The context of crime - and how to change it

The Pulitzer-prize winning reporter, Mr. Kristof, of the New York Times, reported yesterday of a shocking case of teenage rape, followed by a fatwa and corporal punishment – of the underage victim, leading to her death. (http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/30/when-a-girl-is-executed-for-being-raped/)

A summary of the case, from the article:

"A 14-year-old Bangladeshi girl, Hena,allegedly was ambushed when she went to an outdoor toilet, gagged, beaten and raped by an older man in her village (who was actually her cousin). They were caught by wife of the alleged rapist, and the wife then beat Hena up. An imam at a local mosque issued a fatwa saying that Hena was guilty of adultery and must be punished, and a village makeshift court sentenced Hena to 100 lashes in a public whipping....Hena collapsed after 70 lashes and was taken to the hospital. She died a week later,.....The doctors recorded her death as a suicide."

Such a tragic and nauseating scenario appears to be a consequence of antiquated notions of morality, gender relations, local government and punishment.

But "tragic" and "nauseating" only because we have different opinions on these issues. It was, for the overwhelming majority of those involved, perfectly acceptable – obviously. Perhaps even righteous.

The collective pronouns above ("we") and below ("our") refer to the basic tenets of Western civilization, in the year 2011.

If we wish to convince the sub-society mentioned in this example of the superior value of our opinions (our system of ethics, fundamental rights, open debate, gender equality etc.), we probably need to start with understanding the socio-economic parameters of their context.

For example, the outdoor toilets mentioned in the report. If one has little or no privacy whilst defecating, and considers this to be the natural state of affairs, and knows of no other, one probably tends not to worry too much about personal space. If one has little to eat, one probably does not have qualms about eating from a shared vessel. If one is forced to live with parents, siblings, the uncle and a grandmother in a single-roomed house, one has probably not been brought up to knock at a door before entering.

And if men perform the economically more valuable tasks, then women are looked down upon. Or, at least, a more plausible case is made for this sort of discrimination.

And if one hasn't had the time to introspect, one probably hasn't bothered borrowing books on philosophy and human rights from the local well-stocked library with high-speed internet access. Oh, there isn't one?

The more hardships we endure, the more animal-like we become. Compare Sanskrit “bubhukshita kim na karoti papam” (“What sin is it that a hungry one does not commit?”, Sukasaptati) and Latin “Homo homini lupus” (“Man is a wolf to his fellow man”, Asinaria).

Habits and customs form easily, even in matters that were once distasteful. This from personal accounts, written by intellectuals, of long incarceration – Primo Levi, Albert Speer.

And then comes another wildcard into play – religion. Religious texts often are not in accord with our ideas of equality, personal freedom, tolerance and justice.

The answer lies not in banning religious texts (this would probably be the reaction of the sub-society under discussion), but in presenting the alternative – through education, north-south and east-west interaction, through inter-religious debate, through economical justice, through art and literature, through subsidized housing that is in keeping with basic human dignities etc..

At some point, the innate love of freedom – and we must believe that it is innate – will prevail.

The freedom of the paper book

Being a lover of books myself, and of old bookstores, with their characteristic smell and hallowed niches, I was a little disappointed not to find a more spirited defence of the traditional, printed book (in this article on the BBC Magazine http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8447996.stm ). There is much in favour of the Kindles and iSlates of this world, not least that they might even be environmentally friendlier, and to counter their obvious ease of access and mobility with "Ah well, but you can't scribble on the columns" is not very convincing, even to us members of the choir. Especially, as books might well have associated web-pages, where readers can discuss every line with every other reader, even those who don't live down the road.

Here, then, are some reasons I would like to advance to support the paper book.

Printed books, once printed, can't be changed. No publisher can easily (and perhaps without any member of the general public noticing it) change content, delete politically annoying or no-longer-in-fashion opinions. A printed book becomes a carrier of the Zeitgeist. This is especially fascinating when one thinks of world-views before certain continents were discovered, of discourses on freedom before the female-emancipation movement or of common tales of city life, before a certain communist party had been discredited. Of course, this means that romances which have Laura bestow her affections on a different member of the lower nobility every time one reads "Our Austrian Cousins" are not possible, as far as a paper book is concerned. I can live with that.

Electronic books often offer a lot of meta-information. Consider a reader coming across the word "ploy", not previously known to her. What does our young reader do? She clicks on the dictionary function, and learns more about the word, and its synonyms, with example sentences. This is not necessarily a great idea for a couple of reasons. Firstly, one doesn't always need to understand every single word to be able to enjoy and learn from a work. The context provides a general hint, and the reader's imagination is tasked to do the rest. (Blasphemous as this idea sounds, Nietzsche concurs). Secondly, the dictionary entry might have a fascinating etymology, or a pretty verse in the example sentence, leading our reader to learn more about the poet, or about the language the word-stem derives from. Exhilirating as this journey is, it can be construed to be a distraction from the book. Thirdly, imagine books which come with an option "Simplify text", where all uncommon words are replaced by more familiar substitutes, leaving the "spirit" of the work untouched. Not just Nabokov, but the author too, might scream "Vive le pédant". Or, alternately, if the reader gets put off by a long paragraph, there might be an option which provides a summary of the whole book, or just of annoying chapters. I can conceive of an algorithm which can "visualize" parts of books. Young readers find it easier to see images. Novels can be converted into comic books at the tap of an icon. I don't claim that this service exists, but I do anticipate it. And when it does become available, it will easily be defended by its providers as providing more freedom of choice, and freedom is good, I read in a book.

