Two shocking incidents on opposite sides of the globe. One, a brutal gang rape and murder of a young girl in Delhi; the other, murder of 20 kids and seven adults in Connecticut. Different methods, yet the common strand of inhuman violence links the two. Both of them have sparked countless protests and debates, calling for "change". Yet, what exactly is to be changed? Who is to be blamed?
Let's talk about the Delhi incident first. In the past few days, hundreds of people gathered in Delhi and other cities, clamoring against toothless laws, inept police, a misplaced mindset of the society that assumes men "superior" to women, and so on. Every one of these points has their own merits. Some even went a step further and proclaimed that it was the girl who was responsible for the crime. Now that's like saying if you have a car and someone steals it, it's you who are at fault because you bought the car; and not the fault of the person who stole it. That, of course, doesn't make any sense.
Coming back to the question, I'm positive that 95% of us men in India are the kind of those who'd NEVER rape a woman. It's the remaining 5% that cause all the trouble. So, the big issue here isn't the "general psyche of Indian men". You can't point out 5% of the group and say there's something wrong with the entire male Indian mindset. Neither can you blame the so-called modern culture shown in movies and songs. If you look at the lyrics common among American rappers, you'll find those much much worse - yet a rape doesn't happen every 22 minutes in the USA, unlike here. It's not like men in India are born "evil" and those in the West are all decent. The main difference is: a deterrent.
The 5% of men in question here are plain psychopaths. Their brains are wired in a way as to display their masculinity and vent their desires in a manner that is anti-social, and has no absolutely no care for the feelings of another person. Such men can be found in many places. However, they actually bring their flawed mentality to a conclusion only in cases where they have no fear of the repercussions that may follow. Ask any convicted rapist - all of them will say that they believed they could get away scot-free from the crime. They believed they would never get caught. They believed that there was no one to stop them. And indeed, it is THIS that is to be really blamed here. The absence of stringent security. I know that it's not possible for there to be a policeman at every corner of the street - but at least we can have security cameras. And we can have laws - very strict laws - that invoke a sense of deep fear among those psychopaths.
However, we can't simply rest in comfort by putting all the blame on weak laws and inadequate security. Why haven't these laws and security measures come into place even after 65 years of independence? Who is responsible for these? Our politicians, of course. And if we keep voting for the kind of politicians who either do not change anything or worse, are themselves convicted of rape, then even all of us - indirectly - are to be blamed. I've turned 18 last month, and together with most of my friends, I'm definitely going to vote next year, keeping in mind the character of the candidate we're voting for. Let's hope we make a difference this time.
Coming to the second part - the slaughter of 27 people in an elementary school in Connecticut, USA. Personally, I was shocked by this news as two of my cousin sisters are elementary school students in Connecticut (thankfully, they go to a different school; they're fine). And as sympathy and mourning poured in from across the world, there was another strong feeling prevalent in the air.
Hatred.
A quick Facebook search with the killer's name, Adam Lanza, would reveal that. Hundreds of people, in different pages, all asserting "Adam Lanza should rot in hell", "I Hate Adam Lanza" and other rhetorics that are best not repeated here. Yes it's true, we're all justified in hating him for having snapped the life out of 20 little innocent kids, but does he really deserved to be solely blamed for his actions?
Almost every news agency that reported the tragedy has also reported that the killer in question was a 20-year old extremely lonely and intelligent guy who had no friends at all. According to the head of security at his school, Adam was "a very scared young boy, who was very nervous around people he could trust or he refused to speak with", and "a loner". This, as psychiatrists say, is a clear indication of Asperger's syndrome, a form of autism - which is an in-born genetic condition in almost all cases. Couple it with the fact that his parents divorced in 2008 - obviously not an emotionally pleasant situation for any child, let alone an autistic one.
You see it there. Adam's father was a successful finance executive at GE, and his mother was a teacher in the school where the massacre happened. Neither of them, evidently, had much time to take care of their psychologically disabled child. If they had been more caring towards their son, could the tragedy have been averted? Yes, I think so.
Besides this, Adam's mother was also an avid gun enthusiast and according to news reports, regularly used to take her son to shooting sessions. This probably could've been another factor in his actions - which in turn, has sparked furious debates over the arms trade system in the United States.
It is widely known that possessing a gun is very easy in the US. A large number of people have been demanding, especially after this incident, that the laws have to be changed. Mass shooting has occurred many times in the past too - and considering the fact that such incidents can be brought down to a large extent - if not eliminated completely - if gun control measures are put into force, it does make sense to partly blame the laws for such repeated instances. However, guns don't kill people; people kill people. And therefore, in my opinion, what really ought to be blamed here are not the laws; but the trend in modern society which is rapidly shifting towards isolation between parents and child, and consequently the care that children need is desperately lacking - especially those who suffer from a psychological disability.
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, said Mahatma Gandhi. Today, we see it happening.
Let's talk about the Delhi incident first. In the past few days, hundreds of people gathered in Delhi and other cities, clamoring against toothless laws, inept police, a misplaced mindset of the society that assumes men "superior" to women, and so on. Every one of these points has their own merits. Some even went a step further and proclaimed that it was the girl who was responsible for the crime. Now that's like saying if you have a car and someone steals it, it's you who are at fault because you bought the car; and not the fault of the person who stole it. That, of course, doesn't make any sense.
