Reversing The Gaze

Maya

2011-08-17T07:31:00.000-07:00

If human life was wiped off the face of the earth it would make no difference to the universe. It would go on exactly as before, the various heavenly bodies charting their precise metronomic paths across eternal and infinite space. If all life was wiped off the earth it would still make no difference to the universe. If the earth was destroyed, shattered into tiny bits and ejected into meteoric trajectories traversing the far corners of the galaxy, it would still make no difference. No difference at all. Nothing would change. The vastness of space would remain unruffled. If the solar system were destroyed, the sun collapsed into itself, the size of a football field, the planets crushed into it, it would barely disturb the immediate neighbourhood: perhaps somewhat like thunder rolling in the near distance of your house. Any place even fifty miles away only sees the flashes of occasional lightning. Places at a cosmic equivalent of this distance would only notice the phenomenon if they were looking up, and may even need specialised instruments to discover the event. Like we need special instruments to “view” supernovae and black holes.

Billions of years of existence, millions of years of life, hundreds of thousands of years of human “development” wiped out in a flash and no one to see, to lament, to mourn and to remember. No archaeological remains to prove that the earth had existed, teeming with life, with differences, with love, with strife. No trace of the poetic masterpieces or the paintings or sculptures, the haunting ragas, the gripping prose, or the masterful tracts of reasoned conviction left for subsequent discovery.

Do you mean to say that we can be erased so totally? Is death then put in place in order to prepare us for that ultimate disappearance? Is this the mystery of life? Is this Maya? The illusion of overwhelming importance, of centrality, of existence - even - in the face of absolute indifference. If no one and nothing will acknowledge that we existed then how can we be certain that we do?

On Precision or The Importance of Riyaz

2011-07-15T02:30:00.000-07:00

'sa' is not just a point in the sargam but a range of points. Similarly, a roti or a chapaati is not 'cooked' at just one precise point but is deemed cooked within a range of cooked-ness. Most of us go through life hitting 'sa' within the range of saaas, and eating roti that is 'cooked' because it is within the range of cooked-ness. But that does not mean that there is not a 'sa' within the range of saaas that is more 'sa' than all the other saaas. In other words, the precise 'sa', or the exact 'sa', or the pure 'sa'.

How does one come to know of this 'sa'? Naturally, from listening to the great masters. It does not matter if you have sur gyan or not. When I listen to Malikarjun Mansur sing, I can tell I am listening to the pure 'sa', the precise 'sa', exact 'sa'. And, of course, the pure re ga ma pa dha ni too. I can feel the difference even though I am not versed in sur gyan, or in the shashtriya sangeet pranali. Just like I can tell the tuneful from the tuneless I can tell the pure 'sa' of a master from the 'sa' of those who just sing tunefully. The notes have a bell like clarity that penetrates to the core of one's being, making it quiver. And I can tell when the roti I am eating is cooked just right. It melts in the mouth and tastes like heaven.

Getting it just right is a matter of practice, or, as a musical master would say, riaz. One practices endlessly for years, same thing day in and day out, whether it is the sargam or it is baking chapaatis, till one day the note flows effortlessly from the throat, and the chapaati comes off the tava - seemingly of its own - the moment it is cooked just right. Unfortunately, the importance of precision, or riaz, is not taught in the schools and universities of the modern world, except as part of some notion of mathematical or engineering exactitude, necessary to make things fit well, thereby minimising friction. But precision is not just a skill. It is an art, a philosophy, a way of life. It is an essential ingredient of both harmony and happiness.

Ha!

2011-05-21T05:58:00.000-07:00

It is a journey: thousands of years; millions; no, billions; infinite. What does it mean- infinite? A word as meaningless as any other. A notion, a concept, a construct. But words are needed, even to describe what cannot be described. What about things that cannot be either described or experienced? Like billions of years-kilometers. What is more accurate- years or kilometers? No one knows, no one can tell. Billions? Another word, without meaning. Endless, without beginning or end, that which can neither be experienced nor described. Does it matter how you describe the indescribable? How you interpret it? How you understand it? Does quantum mechanics make the universe more intelligible? Ha!

Isn’t it Amazing We Survived? Or It’s Not Over Yet

2011-05-21T05:36:00.000-07:00

The Europeans had the dream, and they had the determination to achieve it. We had the courage to survive it. Till now that is. The European dream is not over yet. Nor is our resilience nearing exhaustion. Both have a way to go. The dream (or nightmare) plays on.

One could write endless pages on this dream-nightmare/ thrust-parry/ genocide-population overload. Where does one begin? Did the whole thing start with the rise of Judaism? Was Moses the original sin? Or should one blame Jesus and the Christians? We could also blame the Romans, for their hedonistic excesses, which resulted in their downfall at the hands of the barbarians from the north. Maybe the Christians would not have got so firm a hold on Europe had it not been for the backlash against Roman excesses.

Perhaps both the Romans and the Germanic tribes who overthrew the Western Roman Empire are to blame. After all, a direct cause of the cancer of modernity was the feudal-medieval past of Europe. A past born of a curious (to say the least) mix of Roman and Northern barbarities. A past steeped in rigidities, absurdities, heresies, slaveries, persecutions, inquisitions, and witch hunts. A dark and dank past, which was the best, most powerful incentive imaginable for the bloody, though brilliant, slash that followed.

Allowing one’s imagination to fly a little more, maybe we can just about include Islam, the last of the three Abrahamic faiths to emerge from the dry wastes of Palestine-Arabia, in the blame game. It seems reasonable to assume that rising Islam had a most powerful impact on Catholic-Christian Europe. Any takers? Would the European-Christian civilisation like to shove the responsibility of its worst excesses on the pernicious influence of fundamentalist Islam? Aren’t they doing it already with respect to much that they perpetrate today?

But what was the most immediate cause of the madness? I pose this question specifically for the sake of our Cartesian minds, trained to linear fine-ness in casuistry. What if we can’t identify one? Does that mean no one is to blame? Or, that everyone is to blame? Like the Europeans would like to think with respect to global warming? Should the rise of Europe be viewed as part of the larger scheme of things? Not in a religious, theistic sense but in the way Buddha described it: a phenomenon in the realm of dependent co-arising. This is because that is. That is because this is. Europe was because Africa, America, Australia and Asia were? If Buddha was around today he would have probably said, yes to this question. But I am not Buddha. Not yet. So I will continue with my thought stream.

Moving on, I am wonderstruck at several phenomena. I am amazed at the power of the European thrust. It has spread its tentacles into the remotest nook and cranny of the world. No conqueror, no conquest was so comprehensive, so complete, so continuing. What it could not conquer by brute force and unprecedented barbarity it conquered by deceit, duplicity and diplomacy. By fine words and finer sentiments. And it continues to conquer in these manners: simultaneously using murder and conciliation to subdue and subjugate. To serve the purposes of its compulsions, which purposes it itself does not know. Truly, a magnificent achievement by any standards. A benchmark for all future conquests. God (if there is one) forbid that there is another conqueror, or another conquest.

I am also struck by the ongoing nature of this conquest. Starting with physical occupation, displacing and exterminating tens of millions and, subjugating hundreds of millions more, the conquest evolved to what is called indirect rule: perfected by the British in India and applied by Europe worldwide. Thereafter, in a brilliant application of the philosophical implications of indirect rule, the conquest set its colonies free. Of course, before granting freedom, the structure of subjugation – external and internal – was firmly in place. The European world view was the only alternative. Not only were the Europeanised elites of the former colonies thoroughly convinced (with few exceptions) of this fact, the system for perpetuating this world view was also irrevocably entrenched.

That non-Europeanism has survived despite such a systematic onslaught is also a marvel. As is it marvelous that people subjected to intensive genocide, the original inhabitants of the Americas and Australia, have survived. This tells us something about the resilience of life; of human nature. It also tells us that there is a miscalculation in the European game. Busy discovering manifest destiny, and the individual self, the European conquerors forgot that all processes, including the process of conquest, proceed dialectically. As an aside it is important to mention here that dialectics was neither discovered nor invented by the Europeans. Non-European thought has recognised dialectics as an operating principle of the universe for millennia. Buddha’s thesis of dependant co-arising is one expression of it: this is because that is; that is because this is. And the dialectics of conquest dictates that the tables be turned: the conquerors be conquered, the fires be quenched, and the leaves grow again in all their plethoric diversity.

Be that as it may, battered, bruised, truncated, dystopic-ised, the world has survived this conquest till now. The Europeans, however, have one more ace up their sleeve. This is the ace of irreversible destruction of the global habitat, with (European) technology being the only genie capable of saving us, and the world. Given that the realm of world views is firmly under European control, it is likely that this ace will carry the conquest through: till the tables turn, or the world is destroyed, whatever you may wish to call it.

The Law of Mother Earth: Behind Bolivia's Historic Bill by Nick Buxton

2011-05-19T04:04:00.000-07:00

The Law of Mother Earth: Behind Bolivia's Historic Bill by Nick Buxton

ON THE IMPORTANCE OF TOURISM OR ABOUT WINNERS AND LOSERS

2011-04-20T08:07:00.000-07:00

It takes courage to be a loser. For most of my life till now I did not need to develop this courage. I had fortune powerful enough to lead me into the delusion that I was immune from loss. Even though my marriage was a shambles, turning my personal life into a nightmare, I never felt the touch of loss. I was protected by stainless steel armour.

But loss comes to all. It came to me too. My armour lost its sheen, and loss found me. Half prepared and totally unprepared, I have now lived with loss for several years. It has changed me forever. I have become a loser.

