Sunday, December 23, 2012
Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Editorial, "SPARE THE CHILD OR BEAR THE ROD!" in 15 December 2012 LAW ANIMATED WORLD
SPARE THE CHILD OR BEAR THE ROD!
seems to be the new axiom for the Norwegian
neo-barbarians who have unjustly detained and after a trial, which looks quite
unfair even by our Indian standards, sentenced our Indian Telugu couple
Chandrasekhar and Anupama to 18 months and 15 months imprisonment respectively
for an alleged offence of violence against their own child. It was the 17th
century English poet, Samuel Butler, who in his poem Hudibras, perhaps using a Biblical root, coined the saying ‘spare
the rod and spoil the child’, which has later been adopted by and often
attributed to Benjamin Franklin, one of the founding fathers of the United
States of America. Truly so, and
we have a similar axiom applicable to more variegated circumstances declaring ‘dandam dasagunam bhavet’ [the rod delivers many good results] that is also meant to work and be applied in the
course of child rearing. We are aware that some of our own intellectuals
recently disapproved of these two traditional axioms and the practices
indicated by them saying the times have changed and the concepts of human
rights and duties have transcended this constricted ancient thinking and now
domestic violence, especially violence against children, is to be seriously
deplored and so the Norwegians were perhaps more correct in this regard.
However, this distorted interpretation of the so-called ‘good’s of the
seemingly progressive thinking and law of the Norwegians, for that matter of the
‘developed’ West, overlooks the general moral degeneration in human and family
relations in those countries and systems and the rise of so many other vices
like drug-addiction, maniac acts of violence by spoilt children, promiscuous
and abhorrent sexual practices, child and woman trafficking and above all
racism, veiled or open, etc. and the rise of demonical terrorists like Anders
Breivik (more
fanatical and cruel than Kasab of 26/11 mayhem whom we hanged recently) and the so mild punishment of such dastardly
criminals. Also overlooked is the imperative need to accord the foreign
residents in any country due respect and enough freedom and facility to follow
their own cultural, traditional practices so long as they do not interfere with
the public peace and law and order. On both counts we people of the Orient seem
to fare better than those of the Occident – especially the Norwegians – who
fall so short of real ‘civilization’. §§§
Monday, December 3, 2012
Sunday, December 2, 2012
Editorial, "Right to Life: Mother v. The Unborn", in 30 November 2012 October Revolution Special issue
RIGHT TO LIFE: mother V. THE UNBORN
The sad death of Savita Halappanavar
in Ireland due to the stubbon refusal of the ‘Catholic’ medical staff to allow
her an abortion even though a miscarriage was detected, has sparked off
indignant protests not only in Ireland but the world over against such callous
cruelty of an obscurantist government in this modern age and also focused the need
to reconcile the conflicting rights to life of the living mother and the unborn
child. The Irish Constitution guarantees the right to life of the unborn child
too and Irish law outlaws any abortion by any person resident in Ireland .
The only exception as pronounced by the Irish Supreme Court in a 1992 decision {reported in this issue at pp.
55-114} is when the mother faces a real
and substantial risk of death in the course of pregnancy. Savita’s case falls
squarely under this exception but since there are no definite guidelines as per
enacted statute, which lacuna was strongly censured by both the Irish Supreme
Court and the European Court of Human Rights, the religiously orthodox could
inflict such irreversible loss on Savita’s family. In the end the mother was
also thrown out with the baby! This calls for a wide debate over the rights to
life of the born versus the unborn, so to put it. It is commendable that the
right of the unborn child is constitutionally declared and protected but at the
same time it should be harmonized with the equally important right of
preservation of mother’s life too. True, not just Christianity, but even
Hinduism, Buddhism and other oriental religions condemn abortion which is
termed as ‘Bhruunahatya’ (foetus murder) in Hindu scriptures and ranked with
five great sins. But even here, there is an exception of preserving the mother’s
life. The ‘Catholic’ outrage in Ireland can be seen as a sort of over-reaction
to the modern uncaring selfish capitalist culture which spurs and promotes the
wild proft-and-enjoy desires of the individual even at the cost of society. The
promiscuity generated/ tolerated allows irresponsible females aided by likeminded
males not to care for their progeny even, which otherwise they would cherish to
have and bring up. In a society with social ownership of the basic means of
production and with careful social planning, the welfare of all children,
legitimate or illegitimate, could be looked after well by the society itself
and not left to individual whim and fancy. In such a humane socialism, any need
for bhruuna hatyas just for the sake
of hedonistic/base selfish desires may not arise since the society itself would
take over all the obligations in regard to the child with no stigma to the
mother. §§§
Saturday, December 1, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)