Is Beef Ban Rational?

In recent times BJP has made attempts to ban beef  consumption in different states. There has been arguments that say that such attempts, may be half-hearted ones, have been there in the past, and this present attempt is just about reviving the old attempts. Fair enough! But the question is whether it's worth reviving old attempts. Is beef consumption something that deserves to be banned today, whether it's driven by BJP or by anyone else? 

One of the arguments is that cows give milk and therefore they are like our mother. After all it's the mother's milk that nursed us throughout our childhood days. And given that cow's milk nursed us, it deserves to be given respect. Well, it's difficult true that cow gives us milk! But I find this reason for seeking ban on consumption of beef not convincing. 

Cows give milk to a child specially once the child gives up mother's milk. But in certain other places, it's the buffalo that gives milk. Still in other places, it's the goat or the yak that gives milk. Aren't they then all like our mother? Should we seek ban on consumption of  all these animals for meat? Why give special treatment to the cows?

Yet there is also another point worth noting. To compare cow to a mother, it seems to me, is to disrespect mother. Mother is not just about giving milk; her role goes much more than providing milk. Apart from providing milk, cow does virtually nothing to our lives. But mother relates with the child. She raises her child; protects her child from harm; teaches her various aspects of living -- about moral life, about social relationship, education, imagination and so on.  Mother's role in the life of a child is tremendous and nothing can take her place. To compare her immense contribution to a child's life with cow's contribution is to bring her role down to the level of a cow. And I find this disrespectful to a mother. And so I don't think it's fair to compare cow to a mother. 

On a different note, the question is how much of liberty should the state give to the citizen. Unless it is about harming the other person, should not the state allow people to exercise freedom of choice of food? Well, one might say that beef consumption harms one's sentiment. But if harming others would include harming the sentiment, then the definition of 'harming others' is too stretched. Anything can just then be curbed saying that one's action harm the sentiment of another person. Therefore, I would argue that in this case, the case should be in favour of those who argue for liberty of choice of food; not in favour of those seeking ban for harming one's sentiment. 

Taken thus, I would say that beef ban is not to be pursued in a secular democratic society. 

Lying and Moral Relativism

Is Morality relative to a culture? Professional moral philosophers who are relativists through and through are an extremely rare species today. It may be there in good numbers in other academic departments, but not so in Philosophy departments. One of the reasons why professional moral philosophers who have thought through on this subject do not take such a view on morality is that moral relativism leads to an unlivable society. 

'How do I lead a good life?' or 'What is the right conduct?'  are the kind of questions that bother moral philosophers. This is so because these are the sorts of questions that any rational individual would seek or ought to seek; they are also the concerns of any given society. Every moral theory aims to seek a flourishing society, not just a flourishing life of an individual.  Given that moral theory aims to seek a flourishing society, if a moral theory leads to total breakdown of a society or its logical outcome would lead to a breakdown of society, then it has to be rejected. 

Take the case of lying. Is it okay to tell a lie? No way. Why? If lying is okay, and everybody begins to tell a lie at their own liking and there is no moral prohibition for lying, how would a society look like? That kind of a society cannot function. Let me explain why it is going to be the case. If A tells me a lie again and again and again, and I tell a lie again and again and again to B, and B lies again and again and again to C, how on earth will there be meaningful communication between four of us! And without meaningful communication, a society will break down. A society where red is white sometimes and black other times and blue again later and so on will be chaotic.  This shows that truth telling is a moral requirement for a society to function well. This is the reason why you do anything you want or you speak anything you want, and truth telling is never ever a moral requirement is never ever going to work. Thus, 'thou shalt not tell lies' is a moral requirement for a society to function. 

Now this does not mean that there is no qualification to the statement. Sometimes in certain situation telling a lie may be a requirement. For example, when a Nazi's Gestapo comes home and asks if there is any Jew hiding inside my cupboard, instead of telling them that there are ten Jews hiding inside, I may tell a lie. In such situation telling a lie will be the lesser evil. But just because there is a condition that opens up the door where lying is justifiable, that does not mean that the principle 'thou shalt not tell lies' vanishes. The principle just gets modified little bit: thou shalt not tell lies under normal circumstances but for situation where lying will prevent unjustified killing or something of that sort. 

But there are other moral principles that stand firm irrespective of cultures. For example, something like 'You cannot cut off your children's head just for fun'. Now one may say that no one does that sort of things. True. But no one does that sort of thing because it is considered to be wrong. Moral inquiry is not only about  human action; it is about human inaction too. And human species perform action A or B or C, and not K or L or M or N or O or... because only A or B or C are justifiable. The rest are all unjustifiable. There are many features of human action whose acceptability changes over time; but there are many features of human inaction whose unacceptability remains unchanged over time.

Given this nature of morality one can meaningfully contend that the moral worth of certain human actions/inactions remains unchanged or ought to remain unchanged though the moral worth of certain actions change over time.

PS: The question whether lying is inherently wrong or whether it is wrong because indiscriminate lying  effects breakdown of society is an interesting point. I am not getting into that point here because my concern here is just to show that moral relativism does not work. 

The Unscientific Nature of Astrology and Evil-Eye Myth

Some people claimed that astrology is science because it is based on observation and that it uses certain set of rules and principles to explain the nature. There is truth in such claim. After all astronomy also uses observation and deduction to explain the nature. The problem with astrology, however, arises because it has much more to do than just explain that which is observed. Astrology goes on to explain the connection that the stars have with the lives of people. And it is this aspect and similar ones that get astrology into trouble.  Here are some problematic features of astrology. 

First, the prediction that astrologers make is very general. For example, they will say that given that the stars are arranged in such and such manner, you will do well in the area of family or your job or that you will a good time while travelling. This kind of prediction is not really prediction. Without having anything to do with the stars, one can make such general prediction. And there can be one instance in one's life throughout any given month when such happy moment occurs. And this can be taken as fulfillment of the prediction. But this kind of prediction not what scientific prediction is about. Scientific prediction is much more specific. For example, it is something like under any normal condition, two hydrogen and one oxygen will produce water. Or that under normal condition, the gravitational strength of the body is proportional to the mass of the body. Scientific inquiry is about testable explanation. If an explanation cannot be tested under controlled condition, it cannot become a scientific explanation. Yes, there are exceptional condition when controlled condition cannot be obtained. For example Big Bang theory cannot be repeated under controlled condition nor is theory of evolution explanable under controlled condition. But the point is that scientific prediction is much more specific and is testable. 

Secondly,astrology tries to explain the influence of celestial bodies upon human lives. But this cannot be demonstrated. For example, astrology will say if you get married on this day because the stars are arranged in such and such manner, you will have good fortune. This is related to the former point. But what is good fortune and what is bad fortune? Since the the terms are too general, the connection between position of the stars and the fortune of the people cannot be demonstrated. Again this makes the subject impossible to be considered scientific. 

Third, the celestial bodies are not static bodies; the stars move away from each other at an astronomical speed each second. And given such movement, even determining the precise location of each star requires extraordinary training and technology. And astrologers have no way of precisely knowing the exact location of the stars. 

But how is the belief about evil eye unscientific? 

Now this belief says that so and so possess power to influence our lives for bad. 

First, how is it possible to determine that so and so possess power? There is no way to determine that a person possesses power to harm others. Well, one may say that the effect on another person is the evidence. But how does one determine that so and so is the reason for the effect (pain/suffering) on another person? There can be so many causes for the effect that is being seen on the person. It could be because of what she has eaten or some internal problem. How does one prove that this person is the cause, and not something else is the cause? Well,if this the cause and effect are repeatedly observed over and over again under controlled condition, then one establish that so and so is the cause for the effect. But without such repeated observation under controlled condition, it is not possible to determine the connection. The effect could have been caused by so many other factors.   And it is because of the absence of such connection between the so called cause and effect that the belief is just a myth, and not a scientific belief. 

