[Reader-list] Fwd: kashmir pictures

Tue Aug 19 17:18:23 IST 2008

I quote kshmendra :

"Individual maverick interpretation of Ethics is of no consequence or
importance when compared to the common consensus (or majority voice)"

 I quote khsmendra again:

"that we follow in our 'multi party system' makes a mockery of the
essential principles of "Democracy". That needs to be rectified".

Now my reflection to that: i know examples are slippery, but, a case
in the point: what about legalizing Homosexuality in India?  here, if
you see me as one individual maverick, then we grossly differ on
ETHICS  and and LAW

about multi party system, which you feel makes a 'mockery of
democracy', is again, a negation of what you said in the begining,
a
After all the present day system of democracry is celebrated by
majority of the people in INDIA. or you think indians are 'invidual
mavericks', who dont care about ETHICS but follow THE CONSTITUTIOIN
blindly.

love
is

On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 4:57 PM, Kshmendra Kaul <kshmendra2005 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Dear Aarti
>
> Ethical must be Legal. Legal must be Ethical. If this basic principle is not adhered to then there is a flawed interpretation of either the Legal or the Ethical. Worse still is the possibility that the 'accepted and adhered to or propagated' Ethics or the Legality might in themselves be corrupted.
>
> Left to Individual maverick interpretation of Ethics is of no consequence or importance when compared to the common consensus (or majority voice)interpretation, "Ethics" of  particular relationships, could and often do find themselves varyingly defined. When such varying definitions are pertinent to inter-personal or inter-transactional situations, the quality of the relationship gets defined.
>
> In what was being discussed, we must focus on 'societal Ethics'. Such "Ethics" that permeate through and get defined for all of the society. These must find themselves reflected in the "Laws", in the "Legal". So, 'Ethical' must be 'Legal' and the 'Legal' must be 'Ethical'.
>
> The 'Legal' gets defined by the 'Laws'. The "Laws" derive themselves either directly from the 'Constitution' or from Legislation as allowed for in the "Constitution".
>
> Therefore, yes certainly Ethical must be seamlessly identifiable with the Legal. What do you find 'frightening' in this?
>
> You could argue that aspects of the Indian Constitution are not Ethical and therefore the Laws and Legality derived from them are not Ethical. Those then need to be rectified once you identify them. No such specific examples come readily to my mind. You might have some.
>
> I would readily agree with you if you and I find common our examples of where the Lawful or the Legal does not seem to Ethical. But, your and my views would always be subservient to how the Constitution views such Laws or Legalities. Individual maverick interpretation of Ethics is of no consequence or importance when compared to the common consensus (or majority voice) that finds itself reflected in the Constitution or the Laws and Legalities derived from it.
>
> You might be resentful of and confrontational against and constantly questioning of the "State". I am not. We the people are the "State". That should be seamless. If you said it is not always so, I would agree. But there is no lack of opportunity or means for making it so. Is'nt that what Democracy is all about.
>
> The 'categories' that the 'state' gives us, are "categories" that 'we the people' have made as having been participants in the formation, running and conduct of the "State".
>
> What is in any case wrong with the "categories" you have quoted.
>
> Are the Police the "Guardians of the Law"? Yes they are. Are those who break the Law, the 'law breakers'? Yes they are. Are those who confront the Police, the "hoodlums"? Yes they are.
>
> Again it could be argued that in India, the Police are not always (in fact often are not I would say) the "Guardians of the Law". That the Police in India have the propensity for 'unlimited terror'. Agreed.  That needs to be worked upon by 'we the People' and rectified. But that cannot be used as an excuse to provide a blanket immunity to or indemnify the "hoodlums" and "law breakers".
>
> Enough of my simple minded theorising. Let us come to the specifics of where this discussion started.
>
> In the case of both the "Jammu Agitation" and the "Kashmir Agitation", the agitationists acted at varying times in varying ways as "hoodlums" and as "law breakers". The Police, the "Guardians of Law" were justified in acting against them.
>
> There is of course the question of "use of force beyond the requirement of the situation". Both the "Jammu Agitationists" and the "Kashmir Agitationists" are complaining about that. This has to be, must be, addressed and rectified. Not an excuse though for there being an 'open season' for the 'hoodlums' and 'law breakers'
>
> Kshmendra
>
> PS. Since I mentioned "Democracy", I must also say that India follows a convoluted interpretation of "Democracy". The 'first past the post' system that we follow in our 'multi party system' makes a mockery of the essential principles of "Democracy". That needs to be rectified. But, thats another story.
