Why is everyone so eager to blame priests and outsiders for "inciting" the mob that killed a man? Each and every member of that group was an adult and bears full responsibility for their actions. It's time we stopped infantalizing our citizens and started treating them as adults.

Why is everyone so eager to blame priests and outsiders for "inciting" the mob that killed a man? Each and every member of that group was an adult and bears full responsibility for their actions. It's time we stopped infantalizing our citizens and started treating them as adults.

Beef Killings: “Provoked” and “Incited” my Foot!

When a mob kills a man, do you blame the mob or someone who “incited” the mob? Here in India we’ve progressed far down the road of infantalizing our citizens. This means that instead of condemning the people who actually committed the crime, we seek to blame “priests”, and mysterious “outsiders” who forced the priest to make an announcement etc.

News reports say that a mob of around 200 people stormed the victim’s house and killed him. So far, only 6 people have been arrested. Why just 6? Every last one of those buggers needs to be hunted down and jailed. But most of the news reporting and outrage and “solutions” revolve around who “incited” the mob and spread false rumors.

Some politicians have even gone so far as to label the whole thing a “misunderstanding” and an “accident”. How the hell can you “accidentally” force a man out of his house and beat him to death? What “misunderstanding” can be responsible for it?

I don’t care who “incites” me. If I murder someone, I alone am responsible.

This is bullshit. Let’s be clear. The people who murdered this guy were adults who deliberately chose to go to his house and kill him. I don’t care if they were “incited”, or if false rumors were spread or whatever. They – and they alone – need to take full responsibility for their actions.

These are not animals who were “provoked” into violence. Human beings do not have a button inside their head which when pressed, leads them to uncontrollable rampage and violence. This mob felt safe and secure in their numbers and found voluntary ethical validation in their fellow rioters. They need to be taught a lesson – that you cannot shrug away responsibility for your actions.

Indian law repeatedly absolves rioters of their actions during a rampage. It treats them like a force of nature instead of aware adults who are expected to obey the law. Instead, it searches for who “provoked” the mob. As if that person holds a remote control and the actual mob members are brainless robots.

This lack of personal responsibility encourages people during a riot to simply do as they please. And it’s not just a question of law. News discussions, opinion articles and blogs are all quick to remove focus from the mob members. Well, I’m not willing to do that.

I don’t care who “incites” me. If I murder someone, I alone am responsible. I have the choice to decide whether or not a person’s words will influence me, and if I make the wrong choice, it is my fault and not theirs.

It’s time Indian law and society stopped diluting responsibility for violence. Islamic fanatics who murder others for “disrespecting Islam” cannot claim innocence no matter how much they were “provoked”. A criminal cannot blame society, “porn”, or alcohol for their misdeeds. Vandals who destroy art cannot shift the blame onto the artist for “hurting their sentiments”, and people cannot use the blanket of “offense” to escape culpability for murder.

Stop blaming priests, outsiders, and other nefarious elements. Start placing the blame for the murder squarely where it belongs – on the individual members of the mob who are expected to obey the law and made the choice to do otherwise. No one else is responsible for their actions expect for themselves.

What do you think of this post?
  • Agree (12)
  • Don't Agree but Interesting (0)
  • You're an asshole (0)

Comments

  1. It’s high time we stop blaming stupid political agendas for inspiring these draconic thoughts!
    I can understand if one person cannot think rationally, but the entire mob? What they received was not inspiration/instigation, but perhaps some sub-conscious confidence that doing so will be accepted/appreciated/not seen as a crime. Or just an outbreak of some mass insanity!

    Reply

    • In reply to Paarul

      Not insanity, but validation. They think that because they’re in a group and that others around them are doing something, that makes it okay. Such people need to be punished so that others around the country will take notice. There should be no “protection in the mob”.

      Reply

  2. Beef eating shouldn’t be made into a virtue

    https://twitter.com/DailyO_/status/651162457591840774

    Reply

  3. Very well said. Also this is a big attempt to paper over differences in caste and cultures within India and create a monolith of Hindus that are identical in diet, faith and intolerance – as defined by the upper caste zealots of the Hindutva movement. Scheduled castes and tribes are Hindu when it comes to engineering riots and asking for votes, otherwise “No Hindu eats meat” as though they are not Hindus.

    Reply

  4. if my demands are not met, the mob will go off in 24 hours… mwahahahaha

    Reply

  5. The left in India does not support animal protection, though it is a liberal agenda in the West, because they regard it as a Hindu cause.

