Silence is a powerful enemy of social justice
-Amartya Sen, in Essay 2 (Inequality, Instability and Voice) of "The Argumentative Indian", Penguin, 2005
In this book Amartya Sen deals with the great tradition of argumentation in India which flourished most during the reigns of Ashoka and Akbar due to the royal patronage it got. The argumentative heritage is an important asset, but its effectiveness depends on making proper use of it, and allowing its proper use. He rightly claims that acceptance of equality in our culture leans more towards acceptance (स्विकृती ) rather than recognition (मान्यता ). Acceptance implies that it can change from situation to situation and person to person. Even that has been waning of late.
Just like bad politicians are elected by good citizens who do not vote, many social evils are perpetuated by the silence of those whose voice can affect matters. It is seen at all levels, starting from small NGOs to the national level where well-trained pilots fall pray to tightlippedness. My own experience with small social organizations has reinforced my belief in the necessity of being vocal. Often because not enough of the other like-minded people are equally vocal, I do not succeed in my plans. But that is something one should be prepared for, and still continue being vocal. Be as logical as possible, try to take in as many circumstances and possibilities as possible, but always give your opinion on things that matter to you.
Hitguj is an interesting mixed example. Thanks to the mods and admin, it provides a platform for argumentation. Many users do not care about various matters so long as they can while away their time. Many others make use of the argumentative tradition to its full, if not beyond. While the good part is that the tradition is alive here, we do see that many prefer to stay tight lipped rather than argue. That is exactly what tilts the balance towards those who are more vocal. It is important to keep on saying what you feel is important no matter how futile it may seem in the face of opposite numbers. Their numbers are made because of those of us who do not stand up to be counted.
Silence may be golden, but argumentativeness rules.
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
Sunday, September 24, 2006
on discretion
Discretion is not the better part of biography.
-Lytton Strachey (1880 - 1932), in Michael Holroyd Lytton, Strachey vol. 1 (1967)
In school we had an English lesson titled "Discretion is the better part of valour." That is a paraphrased version of what Falstaff says in Shakespeare's Henry IV, Part One. Not being the adventurous type, I used to love it. I also fell in love with the above sentence when I saw it a few days back as it catches very well the fact that people present the lives of other people in a rather manipulative way.
Sometimes it is better to have discretion in what you say as in "you should always say the truth, but you do not have to say all the truth." Even in a biography, you may not want to go beyond facts as Laine did in fantasizing who Shivaji's biological father may be.
But if you claim you are presenting a biography then it is best to present all the facts and let the reader/viewer decide about it. When a documentary was made on "Cheaper by the dozen" they made fun of the family without showing the intent of the people. That was bad.
History is written by the victors. So they choose what to tell the public, and more importantly, what not to tell the public. Bhagat Singh was a brilliant person who sported a socialistic attitude and was very widely read in that subject. All you see about it in RDB was his closing a book titled Lenin when the jailor summons him. Of course RDB is not about him or about socialism, so an artistic license there is understandable. But even in text books, it is mentioned in passing and rarely are there teachers with a penchant for history who can tell the middle school students what socialism is and what it meant in pre-independence days when Russia was going strong.
A typical Hindi movie has many temple or mosque scenes. Ever wonder why there aren't any in the Bhagat Singh movies (they did have a couple in the older B&W one). That is because they at least try not to show what he was not. He was an atheist to the end*. He in fact gained his strength from his conviction about it. He fought for the country's freedom because he could not have done otherwise. Unlike some scenes shown, he never had any intention of leaving the jail as he knew his case would take their cause to the masses. The letter he wrote to his father makes that quiet clear. But you don't learn about any of these because "clearly" he was not a "model" son in that sense**. Here is one of my favourite Bhagat Singh quote: "Organised religion is the prop of a man who has not yet found his Self/God within".
Charvak's case is slightly different and hence interesting too. Charvaks are atheists and hence religious establishments were against them and did not let their literature survive***. So, it is the other religions that have saved their arguments against the first religion. Thus all their work is saved by third parties.
All records over long periods are thus a compendium of fact and fabrication. It is many times difficult to make out the difference. The good thing is that often you do not have to care.
* Brief note on Bhagat Singh
** Writings of Bhagat Singh (20 - also 26 for atheism)
*** Charvaks
Take history texts with more than a pinch of salt. Enjoy them, but keep your eyes on the future and learn from the present.
