3
    You cannot be non-violent all the times . Gandhi jee’s methods cannot be applied everywhere . Che Guevara was not a Gandhian, yet , he and Castro brought about a revolution in Cuba . My personal opinion is that violence and non-violence co exist, and a state of perpetual violence or non-violence are both bad . And I would rather look for these answers in the Geeta or in the teachings of Vivekananda .

    Btw , totally against riots of any sorts whatever the reason be .

    Like

  47. @Charakan Nothing can justify mob violence. Those who are looking for the other side should realise that the other side would have still other side and that too will have other side. But Charakan what other side are we talking about?
    Other side of murderers and rapists? It’s like if you kill one person on your own you will be hanged, but if you take a group of people, chant some slogans and kill any number of people you can claim there is an other side to your crimes?

    I completely agree with you on other points.

    Like

  48. @lankr1ta I totally agree. being oppressed, upset etc etc is justification only as long as other people are not harmed, once that line crossed, there is nothing left to justify. And laws need be THE same regardless. Non-violence is a very powerful way to protest. Let’s couple it with GENUINE causes.

    @hitch writer
    I mean violence must be condemned if against innocents….
    I knew you could only mean this Hitchwriter : -)

    About your preference for violence against the British (for freedom), why and how do you think would it have helped us?

    Like

  49. @RGB
    You say, “I agree there can be no justification for mob violence. What I meant by the other side was the flash point that triggers a riot.”
    Should ANY trigger be allowed to become a justification? If we allow this, isn’t there a risk of that becoming an excuse for future violence?

    “In the context of Gujarat riots, the trigger was the burning of the train coach in Godhra. The incident in Godhra and the riots that followed were equally heinous and should be condemned equally. Unfortunately that has not been the case. Neither in the media nor in movies like Firaq.”

    First some innocent citizens were burnt alive in a train and then the same kind of criminals (unless it was an accident) who killed those citizens found an excuse to create vote banks by killing, burning and raping many more citizens.

    Why do you think the train victims were different from the people who died in the Gujarat riots?
    From whatever we have seen the killers were not ordinary family men, decent citizens whose feelings were wounded so they came out to kill. Like Nita says above, “Why, even when people lose their family members to riots, they do not go and burn the house of someone from the community which is responsible”

    There were some people killed in a train and some more people killed in riots. Calling it revenge is like closing the chapter on Godhra train burning, it is like saying since they killed so many more in the riots afterwards, now their burning is avenged and hence we stop hearing any more about Godhra, it becomes a TRIGGER for Gujarat riots. This is what politics and dividing of population into groups does.

    We forget that we are dying, some today, some tomorrow; some by burning, some with swords; some in trains, some in their homes – there is very little chance that the families of those who died in Gujarat could have joined in those revenge riots or even asked for revenge- and till today there is no conclusive evidence for or against anybody – as to how that train caught fire, but we are ready to hate whole groups of people for burning and for rioting. (The mood had been created by the same kind of political leaders.)
    If you have ever been on a riot you will see the rioters and killers are not ordinary people or victims. Those who are out on the streets to seek revenge or to teach lessons- the rioters are always criminals who are out to make full use of our naiveté and the easy opportunity to be glorified for what they would normally have been condemned.

    And why not? They get voted into power and then we say we don’t want criminals in politics! There should have been a prompt inquiry, improvement in security arrangements on trains, rehabilitation of victims- instead we create more of us in need of rehabilitation. (And now somebody might say, not more of ‘us’, it was ‘them’.)

    For those who think we should go back, then keep going back up to how we voted for our religion.
    And then what made us vote for religion? Some more rioting? Some more going back into a 400 years old place of worship …
    When (and if) we stop voting for saving our religion we will see an end to, first some killings, and then some more killings (undermining the first victims by claiming to have avenged those killings) and maybe then we will continue to discuss why some victims get less or more attention than some other victims. Because in the end, whether we like it or not, no matter which group is killed, we are all affected equally.

    Like

  50. @Mamma mia! Me a mamma? I know I have also experienced it : (
    And to think of what all those who were killed or hurt in mob violence must have felt is unimaginable.

    @hitch writer What is ??? Dealy in replying of comments? Grown up kids also keep parents very busy : -)

    @Poonam J said…
    I so agree with you!
    “…It is only the mindless that resort to it” so true, and excusing (even indirectly or even slightly) mob violence is excusing the rule of mindlessness. We are – without really thinking about it assuming it will not happen to us, because if we did we will never excuse it.
    If only we could learn from Mahatama Gandhi…‘“Nonviolence is a weapon of the strong”.