Second, the one explanation that believers recourse to is to attribute it to the work of evil spirit. If prayer can heal, why not this as well?, reasons a believer. But prayer is not a scientific belief; it is a supra-science. Prayer recourse to what is 'beyond science' to explain the phenomena. Now can such recourse be taken to explain evil eye? Yes. But once that takes place, then one will have to admit that with those who believe in God this is not possible. Because God does not harm us, only evil spirit tries to harm us, by definition. And going by this logic, one will have to say that anyone who believes in God Jesus Christ will not and cannot be possessor of such evil spirit.

This leads us to the conclusion that those people who believe in such myth and therefore discriminate people are the real unbeliever in God and God's power. The problem is not with those so called possessor; the problem is with those who believe in this thing. 

PS: The explanation for evil eye can be traced back to pagan belief. 

Ad Hominem in the Intolerance Debate

Often times ad hominem is employed in debates. And in this entire debates happening in the country with regard to intolerance, an ad hominem has been employed again and again. This is not a valid form argument because instead of arguing against the point being raised, it rather attacks the person. 

The historians, scientists, writers and film makers have been returning their awards because, they argue, there is intolerance going on. Certain people have been murdered by self-appointed religious zealots for speaking out against certain form of religious practices and certain other people have been murdered for their association with beef/cow, and again by self-appointed religious zealots. And the murderers in all these cases appeared to have got the audacity to commit such crimes because people in the government have  prepared the ground for such crimes, explicitly or implicitly, with their fiery speeches towards people of certain sorts. And these people of particular sorts happened to be the victim. 

Now when these historians, scientists, writers and film makers/artists returned their awards protesting against such intolerance in the country, those right wing Saffron brigades who are very supportive of the government came in to defend the government. These bunch  of people argue: Where were you when atrocities on Kashmiri Pandits were taking place? Where were you when there was a riot in 1984? Why did you not return your awards then? Thus making it appear as if these people giving back their awards are hypocrites. Well, why they did not return the awards then is indeed a point worth exploring. And each individual may have a response. But I guess the common response could be that whether it's in 1984 or in the case of Kashmiri Pandits, the government's was not complicit like it is happening now. But this is a different point!

But the point is that in this episode the Saffron brigades are employing an ad hominem called tu quoque. So their argument 'where were you then?' does not invalidate the fact that there is intolerance now and this has to be addressed by the government... and that the government of Modi must stop being intolerant. Those who say 'go to Pakistan' or 'drown in the sea' and similar obnoxious arguments must shut their mouth and those who killed people for being different must be booked. The point that those who are returning their awards still stand strong despite the saffron brigades trying to undermine it by raising a fallacious argument. 

Anupam Kher and His March: A Manufactured Protest

Anupam Kher, a well known film actor of Bollywood, is leading a rally today. The rally is to communicate the message that India is a tolerant state. It is also supposed to counter the message that the writers, historians, scientists and film makers are making. The rally is thus a protests against these intellectuals for defaming India; for portraying to the world that India is an intolerant state. Now is Mr. Kher being reasonable? 

The intellectuals are protesting against the rising intolerance in the country. These people are saying that those in the government or those close to the government are those responsible for the criminals acts. Criminal acts like the murder of Kalburgi for his criticism of religion or the murder of Aklaq for having eaten beef (when what he really ate was mutton) and similar incidents. The hate speech dished out against certain people; speeches like 'go to Pakistan', 'drown in the sea', 'bastards' etc. These are delivered by those close to RSS/BJP. The protest by all these people was to tell the government that it must act against such criminal actions.

So are those who committed murder or delivered hate speeches responsible for tarnishing the image of India or is it those who are protesting against such criminal acts? Anupam Kher, whose wife is an MP of BJP, manufactured this unreasonable yet sly slogan that the protesters are damaging the reputation of India. Instead of protesting against the murderers for being intolerant or against those whose speeches implicitly or explicitly provided political atmosphere that is conducive for such criminal acts, Kher chose to protest against those who protest. And by manufacturing such protest, Kher, by default, chose to support the murderers and those that delivered hate speeches, those who are intolerant.

Is Modi a Victim of Intolerance of Rival Parties?

Arun Jaitley, who holds the post of Finance Minister, says that the Prime Minister Narendra Modi is a victim of intolerance. Read the news here . Jaitley made this statement after many historians, scientists, artists and writers lambasted Modi's government for creating intolerant environment in the country. These people were joined by prominent figures like RBI Governor Raghuram Rajan, Industrialist Narayan Murthy and others. The BJP probably got the sting finally and therefore it was forced to deflect the controversy towards its political rivals. But what is the truth? Is it BJP or the Congress and the Left that have been intolerant all these months? 

Until yesterday, as per the paper, RSS was saying the population of Christians and the Muslims must be checked. Prior to that those who share similar ideology with RSS and BJP have made statements that do not epitomise tolerance. One BJP Minister was heard saying 'haraamzada' (Bastards) -- illigitimate child -- to refer to certain group of people. Another one said that those who oppose BJP should go to Pakistan. Still another said that if Muslim must stay in India, they must give up beef; and on one occasion a BJP leader was reported to have said Nathuram Godse, the murderer of Gandhi, was a patriot. Another leader said that those who opposed Surya Namaskar (Sun Worship/Adoration) should drown in the sea. These are all about verbal intolerance. I never hear any such fiery words coming out from the mouth of  leaders belonging to the Congress or the Left parties. 

But the worse thing is that people like Kalburgi and Pandsare were murdered for being  religious critics. Aklaq was murdered after being accused of eating beef, when what he ate was mutton. Rasool was set on fire and died few days later due to injury over rumour of slaughtering cows. All these murderers share similar ideology with that of RSS and BJP. All these killings coming after fiery speeches  delivered by RSS/BJP leaders cannot be dismissed as coincidences. These are classical cases of intolerance by RSS and BJP. Modi is not a victim of intolerance of rival parties. At worst Modi is a victim of intolerance of his party members or rather a victim of his own apathy towards intolerance by his party members. 

Arun Jaitley is plain wrong to shift the blame to his political rivals for intolerance that fills the air today. His party has not sacked anyone nor taken any disciplinary action against anyone for delivering such speeches. Instead of blaming others, he should have gathered up moral audacity to say that his party has been wrong and now that it is mending ways. Unfortunately BJP has been refusing to show moral uprightness. When the political rivals accused it of corruption and asked the party to sack corrupt members, one BJP leader said something to the effect that removing corrupt people is not in their nature. This is moral bankruptcy. And demonstrating moral bankruptcy in public by such a large political party is to self-destruct. 

Interview of Peter Singer

It seems to me Peter Singer is bringing 'up' the status of animals to that of the human or bringing 'down' the level of human to that of the animals. Except for speciation, there don't seem to be any philosophical difference between human and animal.

But I also admire his sincerity when he admits that he is not able to fully carry though the logical demands of his ethical view. But I wonder if he struggles with guilt then. And how much of that haunts him.

Do the Dead Ones Have Rights?

There is a news item that appeared on 24th October, 2015 in the Times of India that says that a dead woman was dug out from out grave and 'sexual exploitation' was performed on the corpse. The policemen say that 'rape' charge could not be applied yet until medical examination is done on the corpse. But the fact that she has been disrobed confirmed some sort of sexual exploitation on the corpse. Is this a wrong action? Is the one who did this doing something that is morally wrong? 

But what is moral wrongdoing? Moral wrongdoing is to harm someone, one may say. But harming a criminal in the form of putting him to jail by the state is not moral wrongdoing; in fact, not harming the criminal that way can be construed as moral wrongdoing upon other citizens when the possibly of this criminal harming other citizens persist. So harming others is not necessarily moral wrongdoing. I would say moral wrongdoing is depriving others of their due right; and when there is a contest of rights, then the one who deserves more or whose rights should take precedence over other's right claims must get what is due. So moral wrongdoing is depriving others of their right. 