-Lytton Strachey (1880 - 1932), in Michael Holroyd Lytton, Strachey vol. 1 (1967)
In school we had an English lesson titled "Discretion is the better part of valour." That is a paraphrased version of what Falstaff says in Shakespeare's Henry IV, Part One. Not being the adventurous type, I used to love it. I also fell in love with the above sentence when I saw it a few days back as it catches very well the fact that people present the lives of other people in a rather manipulative way.
Sometimes it is better to have discretion in what you say as in "you should always say the truth, but you do not have to say all the truth." Even in a biography, you may not want to go beyond facts as Laine did in fantasizing who Shivaji's biological father may be.
But if you claim you are presenting a biography then it is best to present all the facts and let the reader/viewer decide about it. When a documentary was made on "Cheaper by the dozen" they made fun of the family without showing the intent of the people. That was bad.
History is written by the victors. So they choose what to tell the public, and more importantly, what not to tell the public. Bhagat Singh was a brilliant person who sported a socialistic attitude and was very widely read in that subject. All you see about it in RDB was his closing a book titled Lenin when the jailor summons him. Of course RDB is not about him or about socialism, so an artistic license there is understandable. But even in text books, it is mentioned in passing and rarely are there teachers with a penchant for history who can tell the middle school students what socialism is and what it meant in pre-independence days when Russia was going strong.
A typical Hindi movie has many temple or mosque scenes. Ever wonder why there aren't any in the Bhagat Singh movies (they did have a couple in the older B&W one). That is because they at least try not to show what he was not. He was an atheist to the end*. He in fact gained his strength from his conviction about it. He fought for the country's freedom because he could not have done otherwise. Unlike some scenes shown, he never had any intention of leaving the jail as he knew his case would take their cause to the masses. The letter he wrote to his father makes that quiet clear. But you don't learn about any of these because "clearly" he was not a "model" son in that sense**. Here is one of my favourite Bhagat Singh quote: "Organised religion is the prop of a man who has not yet found his Self/God within".
Charvak's case is slightly different and hence interesting too. Charvaks are atheists and hence religious establishments were against them and did not let their literature survive***. So, it is the other religions that have saved their arguments against the first religion. Thus all their work is saved by third parties.
All records over long periods are thus a compendium of fact and fabrication. It is many times difficult to make out the difference. The good thing is that often you do not have to care.
* Brief note on Bhagat Singh
** Writings of Bhagat Singh (20 - also 26 for atheism)
*** Charvaks
Take history texts with more than a pinch of salt. Enjoy them, but keep your eyes on the future and learn from the present.
Friday, September 22, 2006
socialism versus capitalism?
I believe that only socialist man is truly human because only socialist man dominates things, while in other regimes, things dominate man.
-Jean-Paul Sartre (1905 - 1980)
It is not very well known that Karl Marx was well aware of the power of capitalism to break down barriers and that he knew that one day capitalism will win over socialism. He just wanted to delay it since the world did not seem to be ready for capitalism yet and because among other things national and religious boundaries would be overrun too*.
Socialism/communism/Marxism was adopted by a few Eastern block countries, it thrived there for a while, and crumbled partly due to the artificially rigid structure given to it and partly against the capitalistic forces of free trade. Countries like China, India and Brazil are reaping rich rewards of the globalised markets. Notice that these three countries are as different in their temperaments as can be. Yet, they are all gaining due to the flattening of the world. India as a country stands to advance through this process of openness.
Globalization is in fact a global process of socialism. Earlier only a few western countries controlled the wealth of earth. That is now spreading to many countries. It is not spreading to all countries just because the populace or leaders there are not taking the right steps e.g. some Islamic countries still choose to look at non-muslims as
infidels and would want to eliminate them rather than collaborate with them for mutual good.
True, the advantages of this globalization, socialism is not reaching all strata of our society (yet). But the raised standard of living of the select few who are benefiting does allow them to spend more and the benefit of that reaches other trades and occupations. Within the country too it becomes important for people to collaborate and open boundaries rather than look at their neighbors through tainted glasses. That will help everyone progress. Socialism is like utopia. You have to want to get there. You need to compete. You must need to want a car,
a new house, habits that you could only dream of earlier. Everyone must want that. Then we will approach the global socialist dream asymtotically (the beauty being that it will never be reached).
