On Friday 16 May 2008 5:09:19 pm Perry E. Metzger wrote: > ss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Many educated Indians as well as people unfamiliar with India find it > > difficult to believe how "law and order" in India (to the extent that it > > exists) rests on an unwritten covenant among Indians that can be traced > > back to what is considered as "dharma" or "rules for preserving society". > > I don't find that very hard to belive at all -- I think almost every > society runs that way. Even the written laws only function because > everyone more or less agrees (implicitly) that it is in their interest > to do so. > > What I find unusual is that the unwritten rules say that your first > resort is to beat people up.
Actually what I know of the rules does not specifically advise beating people up, and I believe I may have exaggerated the amount to which people resort to violence. They are not that violent - but I am at a loss to explain why we don't have more violence. I need to think that one through. I am merely guessing here that these (traditional) rules were always modified by the presence of a supervisory justice system imposed by the ruler of the day just as the Indian Penal Code is the one that is supposedly "in charge" today. I think the "animal instinct" to beat people up is not always checked by a police presence in situations that can lead to violence. And again, a tendency to mindlessly beat someone up seems to be modified by circumstances. I betcha nobody on this list has ever faced many situations in which a beating was likely and probably none where it actually occurred. But having said that - I believe that beating children and wife beating are commonplace in India. We regularly see reports of children who have been physically assaulted by "teachers" in school, and to me there is no clear evidence that the political class are in any way opposed to this. But the double standards that I spoke of exists here too. My kids do not get beaten in school - and I suspect silklisters with little children will invariably select the many "better" schools where beating children to discipline them is just not done. I was walloped enough to leave blue strips on my backside as a student in school in the 1960s. > Similarly, it is strictly illegal, according to the "official" laws, > to jaywalk, and yet everyone does. If a police officer tried to arrest > someone for jaywalking, they'd probably be made fun of in the > newspapers. The real law is not the written law. > > I'm not surprised that the real law you describe is not the written > law -- I'm just surprised about the nature of the unwritten law. I believe the unwritten law may have some good things going for it, but it also has many clauses that should be weeded out - particularly those that involve attitudes towards women. I think the British imposed an Indian Penal Code fairly "recently" - around the late 1860s I believe - which is about 150 years ago. Their ability to enforce it was limited, as was the ability of the Indian state to do that - so the laws that were generally followed in India were traditional laws that had literally been followed for millennia. The only addition was a separate criminal code for Muslims (based on sharia) - but Islamic rulers pretty much did not interfere with existing penal laws. India needs a massive revolution to educate people about, and to enforce the Penal Code along with a simultaneous weeding out of archaic clauses within the Penal Code that are as draconian and outdated as tribal law beating. It is happening - but unlike China - nothing can really be imposed quickly by force in India. Everything is done in small doses and by consensus and yes, by democratic means too. shiv