    Like

  51. @Mamma mia! Me a mamma? I know I have also experienced it : (
    And to think of what all those who were killed or hurt in mob violence must have felt is unimaginable.

    @hitch writer What is ??? Dealy in replying of comments? Grown up kids also keep parents very busy : -)

    @Poonam J said…
    I so agree with you!
    “…It is only the mindless that resort to it” so true, and excusing (even indirectly or even slightly) mob violence is excusing the rule of mindlessness. We are – without really thinking about it assuming it will not happen to us, because if we did we will never excuse it.
    If only we could learn from Mahatama Gandhi…‘“Nonviolence is a weapon of the strong”.

    Like

  52. @Rakesh
    On the topic of Gandhi, I sometimes wonder what would’ve happened if Gandhi was born during the times of the Prophet! His words might have been a religion and what an awesome religion that would’ve been! Even the most radical Gandhi’ists would’ve only fasted themselves to death in protest without laying a finger on someone else. No guns, no bombs, nothing of that sort.

    But then again, not sure if it would’ve existed this long without violence.

    Rakesh I think we would have got used to living in peace and would have taken it for granted that the biggest worries in life were poverty, sickness, natural calamities, unemployment, better schools, and better infrastructure.
    Sounds like a dream in today’s India… in today’s world.

    And still there are people who justify violence.

    Like

  53. @Kislay You say “My personal opinion is that violence and non-violence co exist, and a state of perpetual violence or non-violence are both bad.”

    Kislay some violence existing is bad enough, violence ruling our lives, and ending lives is another. I wish it was possible that those who approved of violence and those who did not could choose to live with and without violence. It does not happen like that!

    “And I would rather look for these answers in the Geeta or in the teachings of Vivekananda.”
    Kislay I think eventually we will all take what we like from a world of good guidance and teachings we have… I find Gandhi’s teachings, if they were followed sincerely, would have taken us away from a lot of unhappiness, we all want happy and peaceful lives, he showed us how we could start moving towards that goal. In the simplest, most practical of ways.

    Btw , totally against riots of any sorts whatever the reason be .
    When all of us condemn violence, we have already moved a step towards controlling mob violence… unfortunately there are too many people who think some mob violence is justified : -(

    Like

  54. “Should ANY trigger be allowed to become a justification? If we allow this, isn’t there a risk of that becoming an excuse for future violence?”
    I have already said that there can be no justification for mob violence. No incident should be allowed to become a trigger for riots. But the fact is almost every riot has been triggered by some incident. Preventive measures need to be taken so that in future no incident serves as a trigger.

    “Why do you think the train victims were different from the people who died in the Gujarat riots?”
    I do not think victims in both the cases were any different. But do the media and human rights activists think so? Did the media pay any attention to the victims of train burning? Instead efforts are being made to prove the incident was an accident. Is this justice to the victims of train burning?

    “From whatever we have seen the killers were not ordinary family men, decent citizens whose feelings were wounded so they came out to kill.”
    A common man will not initiate a riot but he can become a part of the mob.

    Like Nita says above, “Why, even when people lose their family members to riots, they do not go and burn the house of someone from the community which is responsible”
    I do not think we can make such a generalization. Sometimes it does happen as it did in the Bombay blasts.

    There were some people killed in a train and some more people killed in riots. Calling it revenge is like closing the chapter on Godhra train burning, it is like saying since they killed so many more in the riots afterwards, now their burning is avenged and hence we stop hearing any more about Godhra, it becomes a TRIGGER for Gujarat riots. This is what politics and dividing of population into groups does.”
    I have not called the riots a revenge nor have I justified any trigger. It cannot be justified. All I have said is that victims of both the incidents should get justice. The people who died in the train burning were victims of a criminal act and they should not be ignored. But sadly they have been ignored so far.

    ” the rioters are always criminals who are out to make full use of our naiveté and the easy opportunity to be glorified for what they would normally have been condemned.”
    They should be condemned in riots as well.

    “For those who think we should go back, then keep going back up to how we voted for our religion.”
    Who has said anything about going back? Have I?

    Like

  55. IHM, this commentiframe, is not letting me to comment on your posts when I browse from my cell phone.

    And I think Gandhi was very clever in using non-violence as his powerful weapon. Think about it in a different perspective and it should be clear….

