TOLERANCE, VIOLENCE AND TERRORISM-- SOME THOUGHTS !

TOLERANCE, VIOLENCE AND MEDIA-SOME RANDOM THOUGHTS---LET US DEBATE CONTEST-4 Jul 5 2008  | Views 1848 |  Comments  (12)  | Report Abuse Tags: in response to dr madhvi's let us debate contes-4 TOLERANCE,VIOLENCE AND MEDIA-SOME RANDOM THOUGHTS!             What is TOLERANCE? Is it society- specific or individual-specific or does it pertain to both? Is it only PATIENCE?   Do we say it is acceptance of violence unlimited—something like a GANDHIAN THOUGHT that you turn your other cheek to the person who slaps you? Do we have definable PERMISSIBLE LIMITS? I am asking these questions because we can not have an open ended phenomenon. Tolerance has its own limits defined—something like Lord Krishna telling SISHUPAL that he would excuse his 99 abuses. And when Sishupal did it for the 100th time, Lord Krishna chopped his head off. It was a promise Lord Krishna had made to Sishupal’s mother that he would allow him to abuse 99 times. Extraneous factors, therefore, could also make you tolerate some people for a specific purpose.           Tolerance is both individual-specific and society-specific. Bottom lines are drawn by everyone---thus far---and no more. TOLERANCE is to accept, within definable limits, both individually and collectively, physical and mental aggressiveness of someone to avoid, if you can, the vitiation of the environments. It is directly related to your individual strength and power. More powerful you are; more tolerant you could be. Tolerance is also sometimes equated with ‘Magnanimity’. You have heard of that famous HINDI verse: KSHAMA BADAN KO CHAHIYE, CHHOTAN KO UTPAAT; KAH PRABHU KA GHAT GAYO JO BHRIGU MAARI LAAT (Elders must be able to forgive, youngsters must resort to trouble-making; what did the ‘GOD’ lose as ‘BHRIGU’ kicked HIM.)          Tolerance has two connotations, one of ‘Options’ and the other of ‘No options’. It is generally believed that only the POWERFUL could be magnanimous enough to tolerate the nonsense of the opponent.  Magnanimity is never an attribute of the weak but helplessness is their premier characteristic. They tolerate because of this. What is the difference? A huge difference: one has the OPTION to HIT BACK; other has NO OPTION but to suffer in silence. This needs to be understood as we discuss violence and the media.          What is violence? Is it only physically injury?  “No”, says John Harris in his book “Violence and Responsibility”.  He describes it as an act, intended, implied, imagined or carried out which causes a physical or mental injury, both perceivable and demonstrable, which the perpetrator of the act knows would cause harm to the object of his act. Therefore, violence is a product of not only the physical force but also of the mental force. Take the case of this girl of the REALITY SHOW—SHRINJANI GUPTA—who lost her voice when rebuked by one of the judges on her performance. It was the mental violence---or you might call it ‘Emotional Bleeding’.         Taking to the other extreme, isn’t war practice of violence by the soldiers? Take the case of counter and Anti-terrorism operations by security forces. Is it different from the violence perpetrated by the terrorists, communalists, criminal’s et al? Simply put, they too cause harm to other human beings. Do not dismiss it as a joke. I have a point.             I am veering you around to my view point on the JUSTIFIABILITY OF VIOLENCE? Can we say that in certain cases VIOLENCE is SANCTIFIED? What are the parameters for such justifications? Who do we have to justify to? These are moral and spiritual questions but answers are very important to understand the contours of violence and tolerance. Let us say a person has been sentenced to death by the court of law. He is hanged by the hangman after the legal process was completed. Hasn’t the hangman committed legal murder and violence per say? Haven’t the judge and the approving authority abetted this murder? Yes, within the accepted frame work of the general definition of violence these instances are no less acts of violence.  But they are within the accepted concept of Justifiability. These acts have been performed for the COLLECTIVE GOOD of the SOCIETY. Thus, they are justifiable. So is the violence committed in war and Anti-terrorist operations by security forces. It was done with the SOCIAL GOOD IN MIND. Even Lord krishna justifies such violence in the 'HOLY GEETA'.        Where do nations /societies/polities go wrong is a situation when these norms are changed at the whims and fancies of changing political environments in a democratic set-up. Villains become Heroes and the poor sincere ‘do-gooders’ suddenly find themselves as most ‘wanted criminals’. My point is to highlight poor plight of security forces when the government change. Most often members of security forces are harassed for acts omission and commission. Even if some of the acts were of misadventure and inappropriate, they ought to be ignored, if the intent was not of personal advantage.          While on this aspect, I would like to touch on the so-called HUMAN-RIGHTS organizations and their role. When PUNJAB was burning they were no where. If 'Bhindrawale' wanted them to bend they would crawl. This included some of the MEDIA and LEGAL GREATS of today. But as soon as the peace and normalcy returned, they sprang up like mosquitoes to bite the security forces who had done their job sincerely. In militancy infested environments, when you play with fire, no doubts, certain innocents too would also suffer. Anybody who denies this is living in a fool’s paradise. But the point is when you have handed over the situation to your ‘ultimate weapon’—you knew how deep the malice was. When the weapon is used on the effected part, the adjacent limbs will get affected. THIS IS WHERE THE SOCIAL AMENITY IS SANCTIFIED. You can not drumbeat them as murderers—If you do so—then, who will fight your future battles with these elements—the irregular soldiers of ‘WOM—the ‘WAR BY OTHER MEANS’?  