    Reply

    • In reply to Tuning

      Animal protection and being against meat eating is not the same thing mind you. Yes, there are vegan liberals in the west, but they’re by no means the majority. People are in favor of humane killing of animals – not stopping meat entirely.

      And liberals in India have nothing against Hindus. As a liberal myself, I am blind to religion.

      Reply

    • In reply to Tuning

      I fail to understand what this has to do with a mob beating a man to death and then being excused.

      Reply

    • In reply to Tuning

      I think you are seriously confused about the “left”. Right wing brainwash in India tends to club everything not polarizing pro-Hindu to be “left. This is absurd, and creates confusions such as this one or the infamous hilarious Congress and Maoists being clubbed together, when Congress has clobbered the Maoists and they would never be on the same side – in fact, if you overlook right wing propaganda, Maoist actions have consistently helped BJP against Congress. From wiping out the Chattisgarh leadership to the BJP winning seats in “extreme left” Maoist controlled constituencies.

      Animal rights is a similar area of confusion. Just because it isn’t a right wing agenda does not make it left wing. Also plenty of anti-Right people in India take up animal rights (and Maneka Gandhi is a BJP MP). The cow slaughter ban is not to be confused with animal protection (it doesn’t even protect cows, unless a long ill treated life eating toxic garbage is called protection). Animal rights activists too have great variations. Many focus on treating animals well and minimal suffering for food animals, while others call for bans on all meat. To the best of my knowledge, no animal rights movement anywhere cherry picks animals to protect. Even more importantly, NONE would endorse extra-judicial crimes against humans in the manner the supposed cow protection does.

      Reply

      • In reply to Vidyut

        I think there are more appropriately two sides – pro hindu and everyone else!

        Reply

      • In reply to Vidyut

        “To the best of my knowledge, no animal rights movement anywhere cherry picks animals to protect. Even more importantly, NONE would endorse extra-judicial crimes against humans in the manner the supposed cow protection does.”

        I would suggest updating your knowledge and/or common sense. Animal rights activists dont cherry pick? Really? They don’t cherry pick between dogs and cockroaches and earthworms?

        NONE would endorse extra-judicial crimes? With all due respect, please expand your knowledge to find out about numerous firebomb attacks on medical research centers by Animal Rights activists. I would suggest educating yourself about the “Animal Liberation Front” and in particular googling someone called “Rodney Corronado”.

        Reply

      • In reply to Sumit

        They certainly don’t cherry pick for religious reasons. And that distinction is important because separation of religion and government is a pillar of modern society.

        As for violence, the fact that you can actually name a single person who indulged in it shows you how rare this is. Now let’s see – can you give the names of all the Hindus who were violent in the name of beef? No – you can’t.

        Moreover, just about all animal rights activists in the west will wholeheartedly condemn these individuals. Unlike in India where criminals get support from the population.

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        Bhagwad,
        Here are your words from your post:

        —> ” I don’t care if they were “incited”, or if false rumors were spread or whatever. They – and they alone – need to take full responsibility for their actions.”

        And here are your words from your comment above:

        —-> “They certainly don’t cherry pick for religious reasons. And that distinction is important…”

        Which one is it? Will you just look at the action or whatever it was that incited them…religion or otherwise?

        Thanks.

        Reply

  6. I don’t know where we are going. I don’t even want to open the newspaper anymore to preserve my sanity and prevent myself from falling into a hopeless depression. Like you said, it’s horrendous that it’s made out to be a misunderstanding. Like it’s okay to kill someone if they really ate beef. And one man’s food could be another’s object of devotion. By that logic, or the lack thereof, anyone can say that their religious sentiments are being hurt because someone ate something that is sacred to them. So let’s say I belong to a sect that worships vegetables. I mean why not, right? They are plants. So would it be okay to kill ALL vegetarians?

    WTF is going on really. We are becoming more and more regressive each day.

    Reply

    • In reply to madetomisfit

      My previous article was about how the poor Jains didn’t get what they wanted with a complete meat ban, even though their “religious sentiments” were involved.

      Either all religions should be treated the same, or the government should ignore religion altogether.

      Reply

  7. You were once caught pontificating on compassion.. while advocating slaughter of animals for food. Pretty confused, inconsistent liberal, blinded by hate.