So is sexual exploitation of a corpse morally wrong? Yes. I guess that most people will say intuitively that it is wrong. But when we say that it is wrong, then it has to imply that there is a right claim being violated upon by a moral agent. Because without a right claim being violated by a moral agent, moral wrongdoing cannot be accounted for. But the implication of such idea  then underscores that the dead ones too have certain sort of right-claims. It is not only the living ones that bear right, but the dead ones too bear right. And moral wrongdoing can be done even to the dead ones as well, not just to the ones alive at present.

The sort of rights the dead ones have would include the right not to harm their good legacy with lies and not to sexually exploit their corpse. 

The Victims Called the Kashmiri Pandits

Oftentimes when people protested against the thuggish violence perpetrated by right wing Saffron brigades -- RSS and its sister organisations -- there is a question raised: Where were you when the Kashmiri Pandits, who are Hindu, were threatened, killed and expelled from their homes in Kashmir by terrorists from the Kashmir valley? 

In the Kashmir valley, the crime was committed by the gun wielding militant groups. They may call themselves freedom fighters, but because of the way they deliberately and systematically terrorize civilians they have to be labelled terrorist. So the crime against the Kashmiri pandits were committed by these terrorists. 

But what about the thuggish violence committed by the Saffron brigades? What about murdering a Muslim based on rumour that this man consumed beef, when later reported says that what he ate was mutton? This crime was not committed by terrorists. They targeted an innocent men, but they were not using guns to commit the crime. 

In the former case, it's the army that must do the fighting. In the latter case, it is the police that must do the fighting. In the former case, people support the fight by paying taxation to the government that supports the army to do the fighting. The government was fighting against the terrorists, and therefore there was no point of raising voice to urge the government to do much more. In the latter case, those thuggish violence are being committed by those who apparently has the tacit support of the political leadership. This is the reason voices are being raised to rein in such criminal actions. This is the reason why the government is being urged to stop this violence. This is the reason the government is being asked to respect the Constitution. 

On both counts --exodus of Hindu Kashmiri Pandits and Dadri murder of a Muslim -- certain people are victimised. The difference lies in the one who victimises the smaller community. And since the parties that committed the crime are different, voices are being raised differently. In the former case, the crime is being committed by the terrorist and the response to that is to let the army fight; in the latter case, the saffron brigades are responsible and therefore the government is urged to restrain them. In the former case, it is the action of paying taxation that is being done to protest; in the latter case, it is verbal expression that is being made to protest. 

Journey Toward Justice 30 & 31

The title of chapter 30 is 'Hope' and that of chapter 31 'Recap'. Since chapter 31 is the last chapter and it is a summary of the previous chapters, chapters 30 and 31 and put together in this post. So this post is mainly about chapter 30. But chapter 30 is similar to an essay that appeared in a different book some years back. I have summarized that essay here in 2011. 

Faith, hope and love -- says Paul. Hope is very close to Christian thought. Christians idea of  hope is different from optimism  that sometimes say that we humans through our own effort will bring 'utopia' to realisation. Christians work for justice and that must continue. But final justice is to be brought about by God through his son Jesus Christ. Since God will accomplish it, one need not despair. But a question emerges that says if God is going to do the job, why must we participate in seeking justice now? Well, because God is inviting us to participate in righting injustice, and not just remain standing as a distant spectator to what he is doing. 

While seeking justice, it is important to remember that God is working mysteriously. And sometimes we have to name injustice, and then pray for justice to prevail. And when justice prevails, we have to give thanks to God. When we do this we are identifying God's hand working in human history. Well, this could be read wrongly; so one must be careful  in identifying God's hand in history. But identifying injustice and giving glory to God for unjust practices/systems that have been rectified must be part of Christian effort while loving and seeking justice. 

Journey Toward Justice 29

This chapter is titled 'Justice and Beauty'. In this chapter Nick makes two important points. First, about the nature of beauty; second, connection between justice and beauty. Nick tells about a poet who spoke about his poetry. This poet says that at one point he scribbled a line of the poetry as ' a dog wagging its tail'; later the poet refined his poetry to say 'a dog swinging its tail'. Why so? Well, 'swinging' is better than using 'wagging'. Nick then makes a philosophical point that beauty does not always lie in the eye of the beholder; it is rather the other way round i.e because it is beautiful, it gives delight to the beholder. There is something called beautiful philosophy paper, beautiful sunset. beautiful music, beautiful painting etc. 

Given that there is something called beautiful, is it injustice if some people are forced to live in a condition where sensory delight that comes from experiencing beautiful object are not present? Yes, argues Nick. Humans are by nature a creature that requires certain amount of autonomy to be truly human. Similarly, human are by nature a creature that requires certain amount of beauty in one's life to be living a truly human life. Justice requires that 'aesthetic decency' is present in a human life. 

Journey Toward Justice 28

This chapter is titled 'Justice, Forgiveness and Punishment'. This is a chapter where the ideas expressed here are not entirely new and yet must be stressed and restated again and again across time and space is there. Without repentance and forgiveness, reconciliation cannot take place in a broken world. With repentance, forgiveness is possible. Of course, forgiveness is not always easy specially when one has faced deliberate and systematic injustice over a long period of time. For example, a person who has been sent to Siberia with all his family members and had to see one member after another dying over the years will find it very difficult to forgive Stalin even when, say, Stalin apologised. Yet forgiveness is good for the soul when the culprit has repented of his wrongdoings. 

Can we forgive someone who refuses to say sorry? No. But didn't Jesus forgive the soldiers on the cross who did not say that they were sorry? Well, Jesus 'forgave' those soldiers because they did not know what they were doing. But is wronging someone without knowing that it was actually wronging them right to be called wronging someone? Yes and no. In a way it is wronging the victim because you were harming the victim even when you did not know that you were wronging him. But in a way it is not wronging him because it was a mistake. And conceptually one has to make a distinction between wronging someone knowingly and wronging someone unknowingly. Wronging someone knowingly is 'wronger' than wronging someone unknowingly. Jesus was using 'forgive' for the latter kind. And this Greek word that Jesus used for this latter kind may be translated as 'let go', not bearing resentment against those who unknowingly harmed him. 

So conceptually, can we forgive someone who harmed us knowingly and who refused to apologize? No. But can we forgive/let go of someone who harmed us unknowingly and who therefore did not apologize? Yes. 

Aristotle and Eugenics

In chapter VII section xvi of The Politics, Aristotle talks about marriage and eugenics. He writes that if one marries too young or too old, children are not healthy. And therefore one should get married at the right age to beget good children. For female, the appropriate age to get married is 18 and for male, it's 37. Aristotle think that this is also good particularly because by the time the man gets weak and old at around 70, the child, if born as planned, would be of marriageable age. 

Aristotle also writes, ' with regard to the choice between abandoning an infant or rearing it, let there be a law that no cripple child be reared.' Aristotle society was not in a position to rear deformed child. They would leave deformed child out in the open to die. To control population, they would even sometimes leave a healthy child to die. Unlike Plato who fixed an exact number for an ideal state,  Aristotle does put an exact number for an idea state. But he says that it should be large enough to be self sustaining and yet not too large that the state cannot 'survey' the number.

This reminds me of a dialogue in a movie called The Mission. One can find the plot of the movie here. A wonderful movie! In this movie, before the transfer of the land where the mission work was being undertaken, from Spanish control to Portuguese control, there was a debate for and against this transfer of land. The one defending the transfer of the land from the Spanish to the Portuguese wanted to capture the native people and sell them as slave. There is handsome money involved in slave trading and under Portuguese law slavery was okay then.  But the one arguing against the transfer, the Christian Priest, feared that such transfer would enslave the native people; and since Spanish law did not allow slave trading, he wanted the land to be under Spanish control. The one defending the transfer says something to the effect that the Guarani people are not fully human; they are rather like animal; they even killed their children... and therefore using them as slave was fine. To this the priest retorted that they had to keep their population under control... and to run away from slave traders, they could not even raise so many children because that made it difficult form them to escape being caught and then sold as slave.

