It seems a jinx associated with 'the best laid plans of mice [or muppets] and men' is indeed afflicting me at present, as - who wouldn't have guessed it? - my first (now apparently permanently misplaced/lost somewhere in the cybersphere) posting upon this topic - focusing almost exclusively upon the very reason I began this topic, i.e. the gruesome, grisly events, and national/international reaction, around the gang-raped/(ultimately) murdered (apparently physiology rather than medical) student (as first wrongly reported) - has now in one important sense 'been superseded by subsequent events', as is so often the case. But c'est la vie, as they say, and small bikkies in light of those horrendous events and their even more momentous aftermath, an aftermath now playing out upon the Indian and world stage as the five males involved in said incident are given their initial court hearing. Anyhow, the following represents what, to the best of my ability, was my response to the incredible news reportage on Friday the 4th evening (New Zealand time) that no-one, i.e. no-one in the legal profession, in all of India was apparently prepared to represent said accused. Which would or could hardly surprise anyone remotely acquainted with this horrific case, a case which has evidently, and for obvious, perfectly understandable reasons, galvanized the whole Indian nation as it were, and has certainly propelled it onto the TV screens and front newspaper pages of our world. So let's begin by saying that the aforementioned (see posting #2) epidemic of (especially egregious, gratuitous and intense) violence once again engulfing Planet Earth, showing new footholds being 'gained' and sinister new twists and turns being taken all across our globe - in this new year and even and especially since the Sandy Mount school massacre in the U.S. - has been overshadowed by the ghastly gang-rape and death of this Indian student. And for once, both in the tenor of its approach and the actual contents thereof, the international media, alongside and following its Indian counterpart, has 'stepped up to the mark' and shown its quality; has certainly given it every bit of exposure it necessarily warrants. But firstly vis-a-vis India's legal fraternity (as of last Friday, anyhow.)
ALL POWER, CREDIT AND PRAISE to the Indian legal fraternity who, in an (?internationally)unprecedented action - in light of the appalling nature of the crime - are[were] steadfastly refusing to even countenance legal aid/assistance to the fiends involved, for fiends they surely were. For the brutal cold-blooded gang-rape and prolonged assault - and ultimate killing, nay murder - of an Indian student returning home, presumably, on a bus trip: a woman no doubt otherwise destined for greatness. That is, until this awful tragedy saw her life prematurely cut short. Yet, and for that very reason, in view of the impending vote by the Indian Parliament upon legislation still to be fully drawn up, in a vote that will no doubt now be not only overwhelming, but maybe even unanimous, her - as yet unpublicized - name will doubtless, as already suggested, be 'inscribed' upon it. And thus her name, and hence legacy, indeed because of this very tragedy, is indeed still 'destined for greatness', and will live on in Indians' and womens' lives internationally, as the figurehead/lightning-rod for galvanizing long-delayed action upon womens' treatment in India.
And to those who take deep-seated umbrage at such a suggestion - i.e. of the collective 'waiver' by Indian lawyers of the long-established right of everyone to 'due process', clearly a deeply cherished and integral part of the legal process of Commonwealth jurisdictions such as India founded upon the British justice system and especially its emphasis upon basic, inalienable common rights and privileges - well, in this one instance spare your pompous pontificating for another more appropriate occasion. As with the eruption of do-gooders and other apologists who emerged like proverbial ants/cockroaches following America's capture and/or trial and/or summary execution of such human vermin as Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, though their collective voices were strangely resoundingly silent during the respective reigns of terror and/or genocide of said 'gentlemen' either in their own homelands or throughout the world, between (and even before) 1990 through 2011 - learn to appreciate better the place of balance in matters of world justice. I would respectfully suggest that 'your average punter' both here (in the West), there (in India) and indeed everywhere (throughout this celestial orb) has/have a much better intuitive/instinctual grasp and understanding of 'natural justice' than any of your ilk ever will. And indeed for all those who ever reflectively defer to Maori here in God's Own Country, well, have you never heard of the long-established custom, still evidently practised in this 'enlightened' day and age, of 'utu' - commonly understood and *translated as 'revenge' or 'vengeance', but roughly approximating to such ancient notions, whether Western or otherwise, of natural justice.? (*'Revenge or satisfaction' in the 1979 Heinemann New Zealand Dictionary.)
Or would you here implicitly and even unconsciously default to the real, usually unspoken - for obvious reasons - view of so many liberal elitists on this sort of issue, that 'the poor natives' are really somewhat benighted on such matters?; thus displaying the very sort of patronizing, paternalistic dribble that such politicos have invariably attributed to their old-fashioned, out of touch, fuddy-duddy Mother England-boot licking ideological opponents over many generations. But of course the arguments are ever infinitely malleable whenever they happen to serve one's own ideological agenda, eh. Moral relativism personified.
And so to/for all those meddling Western apologists and so-called do-gooders now (if tentatively, for obvious, understandable reasons) crawling out of the woodwork and over one another in their mad scramble to make excuses for/defend the brutal fiends/thugs involved - in response, say, to the inevitable rush, nay probably stampede now, to judgment, of/by Indian lawmakers et al to bring in the death penalty
for said perpetrators, even possibly lowering its ambit perhaps to cater for/to the 12-year-old who apparently/evidently took a leading role in the 'incident' - I, and doubtless (hundreds of) millions (of especially Indians) have but one thing to say (to you): you know nothing, and have no idea whatsoever. And, believe you me, I'm being kind and generous - in the extreme. What right have you to pontificate upon the rights and wrongs of (a) victim/s of such horrific events/happenings? No, really? Unless and until one of your own loved ones undergoes/experiences just such a ghastly sort of thing, you have no right whatsoever to criticize, much less condemn the supposed/alleged 'inhumanity' of those - quite naturally and understandably - crying out for (seemingly heartless) revenge/vengeance.
Nay, for a long-forgotten principle of Western society, simply termed natural justice. Or 'a fair go' in New Zealand's own proverbial vernacular - a 'concept', however, having both 'positive' and 'negative' implications, as the well-publicized trial of Norway's very own, one and only, mass murderer, Anton Breijik Breivik,, showed so well. No, Norwegians generally didn't deem him merely insane, deluded, a mere madman, as so many erroneously and I would suggest scurrilously today likewise denote Adolf Hitler and his henchmen. No, they knew perfectly well what they were doing, and yes, they were downright evil - indeed evil personified in Hitler's (and others') case/s. However unwelcome such an ascription may well be to your hypervigilant sensibilities.
To paraphrase an old and well-known native (American) Indian saying: Don't - you dare - criticize your brother (or sister) until you've walked a mile in his (or her) mocassins. Or to cite a wholly different, supposedly Western, but actually Semitic, tradition: You're walking upon holy, sacred ground. For human beings are indeed sacred (beings), having been made in God's own image, however admittedly defaced that image appears at times Yep, the Good Book declares: whosoever sheds (his fellow human's) blood, by him shall his blood be shed, for in God's own image He made him [i.e. man and woman]. And whether we still live under a theocracy or not - and we patently do not - most people instinctively understand and implicitly agree with such a sentiment; however unnerving and unsettling it may well be to modern ears - including, believe it or otherwise, my own. It just somehow has the ring of truth about it, far above and way beyond our petty human reason(ing)s, however carefully reasoned, intricately developed and speciously articulated.
And if you have a problem with that, I have just one thing to say: take it up with 'the Man Upstairs'.
I hear He's open for business come the fast approaching Judgment Day; and I've heard He not only makes no mistakes - His judgment is flawless - but He tends to have the last word.: upon all of us, myself included!
No comments:
Post a Comment