    Reply

  8. Ernesto Che Guevara’s impressions of India, recorded after a visit in 1959.

    One can quite understand that the cow was a sacred animal for the ancient ones: it worked in the fields, gave milk, and even its excreta had the enormous importance of replacing natural fuel, which does not exist here; this explains why their religious precepts prohibited the farmer from killing this precious animal and, for that, the only way out was to consider it sacred; to have such a determining force as religion impose respect for the most efficient element of production which the community counted on.

    Reply

    • In reply to Sahana

      One would think that if the cow was so valuable, the farmer would suffer economically from killing it. There would be no need for religious precepts. Flawed analysis.

      Reply

    • In reply to Sahana

      One of my great heros is the capitalist who discovered that you don’t actually have to argue with liberals over Che Guevara. You can do better. You can sell them merchandise : T-shirts, key rings, caps etc. with Guevara’s face on it and make a fortune. Instead of trying to reason with them (hopeless), it is much smarter to just put a tax on their stupidity.

      Reply

      • In reply to Sumit

        I believe I have already corrected you in the past about this. Che Guevara was a Marxist – not a liberal. Modern liberals would never endorse the use of force when the law is still functioning.

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        We seem to be disagreeing with what mainstream standard “liberalism” is today. How about a recent article from the New York Times? Surely, the definition of a “liberal” used by the New York Times can be treated as a fairly mainstream notion of what a “liberal” is.

        So, here is an article from the NYT barely a week ago:

        http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/10/04/opinion/sunday/sonia-faleiro-india-free-speech-kalburgi-pansare-dabholkar.html?smid=pl-share&_r=2&referer=

        Let’s read:

        ” In today’s India, secular liberals face a challenge: how to stay alive. In August, 77-year-old scholar M. M. Kalburgi, an outspoken critic of Hindu idol worship, was gunned down on his own doorstep. In February, the communist leader Govind Pansare was killed near Mumbai. ”

        Did you see that? “Communists” are counted among “secular liberals” in mainstream liberal discourse. This is the New York Times I am quoting. You may not personally accept them as “liberals”, but surely the definition of “liberal” used by the New York Times can be used as a fairly solid benchmark. Shri Govind Pansare was a card carrying member of the Communist Party and the involvement of the Communists in countless massacres in India and across the world can hardly be denied.

        Reply

      • In reply to Sumit

        Wait a minute – where does it say that “communists” are counted amongst “liberals”? You’re pointing to an article that doesn’t support your point at all!

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        Please read the passage again:

        “secular liberals face a challenge: how to stay alive. In August, 77-year-old scholar M. M. Kalburgi, an outspoken critic of Hindu idol worship, was gunned down on his own doorstep. In February, the communist leader Govind Pansare…”

        The article talks of “secular liberals” facing a challenge to stay alive and gives 3 examples. One of them is Communist Govind Pansare. So, obviously, the Communist has been counted among the “secular liberals”.

        Reply

      • In reply to Sumit

        No, you’re going to need more than some implied connection there. The thrust of the article is the attack of free speech in general. They are merely giving examples to show how free speech is being clamped down all across India regardless of the political spectrum.

        Is that really the best you can come up with? A vague sort of implication by the NYTimes that talks about a communist leader getting gunned down as part of a general clampdown on free speech in India?

        If your claim about communism being part of liberalism is true, then you should be able to find much more direct quotes and evidence.

        But come on – how can you even think they’re the same? Read up the principles of liberalism. Then read up the principles of communism and tell me where the connection lies!

        We’ve been through this before. I have showed you in the past that even Mao hated liberalism and wrote a book against it (http://www.bhagwad.com/blog/2015/politics/im-confused-is-the-rss-for-or-against-conversions.html/comment-page-1/#comment-29356)

        We really should move on from this – no need to repeat old stuff over and over again once it’s done with.

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        Bhagwad,
        I totally agree that you do not consider Commies to be “liberals”. That’s okay. We are talking about the mainstream definition of a liberal here.

        NO, the thrust of the article isn’t that free speech is being attacked down across the political spectrum. They are NOT talking of a general clampdown. The opening sentence is extremely specific: it is “secular liberals” who are under attack. And immediately after this very specific sentence about exactly which kind of person is under attack, the NYT gives 3 examples, including a Communist.

        In fact, you can see that the article is very focussed on the fact that the victims were liberals.

        1) The opening sentence talks about “secular LIBERALS” under attack and cites Govind Pansare.

        2) Another quote from the article: ” the Indian victims held LIBERAL views but were not famous or powerful.” (see: repeating that the victims were “liberals”!!)