All this seems to contradict what Sartre says above about humans dominating things in a socialistic world. But what is important is to be able to buy things, but not be dominated by them. It is perhaps owing to such inherent contradictions and possible Utopian predicaments that many intellectuals turned towards socialism for a time and then turned away. These included such names as Sartre, Vinda Karandikar ** and Bhagat Singh.
In our current situation I will equate our local/regional governments to the anti-progress Islamic governments (e.g. they remain stuck in partisan politics for petty gains) and the muslim/christian haters in India to people in those countries who hate non-muslims. These are the people who seem to miss the bus, stay stuck in a rut and also try to pull others with them.
* From the Communist Manifesto, 1848
** See, for example, बहुपेडी विंदा by Vijaya Rajadhyaksha
Whether you choose to be a socialist or a capitalist (both are the same) try to be a humanist.
-Jean-Paul Sartre (1905 - 1980)
It is not very well known that Karl Marx was well aware of the power of capitalism to break down barriers and that he knew that one day capitalism will win over socialism. He just wanted to delay it since the world did not seem to be ready for capitalism yet and because among other things national and religious boundaries would be overrun too*.
Socialism/communism/Marxism was adopted by a few Eastern block countries, it thrived there for a while, and crumbled partly due to the artificially rigid structure given to it and partly against the capitalistic forces of free trade. Countries like China, India and Brazil are reaping rich rewards of the globalised markets. Notice that these three countries are as different in their temperaments as can be. Yet, they are all gaining due to the flattening of the world. India as a country stands to advance through this process of openness.
Globalization is in fact a global process of socialism. Earlier only a few western countries controlled the wealth of earth. That is now spreading to many countries. It is not spreading to all countries just because the populace or leaders there are not taking the right steps e.g. some Islamic countries still choose to look at non-muslims as
infidels and would want to eliminate them rather than collaborate with them for mutual good.
True, the advantages of this globalization, socialism is not reaching all strata of our society (yet). But the raised standard of living of the select few who are benefiting does allow them to spend more and the benefit of that reaches other trades and occupations. Within the country too it becomes important for people to collaborate and open boundaries rather than look at their neighbors through tainted glasses. That will help everyone progress. Socialism is like utopia. You have to want to get there. You need to compete. You must need to want a car,
a new house, habits that you could only dream of earlier. Everyone must want that. Then we will approach the global socialist dream asymtotically (the beauty being that it will never be reached).
All this seems to contradict what Sartre says above about humans dominating things in a socialistic world. But what is important is to be able to buy things, but not be dominated by them. It is perhaps owing to such inherent contradictions and possible Utopian predicaments that many intellectuals turned towards socialism for a time and then turned away. These included such names as Sartre, Vinda Karandikar ** and Bhagat Singh.
In our current situation I will equate our local/regional governments to the anti-progress Islamic governments (e.g. they remain stuck in partisan politics for petty gains) and the muslim/christian haters in India to people in those countries who hate non-muslims. These are the people who seem to miss the bus, stay stuck in a rut and also try to pull others with them.
* From the Communist Manifesto, 1848
** See, for example, बहुपेडी विंदा by Vijaya Rajadhyaksha
Whether you choose to be a socialist or a capitalist (both are the same) try to be a humanist.
Thursday, September 21, 2006
majority rules?
Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled.
-Michael Crichton (1942 - ), Caltech Michelin Lecture, January 17, 2003
I recently found a very telling example of this in an article trying to separate Indians as Hindus and non-Hindus and trying to increase the social evil of superstition in Hindus by trying to glorify it.
QUOTE
Satya Sai Baba cannot have millions of disciples from the most humble to the Presidents of India without 'something' which is beyond superstition.
UNQUOTE
I have nothing against Satya Sai Baba here in particular but the notion that because millions of people, and their president, do something, it must be right. This is clearly an appeal to leave your own thinking backstage and move around intellectually naked. People are being told that they do not have to think for themselves, it has already been done for them. They can just go and watch the k-series on idiot boxes and be happy and take "Hindu"stan forward.
Even our own Sanskrit has a famous quote that people ignore when they say such things:
युक्तियुक्तं वचो ग्राह्यं बालादपि शुकादपि
युक्तिहीनं वचस्त्याज्यं व्रूध्हादपि शुकादपि
i.e. whatever is consistent with right reasoning should be accepted even if it comes from a boy or a parrot, and whatever is not, should be rejected even if it comes from an old man or the sage Suka himself.