The loss of naiveté is both comforting and disturbing. Being a loser makes one conscious of other losers. Makes one aware that losers are also human beings. I had worked with (and among) losers since my teens but till my armour was intact their lives did not really touch me. I remained an outsider. It is only when fate had decided that it was time to acquaint me with loss that I started getting affected by the people with whom my professional life intersected. At that time I thought this was the effect of a more intensive interaction. The truth was, of course, it was time for me to become a loser.

Materially speaking, and in almost all other senses, I remain a winner. My armour is still intact but it does not serve as a bubble any more. I, therefore, continue to have the luxury of contemplating loss, albeit with a greater familiarity. I wonder about those among us who seem to be permanent losers. How come? What did they do wrong? What makes the Aadivaasis losers? The Dalits, the poor, the Africans, the original inhabitants of the Americas, Australia and New Zealand; why have they been permanently scratched from the game of life?

What does it mean to be a loser? Are members of minorities anywhere/ everywhere losers? What about women? Are women, as a class, losers? More than the enormous extent of violence against them (that exists) it is the ever present possibility of violence that makes me empathise with their plight. What about black people? Browns? Yellows? And Reds? What about the whites?

Of course most white people are losers too: in their own land. But as soon as they step out of their homes into the big wide world (a.k.a. a third world country) they become winners. So, tourism serves not only to edify and titillate and entertain, it also serves to assuage and comfort egos, and sustain the illusion of winning for a whole lot of losers.

On The (supposed) Distinction Between Modern and Traditional Knowledge

2010-02-11T05:48:00.000-08:00

Definitions that seek to distinguish between indigenous/ traditional “knowledge” and modern “knowledge” are all fatally flawed. They are based on an assumption of a difference, which may or may not exist. On the face of it, knowledge is knowledge. All knowledge is the same or no knowledge is knowledge. This seems to me to be a pretty obvious proposition, using common, as well as logical intelligence. Yet scholars (and others) waste an enormous amount of time, and words, to “try” and define the two kinds of “knowledge” in such a manner as to maintain a distinction between the two. Naturally, as modern “knowledge” grows in age and sophistication (and, consequently, its levels of blind arrogance fall), this exercise grows more and more onerous, and tedious, and clumsy. After all, it is impossible for knowledge to match the insouciance of arrogance and ignorance.

All knowledge goes through stages of being nascent, modern, and ultimately, when it is supplanted by a newer “knowledge”, traditional. That the currently “modern knowledge has not yet been supplanted may entitle it to the sobriquet (or prefix) of “modern” but for it to take this label seriously (as it obviously does) is ridiculous. Modern knowledge, like much else that falls within the rubric of modernity, appears to believe that it is an exception to the general rule. Its basis is, again, a sectarian understanding of the histories: of knowledge(s), of cultures, of the rise and fall of epistemologies, and of the relationship between these and the rise and fall of empires.

Apocalypse Whenever

2008-07-29T07:56:00.000-07:00

The mindset of consumption at any cost is a direct result of the way the European mind evolved during its centuries of expansion when a handful (relatively speaking) of people decided that the "world" was their oyster. Since they were so successful in their venture, the rest of the world has now decided that THIS IS THE MINDSET THAT LEADS TO SUCCESS and have adopted it. The Demonstration Effect unleashed by the European success has been reinforced by the fact that collaborator elites that the the European-Colonials established in every place are completely Europeanised in their thinking. The masses of each of these lands would never have taken so fervently to the European ways had it not been for the fact that they are daily witness to the luxury and advantage that these local elites enjoy by virtue of their close (or closer) links with the European mind. Not one local elite anywhere in the world has shown the intelligence or the courage to shrug off their European conditioning and revert to type. I do not minimise the virtual impossibility of doing this in the face of the globalised systems of exploitation and expropriation set up by the Europeans. Nevertheless this is our failure and I wish to own it. Of course the nature of this round of conquest (in the context of several millenia of history of conquests) was/ is such that the possibilities of throwing off the yoke were/ are minimal. The soft colonialism promoted by Europe (values/ ideals), together with the hard (and harsh) physical conquest and control, made sure of this. The fact that this conquest was global, leaving no undefeated ideology to compete with Europe, has also had a vital role in this scenario. I consider the dichotomy between Marxism and Capitalism to be false and the so called dialectic between them for most of the 19th and 20th Centuries to be sham. They were, essentially, the good cop-bad cop of the global domination game, Both chips of the same mindset, whose drama of conflict and opposition to each other enthralled (and continues to enthrall) the whole world while they (together) raped it. Once the conflict was no longer necessary one of the parties to this theatre of the absurd was done away with, unveiling the monopoly in the true colours of its tyranny. It is only proper that yet another sham - that of equality - should become the weapon that will sink the European ship. (At one time I used to have a lot of anger and regret that we non-Europeans should also have to perish in this holocaust but no more. I have seen that there is no other choice.) The shibboleth of equality has its own dynamic, which cannot be wholly controlled. Thus, not only the hyper consumption of the massified elites of Europe but also the increased consumption of the rising elites of the non-European world became inevitable. A linked shibboleth, development, and yet another, progress, have enhanced the power of equality, turning it into an unstoppable tsunami. Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind. Interestingly, the Europeans (and the Europeanised) continue to consume to death not because they don't know that this is the path to destruction. They do so with full knowledge. But with the conviction that mother earth will save them. Why particularly them, one might ask? The answer is simple. Because they have full faith in her unsentimental ruthlessness. They know that unlike what the Christians and the Muslims would have us believe, mother nature does not care who dun it. She will punish all, indiscriminately. In which case it makes sense to simply ensure one's own survival till the numbers (and this is the final chapter of the definitive book of demographics) are slashed to manageable levels. Once that happens mother nature will lose interest in further vengence and the survivors can pick up the pieces. So, consume, hoard, protect your turf and wait for apocalypse. Indubitably, it is these Europeans and the Europeanised elites of the world who are, seemingly, best positioned to survive the coming flood. They have possession of the high ground and the wherewithal to build and float a million arks. Who cares if the rest of the 9 or 12 billion (or whatever number) drown.

Democracy and Distrust

2008-07-28T07:37:00.000-07:00

The more I think about it the more it seems to me that the biggest problem the world faces today is not Bush-America or global capital but the problem of too much expectation. We now have a very large part of the world that expects to have heaven on earth. And it is this section of humanity that is the problem. Ironically, these people think that it is the others – the poor, the backward, those without expectations – who are the problem and, are now engaged in thinking up a final solution to the problem of these “others”.

Let us start with liberty, equality and fraternity, and their concomitant – democracy. I don’t think anyone will deny that these standard bearers of the modern era are the most abused expressions of our age: words that have caused more death and destruction than the most virulent slogans from any previous eras of mayhem and conquest. In my view it is not the lack of these attributes that are the problem but our expectation of them.

Some Lessons Learnt

2008-07-28T07:32:00.000-07:00

Since my early teens I can remember being moved by “injustice” or, what I perceived as unfair. I remember reading about the Vietnam war and being angry with the communists for denying freedom to the Vietnamese people. I remember reading about the freedom struggle and being angry about the fact the “we” were enslaved by the British. I remember feeling personally humiliated by the idea of British colonisation of India. I could go on and on about the things that “moved” me then but let me stop here, and examine the ramifications of these two emotions.

I was born in 1958, so I could not have been more than 10 years old (probably younger) when I read about the Vietnam war. I recall the bombing of Vietnam by American bombers in what I now know was called operation Rolling Thunder. I recall the Tet offensive of January 1968 as part of a continuity of impressions about the war. I recall feeling the warm glow of freedom fought for when I read about American military successes against the North Vietnamese regulars and irregulars during the course of this offensive. I recall feeling sad about the American reverses. However, by the time Nixon negotiated an American troop withdrawal from Vietnam, my perception had undergone a sea change. From saviours to villains, their downfall in my universe was swift.

My anguish at British colonisation of India, while understandable in itself, becomes intriguing when juxtaposed with my pride in American military adventurism. It is not possible to assume that I did not know of the British - European origins of the American state because I did. Christopher Columbus was a household name. Clearly, however, I differentiated between European colonialism and American intervention. Colonialism stood for oppression and enslavement, America stood for freedom, democracy and opportunity. I saw the subjugation of native Americans by the white settlers as an act of civilisational progress (In other words, just) rather than the genocidal savagery that it was. America was my pride and joy. I dreamed of going to America, living there, imbibing its airs, living its dreams.

I have spent the next 35 years unlearning these and other values of my childhood and early youth. Many might call this a terrible waste of time but I consider it time well spent. How can justice be savage? How can democracy enslave? How could I have been blind to so much of the truth about these notions for so long?

In Praise of Pessimism

2008-01-14T07:39:00.000-08:00

I do not subscribe to the modern obsession with optimism: with being optimistic and, with projecting it. I am, in fact, slightly suspicious of people who project optimism, unless it is naïve; like that of childhood, or of youth. A fifty year old optimist is a perversion of nature or a politician, which amounts to the same thing.

Over the years, I have become used to friends and strangers responding with- why are you such a pessimist? On several occasions, their reactions have been strong enough to throw me into grave self doubt. Am I wrong? Despite the doubt however, I have never wavered from my instinctive feeling that pessimism is, at least, as positive a force in life as optimism. Pessimism is real, it is meaningful and, above all, it is honest. Optimism on the other hand is often chimerical and, is frequently used to subvert individual and social integrity: to sell dreams of an alternate reality to those who are unhappy with their current one and, who know that they have been shorn of all power to alter their situation. It is used to sell war to those who are at peace, to sell brutality to those who would otherwise remain, merely, callous, to sell passive acquiescence to those who would otherwise revolt.