        3) ” As Nikhil Wagle, a prominent LIBERAL journalist based in Mumbai, told me”

        4) “In addition to erasing the contributions of long-dead LIBERALS, B.J.P. leaders are busy promoting violent Hindu nationalists”…

        5) “It is easier to ignore or dismiss the attacks and the threats as a LIBERAL persecution complex…”

        As you can see, the NYT is quite obsessed with the L-word in this article!! This is an article about liberals being persecuted in India and Commie Pansare is cited as an example right in the beginning.

        More quotes:

        “senior journalist Arun Tikekar said that Pansare’s death will not have an adverse impact on the progressive movement. “The progressive and LIBERAL movement started by Pansare will continue.”

        (http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-govind-pansare-s-murder-tarnished-maharashtra-s-progressive-image-2063269)

        “Sadanand More, president of the Akhbil Bhartiya Marathi Sahitya Sammelan-2015, said the attack was an attempt to stop the LIBERAL and progressive views.”

        (http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/nation/cpi-leader-govind-pansare-wife-shot-at/42708.html)

        Again, I accept that you dont consider Communists to be liberals. But large sections of the media, intelligentsia and the liberal establishment at the NYT do!

        Reply

      • In reply to Sumit

        But seriously – there needs to be better evidence than on NYTimes article opinion piece. The generally accepted usage of liberals can be found in the dictionary, or Wikipedia, or any authoritative source that talks about political philosophies.

        If you point to the opening sentence of “secular liberals”, I can point to the title itself which simply says “attack on free speech”. The author is clearly confused. But there are lots and lots of authoritative sources that are very clear on what is what.

        I mean without standardized definitions, we might as well stop speaking in English altogether. For us to communicate, there has to be a neutral source of the meanings for words. Those are usually the dictionary – usually lots of them (even urban dictionaries) with every nuance. But in no nuance, do communism and liberalism share ideological space.

        They are in fact the opposite of each other!

        Reply

      • In reply to Sumit

        I think your continued confusion with liberal and communist has sent you on a hunt for an obscure equivalence that is absent in normal language. Liberal and communist are different descriptors altogether. You can be a communist AND liberal, for example, just like you can be a nationalist AND liberal – Ram Jethmalani, for example.

        Comrade Pansare being a secular liberal does not make being communist mandatory to all who are secular and/or liberal. This is a classic example of the thinking RSS is promoting these days to demonize people by identity or association by establishing triggers through repetition. Like saying “Sky is blue, so anything blue lacks substance and is an illusion. Particularly be wary of shades you can see in the sky.” It is absurd, but when you hear it over and over, you first bring it up as a joke when you see soemthing blue, then you repeat the joke, then it gets widespread and then becomes “fact”. This is how brainwashing is done. It is defective thinking and alarmingly widespread and serves no useful purpose to the country and citizen – even right wing supporting citizen.

        I am, for example, politically flexible, and have agreed on various issues across the board, right from the Maoists to the Shiv Sena, but I am a complete liberal when it comes to endorsing individual rights regardless of what larger reasoning I find has more merit in a specific situation.

        If you begin with a conclusion and trawl the internet to find someone who concludes the same, you will find them. If you are talking about the meaning of the word, something as elementary as “liberal meaning” would get you thousands of results, all of them in perfect harmony with each other.

        This may seem simple but can be incredibly difficult for those who have been brainwashed with an ideology that has been placing thousands of triggers in people’s minds to generate knee jerk hostility till there is severe cognitive dissonance to recognize anything that contradicts it, even something as elementary as a dictionary – one of the reasons I used a really simple example without emotional triggers.

        It is troubling that the citizens of India have difficulty finding meeting ground on even the meaning of words.

        Reply

      • In reply to Vidyut

        “You can be a communist AND liberal, for example, just like you can be a nationalist AND liberal – Ram Jethmalani, for example.”

        You can also be a communist and nationalist (though not the Hindu Rashtra/Sharia type). A lot of the communists during our freedom struggle were also staunch nationalists. Same with socialist. Bhagat Singh for example.

        These are nuanced ideologies that are being wiped out as a massive clubbed “left” and used interchangeably. There is much to study, many ideologies to examine, adopt, discard as per our own vision of what is appropriate for our country. A more appropriate “opposite” which cannot coexist would be socialist and libertarian – they have completely different opinions on how the state should manage the national wealth. Or religious nationalists/fundamentalists and secularists – they have polar opposite views on how religion and state may coexist (and the origin of the “right-left” spectrum).

        Reply

Speak Your Mind

*