    Destination Infinity

    Like

  56. How dare the ones who commit acts of violence call themselves ‘religious’. No religion preaches violence. There is a war between good and evil, but that is so different and so misunderstood. That is the ultimate ‘Dharmyuddh’. Probably like an End of the World type thing, and necessary at times for reversing all the damage we do as a humanity gone blind and required for a fresh start.

    BUT Mob Violence can never be good. It is the evil in us unleashed, nothing ever can justify it.

    Like

  57. “..can mob violence against unarmed citizens, including women and children have ‘other side’…like they might have done something to offend this mob, so they deserve this violence by them?

    Can we say, mob violence against unarmed citizens can be justified under certain circumstances?…”. Do we honestly accept that the same rules must apply to everybody, including us?….” – I agree to you views! It’s absolutely what we want!!!

    Like

  58. @IHMreading my comment, probably I sounded as if I was condoning the act. But let me say again that I don’t think violence against unarmed citizens can be justified under ANY circumstances. Any violence other than for self-defense is wrong. However, my comment was made with nandita das and her new movie in mind. When a mob takes to violence, we should question what caused it. No matter how insignificant or distorted that reason maybe. Mobs do not take to violence without any instigation. Violence against innocent citizens, is absolutely wrong and I am not trying to justify it by saying that there must have been a reason. NO reason. Absolutely nothing is good enough to justify the killing of innocent muslims in Gujarat or killing of innocent Indians in mumbai. However I feel pushing the reasons/motives behind such mob violence under the rug is not an honest way to look at any incident. Asking for motive or reasons behind an act does not equate to condoning an act.

    Nitwit Nastik I have not seen the movie yet 😦

    Like

  59. Have always been irked by people who justify mob violence… it can never be justified.. nd the best way to answer this question would be to put yourself in a mob and imagine the worst atrocities done against you.. will you join them? will you kill innocents?

    I blv most of us will not.. how much ever we are provoked… so I think they are staged most of the time and are done by those people who have no qualms whatsoever.. because if you are talking about dharma and the need to fight back, it is only the coward who kills the helpless.

    As for Gandhiji.. his teachings are more relevant in these times..

    Like

  60. @Happy Kitten I agree, the best way to answer this question would be to put yourself in a mob and imagine the worst atrocities done against you.. will you join them? will you kill innocents?

    I believe most of us will not.. how much ever we are provoked… so I think they are staged most of the time and are done by those people who have no qualms whatsoever.. because if you are talking about dharma and the need to fight back, it is only the coward who kills the helpless.
    That’s exactly what I feel Happy Kitten, in act I have seen this is true in 1984 riots.

    Like

  61. IHM,Let me explain what I meant by “Those who are looking for the other side should realise that the other side would have still other side and that too will have other side”.
    Take Sikh genocide of 1984.Imagine Some one is making a film about it.Should it begin with the cold blooded murder of the Prime Minister by her own bodyguards?The Congress will claim that this ‘other side’ should also be shown. They can justify it as the sudden reaction due to the killing of Indira Gandhi by Sikhs.Sikh fundamentalists will want the ‘other side’ of other side also be depicted in the film.They will want the Operation Blue Star shown as Indira Gandhi descrating Golden Temple by sending troops. Then apologists for the riots will want to show the Khalistan separatist movement……this will go on and on…
    As you said IHM by firmly believing all mob violence is equally bad and unjustifiable we may go a long way in preventing further such violence.
    here is the link to an article by Nandita Das on this issue

    http://www.hindu.com/2009/04/04/stories/2009040452250900.htm

    Like

    • Charakan You have explained it so much better than I ever could! Thank You!
      Take Sikh genocide of 1984. Imagine Some one is making a film about it.Should it begin with the cold blooded murder of the Prime Minister by her own bodyguards?The Congress will claim that this ‘other side’ should also be shown.

      And I that link with Nandita Das’s point of view is so clear about what she as trying to say. I have always admired her and after reading her own words I am doubly in awe.
      What I liked best is,

      //And I did want it to be true to the context of Gujarat, which sadly, was a carnage and not a riot. So if the reality itself is skewed, it would not be correct to balance it artificially. The blame belongs not to artists who represent that reality but to those who created that imbalance in the first place.

      In any case, Firaaq is not about pointing fingers. It looks at the tragedy from the only perspective that is morally valid — the victims — and doesn’t revel in the heinous crimes of the perpetrators, even though they did occur. Above all, I wanted to evoke empathy, an emotion that we are fast forgetting.