But the point is that leaving deformed children to die was not uncommon in the past. That was there in the Roman society too. And we read of Christians in the first century picking up discarded children from dung heaps and raising them. There might have been other social/religious/ethnic communities having done similar thing; maybe my reading is limited and therefore I am not aware of such stories. But the point is that discarding deformed children was common then. Today all sorts of societies have made such thing illegal. Though we read stories of female foeticide specially in certain part of the world, and the stories are being confirmed through skewed sex ratio, but there is possibly no state/kingdom that does not prohibit such thing officially. Let alone discarding disabled people, the world today strives to invent new machines/tools to enhance their capability to perform different activities as live as normal life as far as possible.

Is the fact that discarding the deformed and the weak  being acceptable in the ancient society but not acceptable now one aspect of moral progress?  I think it is! 

Journey Toward Justice 27

This chapter is titled 'What Paul Said about the Task and Authority of the State'. This chapter is connected to the previous chapter. And in this chapter Nick discusses what Paul meant by the idea that Christians are to obey the state. Pay your tax, Paul would say. But why? 

Nick says that traditionally Paul's words have been understood to mean that God is the one who instituted the state and therefore state should be obeyed. Given this understanding, many Christians obeyed the state even when the state's laws are bad. For example, when the state says that white and black cannot intermarry, they obeyed the state. Nick argues that this kind of understanding is incomplete. Nick goes on to argue that what Paul says is that God instituted the state to punish the wrongdoer -- or put it differently -- to do justice and therefore state should be obeyed. Thus when the state is doing justice, everybody should obey the state. 

But what if the state is doing injustice? If the state is doing injustice, then it will be time to pray that the state changes its law or that the present government is voted. Or putting it differently, this is a time 'not to obey' the state. This is justifiable because the purpose for which the state was instituted  by God is not being carried out by the state. And when the state is not carrying out its role, then it is justifiable to pray for its downfall. 

Murdered For Supposedly Consuming Beef at Dadri, Near Delhi!

The other day a Muslim man was killed and his son thrashed by a mob for supposedly eating beef. The family of the deceased says he did not eat beef; it was rather mutton. But suppose it was beef, what's the problem? There is no law against beef consumption in Uttar Pradesh, newspaper reports say. You can read an article on beef consumption by the Hindus in the past here; another article on the controversy on beef consumption can be read here, written by a fine political thinker in India. 

In this post I want to respond to one the of the arguments coming from RSS-BJP supporters which goes like this: If pork was not allowed in Saudi Arabia, why should beef be allowed in India? Well, to put it simply: India is not another version of Saudi Arabia; that's why even if pork is banned in Saudi Arabi, beef cannot be banned in India. 

Saudi Arabia's history is different from India's history. Modern India that came to be established in 1947, after getting independence from the British empire, is made up of different religious communities. When such people were invited to be part of India and the idea of India was framed, the idea of a Hindu state was rejected. The people chose not to create another version of Pakistan. Pakistan went on to become a Muslim state; India chose to be a secular state, having no state religion. My ancestors were never ever Hindu and so were the ancestors of the Mizos or the Khasis (of Meghalaya) or most Arunachalis. So how can India be a Hindu state? 

India cannot be a theocratic state. just as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are.  

Journey Toward Justice 26

The title of this chapter is 'St. Paul's Rejection of Retributive Punishment'. In this chapter Nick comments on what St. Paul says about the role of the government as one reads in the book of Romans (or rather Paul's letter to the Christians at Rome.) Then he combines this Pauline idea with the idea of punishment. Nick's comment on punishment is illuminating, moving away from the traditional discourse on punishment. 

So what does Paul say about the role of the government when he says that government is the servant of God to execute... wrath on the wrongdoer. 'Vengeance is mine' says our English translation of the Bible. The Greek word for 'vengeance' there is 'ekdikesis'. And Paul is saying that if there is to be vengeance, it's God's job; not ours. But is 'vengeance' government's job? Is government the 'servant' to execute...wrath on the wrongdoer? Nick argues that the idea that God executes vengeance is different from the idea that says that government who is the 'servant'  executes the wrath on the wrongdoer. The state does not execute vengeance; only God does. But what the state does is to punish; not vengeance. But what's the difference between the two?

Vengeance is to pay back evil with evil; it's an eye for an eye kind of thing. Whereas punishment is not quite so. Punishment is to give hard measure but with the intention that includes deterrence, security and reforms. Deterrence so that others will not repeat similar wrongdoing. Reform because such hard measure may serve as a lesson to the wrongdoer and elicit character change. Security because sometimes the person may harm other people if allowed to go on with his usual life. St. Paul does not give a synopsis on a theory of punishment, but understanding punishment with these elements -- deterrence, reform and security -- seems to be a more accurate interpretation than the so called traditional idea that government can punish as if it is exercising vengeance. 

Journey Toward Justice 25

The title of this chapter is 'A Visit to Honduras'. In this chapter Nick writes about his visit to Honduras and also shares a lesson that he's learnt over the years, which gets re-confirmed from his experience in Honduras. When some people speak about their want for justice, they may use 'justice' in a way that may mean criminal justice i.e which is putting people in jail. But certain people speak about justice, they may be referring to the kind of a situation where social practices cease to perpetuate injustice. For example, seeking for justice in the context of Apartheid South Africa may be trying to rectify practices that discriminate people based on colour. Both kinds of seeking justice are important. 

In Honduras, there is widespread injustice because criminals are not behind bars. Criminal law is not quite alive. When there is corruption, assassination etc. the victims or the poor people are not in a position to seek criminal justice. 'Poor people do not trust the police, the judicial system, or the bureaucracy. The police do not trust the prosecutors; the prosecutors do not trust the police'. If you testify/work against a criminal, the criminal may hire an assassin to kill you, whatever you are. And the result is that criminals continue to get away with their unjust actions. 

Nick then argues that if justice is to prevail, criminal justice must be alive. Without criminal justice, vicious cycle of injustice will continue and eventually a culture of distrust and fear will prevail; and the longer such fear takes hold on the people, the more difficult it is to rectify injustice. 

Journey Toward Justice 24

This chapter is titled 'The Structure of Social Justice Movements.' Injustice can be meted out to an individual by another individual, but it can also be in the form of one community towards another community over a long period of time. In the latter case, removing injustice gets complicated and oftentimes it takes times too. But history has shown that injustice of such sort has been addressed. Addressing injustice at social level take three stages, generally speaking. First, it involves identifying the victims. Laws may be discriminatory towards certain group of people or it could be public practice or perception. Whatsoever, identifying the victims comes as a first step. Second, it involves responding the situation emotionally. Responding must involve emotions because unless people come up with 'this must not continue anymore', it is unlikely to generate social change. Third, it involves activation, which is to critique the ongoing practice or analyse the source of such practice and then critique. Critiquing this way may generate social conflict because those who perpetuating the practice may not want to change their way of functioning or those who are enjoying power at the expense of the victim may not want to give up power. Given that a social change is required, oftentimes this may generate hostile conflict. 

Of course, Nick mentions that not all the social justice movements may follow this pattern in exact sequence. But then it's fair to generalise the pattern! 

Journey Toward Justice 23

This chapter is titled 'On the Blocking of Empathy and the Hardening of Hearts'. In this chapter Nick narrates about his own experience why he was not moved to seek justice in the past though he has some idea of injustice being meted out to certain group of people, and he goes on to provide reason why this sort of thing happens with people in general. So, why are we not moved by injustice? I am not paraphrasing all the reasons he gives. One reason is that we are afraid of change. To seek justice may mean losing job, losing friends, losing money etc. This sort of change is to put us in an uncomfortable position and so we are afraid to seek justice. Another reason is that people think that the victims of injustice invite this terrible condition upon themselves. For example, the poor are poor because they are lazy. There can be truth in that, but not all poor are poor because they are lazy. The poor can be there because more powerful force is pulling them down -- the global economic force! 

Seeing the faces and the hearing the voices of the people in suffering is what woke Nick up from his 'slumber'. And oftentimes, knowing the reality firsthand is the best way to help us see injustice and empathise with the victims of injustice. 

