Ends and Means??
Published by Ravikiran Rao November 28th, 2003 in GovernanceJivha says
Pramod Mutalik, VHP organising secretary and Bajrang Dal South India convenor(not exactly the best of references I know!), says that even though the “means” adopted by Mattennavar(planting bombs) might be wrong, the purpose was “genuine”.
Such arguments are so alarmingly stupid that refuting them debase the intellect of the person doing so, but nevertheless, refuted they must be.
Firstly Jivha, if an argument is worth responding to, it is worth responding to civilly. If an argument is so self-evidently stupid, then there was no need to expend a blog entry refuting it. If the argument requires refutation, then you haven’t helped your case by calling it stupid. It is better to have your response demonstrate that it is stupid.
Secondly, the argument is not stupid, unless you claim that taking up arms against a government is never justified. When the government of a country breaks down and fails in its duty of protecting the rights of its citizens, we citizens are certainly justified in taking up arms against the government.
Most reasonable people will argue that such a situation hasn’t arisen in present day India. I agree, though I am not so sure about lawless places like Bihar and perhaps Uttar Pradesh. I also certainly believe that during the emergency, when the supreme court of India held that a citizen had no fundamental right to live, and that a policeman could shoot him point blank without a trial, (in so many words) an armed revolt was justifiable.
But in general I agree that the situation is such that we should still work within the system. But that doesn’t stop me from having sympathy for a person who got too frustrated and planted bombs in a legislator’s house. That doesn’t make my reasoning stupid.
1. Ravi, Mr.Pramod Mutalik’s statement needs to be viewed in the context in order for it to be deemed “stupid”.
Since there is no “breakdown of government” and no “failure of the government to protect the rights of it’s citizens” in Karnataka, Mr.Mutalik’s statement is *stupid* in the present context. Boycott of foreign-made goods might have been relevant during our freedom struggle, but if someone were to advocate the same in the present scene in India, I would without doubt term it *stupid*
2. By merely calling the argument *stupid* did not make my reply un-civil.
3. Sympathy for a person is exactly what I meant by the “human element” in my post. The law has no place for “sympathy”. It might treat an accused in a “sympathetic light” in some cases, but by no means can it allow the “sympathy” to overrule the law of the land itself.
Though I am often put off by Jivha’s ranting (it is getting a bit tiresome of late), I agree with the principle that the means do not justify the end.
However Ravi, in your Emergency example, the means (armed revolt against a violent opressor) is justifiable on it’s own by invoking the principle of self defense. It is not dependent on justification from the end (freedom from dictatorship).
In Jivha’s example the means (killing an allegedly corrupt legislator) do not justify the end (justice, ending theft, etc). To me corruption is the same as theft / extortion. The means justifying the end here means proposing the death sentence for theft and extortion. And in this case, a sentence passed without a trial or any due process whatsoever.
Ravi, you had writen on this earlier. Damn. You’ve taken down your blog archives for maintenance. Give us a link to your earlier views please!
You can always argue what the breakdown of the system is when the system itself is corrupt. Would you use checks and measures set by the government themselves to justify the proper punishment. That doesn’t go to say that corruption is punishable by death, but it does raise the question as to where the buck stops. Where does a vigilante movement become a civil revolt. It’s a fine line.