Comment

There’s a lovely myth that we Indians love to repeat to each other: we are a peaceful, loving, kind, non-violent society. Our first instinct is to use love and then, much, much later, when forced and against our better instincts, we may possibly turn to violence. We do firmly believe this. It keeps our sense of self intact and upbeat. And, dare I say it, makes us slightly smug and superior.

So let’s examine the general reaction to two recent and disconnected events. First, to the fate of the one captured terrorist, Ajmal Amir. Now that he has squealed and sung, the chorus has begun: kill him, kill him, kill him. He deserves nothing better. No one can defend him. Kill the people who try to defend him. He deserves death.

Next, to the fate of stray dogs in the city of Mumbai — kill them, kill them, kill them. They bark at night, they chase cars, they might get rabies, they might bite us. Death to the dogs and death to terrorists like dogs.

It makes for an interesting picture of how a society sees itself. We feel superior to countries which have, for instance, Shariah law, and we feel horror that hands and legs are cut off. Then a young boy and girl in some interior part of India run away together and what do inhabitants of the village they come from do to them — lynch them, of course. Death is the reward for love. Death is the reward for barking at night. Death is the reward for terrorists.

Let’s say one can understand the last — after the law had convicted the man accused of these most heinous of crimes, death could well be the preferred punishment. I would say keep him alive because death is what he wants, death is a release, every day he lives keeps him further away from his goal of martyrdom and the promise of everlasting life. But the lovers and the barking dogs? Death?

Strangely, the cries for death often come from those quarters of society and those communities of India which otherwise pride themselves on their religious integrity and their strict adherence to non-violence. That is, they will not eat animals, but they don’t mind killing a few people and animals that annoy them. These are the people who float the theory that non-vegetarians are by their consumption of blood violent of nature — another explanation for the conquest of India by various marauding forces.

Interesting. As we all know, that butcher of the 20th century, Adolf Hitler quite enjoyed vegetarianism. Don’t eat the animals but kill the Jews. Millions of Jews. Many in India quite openly admire Hitler and also want India to emulate contemporary Israel (some odd contradiction of thought here) and kill all the terrorists, particularly the Muslims of course.

And everyone, it seems, wants to kill the dogs.

But I am being unfair. They also want to kill the Naxals, once they wanted to and did kill the Sikhs, yet the Sri Lankan Tamils and the various insurgents of Assam and the North East escape this death sentence. I suspect that this is because few in the middle of India have heard of them or are really bothered. (No death penalty by absence of interest?)

So what does this obsession with death as a punishment say for the maturity of a society? The concept of ahimsa is thousands of years old but given that violence is older, ahimsa could be a guide rather than a rule. For myself, I would rather eat a goat than kill a dog because it barks at night. Food yes, an atavistic delight in blood revenge, no.

Or it could be that it takes so little to strip away our mask of civilisation. A little threat to our sleep at night or a major threat to our peace of mind and, there it comes, kill the culprit. It may not solve the problem, but it applies balm on the collective wound of rage.

At times like this, Mahatma Gandhi — that apostle of non-violence killed by those who loved the man who killed the Jews — provides some solace. An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind?

http://www.dnaindia.com/blogs/ranjona