Journey Toward Justice 22

This chapter is titled 'Art in the Struggle to Right Injustice'. In this chapter Nick talks about the connection between seeking justice and Art. But what is Art? Art is music, painting, songs, poetry etc. But how are these things connected to seeking justice? When people sang 'We shall overcome' and marched together to seek civil rights in the US, would it have made any difference if they had marched together without singing the song? Had the anti-apartheid movement marched without singing a song, would there be any difference if they had marched with songs being sung by the protesters? They would! But why? It has a 'mysterious uniting effect'. Without the tune, the words fall flat; it does not elevate the words. In similar fashion, singing or humming while working elevates the tedious nature of the work; it distracts us from the weariness of the work! 

And art perhaps in a mysterious way, or rather in a sublime way, awakens in some of us our slumber that which we would otherwise have been quite oblivious about! 

Journey Toward Justice 21

This chapter is titled 'Six Days in South Africa'. In this chapter Nick tells about his experience in Apartheid South Africa where a man named Allan Boesak was to appear at the Court hearing to get bail. Nick was called in to appear in defence of Allan. There were charges against giving bail to Allan by the police. One of them was that his freedom will cause riot. So called proof was provided to the Magistrate to deny him bail. On one occasion it was argued that his speech on certain at certain place cause riot. But then it was disproved as Allan was able to provide proof that he was abroad that particular day. Point was that at the end of episode, the Magistrate refused to entertain the charges brought by the police since they were without evidences and even rebuked the police. Yet the government refused to abide by the Magistrate's order; they refused to obey the law. The government that gives so much importance to the 'supreme value of law and order' refused its own law when the law goes against itself. The government 'prize order -- their order -- more than law'. Such can be the heart of humans! 

Journey Toward Justice 20

This chapter is titled 'Human Right'. In this chapter, Nick develops his concept of human right. When we talk about Human Right, one is reminded of the UN Declaration on human right. The UN document gives a list of human right, but it does not explain the concept of human right. One way to arrive at the concept of human right, therefore, is to take UN list and derive a concept out of it; another way is to take the theoretical formulation of philosopher, political theorist, legal scholar etc and arrive at a concept. Being a philosopher, Nick takes the second approach. 

Many accounts of human dignity and therefore human right are grounded on the idea that human have certain capacity; for example, the capacity to reason. This viewpoint has been criticized because it seems to undermine the dignity of those who are unable to reason, say, due to certain sort of deformity. It's just that if my dignity is based on my capacity to reason, then what happens to the dignity of those who are in permanent coma. This viewpoint is therefore problematic. Because of such problem, there are those who don't want to go beyond the point that human persons have dignity and therefore right. 

Nick goes further. In the previous chapter, Nick mentions about the difference between his concept of justice and that of the right order conception of justice. The difference needs to be born in mind if we want to examine whether he is successful in development an account for grounding human right in a consistent manner. Nick says in the previous chapter that a right order theorist holds that "there has to be an external standard of some sort that directly or indirectly bestows rights on them" whereas inherent rights theorist holds that "there does not have to be anything outside them that somehow confers those rights on them". With regard to human right that all human persons possess, Nick writes that God's desire for fellowship upon human persons (and not animals or birds) is that which bestows worth upon human persons. " ...every human being has the honor of being chosen by God as someone with whom God desires to be a friend, and that this desire endures. Then every human being has the equal and ineradicable worth that being so honored bestows on him or her". I understand Nick as saying that it's God's desire for fellowship that bestows human's dignity  or worth that gives rise to human right. Quite fine! 

But the issue when Nick says that I wonder how he is saying that his concept is an inherent right based conception of justice. Because human worth/dignity is not then inherent; it rather is bestowed upon by an external agent i.e God. With regard to right order conception of dignity, he uses the phrase 'external standard', and not 'external agent'. But if one is a right order theorist of justice and a Christian, then it cannot be an abstract standard (remember Plato's Euthyphro) that bestows the worth; the one who bestows the worth has to a person i.e God. Given this leading, I wonder if Nick can consistently claims if his conception of justice is an inherent right based conception of justice. It seems to me that his is also a right order account, at least by this way reasoning about human right. 

There is another point that I find problematic in Nick's account of human right. But I am not dealing with that point here! 

Journey Toward Justice 19

The title of this chapter is 'Does Scripture Imply a Right Order Conception of Justice?' There was a brief discussion on the difference between right order conception of justice and inherent right conception of justice in chapter 5. In this chapter, Nick gives little more detail between the two. 

Ambrose, Basil and John all based their idea about rights in the Scripture/Bible. They believed that human person possesses certain sort of natural right. Well, proponents of right order conception of justice as well as inherent right conception of justice can both endorse natural right; the difference lies deeper. Nick does not say this, but it seems to me that he is implying that whether Ambrose, Basil and John were all in the former camp -- right order conception of justice -- or in the latter camp -- inherent right conception of justice -- one cannot ascertain; they were not providing a theory of justice and they all assume natural right, which both the camps can endorse. The question, however, is which view fits better with that idea which is explicitly or implicitly there in the Scripture. 

But before a note on the difference between the two conceptions of justice. The former camp holds that having a dignity is not enough to generate right; there has to be an external agent that confers right to a person. This right could be natural right! The latter camp holds that being a human generates certain right. The former camp would say something to the effect that a captain in the army has right to issue command because he has been conferred authority/right to issue command; without an external agent having conferred that authority/right, he would have no right to command and even if he commands, it would mean nothing if he was not given the authority/right to issue command. The latter camp would say to the effect: of course, that example holds true there; but take other instance. Does a parent have authority/right to issue command to her child because of being conferred the position/status by an external agent? No. Does God have authority/right to issue command to human kind because he has been conferred the position  by an external agent? No. God has that right to issue command by virtue of being the creator; and that right is inherent right. 

Nick does not develop an account of inherent right of a human person here; possibly he will do that in later chapter. But his account shows that God has inherent right. And this plausibly suffices to show the inadequacy of right order conception of justice who would insist that rights always must be conferred by an external agent. After all God does not need to be conferred right to possess a right; the right in inherent! 

Journey Toward Justice 18

This chapter is titled 'Justice, Love, and Shalom'. I would this is like a footnote of the previous chapter! In this chapter Nick argues that if one is concerned about Shalom, one must be concerned about justice. The idea that justice is God's business and our business is to love is a wrong way of seeing things. Shalom or rather Peace is not just about absence of violence; it's about everything coming together to a right relation. Our human relation to God; our human relation to one another; our human relation with the physical world etc. But without justice, right relations cannot prevail. So if one must talk about Shalom one must talk about justice. 

Journey Toward Justice 17

This 17th chapter is titled 'Justice and Love'. This is a very important chapter, and here Nick makes some very key theological and philosophical points for his concept of justice. I won't be able to do justice to his chapter here; and so I would really urge readers to read it for herself. 

In the New Testament, Jesus gives the command when asked -- Love the Lord and also love your neighbour as yourself. Nick expands on the second part i.e love your neighbour as yourself. He does that by going back to the Old Testament text from which Jesus quoted his points. In the Old Testament where this point occurs (Lev. 19), Moses was giving a code of conduct for Israel to follow with regard to how to treat the 'other'. 'do not oppress your neighbour... be impartial to the poor..do not slander your neighbour... do not hate your brother...' kind of moral sanction is found in this passage. And Moses concludes, so to speak, by saying love your neighbour as yourself. Meaning, just as you are concerned for your own well-being, be concerned for the well-being of your neighbour. That is what it means to love your neighbour. Being just in your conduct with the neighbour is to love the neighbour!

But the question emerges: Can I love those who are really evil? Can I love a serial killer? Or work for his well-being? Nick's answer to this question is really illuminating. This is an area that I have wondered on how to address the question. And Nick's work is really helpful. Since this is a very important point, I would urge the reader to go through the book. 