The term "collaborator" is a dangerous one not just under totalitarian regimes. Imagine readers being asked to rate "sneak previews" of forthcoming chapters or books. Imagine also this being targeted at readers who buy (download) more books than others, or books that belong to a particular genre. The author can then tailor his books and the development of his plots to suit his audiences. This will lead to increased sales. And to the death of intellectual diversity.

So, some of the apparent disadvantages of a paper book, with no direct connection to the Internet, are indeed some of its greatest strengths.

I end on a sentimental note, hopefully one not taken as maudlin. A paper book is a unique object. When received as a present, from a parent, perhaps, or bought just before a memorable journey, or picked up during a walk in the winter sun with one's beloved, it acquires a value external to its published content. Critics might suggest that this is true also of a stuffed sheep. Yes, except that it is awkward to scribble on a sheep. Ah well, it appears that I have come back to the "can't scribble on the columns" argument, outlined in the opening paragraph. The other arguments stand.

Debating a euthanasia plea - the case of Aruna Shaunbaugh

The Supreme Court of India in this detailed judgement (http://www.supremecourtofindia.nic.in/outtoday/wr1152009.pdf) yesterday in the Aruna Shanbaugh case rejected the euthanasia plea. An interesting look at both ethical positions in this very sad case, the only silver lining to which is perhaps the commitment of the generations of nurses, who have provided such exceptional care, and the debate which it has engendered.

‎1. The judgement also refers to one of GB Shaw's plays (The Doctor's
Dilemma ) and a Robin Cook novel (Coma) - am not familiar with them, but fascinating that works of fiction have been referenced. A good thing, in my opinion, for there are no very strong barriers between fiction and fact, between what is and what can be, what was and what could have been.

2. Curiously, the judgement refers to "a recent news item which we have come across on the internet". It compares the new item to another case, and the only attribution for either is "(see Terri Schiavo's case on Google)". Surely, this level of attribution is unacceptable in a college paper. Is it acceptable in a Supreme Court ruling?

3. Another good thing is that the judgement recommends to the lawmakers to delete Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code which allows for punishment by imprisonment and monetary fines of those who attempt to commit suicide.

4. The judgement refers to "the unfortunate low level of ethical standards to which Indian society has descended, its raw and widespread commercialization, and rampant corruption".

This language differs from that of the Attorney General: "He (the Attorney General on behalf of the Union of India) further submitted that Indian society is emotional and care-oriented. We do not send our parents to old age homes, as it happens in the West"

Incredible, this pathetic pretence at being holy, ignoring all the abandoned elderly in Varanasi, the abuse women go through in dowry cases, general contempt towards menials, lower-caste members etc. etc..

5. From the judgement: "Hence one is one's brain". (Comma missing in original) Well, that's one philosophical question answered.

6. The judgement starts off by quoting a beautiful verse of Ghalib. Very apt; an old favourite.

7. One of the arguments of the Union of India was that the petition ought to be rejected because the activist Pinki Virani is not really a "next friend" of the afflicted. Fortunately, the court rejected this spiteful and adolescent line of reasoning. And, hearteningly, congratulated Ms. Virani for her actions, even whilst denying her petition.

8. More resources, for a summarized version of the case:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12662124

http://www.blogher.com/rape-has-left-people-wishing-her-dead

http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl1513/15130740.htm

We are all Unfit for Tyranny

Apropos the "Unfit for Democracy" thesis that's been knocking about, in the context of the revolutions sweeping the Middle-East, and countered by Prime Minister Cameron as being racist: I quote from a modern German text, about the situation in the German Reich at the end of the first world war, when a constitution was being written in the post-November-Revolution era, on the chief problems encountered in doing so (translated from the German):

1. The People are not used to Democracy
2. Large sections of the population are essentially anti-democratic

No one would view this as being racist. Surely, what we allow our historians we may allow ourselves. That is, an uncompromising look at reality and ourselves, even if the conclusion is not a pretty sight. We can make it beautiful, though, by working on it.

To suggest that an ethnic group is incapable of democracy, or any other social system, is clearly absurd, for it assumes that ethnicity, even over a protracted period of time and dialogue, prevents ventures into certain areas of thought. With time, the use of appropriate cultural symbols, open discussions, reassurance about the survival of loved-institutions etc., a society can change, in any direction.