What is wrong with pessimism? When things are bleak is it not better to see them as they are and, to say them as you see them? Pessimism is not loss of hope. They frequently coexist. It is not depression. And, even depression need not necessarily signify loss of hope, at least not a complete loss.

Pessimism is not defeat, or defeatism. Robert Bruce could not have been optimistic of his chances when he waged his final battle against his enemies. In my view, he would never have won that last battle had he not been realistic and, pessimistic.

Pessimism does not mean you stop making an effort. History is replete with examples of people who overcame “insurmountable” odds. What about Helen Keller? What about Gautam Buddha? I don’t think either of them would have been optimistic about their chances when they started on their quest. Let us not forget that Siddharth the prince must have been just like us when he left home: full of confusion, anxiety and despair. He could not have been optimistic about finding answers to his questions. On the contrary, it seems to me that the path to nirvana must have frequently filled him with despair, what to speak of mere pessimism.

Pessimism, in fact, can and often does, lead to great achievement. Those who decry it are probably people of shallow faith. They fail to appreciate the dogged, determined, stubborn quest for survival that actuates life. They refuse to see that pessimism is the missing link that adds to make up the critical minimum mass necessary for the chain reaction to begin.

If you are not on a high then you are low, is the way most people think nowadays. Or, if you are not riding a rainbow then you are depressed. This is one of the reasons for the rampant proliferation of psychiatrists, counselors and anti depressants in the west and nowadays, in India too. All of a sudden we are surrounded by selves unable to cope. Each of us would probably have also felt that way at least once in our lives till now. Why is this? What happened to the much touted ability of homo-sapiens to adapt, change and, cope? Maybe is this is a pointer to the end of the road for “people”. But I think not. It seems to me that the pessimism-optimism binary is contributing to the exponential increase in the psychological fragility of people. Maybe, having survived several millennia of evolution and change without being hooked to this binary, we are finally tired of the effort required to live with without too much chimera for support.

Besides a fundamental rejection, I also object to the optimist-pessimist binary for the ease with which it lends itself as a tool for manipulating people. Some manipulators are "good" and they help those they manipulate with the help of this binary but the overwhelming bulk of the manipulation is bad, very, very bad. We are now well and truly in a cycle of - increasing fragility leading to a bigger handle to the manipulators (the bad ones), leading to increasing fragility ..... This increasing fragility of self suits the people who control the levers of today's world. The more people have to struggle with maintaining an equilibrium of sanity the less likely they are to join in dissent and other "harmful" activities. Have you noticed how society acts on the assumption that it has the right to a greater say in the lives of people who are struggling with their selves? And, most of the time it gets away with this invasion into people's autonomy because the need to be accepted is one of the most overwhelming.

In a culture of “hope”, those who benefit from it frequently sell lies. False hope is worse than no hope. The fallout of failure is much worse when false hope is dashed, as is bound to happen. The world is drowning in the reaction of people whose hopes and expectations have been dashed. Levels of violence, cynicism and despair are at an all time high. Is it not better to take a realistic, hard headed view of things, acknowledge the extreme difficulties of the long and arduous path to be traversed and, ask people to be prepared to forge ahead step by painful step. I think this is the only way that we can rebuild our shattered society into a semblance of wholeness? I am unable to persuade myself that my view of the world (current or future) is negative, though I do have to guard against negativity like anyone else.

We Indians (and other pre-modern people) have a much better alternative to this see-saw. Our culture suggests that we cultivate a state of mind called “sam bhav”. It connotes a neutral state of mind. Neither high nor low. Take things as they come. Don’t expect good fortune, or bad. I should think such a mind is no more difficult to cultivate than any other disciplined mindset. To paraphrase Herman Hesse, we must learn to think, to fast and, to wait.

To conclude, pessimism is not the death that it is usually touted to be. It is not the darkness of abject despair. It is the expectation that there will be light at the end of the tunnel, the hope of which keeps you going long after reason, and optimism, would have made you give up. It is life. Optimism on the other hand is, frequently, manic.

The Middle Class

2008-01-14T07:17:00.000-08:00

The mittelstand, or “middle estate” of Germany, which lost its entire savings in the hyperinflation between 1921 and 1924 was instrumental in the rise of Hitler. Having been robbed by democracy, they plumped for fascism.

Here is an example of the true nature of the middle class. Hyper Inflation would not make a nation of farmers, artisans and workers switch from democracy to fascism. They would maintain an ethical (psychological) balance between their material needs and their social and political needs. In other words, mental and psychological instability is an attribute of the middle class. Such people are so attached to their material and creature comforts that they will kill for them and, certainly don’t mind millions getting killed for the sake of them. This is the root of fascism.

Clairvoyance Machines

2008-01-14T07:09:00.000-08:00

What do you mean when you say (to yourself or to another) that you “know”? For example, I know ………..

Think of a thousand examples. Think of a million. In each you will find that the expression “I know” is premised upon an ability to predict the future. This is extraordinary!!!!

It means that we are clairvoyance machines. All life is clairvoyant. Knowledge is clairvoyance. Of course, on average, we are only approximately clairvoyant. Despite knowledge we can not predict with certainty. But we can predict. That is the point. Life is all about predicting the future.

It means that clairvoyants are people whose ability is more developed that the average persons. It validates astrology, palmistry, tarot, tea leaves, crystal balls, magic sticks, face readers and everyone else who claims to predict. It is superfluous to add “the future” because predictions can only be about the future. So, as “knowledge” gets refined it becomes more and more about predicting the future. As “civilizations” decay, this predict-ability becomes more and more about the self. Since, “civilization” is about the self, collective and individual. In other words, the inevitable “end” of all “civilization” is to perfect the art of prediction.

Why is it then that astrology and all the other methods and means used by people to aid their powers of prediction do not give good results? Or, in other words, give such unsatisfactory results. Because, like any other “system” of “thought”, these methods are based upon a simplification of reality; which is both chaotic and complex. The simplification, which modernity generally calls a “theory”, is necessary because the reality is too complex (and chaotic) to be comprehended. In other words, this reality is too complexly chaotic (or chaotically complex) to be comprehended directly. It must be put through a “mill” that grinds (into comprehensible bits), grades (into collections of uniform size) and arranges (into groups of “similar” types) the reality inputs that we receive.

What is the mill? We are the mill? Our whole body is the mill. Every pore of our body, every organ, every sense, is geared to filtering the onslaught of inputs that reality is. Filtering it, grinding, it grading it, arranging it, making “sense” of it. With the object to refining one’s “knowledge” about reality. Why should we want to “know” (or have knowledge about) reality? Because, we need to “predict” reality. Why do we need to predict reality? Because, the ability to predict reality is crucial to our survival. Without such ability our chances of survival are greatly diminished.

Assuming Darwinian natural selection, it is obvious that once it is accepted that the ability to “predict” reality is crucial to survival this ability must increase over time. Those with a greater ability to predict are more likely to survive (and propagate) as compared with those with a lesser ability.

But what is the object of this whole game? I don’t know. Who are the “greatest” humans in any situation? They are the witch doctors, the shamans, the crystal ball readers, the palmists, the astrologers, the clairvoyants. In fact, the clairvoyants are the greatest among these greats because they don’t need any system, any theory, to be able to predict. They have the ability to pluck out the face of the future from the masses of complexly chaotic information that is available to all of us. Why do I say “face”? Because, I don’t think they “see” the future in multiple dimensions. They probably see an image of the future. One can use one of the thousands of descriptions, real and imaginary, that are available, to describe what happens. Both, the real and the imaginary are, probably, equally “true”.

What is true, what is not; what is real and what is not? I think that if we see ourselves as clairvoyance organisms (life forms, creatures, whatever) then these distinctions cease to have the kind of meaning that we are used to giving them. Imagination is as “real” as anything else. Of course, reality exists. But ‘reality’ does not exist as knife sharp distinct from ‘imaginary’. There is a huge area of overlap. Theoretically, one could learn to live in this area, able to partake of both the “worlds”.

Everything is Linked

2008-01-14T06:52:00.000-08:00

Everything is linked. The thing is to find the link. In fact, everything is linked in more ways than we can see (or imagine). The foot is linked to the head and we can see it but an ant may doubt it, debate it, philosophise over it, agonise and struggle over it because she/ he cannot 'see' it.

Thus, it is possible to assert that things may be connected even when we do not see the connection. Or, we may know the connection and therefore assume it exists. For example, when we see a foot moving we will assume that it is connected to a head (because this is generally the case), even though we do not see the head. That it may actually not be connected to a head is another matter.

Going a step further, if things may be connected even when we do not see their connection, it is also possible that things we see as being connected, like the head to the foot, may be connected to each other in ways that we do not (or cannot) see, apart from the connection that we can see. In other words, the foot and the head may be connected in more than just the "normal" way via the neck, torso and the legs. What if there is a direct connection between the head and the foot? A short cut. To suggest such a thing is to invite a pooh pooh from the reader since it is clear to the meanest intelligence that there is nothing shorter that a straight line between two points and, the connection between the head and the foot (via the neck, torso and legs) is almost a straight line.
But what would be true in three dimensional space may not be true in four dimensional or multi dimensional space. There may be a more direct, shorter connection between the head and the foot, than via neck, torso, limb. What if the connection was a wireless blue-tooth, or whatever?

Savagery

2007-08-06T07:26:00.000-07:00

Savagery is as much part of human nature as mother love. No amount of rationalisation, pontification or persuasion will change this fact. A thousand Buddhas cannot prevent it. Why then does law think it can control it or, even stop it?