Journey Toward Justice 15-16

In the Greek New Testament, one often comes across the adjective 'dikaios', the noun 'dikaiosyne', the verb 'dikaio' and others. The words starting with 'dik' is common. Similarly, the word starting with 'dik' in Plato's Republic is common. And Republic is about justice. Well, in the translation, something has gone missing. 'Righteousness' or 'righteous' are often the words used to translate the word starting with 'dik' instead of 'justice' or 'just'. If one critically examines, 'righteousness/righteous' have similar meaning with 'justice/just'. However, in common usage they don't seem to be understood to mean the same thing. 'Righteousness' is meant to imply moral purity of the self; whereas 'justice' is meant to imply his or her relation to the outside world. One is pietistic and the other social. 

In the Beatitude, one reads 'Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness/ for righteousness' sake' (dikaiosyne).  Compare this with 'Blessed are those who are persecuted because of justice/for the sake of justice'. Is it plausible to suppose that I shall be persecuted for seeking pietistic moral purity or for seeking justice in social terrain? The latter seems more plausible. Nick gives so many more cases to argue that many a times where 'justice' must be used, the translators have used 'righteousness', and therefore, have led to the idea among certain people that justice has been supplanted in the New Testament. Theologically and biblically, one can make a strong case that justice runs through the entire Scripture. 

Journey Toward Justice 14

This chapter is titled 'Justice in the New Testament'. One of the parables in the New Testament that Nygren based his understanding of justice or the lack thereof is the parable of the labourers. In the parable Jesus tells, the owner invites people to come and work in his vineyard for a day's wage. People came forward. One joined the work in the morning; another in the afternoon and still another one later. Different people joined at different time. At the end of the day, the one who came early got the day's wage he was promised. He was okay there. But he realised that the owner pays the same amount of money to the guy who came in the afternoon and also to the one who came later. He complaint that it's not fair that others got as much as he got saying that since he joined early he should get more. The owner said that he got what he deserved and he was not treated unjustly. The question is: was the owner unfair or unjust? Well, Nygren thought the owner treated him unjustly! 

But this interpretation made Nygren argues that justice is supplanted in New Testament with love. Nick argues that justice is not supplanted in the New Testament with love. Justice runs through New Testament as well. It is there in the Old Testament and it continues in the New Testament too. Nick takes Luke's 4 where Jesus read the Old Testament text and then concludes that in him what the Old Testament text says in coming true. And that text is about bringing good news of release to the oppressed. Nick goes on cite other texst too to make his point. 

In the next chapter Nick argues why oftentimes English reader of New Testament misses out 'justice' though it's THERE. It's got to do with translation! 

Journey Toward Justice 13

This chapter is titled 'On the Claim that Justice is Supplanted in the New Testament'. Nick states that there are those who argue that justice is supplanted by love in the New Testament Bible. One group says that God is concerned about justice but to bring justice in the social order is not our business; God will eventually do that in his time. We just have to wait for now. Another group states that what New Testament really teaches is to love our neighbour, to be benevolent or compassionate. Nygren and Kierkegaard belong to this latter category. Nygren underscores that New Testament is all about love and we should go to all extent to seek the well-being of others. Justice is not the point. Of course, sometimes love may 'perpetrate  injustice', but fine; just love. The came Reinhold Neibuhr who says that New Testament does teach about love. But then try saying 'we love you, Hitler; no killing, please.'; It won't work. Neibuhr says that there are really bad people out there and therefore love alone will not work on this earth. Justice must also be pursued. 

Journey Toward Justice 12

This chapter is titled ' Justice in the Old Testament'. The three ancient writers mentioned in the previous chapter derived their idea about just society from the Scripture that they read. In the Old Testament, which was a book given to ancient Israel and at present considered Holy Book by the Jews and the Christians, the topic of justice litters the text. Do justice; do justice; do justice is a recurring theme in the Old Testament Bible. And the group of people for whom Israel was mandated to seek justice consists of widows, foreigners, orphans and the poor. The quartet appears again and again. The rich people people too face injustice from time to time – being robbed, murdered, raped etc. But compared to this quartet, the injustice they face is not quite of same degree. For these four group of people injustice is everywhere and every moment, so to speak. Thus seeking justice in the Bible is about righting injustice and seeing it through the lens of the ones facing injustice, from the perspective of the victims. The Bible is not a philosophical textbook and so it does not attempt to provide a theory of justice. Nevertheless it speaks about seeking justice and seeking it from the perspective of the ones wronged.  

Journey Toward Justice 11

This chapter is titled 'Natural Rights in Three Church Fathers'. In this chapter Nick traces the prevalence of the idea of natural rights to the Church Fathers. Church Fathers are those leaders of the Christian Church in the first five hundred years of church history. The point is that Nick is trying to argue for the point that the idea that natural rights emerged from the Enlightenment Period with the likes of Hobbes and Locke is mistaken. He is rather trying to show that Hobbes and Locke were working with the idea bequeathed to them by earlier thinkers specially by those Medieval writers on Jurisprudence. But again these writers on jurisprudence were working with the idea that was there in the writing on earlier thinkers. Nick quotes from the writing of Ambrose of Milan (340-397), who is known as the spiritual guru of St. Augustine, and also from Basil the Great (330-379)and finally from John Chrysostom ( 347-407) . Moreover, these writers were not functioning within the atmosphere that expresses possessive individualism. 

Journey Toward Justice 10

'Is Rights-Talk for Expressing Possessive Individualism?' is the title here. Well, if we look at the different situations going on in the world, the answer appears to be no. When the Palestinians/Blacks/Coloured people/ use the language of rights in their social and political discourse, was it a case of possessive or rather obsessive individualistic thinking? No. So the charge that possessive individualism is in the DNA of rights-language is not true. 

Go back to history. Where can we trace the language of rights being employed. Did it start with the likes of Hobbes and Locke and some have underscored? Nick argues that it started well before that. The canon lawyers in the 12th century employed such language but they were not possessive individualists. So the charge that rights-language essentially is about possessive individualism is not true. There could be cases like that specially in the West, but historically that is not the case. And even recent cases -- apartheid issue, civil right movement etc. --  tell otherwise. 

Journey Toward Justice 9

This chapter is titled 'Why Rights-Talk is Important'. There are those who argue that discourse on justice should be from the perspective of obligation, care, compassion, benevolence etc. 'We should care for the poor/deprived...' is the kind of approach they argue for. Nick disagrees. Nick rather starts of from the other side; from the side of the poor/deprived/wronged. The difference between the two approaches is very significant. 'I ought to care for the coloured people (in apartheid South Africa)' and 'the coloured people ought to be given their due right' are two significantly different way of seeing the issue at hand. The latter requires decentering and putting myself in the shoe of the victim. 

Journey Toward Justice 8

This chapter is titled 'Rights Grounded in Worth'. This is an important chapter of the book. There are different sorts of rights. Some are given by legislation while others may be there because of promise/speech acts. But other sorts of rights are natural rights. But how do we ground this natural rights? Some people argue that this sort of right is grounded on the person's autonomy; meaning, to violate the right of a person is to violate her autonomy. But a question arises: when a person is raped, is it wrong because her autonomy is violated or is there something deeper than just violating her autonomy? Nick argues that there is something deeper. 

Is it wrong to feed someone who is in coma to the dogs? This person has no autonomy; so if it's wrong, then the grounding of why it's wrong has to go beyond violating autonomy. Nick argues that the grounding for such right is on the worth or the dignity or the value of a person. To violate her right is to disrespect her dignity as a human. 

Journey Toward Justice 7

'What are Rights?' is the theme of this short chapter. For Nick, since justice is based on rights, it is important to define what rights are. But rights are of different sorts. But the point is that rights are normative social relationships. Meaning, rights are about normative relations which also says this is the way you ought to treat or this is the way I ought to treat you, and if you fail to treat me this way or vice versa, then you wrong me or vice versa. 

Nick thus underscores that 'primary justice is present in society insofar as the members of society stand to one another in the normative social relationship of being treated as they have a right to be treated.' 