Feynman had said that you should never repeat something someone has said unless you understand it yourself. He even said that one should be able to derive everything from first principles. That may be a tall task for mere mortals but we can at least take a vow not to aid superstitions by spreading second hand stories.
Especially now that any बाळु can write anything on a webapge we have to be wary in what we believe. We have to use our judgment.
Believe nothing of what you hear and only half of what you read.
-Michael Crichton (1942 - ), Caltech Michelin Lecture, January 17, 2003
I recently found a very telling example of this in an article trying to separate Indians as Hindus and non-Hindus and trying to increase the social evil of superstition in Hindus by trying to glorify it.
QUOTE
Satya Sai Baba cannot have millions of disciples from the most humble to the Presidents of India without 'something' which is beyond superstition.
UNQUOTE
I have nothing against Satya Sai Baba here in particular but the notion that because millions of people, and their president, do something, it must be right. This is clearly an appeal to leave your own thinking backstage and move around intellectually naked. People are being told that they do not have to think for themselves, it has already been done for them. They can just go and watch the k-series on idiot boxes and be happy and take "Hindu"stan forward.
Even our own Sanskrit has a famous quote that people ignore when they say such things:
युक्तियुक्तं वचो ग्राह्यं बालादपि शुकादपि
युक्तिहीनं वचस्त्याज्यं व्रूध्हादपि शुकादपि
i.e. whatever is consistent with right reasoning should be accepted even if it comes from a boy or a parrot, and whatever is not, should be rejected even if it comes from an old man or the sage Suka himself.
Feynman had said that you should never repeat something someone has said unless you understand it yourself. He even said that one should be able to derive everything from first principles. That may be a tall task for mere mortals but we can at least take a vow not to aid superstitions by spreading second hand stories.
Especially now that any बाळु can write anything on a webapge we have to be wary in what we believe. We have to use our judgment.
Believe nothing of what you hear and only half of what you read.
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
on the spirituality of science
Spirituality is the quest to know the place of our essence within the deep time of evolution and the deep space of the cosmos
-Michael Shermer, Scientific American, Dec 2005
Being spiritual is an in thing today if you note the number of Indian TV channels which start their day with this Baba or that just like the channels here start the morning by getting people to watch others exercising. In the US too many Indian (and other) movements have ample followers.
Spirituality is about the soul - about its origin. Getting to know the "creator" of our soul, of getting close to Her. Most people take this in a very theistic fashion. In his "skeptic" article Michael connects our ability to make, listen to and believe in extravagant claims about arbitrary things (including but not limited to Divine and Satanic encounters) to a large cortex coupled to a fertile imagination - both of which are clearly the outcome of a long evolutionary process.
Following Carl Sagan from Cosmos he then goes on to say how atheists can be (or, really, are) spiritual to the dot as they too are after origins, trying to decipher who we are and where we came from with an unwavering faith in the methodology they follow and answering all questions that are thrown at them.
In Sagan's words, it is a congregation of billions upon billions of atoms contemplating on exactly what made them conscious ... star stuff wondering about stars .... The important thing is that all assumptions get tested for their truthfulness with the bare minimum kept. One day we will get there. We all need to strive for it. We owe it to the ancient and vast cosmos wherefrom we have sprung.
Normally people keep their spirituality to themselves as they slowly advance in their quest. However, unfortunately, today there are so many spiritual sounding movements that are out there which are really after the blood of those who do not follow their methods - not literally, but practically. If one pauses for a moment and reflects upon it, one will realize how very anti-spiritual it is.
Be spiritual to the core. Let others practice their dharma too.
-Michael Shermer, Scientific American, Dec 2005
Being spiritual is an in thing today if you note the number of Indian TV channels which start their day with this Baba or that just like the channels here start the morning by getting people to watch others exercising. In the US too many Indian (and other) movements have ample followers.
Spirituality is about the soul - about its origin. Getting to know the "creator" of our soul, of getting close to Her. Most people take this in a very theistic fashion. In his "skeptic" article Michael connects our ability to make, listen to and believe in extravagant claims about arbitrary things (including but not limited to Divine and Satanic encounters) to a large cortex coupled to a fertile imagination - both of which are clearly the outcome of a long evolutionary process.