>
>
> --- On Sun, 8/17/08, Aarti Sethi <aarti.sethi at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> From: Aarti Sethi <aarti.sethi at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Reader-list] Fwd: kashmir pictures
> To: "mahmood farooqui" <mahmood.farooqui at gmail.com>
> Cc: "sarai list" <reader-list at sarai.net>
> Date: Sunday, August 17, 2008, 2:20 AM
>
> Dear Kshmendra,
>
> I am interested in how easily we slip into the categories that the state
> gives us. Anyone confronting the police is a "hoodlum" and a
> "law-breaker"
> who should be dealt with by the guardians of the law. How frightening this
> sort of language is, and if ever the mysticism of the law and its capacity
> for unlimited terror is on display, it is when the ethical is identified
> with the legal in the seamless fashion that you do above.
>
> best
> A
>
> On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 7:57 PM, mahmood farooqui <
> mahmood.farooqui at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: mahmood farooqui <mahmood.farooqui at gmail.com>
>> Date: 2008/8/14
>> Subject: Re: [Reader-list] kashmir pictures
>> To: kshmendra2005 at yahoo.com
>>
>>
>> Thanks Kshemendra, I can't say I am getting the answers but the
> responses
>> are making me think.
>>
>> Best,
>> Mahmood
>>
>> 2008/8/14 Kshmendra Kaul <kshmendra2005 at yahoo.com>
>>
>>  Dear Mahmood
>> >
>> > Whether 'all press' is communal or not, you certainly are.
> You are trying
>> > to instigate communal feelings by suggesting a communal slant.
>> >
>> > Times of India and Hindustan Times showed photograph of a hoodlum
>> > attacking a policeman.
>> >
>> > Inquilab showed the photograph of a person injured by police firing.
> If
>> > this person was a part of the mob attempting to break the law and/or
>> > attacking the police, then the injured person was a hoodlum injured
> by
>> > police firing.
>> >
>> > What is communal in all of this? You are the one making it communal.
>> >
>> > There was confrontation between the police and law breaking hoodlums
> in
>> > Kashmir and in Jammu. What makes either situation communal?
>> >
>> > Which is the 'communal' one between two kinds of photographs,
> one where
>> law
>> > enforcers are shown as being attacked by law breakers and another one
>> where
>> > law breakers are shown as having been hurt by law enforcers.
>> >
>> > Perhaps if you had furnished the captions accompanying the
> photographs,
>> one
>> > could make a call on which newspaper showed a 'communal'
> tinge
>> >
>> > Kshmendra
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --- On *Wed, 8/13/08, mahmood farooqui <mahmood.farooqui at gmail.com
>> >*wrote:
>> >
>> > From: mahmood farooqui <mahmood.farooqui at gmail.com>
>> > Subject: [Reader-list] kashmir pictures
>> > To: "sarai list" <reader-list at sarai.net>, "Aamir
> Bashir" <
>> > unattore1 at gmail.com>
>> > Date: Wednesday, August 13, 2008, 12:33 PM
>> >
>> > Yesterday, nine Kashmiris were allegedly killed in the valley because
> of
>> the
>> > police firing.
>> >
>> > Today, in the Bombay editions of the Times of India and Hindustan
> Times,
>> > there is an identical image of a policeman being attacked by a
> Kashmiri.
>> > There are no images of any Kashmiris being killed or attacked by the
>> police.
>> >
>> > The Urdu daily Inqilab, however, shows a Kashmiri injured by the
> police
>> > firing.
>> >
>> > Is it simplistic to say that all press is communal?
>> >
>> > Is the poser itself simplistic?
>> > _________________________________________
>> > reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
>> > Critiques & Collaborations
>> > To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net with
>> subscribe in
>> > the subject header.
>> > To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list
>> > List archive:
> <https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> _________________________________________
>> reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
>> Critiques & Collaborations
>> To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net with
>> subscribe in the subject header.
>> To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list
>> List archive: <https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>
> _________________________________________
> reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
> Critiques & Collaborations
> To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net with subscribe in
> the subject header.
> To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list
> List archive: <https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________
> reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
> Critiques & Collaborations
> To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net with subscribe in the subject header.
> To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list
> List archive: <https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>

-- 

http://indersalim.livejournal.com