Journey Toward Justice 6

There are different sorts of reasons given against rights-talk; against the language of rights being employed to talk about fairness in the society. One of the main arguments against rights-talk, as Nick sees it, is that this sort of thing amounts to strong sense of individualistic thing. 'My right' 'my right' 'my right' kind of thing conveys a sense of individualistic thought. Nick concedes that this might be there, but then the fact that this is there does not mean that we throw out the whole concept of rights. If we throw out the whole concept of rights, this would be throwing the baby with the water. What is the required is that where there is wrong employment of the concept or where there is abuse of rights language, there needs to be correction. After all many social movement like civil rights movement in the US or the movement against apartheid in South Africa and so on employed the language of rights and brought social change, yet they are hardly about excessive individualistic thinking. 

What critics of rights-talk often leave unsaid is what will be lost or what moral category/concept would be lost if this language or concept of rights is altogether discarded. And Nick would venture on to argue that something very key to moral discourse would be lost if this language of right is altogether discarded from our society. Therefore, rights-talk or language of right must continue to be part of our moral discourse. 

Journey Toward Justice 5

Nick tells that there are two ways in the West that people think about justice: right order conception and inherent rights conception. Plato's Republic, for example, is the former kind while his (Nick's) is the latter kind. Proponents of the former kind holds that a society is just if it is rightly ordered, or rather conforms to certain principle. Proponents of the latter kind holds that a society is just if people are treated as they have a right to be treated. Nick says that Rawls also falls into this right order conception of justice. 

So Plato's conception is of the former kind and so is Rawls' conception. I fancy that Nick would agree that Mill's conception is also of the former kind and also that of the capability approach especially that which is advanced by the likes of Martha Nussbaum and Amartya Sen; and this would also include the one advanced by Michael Sandel. 

Nick argues that if we look at debates about justice/injustice in the past, those who faced injustice often did not appeal to certain principle to insist that they were wrongly treated; they just spoke about saying that they were denied of their rights and that they were wrongly treated. They were performing their action from the vantage point Nick advances though they may not be developing a theory about it; Nick also did the same thing in the beginning. It was only later that he developed a theory that matches his previous actions. 

This is rather interesting because Nick has argued elsewhere for certain epistemological position which in effects says that there are beliefs (and so actions) that is in us which may not have philosophical ground for taking such a view but over a period of time we come to be aware of such belief and then go on to provide a philosophical ground for holding such a belief. So it's not that philosophical justification/ground always precedes belief; sometimes it could be that belief precedes philosophical justification. 

Journey Toward Justice 4

In this chapter, Nick tells about one advantage about starting from the position of the one wronged. He contrasts it with Rawls' position. Rawls' concept of justice is based on right, but a highly abstract contractarian view about right. He asks the question what a just society would look like from an abstract position. Nick's view is also based on right but he starts of differently. He will explain in later chapters how he does that. 

But he argues that one advantage he has over Rawls' approach is that Rawls' approach is able to deal justice/injustice at the level of institution only; it fails to take into consideration issues of justice/injustice between individuals and communities -- those entities which are not institutional, whereas his approach is able to take consideration about justice/injustice at different levels. Of course, Rawls may respond and say that his theory is not an adequate theory of justice while Nick claims that his theory of justice is meant to be an adequate theory of justice. 

Journey Toward Justice 3

Nick begins his theorising about justice from the perspective of the one wronged. When Rawls begins his, he positions the setting in an abstract condition where everybody is blinded about their personal preference; stripped the citizens of so many items of knowledge. The idea was to develop a theory of justice from a standpoint that Rawls considers neutral. Nick's approach is different. Now someone may ask him why starts from the one being wronged; why not from a neutral position. Nick's argument is that there is no one who really starts truly from a neutral position; we all start from certain position. 

The point, therefore, is not whether someone starts from the one wronged or from obligation perspective or from the religiously neutral perspective; the point is whether the theory is able to adequately takes into consideration issues of justice and injustice. 

I would want to add that even Rawls has an idea of the good in his assumption. He calls it the 'thin theory' of the good. So, yes Rawls' starting point is also not really neutral though it may appear neutral at first glance. Everyone starts of from somewhere. 

Journey Toward South 2

In the second chapter, Nick tells a story about his encounter with a Palestinian Christian leader, four years after the Conference on Palestinian issue. The year would have been 1982.  Raised in West Bank, Father Iliya Khoury has now been expelled from his birthplace by Israel and so he now lives in Jordan. Fr. Khoury tells that he felt abandoned by the Christians in the West. The Christians are supporting Zionists, but why are they doing so at the expense of the Christian brother and sister Palestinians? The Palestian Christians are caught between Israelis and Muslims. The Muslims see Christian West supporting Israel and so they don't see Christian Palestinians in good terms. And the Israelis are trying hard to expel the Palestinians; what the Palestinian Christians supposed to do? They are willing to be martyred, but the Western Christians would be forcing them to be martyr for an unworthy cause. 

Christians in the West are not gaining Muslim converts. Well, as Palestinian Christians they live with the Muslims. They know the Muslims. With the kind of attitude and actions of the Western Christians, they will not be successful in the evangelistic effort. The Muslims need to see first that they can live with the Christians. And Palestinians can show that Israelis, Christians and Muslims can live together. But for that to happen Western church needs to change first. 

Journey Toward South 1

Journey Toward Justice

By Nicholas Wolterstorff

Baker Academic

2013

This is the first chapter of the book. In this chapter Nick tells the story of how he came to believe that he got a call from God through the words of the ones wronged and  that he needs to speak up for the wronged ones. He did not have such a conviction earlier, but after having gone through certain experiences his understanding of things changed. There are two experiences that he tells in the book. 

The first is his encounter of Apartheid in South Africa in a Conference in 1975. In the Conference, he heard and saw blacks and coloured people speaking out angrily about the dehumanising experiences they faced daily due to state policy called Apartheid. The Afrikaners deflected the charge by saying that such a policy was required to enable different people group to maintain their ways of life. They further said that they showed benevolence to these blacks and coloured people by giving them used clothes occasionally, food during Christmas etc. The Afrikaners did not see the issue in term of justice vs. injustice. But Nick saw the issue through the lens of justice vs. injustice. 

The second episode was when Nick was invited for a Conference on Palestinian rights in 1978. He saw and heard from Palestinian themselves about injustice meted out to them. 

Nick asks two questions in this chapter. First, why can't benevolence substitute for justice? Second, why did certain people look into the same eyes, yet not saw the issue as matter of justice/injustice while others saw it that way. Nick defers the answer to later chapters. 

FTII, Academic Institutions and BJP Politics

The name of Gajendra Chauhan has been making news these days. The man has been appointed as the chairman of the governing council of Film and Television Institute of India by the current BJP government. Yet the students have refused to accept the appointment, and the agitation have continued for a month now. Students have refused to accept the appointment citing that the person lacks the required qualification and that the government has made the appointment based on political connection. 

As a person who is not at all qualified to speak about art and artiste in films and television, I cannot say whether Gajendra Chauhan is professionally qualified or not to head the institution. But the point whether he is professionally qualified to head the institution or not is an important question. The fact that he has connection with BJP/RSS is not a reason for qualification nor for disqualification. The position is not a political office; the position requires professional qualification. And therefore what is required is a professionally qualified person. 

When it comes to political office, the required qualification is that he or she and his/her party get elected. One may be illiterate, but if she has won the election, the political office is for her. However, this does not work in other domain; and ought not to work. The present government has made many key appointments in academic institutions based on political connection, and not based on merit or professional qualification. Nobel laureaute Amartya Sen has also spoken out against such appointment few days back. Given this precedent, I have a suspect even when it comes to the appointment of Gajendra Chauhan. Appointing people in academic or professional position without the required qualification is another form of corruption. And to that end, this government has been corrupt in this regard. 

For example, when a key position is to be filled in History or in a University, whether the person has left leaning or right leaning is not really the point. A person may have left or right  or left-centre leaning. But what is important that the candidate should have published article/journal/book and experience in the relevant area. Without such qualification, if a person is appointed just because he is a member of a political party, this is to damage the institution. Appointing Smriti Irani, the politician who has not even earned undergraduate degree, as education minister is one thing; appointing a businessman as a vice-chancellor of a university is another thing. 