Following Carl Sagan from Cosmos he then goes on to say how atheists can be (or, really, are) spiritual to the dot as they too are after origins, trying to decipher who we are and where we came from with an unwavering faith in the methodology they follow and answering all questions that are thrown at them.
In Sagan's words, it is a congregation of billions upon billions of atoms contemplating on exactly what made them conscious ... star stuff wondering about stars .... The important thing is that all assumptions get tested for their truthfulness with the bare minimum kept. One day we will get there. We all need to strive for it. We owe it to the ancient and vast cosmos wherefrom we have sprung.
Normally people keep their spirituality to themselves as they slowly advance in their quest. However, unfortunately, today there are so many spiritual sounding movements that are out there which are really after the blood of those who do not follow their methods - not literally, but practically. If one pauses for a moment and reflects upon it, one will realize how very anti-spiritual it is.
Be spiritual to the core. Let others practice their dharma too.
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
on recognising what freedom is
Freedom is the recognition of necessity
-Friedrich Engels (1820-1895), German social philosopher
Engels based his statement on Hegel's (1770-1831) philosophy that "in this world freedom presents itself under the shape of necessity." Both forms clearly tell us that if you want to be free, recognize what is necessary. Looking at it in the context of social reforms that are being debated in many places, one can see that if only one recognizes what we *really* need or should be doing, it will set us free.
In particular, when it comes to traditions, no matter how longstanding these are, if one asks the following questions: "do we need these traditions? Are they relevant for our lives?" and then based on the answer chooses to keep only those that survive, we will be able to live a fuller life. More importantly, we will be able to let others lead a more fuller life as well, since many traditions also affect people around us whether they like it or not.
Just like the traditions of "sati", "bal-vivah" are gone (legally) so also should many other which undervalue the life of others.
To be free, do only those things you can reason as being meaningful. More importantly, do not let others do unto you what you think is not meaningful.
-Friedrich Engels (1820-1895), German social philosopher
Engels based his statement on Hegel's (1770-1831) philosophy that "in this world freedom presents itself under the shape of necessity." Both forms clearly tell us that if you want to be free, recognize what is necessary. Looking at it in the context of social reforms that are being debated in many places, one can see that if only one recognizes what we *really* need or should be doing, it will set us free.
In particular, when it comes to traditions, no matter how longstanding these are, if one asks the following questions: "do we need these traditions? Are they relevant for our lives?" and then based on the answer chooses to keep only those that survive, we will be able to live a fuller life. More importantly, we will be able to let others lead a more fuller life as well, since many traditions also affect people around us whether they like it or not.
Just like the traditions of "sati", "bal-vivah" are gone (legally) so also should many other which undervalue the life of others.
To be free, do only those things you can reason as being meaningful. More importantly, do not let others do unto you what you think is not meaningful.
Monday, September 18, 2006
on thinking about life
One must live the way one thinks or end up thinking the way one has lived.
-Paul Bourget (1852-1935) in 'Le Denom de midi' (1914)
Nature versus Nurture is a popular debate that goes on all the time in many different walks of life. Irrespective of nurture, every individual is unique with their own thoughts. Perhaps these are shaped by their nurture, yet they are distinct. For some it is possible to live according to their thoughts. For the rest it is also possible to do that. However they convince themselves that it is the situation that has the upper hand and they better bend down in front of these gales. Many even start believing that they like the kind of life they live. They in turn start affecting others around them with similar thoughts.
This process can be stopped by asking questions. Especially by questioning authority. Ask yourself if you are living the kind of life you really want to. Stand up and make changes if needed. The world does not care if you do not.
Mistakes may often be made in following this route, but it is through these variations that the world advances. Mutations are the spice of evolution, and mutative thinking is no exception.
It is okay to think wrongly, but important to think for yourself and take control of your life as you wish.
-Paul Bourget (1852-1935) in 'Le Denom de midi' (1914)
Nature versus Nurture is a popular debate that goes on all the time in many different walks of life. Irrespective of nurture, every individual is unique with their own thoughts. Perhaps these are shaped by their nurture, yet they are distinct. For some it is possible to live according to their thoughts. For the rest it is also possible to do that. However they convince themselves that it is the situation that has the upper hand and they better bend down in front of these gales. Many even start believing that they like the kind of life they live. They in turn start affecting others around them with similar thoughts.