On Communication

2007-08-06T07:14:00.000-07:00

After struggling for decades with my inability to communicate what I think and feel, I am suddenly caught by the wonder of communication. What an extraordinary thing it is that we, isolated beings are able to communicate so much that is subtle, sublime and beautiful. Communication that can bring tears to our eyes: of laughter or pain. Communication that can join us forever in love and devotion; open our eyes to the beauty of life; exalt us to euphoric heights without any drug.

I deliberately do not speak of the other kind of communication, that which destroys lives, relationships and spaces. Because, my starting point is the wonder of communication between fearful, anxious, envious, anger and hate filled, isolated and dumb selves. Without communication (or the possibility of it) we would forever be doomed death and destruction. Even if life survived on earth, it would be unimaginably horrible: a mean and vicious dance of death.

My salute to communication and communicators, however imperfect, however incomplete. May our communications always be effective and complete.

Success - An Introspection

2007-06-29T07:44:00.000-07:00

Looking at myself is difficult but I will do it. Everything is looming large at the moment. It is as if I have shrunk and/ or the world around me has grown. A bit like Alice. Was Carroll also hinting at this aspect of the self when he wrote Alice? Or, Defoe when he wrote Gulliver’s Travels?

My life seems to have fallen into a serious mess. I could say, ‘things have fallen apart’. This leads to an interesting insight into the importance of “success”. It is only when one fails (or is a failure) that one’s failings are exposed. If one succeeds then, notwithstanding the existence of the very same failings, no one pays any attention to them. This is probably the main reason for coining the saying “nothing succeeds like success”.

Success is like the light of the sun. It blinds, it dazzles, it conceals more than it reveals, it cloaks the reality of the universe that we live in (the universe within). Failure on the other hand, like darkness at night (or, even, the light of the moon), reveals all. The truth of our existence cannot be escaped in the cold light of the stars.

Success is power. Power allows people to ride their faults. The absence of it turns the same faults into to millstones round their necks. The Rhyme of the Ancient Mariner is about power and the loss of it. About actions that seem justified when carried out (whether out of a sense of arrogance or out of ignorance) and, the agonies that we undergo thereafter. It is about the foolish arrogance that scorns its lodestar, destroying the very thing that guides and sustains it.

PARANOIA

2007-06-29T07:36:00.000-07:00

Sometimes I am in a state of flux, with insights happening all the time. Almost anything- a glass of water, the sight of a tree, a few words on a page – are enough to trigger off an insight. It is as if light bulbs are going on all the time, illuminating something afresh or casting something familiar in a new light. To some extent the insights do help in improving perspective also but the larger picture is still not seen.

The question arises, how large is the picture. What if the picture keeps getting larger and larger without end?

Why do I ask this question? Is it a problem if this happens?

The answer is yes. The reason is that I want to acquire the larger picture for a collateral purpose and, not for its own sake. And, I can’t go on waiting for the picture expansion to end because I want to be able to announce that I have seen the whole picture. In this sense, no one has seen the picture, perhaps, because it is a picture without end.

Today, I felt a bulb lighting up while reading The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn: the world is a construct. We talk about various aspects of this construct quite frequently but without understanding its implications fully. For example, the ‘construct’ of manhood or, of feminity. What do we mean when we call them ‘constructs’? Does it mean there is no such thing as manhood or feminity, except in our minds; except in the minds of the human race.

Does it mean that manhood is a notion in our heads? It was not born there and, nor did it enter full grown. Its entry was an osmotic process that happened over time and, which is still happening. Its entry is proof of the existence of a dimension in space-time where we are all linked. Like the world wide web, which comes into existence by the linking of thousands of computers all over the world. One could perhaps call the space where these ‘constructs’ live and travel the life space. Is it the same as what people call the spirit world? Or, some variation of it: like the magic-realities that are so popular today. If yes, then the implications for “modern” realists are quite drastic. Mythology may turn out to be more real than history!

Theoretically, we can kill this dimension in the same way as computer cyber space; by destroying the linkage between people. But how does go about destroying something that has no wires, no power source, no ‘waves’ by which it communicates? Something that can be transmitted by a sidelong glance, a look in the eye, a grunt or, even, silence. Something that need not be transmitted in toto or full grown but is yet shared in complex detail. Which is not static but lives and grows, and evolves. Is there a switch inside us that we can turn? A plug that we can pull, isolating us from the rest?

If ‘manhood’ is a construct then so is everything else that together makes up what we call the “world”. If this is so, then who are we? Human beings? What is a human being? She/ he are just a construct. Layer upon layer of it. For, the process commences virtually the moment we are conceived and continues till we die. The construct appropriate for an embryo is different from that for an infant, for a child, for an adolescent, for and adult. At each stage of the life of a human being, layers of “reality” gets applied in the shape of sets of constructs; over which fresh layers gets applied in the next stage.

What happens when we strip off a layer or two of the construct? Do we remain human? Is there a way to deconstruct human beings? Are psychiatrists, psychologists and psychoanalysts on the right track? We all know that people deconstruct. Personalities break down. The layers, which are connected with each other in a complex hierarchy of connections, get short circuited. New dimensions to self emerge as a result. Many, if not most, of them are called “mad”.
What if madness is just a different layering (manner of layering) of constructs? What if schizophrenia is just one such manner? Or, paranoia?

Entropy

2007-04-30T04:17:00.000-07:00

The second law of thermodynamics, says that in the material world energy of all kinds disperses or dissipates from higher concentrations to lower ones, if it is not hindered from doing so. The dispersal occurs at a predictable rate. The measurement of this rate of dispersal is called entropy.

The implications of this law are profound. It encompasses both life and death. On the one hand, life as we know it would not be possible without a stable and predictable rate of dispersal of energy from higher to lower concentrations. On the other, the inevitability of such a flow makes it certain that the world as we know it will one day come to an end. To give an example, the sun, the most concentrated form of energy in our solar system will continue to radiate its energy to lower concentrations at a steady rate till its concentration is "equalised".[1] The steady dispersal of the sun's energy gives rise to life on earth. The fact that this dispersal will cease once the concentrations are equalised means that life sustained by this dispersal must end some day.

To the scientist, entropy is a means for measuring this law and, consequently, for describing the processes that sustain life. To a lay person like me entropy can also be viewed as the rate at which order turns to chaos, assuming that "life" is order and "death" (or, the end of life) is chaos. In other words, entropy is chaos. Or, entropy is the potential for chaos that inherent in all "order".

In a paper titled Entropy Is Simple -- If We Avoid The Briar Patches!, Professor Frank L. Lambert, Professor Emeritus (Chemistry) Occidental College, Los Angeles has severely criticised all those who use entropy in the manner described above. He complains bitterly about the simplistic and inaccurate use of both, the second law and of the concept of entropy to create what he calls falsehoods about entropy as "disorder" or, as a measure of chaos. He gives myriad examples from everyday life, illustrating chemical (or thermodynamic) entropy, to justify his critique of philosophical entropy. To quote " entropy change has to do with energy spreading out, not with pretty patterns." This sentence encapsulates the professor's scorn for the non-scientific use of the term: to describe a descent from "order" to "disorder".

While the professor is quite right to distinguish between scientific entropy as a measure of the rate at which heat is dispersed in a given process (or, thermo-dynamics) and, entropy as weltanschauung, his refusal to recognise the philosophical implications of the second law is in keeping with the short sightedness of modern science (and scientists). In fact, the professor's approach is perfectly consistent with why the world is in the parlous state that it is in; with the worst aspect being the outright refusal of those who run the world to recognise the existence of philosophical entropy or, its implications for their actions.

[1] Though not used in the strict scientific sense, the expression is nevertheless accurate since it is predicated that as the sun cools its matter will spread (the sun will expand), thereby heating up the solar system till the entire solar system is encompassed within the sun's ambit, resulting in an equalisation of temperatures.

Post Bourgeois Dreams

2007-04-30T04:05:00.000-07:00

Axiomatically, illusions are elusive. Then why should it come as a surprise that peace between India and Pakistan is elusive. Underlying this elusive quest for peace are other illusions. For example, that we are a democracy.

Peace is a human desire. Its wish cannot, ipso facto, be attributed to a State. Therefore, a State's desire (or lack of it) for peace is a function of the desires of its people, or, at least, the people who run it. It is axiomatic that a country where the people desire peace while the State wages war, is not a democracy. In such a State peace is bound to elude since, while the desire for peace is rooted in the people, the processes of peace are in the hands of the State, which is not in the hands of the people. In a State where democracy is an illusion, peace is frequently an instrument of State policy. To paraphrase Clauswitz, in such States— peace is the continuation of war by other means.

Thus, assuming that Indians desire peace, its elusiveness can be said to be a function of the illusion of democracy that belabours us. But what if the assumption is not true. And, if it is not true, why is it not true, given that the only reasonable desire is (or can be) for peace. War is insanity except in the rarest of rare circumstances where its sole alternative is not peace but a pervasive injustice, more corroding and destructive than war. Yet, we have all heard many Indians rooting for an all out war with Pakistan. We are also witness to significant expressions of “public” support for a hard line on contentious issues between the two countries. It is easy to dismiss these as being manipulated. True as this fact may be, that is not all there is to the support for the State’s militant designs.

It is a fact that there is very little support in India for most ‘progressive, liberal, humanist, etc’ issues. While you can get millions out on the streets on the Ram Mandir you will not get even a thousand out against the devastation of the environment or against an endemic culture of custodial torture and killing. Thousands of brides (daughters) are killed every year by their husbands and in laws. Yet the issue does not grip the nation’s fathers, many of whom have daughters of their own. A ‘why’ to these and other phenomena has almost as many answers as ‘answerers’. Here is one.

