Imagine a world where every act of violence is magically and immediately met with punishment. The punishment would be impersonal and swift – like when you touch a hot stove by accident, you face the consequences right then and there. What would the implication be for such a world and would you want to live in it? There would be no murders, no rapes, and no brutality. We can do away with large parts of the criminal justice system – we would still need it for financial crimes etc.
Can you imagine anyone objecting to this world? (Apart from criminals of course) Nothing could possibly be wrong in such a perfect set up where justice is meted out immediately and efficiently. Could any “regular” person be against this system?
But strangely, there are many “normal” people who would hate such a world. They would fight tooth and nail against it and would destroy it given the chance – the fanatics. And I don’t mean the slavering at the mouth rabid mobs which one usually associates with fanatics. I mean regular quiet and reasonable looking people who could be your neighbor or your milkman.
Fanatics of anything whether they be the Afghan Taliban or the jingoistic Indian “patriots.” For them, a world where you can’t beat someone up for saying something objectionable, for not dressing properly, for being gay and for falling in love with an “inappropriate person” would be…horrifying!
If you have a new ideology and want a convenient yardstick to find out whether or not it’s the right one, ask yourself the simple question – “Would I fear a world where I can’t beat someone up?” If the answer is yes – if you would fear such a world, then there’s something wrong with your ideology. If you hate a place where you can’t solve a problem without your fists, there’s something wrong with the way you think.
What defines the Taliban? Is it that they’re Muslim? That they live in Afghanistan/Pakistan? That they dress in a certain way or speak a certain language? No. The Taliban is defined by the fact that they use violence to control people. To control what they say, what they wear and what they worship. Anyone who does the same is called the Taliban.
When fanatics beat up Prashant Bhushan, they were using their fists to control what he could say. They were the Taliban no less than the gun totting masked thugs in the Afghan mountains. When Islamic fanatics cut off the hand of a professor in Kerala for something he wrote on his question paper, they were the Taliban too.
This is the benchmark we must apply to all ideologies, all faiths and cults. Do they rely on solving problems with their fists? If so, then they are the Taliban.
What about you? How would you react to a violence free world – with excitement? Or Horror?
Depends on your definition of violence. A doctor performing surgery would be physically “harming” someone, but what makes it different is the intent. If doctors started getting punished by this magical system then I am not for it.
I would be for a system that can recognize the intent in the violence and also the consequence of the action. Otherwise there are a lot of lives saved with “violence”.
In reply to Clueless
I think what I mean here is actions of violence against one’s will. But in the case of a doctor, they’re doing the very opposite of “harm.” After all, they’re curing someone of a problem. If they finally harm them because of negligence, well that’s a case for the courts…
There is little of non-violence in nature. BTW, are you vegan?
In reply to up↑take
No. But then mankind is as far removed from nature as possible :)
The world would be a stranger place with no violence.
In reply to Dev
Good strange or bad strange?
It’s difficult to imagine a world without violence! I think a lot of us wonder if self defence, surgeries etc are included or if there is a catch somewhere. But there is definitely no doubt that a world without violence would mean World Peace… exactly what we all want.
In reply to indianhomemaker
I personally feel that a huge number of regular individuals would miss the ability to beat up people for saying the “wrong” things. Or the right to beat up their wives.
Want us all to become Ms. Congeniality, looking for ‘world peace’? :-D
How could justice be ‘meted’ out in a violence free world?
In reply to Sangitha
Justice for what kind of crime?
In reply to bhagwad
The punishment that is supposed to stop crime – fighting violence with violence to start off, right?
In reply to Sangitha
No – I’m saying there would be no violence in the first place. People couldn’t be violent because they would immediately get back what they gave. It’s just an imaginary situation, so don’t ask me for details :)
Bhagwad,
How would this model apply to say the Keenan-Reuben murders? Per testimony from their own party, physical violence was actually initiated by *them*, they moved against a bunch of people who were “free-expressing” very rude and offensive speech about the women they were with.
Your auto-retributor would have smashed Keenan and Reuben up good? The murderers were making sustained lewd comments and ignoring warnings (or rather aggravating their behaviour in response) not leaving the place but this doesnt qualify. no physical harm.
would it be logical to say that the murderers served partly as the “auto-retributor” you have conceived of and they were justified to the extent of the quantum of violence they unleashed being *equal* to what they got from K & R?
thanks
Jai
In reply to Jai_C
I’m sure you’ll agree that murder is too much of a punishment for violence initiated. Freely expressing rude and offensive statements makes a person a jerk, an asshole and what not.
But not a criminal!
So I would say that any physical violence initiated by K&R should go punished – but only to a fair extent. What followed was not retribution – it was murder. Plain and simple.
K&R could have well responded to words using words. There’s no justification for using physical violence against words – sticks and stones may break my bones etc etc.
This by the way doesn’t reduce my outrage over what followed. I don’t think I need to mention that, especially to you, but knowing how easily assumptions are made over the Internet, it’s best that I come out clearly regarding that.
Bhagwad,
Its not unheard-of for women, and men escorting them, to use physical violence against ruffians who keep following them with sustained degrading comments, especially if they dont stop after repeated warnings. I’d be very surprised if the “free-expression” is not a crime that one can put the “free-expressors” in jail for. It is very likely that most police forces on the planet would let the women or men off even though they initiated *physical violence* with at max a warning. A robot running Bhagwad-rules would leave the “free-expressors” alone and arrest the ladies or their escorts.