      I have also been asked the predictable question “why Gujarat and why not Kashmir?” As a storyteller, I wanted to respond to the world around me. The Gujarat carnage happened and affected me at a stage in my creative life where I could respond to it directly. Had I been at the same stage, say, when the Sikh genocide happened in Delhi or when the exodus of Pandits from the Kashmir Valley was forced through terrorist acts, I probably would have made films concerning them. But there is a more fundamental issue at stake here: Muslims in Gujarat, Sikhs in Delhi and the plight of the Kashmiri Pandits are not competing tragedies over which sympathies must be traded. Worse still are those who try to use the suffering of one set of victims to justify or rationalise the suffering of others. Two wrongs don’t ever make a right. //

      I agree with her.

      Like

    • Pro choice – Women have control over their own bodies.

      Female foeticide – Indicative of the deeply ingrained gender bias, a social problem, and women who agree to abort female babies are also victims of social conditioning.

      Like

  62. @Charakan Thank You for this wonderful link. Nandita Das expressed something many of us who wish to be fair feel. It’s people like her who will keep some sanity in all the hate we see around us.

    Like

  63. @Charakan You have explained it so much better than I ever could! Thank You!
    Take Sikh genocide of 1984. Imagine Some one is making a film about it.Should it begin with the cold blooded murder of the Prime Minister by her own bodyguards?The Congress will claim that this ‘other side’ should also be shown.

    And the link with Nandita Das’s point of view is so clear about what she as trying to say. I have always admired her and after reading her own words I am doubly in awe.
    What I liked best is,

    //And I did want it to be true to the context of Gujarat, which sadly, was a carnage and not a riot. So if the reality itself is skewed, it would not be correct to balance it artificially. The blame belongs not to artists who represent that reality but to those who created that imbalance in the first place.

    In any case, Firaaq is not about pointing fingers. It looks at the tragedy from the only perspective that is morally valid — the victims — and doesn’t revel in the heinous crimes of the perpetrators, even though they did occur. Above all, I wanted to evoke empathy, an emotion that we are fast forgetting.

    I have also been asked the predictable question “why Gujarat and why not Kashmir?” As a storyteller, I wanted to respond to the world around me. The Gujarat carnage happened and affected me at a stage in my creative life where I could respond to it directly. Had I been at the same stage, say, when the Sikh genocide happened in Delhi or when the exodus of Pandits from the Kashmir Valley was forced through terrorist acts, I probably would have made films concerning them. But there is a more fundamental issue at stake here: Muslims in Gujarat, Sikhs in Delhi and the plight of the Kashmiri Pandits are not competing tragedies over which sympathies must be traded. Worse still are those who try to use the suffering of one set of victims to justify or rationalise the suffering of others. Two wrongs don’t ever make a right. //

    I agree with her.

    Like

  64. Regarding Nandita Das’s point of view, when you selectively depict events of an incident you can hardly claim evoking empathy as your aim.

    “And I did want it to be true to the context of Gujarat, which sadly, was a carnage and not a riot. So if the reality itself is skewed, it would not be correct to balance it artificially.”

    Unfortunately for her, this is contrary to the press reports and convictions of the Gujarat riots.

    Like

    • RGB I respect and support and immensely admire Nandita Das’s views in this interview. Too busy for a long reply at the moment, but your logic is beginning to look saffron tinted.

      Like

      • I agree with some of her views in the interview but I do not think she was objective in her depiction of the Gujarat riots.

        Why is reasoning beginning to look as ‘saffron tinted’?

        Like

  65. “Pro choice – Women have control over their own bodies.

    Female foeticide – Indicative of the deeply ingrained gender bias, a social problem, and women who agree to abort female babies are also victims of social conditioning.”

    I know what the two terms mean. I am asking how would you simultaneously defend your stance on both the issues.

    Like

  66. 1. NO mob violence cannot be right under any circumstance. A mob taking law into their own hands means that they lack respect of the law of the land, which in itself is sad. Most Indians have grown to disrespect the law. For us laws are just meant to be broken. Mob is made of ordinary citizens like you and me and we dont have any right to punish anyone.
    2. Yes the law should be same for everyone.
    3. Gandhiji was entirely right in preaching and practising non-violence. No matter how much you deny the truth is that Britishers were our rulers during that period and they were governing us. We as Indians didnt want them to govern us and wanted self rule. This is a case of people not agreeing with the government. We should use peaceful means to bring about a change. This practice is more relevant today than any other time in history. All we find in news these days is people being beaten up by a mob. If these mobs followed the rule and were not violent, they could have garnered public support and changed the law.

    Like

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s