Peace is a post-bourgeois dream. Trapped within our bourgeois angsts, we dream of peace even as our hands are busy grabbing as much as possible of the pie, nervous in our crumbling edifices of security, like the tin sheds that slum dwellers call home. Every “other” is a rival to our quest, our five century old history proof of its destructive power.

Cross fire- A tale of two insurgencies

2007-04-30T03:08:00.000-07:00

From Nagaland to Punjab and from Andhra Pradesh to Kashmir, from the early 1950s to the year 2003, spanning almost the entire time and space comprising independent India, there have been reports of the security forces, including the army, forcing local people to act as shields and to actively participate in anti-terrorist operations. These reports have been consistently denied by the authorities who have routinely give out other reasons, such as ‘caught in the cross-fire’, ‘aiding/ abetting terrorists’, etc, to explain away civilian casualties. This is an account of two such cases, one from Kashmir and the other from Punjab. In both cases, the army and the Punjab police, respectively, categorically denied the allegation against them, claiming that the villagers were killed in the cross-fire between the terrorists and the security forces. Since neither incident was the object of an authoritative fact finding, the truth will never be known. However, the following accounts give us a glimpse of the truth. Both accounts are based upon the eyewitness testimony of those who survived the operation itself, being similarly press-ganged into service by the troops involved and/ or surviving family members and villagers who witnessed the entire operation.

Case-1
Report by Ashok Agrwaal, advocate and human rights activist

On the 5th of March 2003 there was an encounter at village Kaw-chak, PS, Kreeri, Tehsil Pattan, District Baramulla, J&K. Three militants were stated to have been killed. Some soldiers are also said to have lost their lives. In addition, two villagers were killed and several wounded. The Army/ RR claimed that these “civilian casualties happened in the “cross-fire” between them and the terrorists.

The encounter started early in the morning of the 5th. Villagers were pressed into servicing the Army’s needs from the inception. Teams of soldiers also scoured the surrounding area for more “volunteers”. At about 10 a.m three army vehicles (trucks) came from the direction of Kreeri. Ashiq Hussain Malik was sitting in his shop, by the side of the road. Mohamad Arif Mir s/o Abdul Gafar Mir and his brother Ghulam Mohamad Mir residents of Dolipora were walking on the road from Dolipura, towards Kreeri. Ghulam Mohiuddin, who had just returned from Pattan where he had spent the night, had stopped near a house opposite the shops by the road on hearing about the crackdown/ encounter in his village. The trucks stopped near the shops. Two officers, one in sunglasses and another, jumped out of the vehicles. The officer in sunglasses grabbed Ghulam Mohiuddin from behind and dragged him towards the vehicles. They ordered Ashiq Hussain Malik to close his shop and come with them. The Mir brothers, who had by then reached where the army vehicles were parked, were ordered to get into the army vehicles. However, Ghulam Mohamad Mir, a government employee, was let off when he pleaded that he had to report for duty.

Inside the truck there were four other people, residents of village Watargam, who had similarly been picked up by the Army. They were all brought to the site of the encounter, in village Kaw-chak, in the truck.

At the encounter site they were pulled out, ordered to remove their upper garments and their backs were marked with a rubber stamp, presumably in order to fix their identity. They were divided into pairs. Each pair was given some explosives – that looked like a car battery in shape and weighed about 15 – 20 kilos – and were ordered to carry these into the house in which the militants were holed up and to place the devices against the walls inside the ground floor of the building. The militants were on the upper floors.

On showing hesitation to do the army’s bidding all the villagers were beaten and threatened with death. Each explosive devise (called a “mine”) was picked up by two persons and carried inside the house. Meanwhile the exchange of fire with the militants was going on. The militants were also calling out to the villagers, warning them not to cooperate with the army. Frightened by the firing and the shouts of the militants the villagers were placing the mines against the outside wall of the house. After some mines were in place they were made to carry large stones and pile them against the mines so as to cover them. Eight villagers were doing this work, which went on till two pm.

Around 2 pm, as they were coming out of the house after placing some stones, Ghulam Mohiuddin and Arif were injured. Ghulam Mohiuddin received three bullets in his left arm. Arif was hit by two bullets in his right upper arm, near the shoulder. Both fell down, unconscious. The others dragged them to safety. They were then taken in a matador that had been commandeered by the army and brought to the Bone and Joints Hospital, Barzalla, Srinagar. Ghulam Mohiuddin stayed in the hospital for 15 days. The bones in his arm having been shattered, after two surgeries the doctors told him that he would require at least one more, with no guarantee that he will recover the use of his arm.

Several villagers who houses are close to the site of the encounter had fled to another part of the village (called Harnau) to escape being forced into military service. Sometime that afternoon, some army jawans came to this part and selected four people. These were: Abdul Rashid, aged 42, Ghulam Mohd. Mir, aged 40, Abdul Hamid Bhat, aged 25 and Bashiruddin aged 30.

At the encounter site three of them were taken towards an army truck loaded with boxes. Each of them was given four bottles filled with petrol with cotton wicks stuffed in the neck (Molotov cocktails) and made to sit behind the house of one Mohd. Akbar Bhat, opposite the house of Ali Mohd. Bhat where the militants were holed up.

Ashiq Hussain Malik was sitting already present behind Mohd. Akbar’s house when they reached there. The soldiers were very angry with Ashiq Hussain as they felt that he had spoilt/ damaged one of mines entrusted to him. They claimed that but for this they would have destroyed the house and killed the militants holed up inside, much earlier. Due to this delay, they claimed, one of their comrades had died. They were threatening him with dire consequences while Ashiq was repeatedly pleading his innocence.

The soldiers took the Molotov cocktails from the villagers and carried them inside Mohd. Akbar’s house. The officer with sunglasses (called ‘captain’ by the villagers), asked for more Molotov cocktails. Two of the villagers, Bashiruddin and Abdul Hamid Bhat, were ordered to get some more from the truck. When they returned, Ashiq and Abdul Rashid were not present at the back of the house. They were made to sit down again. No talking was permitted between the villagers but Bashiruddin and Abdul Bhat heard the soldiers shouting – ‘Bhaag gaye saale’ accompanied by heavy firing. They kept sitting there, thinking the soldiers were referring to the militants.

Shortly thereafter, there was a call– ‘Aur civilians ko bhej do’. Bashiruddin and Abdul Bhat were sent inside the house. They were forced to remove their upper garments and their backs were marked with a stamp. Bashiruddin was handed a mine and Abdul Hamid was made to pick up a couple of stones. We were pointed out the spot, near a window, where we were to place the mine. Immediately after they returned the mine they had placed blew up and the house in which the militants had holed up, collapsed.

Thereafter, the villagers were ordered to go and pull out the bodies of the militants from the rubble. Initially, they could not find any bodies. The soldiers then ordered them to blow up a cattle shed adjoining the collapsed house. Just after that they heard a cry for help from the rubble. On the soldiers’ orders the villagers placed an explosive device with wires near that spot, which was then exploded. The cries for help persisted.

Some other villagers were brought to the site all were put to the task of removing the rubble. The newcomers were: Maksood Ahmed Din, Bashiruddin’s brother, Ali Mohd. Bhat and his younger brother, Abdul Hamid Bhat and Ghulam Nabi Waza. The rubble was very hot. Fires were burning in some places. Their hands and feet were singed by the burning heat. Finally, they pulled out the militant who had been calling out for help. He was still alive. He was asking for water. The officer with sunglasses refused saying— ‘we gave him so many opportunities to surrender’.

The officer and his men interrogated the captured militant. His name was Shabir. He was from Kachua Mukam (Kandi area), Tehsil and district Baramulla. Then they took him away somewhere. The villagers were ordered to continue their search beneath the rubble. They found two fully clothed bodies. At first they did not recognize them and thought they were dead militants. The soldiers asked them to search their pockets. From one pocket they recovered a purse and from the other a bunch of keys and an identity card. On seeing the identity card they realized that the bodies were of two villagers, both of whom had been pressed into service by the Army. The man with the purse was Abdul Rashid Mir, a teacher by profession and the man with the keys and the identity card was Ashiq Hussain Malik. The keys were to his shop. Half of Abdul Rashid’s face had been torn apart by a burst of bullets. Ashiq had a similar burst of bullets on his back around the waist.

The villagers were ordered by the officers to keep quiet about the fact that two civilians, villagers, had been killed in the encounter and made to continue the task of removing/ searching through the rubble. The rubble was very hot – their hands and feet were getting blistered and burnt. However, the officers refused to allow us to pour water on the rubble to cool it.

Around sunset the Army/RR commandeered some more villagers. They were asked to pick up the bodies. Eight villagers picked up the two bodies and carried them to the army vehicle by the road. Then they were asked to bring a third body. This turned out to be of the militant whom they had pulled out of the rubble, alive.

After this, they requested an officer – addressed as ‘CO. Saab’ – that they be allowed to go as they were exhausted. Four of them were allowed to go. They were: Bashiruddin, Ghulam Mohd. Mir, Ishtiaq Ahmed Ganai and Abdul Hamid Bhat. Others continued to work at the Army’s orders, searching the rubble. Bashiruddin’s brother, Maksood was one of them. Maksood and about 30 other villagers were forced to continue removing rubble till 11 AM the next morning. Most of them were from village Dolipura. About eight or ten people were from village Kaw-chak.