Coming back to the question, I'm positive that 95% of us men in India are the kind of those who'd NEVER rape a woman. It's the remaining 5% that cause all the trouble. So, the big issue here isn't the "general psyche of Indian men". You can't point out 5% of the group and say there's something wrong with the entire male Indian mindset. Neither can you blame the so-called modern culture shown in movies and songs. If you look at the lyrics common among American rappers, you'll find those much much worse - yet a rape doesn't happen every 22 minutes in the USA, unlike here. It's not like men in India are born "evil" and those in the West are all decent. The main difference is: a deterrent.
The 5% of men in question here are plain psychopaths. Their brains are wired in a way as to display their masculinity and vent their desires in a manner that is anti-social, and has no absolutely no care for the feelings of another person. Such men can be found in many places. However, they actually bring their flawed mentality to a conclusion only in cases where they have no fear of the repercussions that may follow. Ask any convicted rapist - all of them will say that they believed they could get away scot-free from the crime. They believed they would never get caught. They believed that there was no one to stop them. And indeed, it is THIS that is to be really blamed here. The absence of stringent security. I know that it's not possible for there to be a policeman at every corner of the street - but at least we can have security cameras. And we can have laws - very strict laws - that invoke a sense of deep fear among those psychopaths.
However, we can't simply rest in comfort by putting all the blame on weak laws and inadequate security. Why haven't these laws and security measures come into place even after 65 years of independence? Who is responsible for these? Our politicians, of course. And if we keep voting for the kind of politicians who either do not change anything or worse, are themselves convicted of rape, then even all of us - indirectly - are to be blamed. I've turned 18 last month, and together with most of my friends, I'm definitely going to vote next year, keeping in mind the character of the candidate we're voting for. Let's hope we make a difference this time.
Coming to the second part - the slaughter of 27 people in an elementary school in Connecticut, USA. Personally, I was shocked by this news as two of my cousin sisters are elementary school students in Connecticut (thankfully, they go to a different school; they're fine). And as sympathy and mourning poured in from across the world, there was another strong feeling prevalent in the air.
Hatred.
A quick Facebook search with the killer's name, Adam Lanza, would reveal that. Hundreds of people, in different pages, all asserting "Adam Lanza should rot in hell", "I Hate Adam Lanza" and other rhetorics that are best not repeated here. Yes it's true, we're all justified in hating him for having snapped the life out of 20 little innocent kids, but does he really deserved to be solely blamed for his actions?
Almost every news agency that reported the tragedy has also reported that the killer in question was a 20-year old extremely lonely and intelligent guy who had no friends at all. According to the head of security at his school, Adam was "a very scared young boy, who was very nervous around people he could trust or he refused to speak with", and "a loner". This, as psychiatrists say, is a clear indication of Asperger's syndrome, a form of autism - which is an in-born genetic condition in almost all cases. Couple it with the fact that his parents divorced in 2008 - obviously not an emotionally pleasant situation for any child, let alone an autistic one.
You see it there. Adam's father was a successful finance executive at GE, and his mother was a teacher in the school where the massacre happened. Neither of them, evidently, had much time to take care of their psychologically disabled child. If they had been more caring towards their son, could the tragedy have been averted? Yes, I think so.
Besides this, Adam's mother was also an avid gun enthusiast and according to news reports, regularly used to take her son to shooting sessions. This probably could've been another factor in his actions - which in turn, has sparked furious debates over the arms trade system in the United States.
It is widely known that possessing a gun is very easy in the US. A large number of people have been demanding, especially after this incident, that the laws have to be changed. Mass shooting has occurred many times in the past too - and considering the fact that such incidents can be brought down to a large extent - if not eliminated completely - if gun control measures are put into force, it does make sense to partly blame the laws for such repeated instances. However, guns don't kill people; people kill people. And therefore, in my opinion, what really ought to be blamed here are not the laws; but the trend in modern society which is rapidly shifting towards isolation between parents and child, and consequently the care that children need is desperately lacking - especially those who suffer from a psychological disability.
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, said Mahatma Gandhi. Today, we see it happening.
This world is becoming terrible day by day. Can't blame any single entity for it. Ghor Kalyug is all I can say. All the best.
ReplyDeleteit is, and since we are a part of "this world", we too are responsible for it in some way or the other, isn't it?
Deletehope people , or rather the government wouldnt sink back into the reticent mode once the chaos die down . .
ReplyDeleteyeah, i totally second that..
DeleteLiked the systematic, logical thought stream. Also liked the fact that there was some backing research.
ReplyDeleteThanks a lot!
DeleteTwo insightful points you have made. Kudos for it. One is about the security level, ie not about laws to punish, but to do surveillance of any suspected crime and prevent it from happening. That is so strong one to stop crime, since we cannot promise that we can preach morality and change everyone. Not possible, there will be more that 5% that you mentioned, who just had not let the devil out, because they never got an opportunity with Option 'escape'. So building a system where we can track what's happening without invading others privacy! Crimes would scale down.
ReplyDeleteSecond point is that American kid's case. Almost all criminals had either bad parenting or bad society. If parents are responsible they can make radical changes towards a positive society. A change begins at home is a change to the society as old saying goes.
Good one Saurav Biswas. Please read my perspectives on the same, would like to hear your opinion. http://propelsteps.wordpress.com/2014/05/05/crimes-against-women-in-the-solitude-of-her-joy/