Muammar Gaddafi's death reminds of two deaths in the not-so-distant past - those of Saddam Hussain and Osama bin Laden. Why? Gaddafi was hounded by his own people the way Saddam was by the Americans. He fled the same way and was discovered in a similar way. Laden was alive when the Americans caught up with him. What ensued is probably not very clear. Now the US is demanding details of how Gaddafi died. I think it is a little too late in the day to take someone else to task over moral turpitude.
Now I come to the question, is this revenge? Does revenge truly bring happiness? I do not know, neither do I hope to find out. But now I come to the larger question. Can we kill a human being even if the, well, justification is to bring about justice? I was (probably) a supporter of the death penalty in the rarest of the rare cases. In fact I had written in one of my previous posts about the delay in Afzal Guru's hanging. However I also have to ask myself, life is not something that we have given to our fellow human beings, can we take it from someone? I believe this argument was in fact put forward by Gandhi. Why do we have laws? Because way back in antiquity man agreed to co-habit in society, and for this society to survive and flourish certain ground rules need to be followed. So anyone who lives in society and does not follow its rules should be punished. Now does this extend to taking a person's life also?
The anguish felt by a murdered person's dear ones can only be understood by them, but I would like to know, in cases where the killer has been hanged (or electrocuted or whatever) has the victim's family found peace? Do they believe this is the only way to obtain justice? There are occasional examples - Graham Staines' (the Christian missionary who was burnt alive in Odisha) wife forgave her husband's killers and did not want to see them hanged. Murugan and Nalini's daughter has asked for something similar from the Gandhi family. Obviously I am not saying that if the family okays it every murderer' sentence should also be commuted. I have the luxury right now of taking the middle path and leaving the question open, so I choose to do it. I just wish to raise a question which everyone should ask oneself.
Moving on, I loved Hillary Clinton's recent statement in Pakistan - you cannot raise snakes in your backyard and expect they will bite only your neighbours. Once again, I would like to say, look who's talking, but I still love the statement. The US is making some very angry noises publicly about Pakistan's continued support to Afghan extremists. It remains to be seen how much of this (and American benevolence to Pakistan) will remain once the US completes its pullout from Afghanistan. During the Cold War the US needed Pakistan. India was proclaimedly non-aligned, and was also close to the Soviet Union. Pakistan was closer to Afghanistan and not very friendly with India, to say the least. Thus the US needed Pakistan to counter Soviet influence in the region. Today however, the Soviet Union is no more and India is seen as a strategic ally on many fronts. China is seen as an emerging (some would say emerged) rival on the world stage, and Pakistan has been historically close to China. So the Americans might not see any compelling reason to placate Pakistan. Now that bin Laden is dead and due to the fact that he was found in Pakistan, the US can make all sorts of complaining noises against Pakistan.
So what emerges? US foreign policy is strictly dictated by self interest. Hence it would be in India's long-term interest to ensure that no country treats it as a friend in hyphenation with any other country, for as Pakistan is finding out the hard way today, such friends do not last.
No comments:
Post a Comment