You can demoralize your security forces like what you have done to your police ----you have made them cautious and ineffective --- Today, mere law and order problem requires columns of army to seek control over rampaging mobs of goons. You have to guard your 'men of action' against such unwanted hassles—you have to give them immunity against ‘motivated court cases’ by these so called Human rights organizations. If an AJIT SINGH( an ex Punjab Police officer) is made to commit suicide then you know what blunders you are committing on your future security?         Having defined and elaborated on the nuances of the two terms, I would now like to discuss the permissible limits of accepting violence or what we say tolerance before I discuss the media. To do so, we must define COLLECTIVE GOOD OF THE SOCIETY. Any act, intended or carried out which prevents the perceivable or the demonstrable harm to the society must contribute towards Social Good. An attack on the parliament by militants was thwarted by some brave Delhi policemen—it contributed towards the collective good of the society. In the bargain, if they killed some militants, it is acceptable. If an AFZAL GURU was sentenced to death for planning this conspiracy—it was justifiable because it served as a deterrent to ‘Future Afzal Gurus’. It is a different matter that Government of the day was playing VOTE-BANK politics on this. DETERRENCE IS THE BASIC LAW OF PREVENTION; ONE CAN NOT HAVE SEPARATE RULES FOR A ‘SATWANT SINGH’ & ‘AFZAL GURU’.            How about normal Individuals? What are their parameters? I think SELF DEDFENCE is the best rule. As long as you can justify on this ground---you will have the requisite immunity. Security forces are not there because of their own sweet will—it is the nation who raised their hands including the HUMAN RIGHTS ORGANISATIONS. Why didn’t these organizations just go to violence- committing- outfits and say, “Hey, it is enough—you have crossed all levels of tolerance and stop it?”  They would not because criminals do not respect the laws as policemen and security forces do. Same is true of communal riots---‘Bandh’ organizers---protest marchers and agitationists. They accuse the policemen of excesses—what do they expect the law enforcers to do when the rioters damage national property in a wanton manner. Why should they then expect mercy? Here is where media comes in. Their irresponsible reporting adds fuel to the fire.  Recent ‘Gujjar’-agitation is a case in point.           Media, if irresponsible, edgy and impulsive, can lead to intolerance and violence. Unfortunately, Indian media, both Electronic and Print, is obsessed with its TRP ratings. Visual clips have very powerful impact on the target. So when you see the repetitive visuals showing alleged atrocities, you ought to get emotionally swayed. This is what happened in the case of GUJJAR AGITATION. Media helped it snowball into an uncontrolled and undisciplined mob who damaged national property at will because media had neutralized the police. Media does the same thing whenever there are communal riots—it adds fuel to the fire by showing visuals of burning houses again and again.        Take it from me; publicity is the oxygen of life of today’s motivated violence through riots, protests, agitations 'BANDHS', terrorism, ethnic cleansing and criminal activity such as murders, abduction and extortion. All this is done by the media assisted publicity.  It glamorizes the underworld goons; it extols the terrorist leaders by showing interviews with them and it invariably adopts anti-establishment view point to raise its stock amongst the viewers. Indian media has been responsible for lowering the tolerance level of the people by following a GOEBLIAN PRINCIPLE: IF A LIE TOLD THOUSAND TIMES IT BECOMES TRUTH. This is the purpose of the repetitive clips. May be the URBANISED and educated people might see through the game. But its target generally is rural population when RIOTS, AGITATION and PROTESTS take place. Simple and illiterate people of the villages take it as real. The GUJJAR agitation was built up like this by Col Bhainsla by cleverly using media—by daily giving sound bytes and exhorting Gujjars to join him.          Cinema is another important media which contributes towards the spread of violence and intolerance. Invariably violence is glamorized by asking people to take law into their own hands. ‘Hero’ goes breaking all rules and laws with disdain and there is no respect for authority. This is another reason for people getting bold enough to give vent to their frustration by taking things into own hands. Growing intolerance leads to conflicts and violence.          Tolerance, Violence and media have a very straight connectivity. Media causes INTOLERANCE and this leads to violence. If only media can behave in a responsible manner then we can avoid a lot of violence .These are some of the random thoughts I felt like sharing with the participants of the contest. I hope I have been able to make some worthwhile contribution.           Ever since I started this contest, I have been avoiding from making any contribution because I write very heavy stuff and it leads to annoying some one the other. That is me. I can not help it as I only know how to fire from the hip straight. But Dr. MADHVI insisted on my participation---she said, “you can not sit and watch.” I have written this piece with a very controlled mind—I was going astray at one point but I checked myself. Hope it does not bore the readers, Dr MADHVI.       NOTE : This write-up must not be considered for the competition, as I am supposedly the CHIEF HOST. I will be grateful. © rajee kushwaha., all rights reserved. Bookmark this pageEdit this blog