These people recovered one body around 9 pm on the …... It was fully burnt. Another body was recovered around 10 AM the next day. They also recovered two guns and empty magazines. Around 11 AM a procession of protestors from Dolipura arrived at the site. The Army fired in the air to disperse them. Frightened by the firing the protesters ran helter skelter. Shortly thereafter, thinking the situation might deteriorate, the Army ran away.

The bodies taken by the Army to Hambray. Ashiq Hussain’s brother, Tariq Ahmed, who had reached the site in search of his brother, was also forced by the Army to clear the rubble of the demolished house. Even though by that time his body was already in Army custody, they told Tariq that Ashiq’s body was lying beneath the rubble. The bodies were handed over to the police at P.S. Kreeri. Ashiq’s parents were away on the Haj pilgrimage when he was killed.
Minister Ghulam Hasan Mir, Minister Sharifuddin Niazi and a Corp Commander (a Sikh) from the army came for Taziat (the shared mourning after a death). One of the officers wounded in this encounter, a Major, also came. The Corp Commander expressed regrets for the civilian deaths. ‘However’, he said, ‘the casualties cannot be helped as we cannot do our job effectively without civilian help’.

The Ministers promised to take up the issue of the Army using civilians in this manner. They also promised relief to those killed and injured. The Major expressed regrets and said that had he not been injured, he would not have allowed this mishap to occur.

Both families lodged a report with the police but till the time of this investigation, about a month and a half later, they had not been given a copy of the FIR.

The visiting Ministers had ordered that inquiry into the incident and directed that it should be completed within 15 days. They also ordered payment of ex gratia compensation and compassionate appointment to next of kin under SRO 43. According to Ashiq Hussain’s family they had been paid an ex gratia of Rs. 1 lakh but the compassionate appointment had not yet been given.

The Inquiry against the Army had made no progress. The families of those killed were afraid to press for the inquiry though they wish that justice is done with the guilty officers being identified and punished. The villagers asked the CO of the unit concerned, who had come to condole, to produce the guilty officer. He merely echoed the Corp Commander and said ‘We need the civilians. What happened will happen again. This cannot be helped’.

Publicly, the Army took the stand that the two villagers, Ashiq Hussain and Abdul Rashid Mir were killed in ‘cross-firing’ during the encounter. However, the truth of the matter was reported extensively by the press who visited the village on the very next day, the 6th of March 2003.

On being asked whether their were any circumstances in which they would willingly provide assistance (of the non-dangerous kind) to the security forces in their battle against the terrorists/ militants the response of the villagers was a uniform and vehement no. The villagers also informed the investigation team that some days later, even as the ministers were promising that they would ensure that such incidents are not repeated, the Army conducted a similar operation at Tilgram, using the local villagers as human shields and for menial tasks that thrust them into the midst of the firefight and put their lives at extreme risk. However, fortunately no civilians were killed in that operation. There was only one militant involved in that encounter.

Case-2
Report by Ram Narayan Kumar and Amrik Singh, human rights activists[1]

Police version
Based upon the affidavit filed before the NHRC by Ashok Bath, Superintendent of Police (Detective), Tarn Taran.
On 8.6.92 the police received information that Surjit Singh Behla s/o Tarlok Singh Jat, r/o Behla and Madan Singh @ Maddi @ Sukhdev Singh @ Chota Behla s/o Santokh Singh r/o Behla, self-styled Deputy Chief and Lieutenant General of Bhindranwala Tiger Force of Khalistan (BTFK), a sikh militant outfit was holding a meeting with other terrorists and planning to commit a major terrorist crime. A police party with officers of 91/Bn and 102 Bn CRPF cordoned the village Behla. When the police were searching the first floor of the house of Manjinder Singh Behla the terrorists, who were hiding inside the house, opened fire and killed HC Jarnail Singh and LC Harjit Singh 4160/TT. Constables Pargat Singh & Som Datt and L/K (?) Kalash Chander were injured. The terrorists “cordoned” (?) the police party who had gone inside the house to conduct their search. The army was deployed to tighten security arrangements for the night. The next morning the police officers who were trapped inside the house were freed with the army’s help. The cross-firing continued till the next day. Two jawans of the Punjab Police were killed and one constable and 3 jawans of the CRPF were injured in the encounter. After the firing ceased, the police recovered 9 bullet ridden, dead bodies of terrorists. Four of the bodies were identified on the spot and the remaining five bodies were identified later on.
(Note: The affidavit provides the identities of only 8 of the 9 bodies: Harbans Singh, Ajit Singh, Lakhwinder Singh, Paramjit Singh @ Shingara Singh, Sakkattar Singh @ Mangga Singh, Naranjan Singh, Madan Singh @ Maddi @ Sukhdev Singh @ Chota Behla, and Jagtar Singh @ Varpal. A large quantity of arms and ammunition was recovered from the site (house) of the encounter.

The investigation by the CCDP
Based upon interviews conducted with the families of the deceased and other eyewitnesses.
Nine persons were killed at village Behla in the course of an encounter on 8-10 June 1992. Out of these nine, three were militants and six were villagers unconnected with the militancy who the security forces used as human shields to storm the house in which the three militants were hiding. The body of one person killed in the encounter remains unaccounted for. The CCDP’s (Committee for Coordination on Disappearances in Punjab) investigation took it to the homes/ families of 8 of these 9 persons and other eye-witnesses in the village.
On 8 June 1992 morning, a large mixed force, comprised of the Punjab police led by SSP Ajit Singh Sandhu and Khubi Ram, SP (Operations), and units of the army and paramilitary, surrounded the old and abandoned house of Manjinder Singh, a former member of the Punjab Legislative Assembly, in village Behla. Apparently, the house was being used as a hideout by militants associated with Surjit Singh, s/o Tarlok Singh from Behla village. One of his associates, 18 year old Sukhdev Singh, alias Maddi, son of Santokh Singh, was also from Behla. After completing his matriculation, he had started working in a Sugar Mill at Sheron. The police often illegally detained and tortured his elder brother Kulbir Singh for information because of their suspicions of his having militant connections. Sukhdev Singh was unable to tolerate this injustice done to his brother and decided to become a militant himself. Later on, his father Santokh Singh was abducted and disappeared by the police. The third associate of Surjit Singh Behla was Harbans Singh, s/o Mehr Singh from Sarhalli in Tarn Taran subdivision of Amritsar district.
Before storming the house, the police officers decided to round up seven or eight villagers to walk in front of the police force and to act as human shields. The following are the names of the six of those who got killed in the course of the operation that followed: [1] Kartar Singh, s/o Aasa Singh, [2] Niranjan Singh, s/o Boor Singh, [3] Sakatter Singh, s/o Niranjan Singh, [4] Lakhwinder Singh, s/o Channan Singh, [5] Gurmej Singh and [6] Ajit Singh, s/o Mangal Singh.

The police randomly selected these people, and this had nothing to do with suspicions of their possible involvement in the militancy. For example:
Ajit Singh, from Behla village in Tarn Taran, was a 60 year old man married to Preetam Kaur with seven children. He owned a horse driven cart and was employed by a brick kiln owner to transport bricks to his clients.He had no political or militant association, no criminal background and no enmity with anyone in his village.

Ajit Singh had that morning carried a cartload of bricks to the house of Niranjan Singh when the police came and forced him along with Niranjan Singh and his sons to be part of the front column.

Niranjan Singh, a 55 year old farmer, was married to Balwinder Kaur and had three sons and a daughter. He was a devout Sikh unconnected with any political or militant organization and took care of his family by cultivating three acres of land and selling milk from his buffalos.

Twenty-five year old Sakatter Singh was Niranjan Singh’s son. He used to help his father with the agricultural work and was married to Sharanjit Kaur with two daughters who are now barely teenagers. He had never been arrested before and had no political or militant connections.

Sakatter Singh died in the police operation. His younger brother Sukhchain Singh, also included in the front column, managed to escape after getting seriously wounded.

Twenty year old Lakhwinder Singh, the youngest son of Channan Singh and Gurmej Kaur, had no political or militant associations or record. He was watering his fields when the forces picked him up and compelled him to walk in front of them as a human shield.

Kartar Singh, a 62 year old farmer, was married to Iqbal Kaur with four adult children. He also had no record of a political or criminal past.

After entering the house, the security forces discovered that it had a basement but no door to enter it from inside. They started demolishing the floor that was also the celler’s roof. When the militants holed up inside opened fire, the police pushed these six villagers to the front, and using them for cover, fired back. All of the six persons who have been named died in this situation. Two others got seriously injured. The encounter lasted around 30 hours.

Three militants, holed up in the cellar who also got killed, are: [1] Surjit Singh Behla, s/o Tarlok Singh, [2] Sukhdev Singh Maddi, s/o Santokh Singh. Both were from Behla village. [3] Harbans Singh, the third militant killed in the action, was a resident of Sarhalli Kalan .

In the evening of 9th June, the police extricated the bodies of all the people who had been killed in the action without bothering to distinguish the militants from the others who the police had used as human shields.

The next morning, the police told the press that they had killed nine militants in the action. In the aftermath, several newspapers published stories questioning the police claims and explaining how the six unconnected villagers had been pushed into the jaws of death. Two others, wounded in the course of the operation, had been abandoned by the police to their own resources to obtain medical help. Embarrassed by the publicity, the Punjab government later announced an inquiry, which was, however, never carried out.

The police cremated all the bodies at Tarn Taran on 9 June 1992, labeling them as “unidentified/ unclaimed”, though the family of Ajit Singh attended the cremation. Other families were not allowed to attend.