I realize you oppose this on principle (mental harm and anguish not quantifiable).I am a bit surprised we arent getting any inputs here from any of the women who comment regularly, including those who have posted in support of your stand in this piece.
btw I read on some US sites that assault is defined as a reasonable expectation of physical harm eg. somebody blocks the way you have a right to pass through, and acts in a manner that leads you to reasonably conclude you cannot pass them without incurring harm- you can claim assault already. It becomes battery if the person so much as *touches* you without your permission.
So if you intend to walk across the street and there are louts there calling you & your wife names you are already eligible to claim assault because their speech gives you reasonable grounds to think you & mrs. will receive physical harm if you are within their reach. If you ask them to give way and they repeat or increase their abuse I dont think rules go by a “who swung first” to arrest you and not the lout.
Those are rules I am more comfortable with than Bhagwad-rules :-)
thanks
Jai
In reply to Jai_C
Yes Jai. Reasonable expectation of physical harm is violence since it given a person good reason to fear for their well being. This is well established in law and will be punishable under my system.
Domestic violence is a good example where threats are used – not just against the woman, but against her pets and even her children. These are all punishable by law.
Physically blocking a person’s way is also a physical threat. Stalking (as you describe the behavior in your comment) also carries the same connotations. So these will be classified as threats of violence and punishable as well.
In reply to bhagwad
One last comment on this :-) I was thinking back to whether I had witnessed, myself, any such incident… and yes, here it is:
~17 yrs ago Residency Road, BLR, in front of the Bangalore Club used to be a shady place almost literally at night. Tree-covered and dimly lit, traffic after 9pm was very light. Very few pedestrians. My friend and I used to walk by on our way home every other night, to have dinner at a restaurant further up. We did see some likely-CSWs setting up and standing around in some of these nooks, away from the bus stop, on some days.
One of these nights a young woman and an older woman walking maybe 100m ahead of us were accosted by 2 guys on a motor bike. They were too far for us to hear, but it was kind-of apparent the guys were trying to solicit for CSW. Where we saw an ordinary girl and maybe her aunt, they saw a CSW + her madam.
The young lady was giving them an earful. And then she raised her umbrella and gave the guy driving the bike a THWACK. We had drawn close by then. I was unsure about what I would do, other than shout loudly. Luckily for all of us, the guys were blinking in a daze, and then quickly drove away.
The guys werent really in the way of the women, and werent impeding their walk to the bus stop. As far as we could see they werent threatening force either. *The girl initiated violence*, because their “free-expression” amounted to her being addressed and treated like a CSW, and that was extremely degrading and mental-agonizing to her.
A tough case for BhagoCop :-) Okay this thread has gone on too long already.
thanks
Jai
In reply to Jai_C
Nice Jai :) – let’s take this to its logical conclusion.
If we say that hitting someone who abuses you is ok, where do we stop? What if the abuse is in writing? What if the abuse is subtle? What if the person reading/hearing it is more sensitive than a normal person? Does that give them the right to hit someone if they so much as smell an insult?
As you undoubtedly see, this is a slippery slope. I wouldn’t support violence unless the other person was stalking them, trying to touch them, or threatening to do so even non verbally.
The problem with such a world is anyone could do any non-violent harm to others, without fear of significant punishment. Sometimes violence is warranted.
In reply to Christoph
Non violent harm such as? Offending someone’s feelings is not “harm” as we understand it.
Unless you mean things like financial crimes. In which case we’ll need to find alternative punishments to imprisonment. Like taking away the person’s assets. Not too difficult I think.
But even if we consider imprisonment as “violence,” I would still choose a violence free world since the end of all physical oppression is too great an advantage to not snatch if one gets the chance.
You couldn’t even commit suicide in a non-violent world!
In reply to Christoph
I wouldn’t consider suicide to be violence since you’re not hurting anyone else. Your body is your property and you can destroy your property if you wish to do so.
I live in China. I was walking around the other day and I counted 24 children. Out of the 24 kids, only three were girls! That is a sex ratio of 8 boys to 1 girl! I once taught a class of 33 students where only 3 were girls! Now I know the official rate is 5 boys to 4 girls, but this is ridiculous. Who will all these beloved sons marry?
I am aware that China has a one child policy, has a traditonal preference for sons as a replacement for a lack of a social security plan, and is backwards and undeveloped, but aborting females for males is beyond cruel. Estimates say that there will be a surplus of 60 million males in ten years.
http://www.economist.com/node/15606229
Chinese parents can have another child if they have a girl, but not if they have a boy. Chinese, however, often ignore the law, abort the girl, and have two sons. I am also told that China will import women from Russia, Thailand, Japan, Myanmar, Cambodia, Laos, and the Philippines to make up for the lack of wives in China. However, these countries do not have an extra 60 million women and India, Pakistan, Nepal, Vietnam, South Korea, and Taiwan also have a severe shortage of women. An imbalanced sex ratio is a serious problem and could lead social instability and even war.
If you ever go to China, count the first 20 kids you see yourself. I bet you won’t find the sex ratio is better than two boys to one girl. If you are concerned about this problem, try to raise awareness by discussing the worldwide war on baby girls with others and ask them if they want to live in a world where everyone has an unmarried son.