This process can be stopped by asking questions. Especially by questioning authority. Ask yourself if you are living the kind of life you really want to. Stand up and make changes if needed. The world does not care if you do not.
Mistakes may often be made in following this route, but it is through these variations that the world advances. Mutations are the spice of evolution, and mutative thinking is no exception.
It is okay to think wrongly, but important to think for yourself and take control of your life as you wish.
Saturday, September 16, 2006
on programmed thinking
Once men turned their thinking over to machines in hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.
-Reverend Mother in Frank Herbert's Dune
While the statement is in the past for the fictitious year in which it is uttered, we are not yet at the stage where we have realized that trying to mechanize everything is not the answer to (life, universe and ) everything. It will work up to an extent, but not beyond a certain point.
Turing test, Godel's theorem all seem to be screaming at us that there is more to this world than pure logic (that does NOT mean it is emotion!). Things like identity thefts are but the tip of an iceberg. The spiraling wave of better encryption and more intelligent hacking will keep escalating until more non-mechanistic (fuzzy? probabilistic?) steps get incorporated. As our dependence on machines grows, we will start having to do everything in C++ in stead of Perl i.e. declare everything, make it strongly typed and completely non-intuitive. Human thinking will get encased in narrow dimensions.
That also reminds of what Arno Penzias, the Nobel Laurette once said: If you do not want to be replaced by a machine, do not act like one. One's mentality does get narrowed down to thinking down to the level of machines (but not at their speed) and gets frozen there.
Every now and then do random acts (of kindness). Try not to live a life that is run by the clock (among other machines).
-Reverend Mother in Frank Herbert's Dune
While the statement is in the past for the fictitious year in which it is uttered, we are not yet at the stage where we have realized that trying to mechanize everything is not the answer to (life, universe and ) everything. It will work up to an extent, but not beyond a certain point.
Turing test, Godel's theorem all seem to be screaming at us that there is more to this world than pure logic (that does NOT mean it is emotion!). Things like identity thefts are but the tip of an iceberg. The spiraling wave of better encryption and more intelligent hacking will keep escalating until more non-mechanistic (fuzzy? probabilistic?) steps get incorporated. As our dependence on machines grows, we will start having to do everything in C++ in stead of Perl i.e. declare everything, make it strongly typed and completely non-intuitive. Human thinking will get encased in narrow dimensions.
That also reminds of what Arno Penzias, the Nobel Laurette once said: If you do not want to be replaced by a machine, do not act like one. One's mentality does get narrowed down to thinking down to the level of machines (but not at their speed) and gets frozen there.
Every now and then do random acts (of kindness). Try not to live a life that is run by the clock (among other machines).
Friday, September 08, 2006
on being dictated laws
Good men should not obey the law too well
-Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1872)
Emerson has managed to put here very succinctly a tongue-in-cheek remark I like to make every once in a while: if rules were not supposed to be broken, they would have been natural laws. But of course Emerson being what he was, in a sentence of the same length he has managed to also qualify it by saying who should break laws (good people) and, more importantly, when (not always, nor when it suits them, but when it is clear that the law is counter to the overall "good").
In a limited way, the law does have such provisions (e.g. citizen's arrest). It has a long tradition starting right from manusmriti which is a huge web of rules and exceptions. But this is meant more in the sense of "Civil disobedience" that Thoreau preached (and practiced). It was from there that Mahatma Gandhi as well as Martin Luther King drew their inspiration.
The written word (or the spoken word) is not above everything, especially not above a good purpose.
-Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1872)
Emerson has managed to put here very succinctly a tongue-in-cheek remark I like to make every once in a while: if rules were not supposed to be broken, they would have been natural laws. But of course Emerson being what he was, in a sentence of the same length he has managed to also qualify it by saying who should break laws (good people) and, more importantly, when (not always, nor when it suits them, but when it is clear that the law is counter to the overall "good").
In a limited way, the law does have such provisions (e.g. citizen's arrest). It has a long tradition starting right from manusmriti which is a huge web of rules and exceptions. But this is meant more in the sense of "Civil disobedience" that Thoreau preached (and practiced). It was from there that Mahatma Gandhi as well as Martin Luther King drew their inspiration.
The written word (or the spoken word) is not above everything, especially not above a good purpose.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