Supporters of RSS/BJP has from time to time argue that 'he is a patriot/nationalist' to justify the appoitment. Yet patriotism of the kind defined by the saffron brigades is hardly a qualification to be in a professional position. Moreover, RSS/BJP's definition of patriotism is not the only definition of patriotism valid in the cultural or academic circle. One person says that to be in a position, one has to believe in India's glorious past. Well, India's past has both ups and downs. There were glorious deeds and there were shameful deeds. And any civilisation is like that. It is naive to believe that India's past is all good and beautiful. Such believers and proponents are doomed to despair if they would move out of their reading ghetto. 

Saffron party is in the government, and therefore one cannot argue against filling academic or professional positions with their partymen or partywomen. Yet in all of this, it is fair to insist that the government appoint professionally trained and qualified people to professional post. Maintain the difference between political post and professional position. 

Maintain Dry Status, Please

Political leaders in the state have been deliberating on the pros and cons of lifting dry status in the state. As per the paper report, there is no sustained argument in support of maintaining status quo. Instead the policy makers appeared to support lifting of dry status and make alcohol consumption legal. Given that the impact felt on the larger society will be tremendous, there requires sustained debate on the subject involving law makers, civil society, religious leaders, researchers etc. One of the MLAs stated that removing of dry status will ensure production and availability of only quality-controlled liquor to the public. This kind of reasoning is without empirical support. The empirical support would rather point to the opposite direction.

Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal and other states legalise alcohol consumption. But even in these states there are plenty of 'toxic' liquor available, and thriving. Just last month – June, 2015 – in Maharashtra 104 people died after consuming illicit alcohol, and over 40 continued to remain hospitalised. In January, 2015, in Uttar Pradesh at least 25 people died after taking local made liquor, and over 100 hospitalised. Prior to that over 40 people died in the same state after consuming local made liquor during a religious festival. Few years before that 130 people died after consuming illicit liquor in West Bengal, with dozens more landing in hospital. In 2008, 180 people died after taking local made liquor in Karnataka. These are small samples of deaths caused by country-made liquor. It is reported that in Maharashtra in certain areas, within just one Ward – let alone district – death through alcohol poisoning occurs every month.

Given that people in the state are equally money minded, if not more, illicit liquor will thrive. State machinery will find it impossible to ensure the quality of alcohol being brewed by the local vendors. If dry status is lifted, the state will have thousands of local brewers, and the state machinery will never be in a position to monitor the quality. When the state machinery is unable to effectively check petrol adulteration, can it monitor and regulate the quality of possibly thousands of local liquor brewers? Empirical findings prove that illicit liquor thrive so much more in states where liquor is legalised compared to dry states. The MLA is mistaken to believe that removal of dry status will engender quality-controlled liquor.

The paper reported that the government expects to make Rs. 300-500 crores through alcohol related business once dry status is lifted. This needs critical evaluation. Tripura, whose population higher than that of Manipur, makes around Rs 124 crores out of alcohol related business last year. It is highly unlikely for Manipur Goverment to generate revenue 2-4 times more than Tripura by removing dry status. If such a monetary figure is to obtain, it can do so only if a significant percentage of population is driven to drinking. But with more drinkers, social cost increases. At present Supreme Court normally directs government to pay Rs. 5 lakhs as compensation for undue death. Placing monetary value on a person's life is problematic. Despite the problem, if one takes this figure, it would take the death of 600-1000 people that government must compensate to neutralise the monetary gain of Rs. 300-500 crores. In a small state, such number of death is unlikely. And God help us that such thing never happens! But even if dozens of death occur in, say, a far flung village in the hill, the chance of the event not being reported is so high. Media coverage in the sate is far below the desired level. And with many villages several miles away from the nearest police station, there is no measure the state government will step in to investigate the disaster and prevent further incident of such sort.

Once dry status is lifted, more men will come home and beat up their wives and children. Domestic quarrelling and beating are much more common in homes where the husband drinks compared to those where no one drinks alcohol. Poor productivity in offices and field will be more widespread. Local fights between drunkards will be common scene. Drunk driving will increase manifold resulting in higher number of accidents and increasing medical care cost to the injured. But the cost for such hospitalisation is not born by the 'bad' boy himself; the cost falls is born by the entire family. Kidney-liver damage will rise substantially, adding financial pressure on the wife specially. With more illicit liquor brewers thriving than it is under dry status, more families will fall under the spell of alcohol related illnesses. It is not just the money spent to buy one drink, which in many cases would have been earned by the wife selling vegetables on the roadside, but the physical abuse on the wife that gets more frequent and the tense environment in which the children are raised which is followed by apathy towards children's education and moral progress. Hundreds of homes will get wrecked by removing dry status. The big question is: Has the government calculated such social cost and converted them in monetary value? What is the net monetary difference between the gain and the loss?

State exists for the flourishing of the citizens. And given this function of a state, it is high time that it cracks down on alcohol business prevailing under dry status. Lifting dry status will rather be going towards the opposite direction the state ought to pursue. Instead of facilitating and developing the skill and excellence of a human person, by removing dry status the state will impregnate the health and minds of the citizens with illness and darkness. Policy makers have moral obligation not to lead the citizens toward such dark abyss. Therefore, maintain dry status, please.

(This article appears on The Herald on 11th July, 2015) 

Nature's Beauty

Courtesy: Dr. James Pao

The Other Side of India

The other Sunday, someone in the Church premise asked me, 'Are you from China?'. Last week one guy at the Safal shop from whom I have been buying vegetables almost every week for over two years ask, 'Are you from Nepal?'. Last year in Goa, in the premise where the dead body of Francis Xavier is kept, one man asked, 'Are you from Philipines?'. I said 'I am from India'. 'No, you must be from Malaysia or Philipines', he replied. Few years back, someone asked, 'Are you from Taiwan?'. 'No', I said. Then he spoke to me in Cantonese or Mandarin or whatever it was, perhaps to test me. 

Three months back I went to Mexican embassy in Delhi for a visa appointment. The guard at the gate asked, 'Have you come from Nepal?'. I said 'No, I am from Manipur'. When I visited the embassy again, three weeks back, I was asked' Are you from Nepal?'. 

The other Sunday, someone new in the Church asked me, 'Are you from China?'. Last week the guy in Safal shop from whom I have been buying vegetables almost every week for over two years asked, 'Are you from Nepal?'. And last year in Goa, a guy asked me ' are you from Philipines.' I said, 'I am from India'. He replied, 'No; you must be from Malaysia or Philipines'. And the other year someone asked ' are you from Taiwan?' 'No, I said'. Then he spoke to me in Cantonese or Mandarin or whatever it was, perhaps to test me. Four months back I had gone to a hotel near the airport to meet relatives. A boy inquired, 'They are all from China or Nepal?'. The other year I had gone to Taj Mahal with few friends. The guards at the gate refused entry to the only girl with us. (Indian are to pay Rs. 30 for entry and foreigners 700 or 800. She had Rs. 30 worth ticket.) she had no ID proof to prove that she needs to pay just Rs. 30, and not more as she is not a foreigner. Three of us who had gone in through the male Q and were not now waiting inside had to come out to find out why she got stuck. Fortunately, we all had ID proofs and after showing our IDs and that she is with us, she was allowed to enter.

Four months back or so I had gone to buy milk as usual from the nearest Mother Dairy, which is just some 150 meters away from where I stay. On my way back, one man shouted at me, from the other side of the road, 'Bahadur, iddhar aa'. (Bahadur is a term commonly used to refer to those from Nepal working in Delhi/India). I ignored and continue to walk home. He seemed upset that I did not obey him. Fixing his eyes on me, he rushed towards me, perhaps to thrash me for ignoring his call. Suddenly a car zoomed past, and he had to stop for 4-5 seconds to cross over to my side of the road. By then I had walked further ahead, closer to my gate. And he left. 

Perhaps it is high time government does something to put an end to all this... through television or Bollywood or Cricket!