Subsequently, in 1995-96, on orders from the Supreme Court the CBI carried out an investigation into the illegal cremation of thousands of bodies by the Punjab police between 1984 and 1994. Its December 1996 report to the Court divided the 2097 such cremations by the police in three cremation grounds in Amritsar district of Punjab into three categories: “identified”, “partially identified”, and “unidentified”. The CBI’s placed the cremations of Ajit Singh, Lakhwinder Singh and Harbans Singh, a militant and an associate of Surjit Singh Behla, in the “identified” list. Five others, [1] Surjit Singh, r/o Behala, [2] Sikkatar Singh, r/o Behala, [3] Niranjan Singh, r/o Behala, [4] Madan Singh, alias Maddi, [5] Kartar Singh, r/o Behala, were placed in the “partially identified” list. According to the CBI, SHO Gurbachan Singh of Tarn Taran city police station carried out these cremations in the same case of encounter under FIR No. 57/92. Out of these, Surjit Singh and Madan Singh, alias Maddi, (who must be Sukhdev Singh Maddi) were the militants. The other three, Sikkatar Singh, Niranjan Singh and Kartar Singh had been picked up to serve as human shields.[2]

These cremations from the identified and partially identified lists of the CBI do not account for the body of Gurmej Singh, one of the six villagers forced to become a human shield and killed. The CBI’s list of unidentified cremations does not show any cremation on 9 June 1992.

End Notes
[1] Reported in Reduced to Ashes: The Insurgency and Human Rights in Punjab pp 293 & 496, Pub. South Asia Forum for Human Rights, Kathmandu, May 2003
[2] Curiously, the CBI duplicated the record of Niranjan Singh’s cremation under Sl. No. 121/392 of its “identified” list. Here, it recorded Niranjan Singh’s cremation as having occurred on 18 April 1991,over a year earlier than its actual date. Further, the information to identify all was not only available to the police but had also been published in newspaper reports. Hence, it is not clear why the CBI decided to place some of them in the list of partially identified bodies.

Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium

2006-11-30T02:55:00.000-08:00

Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium Or, The Slippery Slope of Indian Human Rights Jurispridence

Recognising the overwhelming importance of the Latin maxim cited above, the normative basis of fundamental rights jurisprudence in the country, a remedy for the enforcement of these rights is incorporated in chapter-3 of the Constitution, along with the guarantees of these rights. Under Article 32 any person whose fundamental rights have been violated can move the Supreme Court directly and, as a matter of right, for an appropriate writ. Similarly, Article 226 of the Constitution empowers the High Courts of the country to issue writs in protection of these rights.[1] In this manner, the remedy is symbiotically linked with the guarantees of life and personal liberty, under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Article 21, guarantees the fundamental right of life and liberty. It reads as follows—

“No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law”[2]

The crux of this guarantee, the expression “procedure established by law” has been the subject of judicial interpretation from the inception of the Constitution. The Supreme Court started from a narrow, pedantic interpretation of this phrase in the AK Gopalan case.[3] In that case, a majority of the judges of the Court held that the word “law”, as used in the phrase, meant “State-made law” and, was not—

“an equivalent of law in the abstract or general sense embodying the principles of natural justice”.

Thus, for example, if the parliament passed a Bill permitting the State to carry out executions without any judicial process, and if such a Bill received the assent of the President of India, it would be “law” and the procedure prescribed in such law would be “procedure established by law”, under which the State would be entitled to conduct extra judicial executions. In an attempt to allay the alarming implications of such an exposition, one of the judges to that decision attempted to clarify the Court’s stand by stating that the law so made must be—
“the ordinary well established criminal procedure, i.e., those settled usages and normal modes of procedure sanctioned by the Criminal Procedure Code, which is the general law of criminal procedure in this country”.[4]

However, this wholly defective interpretation was abandoned by a series of decisions since the 1970s, culminating in the judgement in the Maneka Gandhi case.[5] Thus, it was no longer enough to claim that a law was validly passed by the parliament and had received the assent of the President. For a law to be valid it had, also, to pass the test of being in consonance with the “basic structure” of the Constitution. If a law violated this “basic structure” then it was not valid law, even if validly passed by the parliament or a State legislature. The whole of the chapter III of the Constitution, containing the Fundamental Rights guaranteed under it, has been held to be part of this “basic structure”. By this way, the meaning of the phrase “procedure established by law” was been transformed to mean procedure that is just, fair and proper; in accord with the objects underlying the establishment of the Indian republic: and, not just procedure prescribed by the parliament.

The Maneka Gandhi case also marked the overturning of the notion that the Fundamental Rights must be viewed as separate, watertight compartments. In other words, the pre Maneka Gandhi position was that in order to be struck down a law or, an executive action must directly violate the specific right mentioned in the complaint. The indirect impact of the law or order upon that right, even when it flowed as an inevitable consequence, was not to be considered by the court, while deciding upon the complaint. The Court relied upon Article 14 of the Constitution to develop a more holistic view. Article 14 states that—

“The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.”

Calling the Article ‘a founding faith of the Constitution’ and ‘the pillar on which rests securely the foundation of our democratic republic’ the Court quoted from an earlier judgement,[6] to say that—

"… equality is antithetic to arbitrariness. In fact equality and arbitrariness are sworn enemies; one belongs to the rule of law in republic, while the other, to the whim and caprice of an absolute monarch. Where an act is arbitrary, it is implicit in it that it is unequal both according to political logic and constitutional law and is therefore violative of Article 14"

It went on to hold that—

“The principle of reasonableness, which legally as well as philosophically, is an essential element of equality or non-arbitrariness pervades Article 14 like a brooding omnipresence…”

Over the next two decades, the Court used the “brooding omnipresence” doctrine to develop the thesis of its obligation to do justice in ‘public law’, as distinct from the remedies available to aggrieved persons under the normal legal processes, which are called ‘private law’ remedies. The Nilabati Behara[7] case and the DK Basu[8] case, two cases that have become part of global human rights jurisprudence, have emerged out of this process.

The Nilabati Behara case held that the State has a ‘duty of care’ to ensure that the citizen in its custody is not deprived of his right to life. It held that the duty in this regard, ‘is strict and admits of no exceptions’. In other words—

“The wrongdoer is accountable and the State is responsible if the person in custody of the police is deprived of his life except according to the procedure established by law.”

Expounding on the evolving interpretation of Article 32 of the Constitution, the Court said that the wide powers given to it by that Article impose upon it a corresponding constitutional obligation to forge such new tools ‘for doing complete justice and enforcing the fundamental rights guaranteed in the Constitution’. It said that it was no longer enough to relegate those aggrieved by a violation of their fundamental rights to the “normal” civil law remedies. Further, making it clear that the powers of the High Courts were co-extensive with its own, the Court held that—

“This Court and the High Courts, … have not only the power and jurisdiction but also an obligation to grant relief in exercise of its jurisdiction under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution to the victim or the heir of the victim whose fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India are established to have been flagrantly infringed by calling upon the State to repair the damage done by its officers …[9]

The decision in the DK Basu case followed a few years later, in December 1996. This is the only decision that addresses the issue of death in custody/ disappearance from custody in general terms, as something that pervades law enforcement in India. It represents a long overdue acknowledgement of the state of affairs. The judgement laid down binding and enforceable guidelines to prevent violation of the fundamental rights of the citizens of India by the law enforcement agencies. The Supreme Court declared that a failure to comply with the guidelines laid down by it would tantamount to contempt of court and, would be punishable as such. Taking the Supreme Court at its word, some lawyers in Kashmir filed contempt petitions, instead of petitions for a writ of habeas corpus. Besides, the DK Basu decision was invoked in many cases, where a regular petition for a writ of habeas corpus was filed, to buttress the argument that the action of the security forces was illegal and not permissible.[10]

The principle of stare decisis requires that subordinate courts, including the High Courts, must always take their cue from the superior court. The Indian supreme court must be found wanting even if this principle is limited only to the formal pronouncements of that court. However, in the real world it is not just the formal decisions of the Supreme Court that delineate the jurisprudence. The attitude of the Court is read from the totality of its pronouncements and, interpreted in the overall context in which the nation subsists.

In the DK Basu case, even as the Court held that ‘State terrorism is no answer to combat terrorism’, it attempted to ‘balance’ the needs of the State with those of ‘life and liberty’. It referred to the fact that the ‘police in India have to perform a difficult and delicate task’. In a manner that typifies its approach to human rights jurisprudence, it mentioned—

“the deteriorating law and order situation, communal riots, political turmoil, student unrest, terrorist activities, and among others the increasing number of underworld and armed gangs and criminals”

to assert that ‘freedom of an individual must yield to the security of the State’. Resorting to other Latin maxims, it implicitly declared that the principles contained in these maxims must be read into the guarantees contained in the fundamental rights chapter of the Constitution. The two principles that the Court thus elevated state that—

‘The safety of the people is the supreme law’ and ‘Safety of the state is the supreme law’.[11]

Thus, on the one hand the Court held that ‘The cure cannot … be worse than the disease itself’, approvingly citing the decision in Miranda Vs. Arizona (384 US 436), where the American Supreme Court held that the argument of “society’s need” cannot be used to abridge the guaranteed rights of the individual. On the other hand, in the same judgement the Court adverted to criticism in “certain quarters” that increased enforcement of fundamental rights, would make it difficult to detect crimes committed by hardened criminals and that if the court were to lay to much of emphasis on protection of the fundamental rights and human rights such criminals would go scot-free; with the result that crime would go unpunished and, in the ultimate analysis, society would suffer. The Court called this concern “genuine” and called for—

“a balanced approach … to meet the ends of justice”.[12]

The Latin maxims cannot be faulted. The fundamental rights chapter of the Constitution is premised on the first one and, the nation-state paradigm, which the second maxim seeks to exalt, underpins the entire edifice of the Rule of Law in modern times. However, it is not possible to assume that the Court is unaware of the message that such observations will convey to the State and its agencies in a country where impunity is the norm and, where is it routine to invoke the public weal and, threats to the ‘sovereignty and integrity’ of the nation to perpetrate “flagrant violations of human rights on a mass scale”.[13] In such a climate the Court’s remarks can and, have been construed by the police and other agencies engaged in internal security duties as a continuing licence to act in breach of the law.

Not surprising, given this ambivalence on the part of the Court, custodial killings and disappearances have been an endemic feature of post independence India. Equally not surprising there is, virtually, no jurisprudence connected with the violation of the right to life, in the country. This is not to say that the Supreme Court has condoned each and every case of death in custody. However, its attitude has been clearly contingent upon the attendant circumstances. In cases of custodial killing by the police, in non-insurgency situations, cases do get registered against the accused police officers. And, when such matters come to the Supreme Court it, does take a stern view of the matter.[14] But when it comes to the armed forces of the Union and/ or the other security forces ‘battling insurgency’, the Court has consistently avoided dealing with culpability and, the punishment for it. Sarcasm is the most that its ire extends to. For example, in the Sebastian Hongray case, the Supreme Court allowed itself to be trapped into challenging the temerity of the officials in lying to it, failing to address the lawlessness that underlay these lies.[15] For this reason the Court’s outrage became a display of ineffective umbrage over ‘lese majesty’ of its self.

In these circumstances, even the “public law” remedy of compensation has become a virtual gag for shutting the possibility of enquiry into the unpalatable aspects of the counter insurgency mechanism that the country has perfected to subdue its rebellious periphery.

If the judicial remedy is a failure, the constitutional guarantees are suspect; since they subsists entirely at the mercy of the executive. We are, then, faced with a conundrum: an executive that abides by the Rule of Law does not violate the rights of the people. In such States, the judiciary is not called upon to protect the rights of the people, except occasionally. Where the executive does not respect these rights, it becomes necessary for the judiciary to intervene and to restore the balance of rights. In such States, however, more often than not, the judicial remedy is ineffective.

Though the solution to the problem posed largely lies outside the realm of judicial practice, there is much that ails the commitment of the Indian judicial system to upholding the rights to life and liberty and, the Rule of Law. It is patent that developing the necessary political resolve to rid India of this lawless, impunity will be a painful and a long drawn out process. In the meanwhile, it ill behoves the judiciary of this country to abdicate is responsibility, howsoever arduous. To quote Montesquieu—

“Law should be like death, which spares no one.”

Footnotes
[1] The remedy under Article 226 is much broader, encompassing the right to move the court for violation of all legal rights, including the fundamental rights. However, unlike in the case of Article 32, the High Court is not obliged to entertain a petition. Its jurisdiction is discretionary.

[2] Over the decades, Article 21 has become an omnibus provision, encompassing within itself everything, from the basic right to life and liberty to the right to livelihood, food, shelter, health, education, environment and much more. Interpreting the provision in ever expanding concentricities the Court has expounded that the right to life includes within itself all that forms part of a life of dignity as a civilised human being.

[3] AK Gopalan V. The State of Madras.(AIR 1950 SC 27). This case challenged the validity of a preventive detention law, on the ground that it violated Article 21.

[4] An expression vague enough to encompass almost everything that might have been done by an ingenious State apparatus over the past century of imperial rule.

[5] Maneka Gandhi V. Union of India (AIR 1978 SC 597)

[6] E. P. Royappa V. State of Tamil Nadu (1974 [4] SCC 3)

[7] Nilabati Behera V. State of Orissa and others (AIR 1993 SC 1960)

[8] AIR 1997 SC 3047

[9] The Court added that the State, “has the right to be indemnified by and take such action as may be available to it against the wrongdoer in accordance with law through appropriate proceedings”. It also stated that relief in exercise of the “public law” powers under Article 32 or 226 can be granted only once it is “established” that there has been an infringement of the fundamental rights of the citizen and no other form of appropriate redress is possible.

[10] Needless to state, invoking this judgement made no difference whatsoever to the proceedings or the outcome of these cases.

[11] Salus populi est supreme lex and Salus republicae est suprema lex.

[12] DK Basu V. State of West Bengal, supra

[13] The words used by the Supreme Court in a case alleging thousands of enforced disappearances in Punjab, upon reading the report of the investigation into these allegations by the CBI (Central Bureau of Investigation), on the orders of the Court.

[14] Most of these judgements are not in habeas corpus petitions but in cases arising out of the trial of the accused police officers. They were passed while disposing of appeals by the accused police officers, or by the State government, against their conviction/ acquittal, as the case may be.

[15] Sebastian Hongray V. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 1026

2006-09-16T06:47:00.001-07:00

Is it enough that the Prime Minister is honest?

How dire is the Indian situation? I find it difficult to gauge the truth.

On the one hand we have the "numbers" coming out every day. Infosys, Wipro, Reliance Energy, Biocon, ....... On the other, the Prime Minister announces "packages" for suicide riven Vidarbha. Where lies the truth? Is India making rapid progress towards the economic well being of its billion plus or is it down-sliding into desperate poverty?

Look at it another way: On the one hand, the ruling establishment, which, by the way, includes us, flaunts its billion plus demography as THE ASSEST of the nation; one that has catapulted us into the ranks of the great nations of the world and, virtually, into the UN Security Council. On the other, we allow the very people who make us such a great nation to die unnecessary deaths by the millions every year: female foeticide and infanticide, high infant mortality in general, high maternal mortality, starvation deaths, disease epidemics, one of the highest accident rates in the world, et al.

Do we imagine that it is only the Lakshmi Mittals and the Amartaya Sens and the Indira Nooyis that enable us to hold our heads high when we says we are Indians? No doubt they and many other "successful" Indians have helped erase the ubiquitous image of the naked, starving Indian: going around the world with a begging bowl. Perhaps that is all that we care about; how the world paints us. After all, it is only Maya.

Do we imagine that we will actually become a great nation on the strength of the handful of corporate czars, Nobel laureates, missiles and, atomic weapons? Are we labouring under the illusion that China is on the verge of becoming a great and powerful nation, whose voice is impossible to ignore because of its nuclear arsenal? Its unprecedented economic boom? A "booming economy" is only so much hot air unless it translates into a modicum of dignity for all: food in every thaali, a shirt on every back, a roof over every head.

2006-09-16T06:47:00.000-07:00

Rule of Law: A Raison d' etre

Law is not neutral. It never was. It is backed by force and, it commands it, also. Thus, rule of law is a misnomer -deliberate or inadvertent- to the extent that it connotes an absence of force. Besides, in the 21st Century it would be the height of naiveté to subscribe to the original view about rule of law: that it is exclusively based upon reason.

Let us examine the manner in which law and/ or rule of law comes into being:

India was conquered by the British by force, not law. British made law was subsequently applied, by force. Once the law was in place, it was enforced. Reason had very little role to play. One might argue that the law was reasonable but that begs the question of: by whose lights and, even assuming this was so, what gave the British the right to force us to follow their reason. Further, it is patent that howsoever hard they had tried to convince, the British would never have managed to persuade the Indians obey their laws. Thus, rule of law was backed by force, not reason.

Look at the same thing another way: all people who are free must necessarily have the freedom to choose, for example, to obey or not to obey another’s precepts. However, the ‘freedom of choice’ argument fails in the face of the need to regulate human behaviour in the social context. A solitary human being can do what he or she wishes, without constraint or fetter. The moment there are two people, they both feel the need for norms to regulate each other’s conduct. The conventional argument champions the 'law-rule of law' paradigm by claiming that there are two possible ways in which this need can be resolved: by force, the stronger prevailing over the weaker of the two and enforcing his/ her will; or, by law, when norms would get formulated to ensure that both persons get to enjoy an equal degree of ‘freedom of choice’ with neither encroaching upon the area of the other’s choices. This argument, however, fails to recognize a third possibility, which is often the way it goes in the real world. The stronger of the two (whether physically, intellectually or emotionally) establishes an ascendancy and, using that, lays down a set of rules as being “reasonable”. Thus, not only is the other, weaker person deprived of his/ her fair share of choice-space but he/ she is also forced to acknowledge that the rules imposed are “fair”. The next time he/ she infringes any of these, so called, fair rules, she is brought to book for violating the “law”. Since the person who imposed the law in the first place was able to do so because of his/ her superior strength, it is obvious that this person would also be able to enforce a penalty for the infringement of the law. Even worse, it is obvious that the situation would be untenable if one were to hypothise a situation where the weaker of the two were allowed to stipulate the rule (or law) to be followed, since this person would not be able to enforce the law unless the stronger person allowed that to happen. In such case 'law' or 'rule of law' would remain a concession by the stronger person. It is axiomatic that a concession can be withdrawn at the will (or the whim) of the giver. In other words, the concession can never be law.

Now, why would a concept that is premised on force and, the ability of the strong to compel the weak be touted as the panacea for freedom, equality and fair play? The only reason can be that it serves the purpose of the strong, by minimizing the resistance of the weak, lessening the need to remain perpetually on guard and, reducing the task of enforcing the law. What can be better for the master than when the slave (or the subject) willingly accepts the limits upon his her freedom?

2006-09-16T06:11:00.000-07:00