Vigilante Justice in India - Sampat Pal Devi

International Women's Day is held every year on March 8th, and this year The Guardian put out a list of the "Top 100 Women". They range from Lady Gaga to Hawa Abdi. The women on the list have achieved success in their own rights, but have also helped women as a whole. One woman: Sampat Pal Devi (shown above) caught my eye.

Devi is the leader of an all women's vigilante fighting force in the province of Uttar Pradesh, called the Gulabi Gang (translated as the pink gang, for the pink saris they wear). Armed with sticks, they have stormed police stations when they have refused to register complaints about violence against women, attacked men that have abused their wives, unearthed corruption in distributions of grain to the poor, stopped child marriages, and encouraged girls to go to school. Devi is a controversial character, and she has many criminal charges against her. However, she continues to travel around India on a rusty bicycle recruiting new members. With 20,000 members throughout India, with that number growing every day, Devi and the members of the Gulabi Gang are a powerful force.

So, is vigilante justice a suitable alternative to state sponsored justice? Devi and her gang have taken justice into their own hands because they believe that the state is not doing a good enough job to protect women. The danger would be that in an ideal state run justice force there are rules to prevent innocent people from getting hurt or convicted for something they did not do. Vigilante justice can easy descend to a place where innocent people do get hurt. Also, in Devi's version of justice an "eye for an eye" is implemented, and that can also get out of hand. On the other hand, many women in Uttar Pradesh and throughout India do not have any protection from their husbands or other men, so Gulabi Gang provides that. They also seem to have a positive impact on their communities. So, although vigilante justice can be misused it seems to work well for Devi and the Gulabi Gang.

What do you think?

To Draft or Not To Draft

Last Wednesday (March 2, 2011), Jon Stewart had Allison Stranger on the Daily Show to discuss foreign policy and her new book "One Nation Under Contract" (find the episode here). The book is about how the wars and Iraq and Afghanistan are the first time the United States has been involved in conflict and had about the same number of contractors as servicemen. However, that is not what I want to talk about. During the interview, the part that stuck in my head was Stranger's argument that now is the time to have a real national conversation about reinstating the draft.

If a draft were reinstated, since almost everyone would be involved in the military, there would be much more public interest in where our military goes. So the declaration of war would be given much stronger consideration, which I think is warranted because of the weight a war holds. Rousseau and Aristotle both argued for a draft so that democracy could be upheld - with every citizen involved Rousseau and Aristotle believed that the citizens would be more inclined to actively seek a better society for all citizens. There is also the argument that it gives young adults a sense of attachment to their country and descipline as well as breaks class divisions by combining all conscripts together. Economically it is more efficient because conscripts are not paid when they are not in active duty because they are in their civilian jobs while a professional military is paid even when inactive.

The reasons against are more well known, and many of them are very similar to the arguments to uphold a democracy for a draft. The power of an individual to choose whether or not they want to fight is a powerful and just argument and the act of imposing a duty on someone warrants the comparison to involuntary servitude. It can also be said that the very act of conscripting someone is an act that denies them their rights and destroys democracy in that area. Conscription during peace-time is not economically cost effective either.

Conscription in the US is a touchy subject and although I am unwilling to say I would support a draft I think the idea deserves more thought. What do you think?

Hamlet - A Double Edged Soliloquy

Hamlet – the myth, the legend, the book I am reading in English Class. In almost everyone’s educational career they must read Hamlet (at least once) and contemplate the many layers of meaning it contains. It is one of the most prolific pieces of literature in the English language, as well as the most preformed play in the world (above is the famous image of Hamlet with the skull from the 1948 Hamlet film starring Sir Lawrence Olivier as Hamlet). There are many different critical approaches that can be used to examine and interpret Hamlet. In an attempt to keep this a post and not a novel, I will examine the soliloquy at the end of Act 4 Scene 4 (lines 33-69) from a formalist and a mythic approach, and then examine each approach itself.

From a Formalist perspective, the movement in this passage from logic to violence and perhaps madness is one worth examining. Throughout the soliloquy, Hamlet continues in iambic pentameter and keeps up metaphors including sleep as death and inaction and cowardice in life as living as a beast. There is also the parallelism between Hamlet and Prince Fortinbras, comparing the action coupled with purpose in Fortinbras with the actionless purpose of Hamlet. All of these structural ornaments show that Hamlet is at this point thinking intelligently and thoughtfully, however, as he finishes and with apparent logic concludes that, "from this time forth/My thoughts be bloody or be nothing worth!" (4.4.68-69), it is unclear as to whether he has crossed the line of sanity into madness. When this logical thought progression with all the ornamentation and appearance of a sane person in the play transforms near the end of the soliloquy into a conclusion that many people would consider not logical or sane, Shakespeare makes us question both what it is to be sane and insane, and what that might look like.

From a Mythical perspective, Hamlet throughout the soliloquy examines what it is to exist and to be human. Hamlet asks near the beginning of the soliloquy, "What is a man/If his chief good and market of his time/Be but to sleep and feed? A beast, no more./Sure He that made us with such large discourse,/Looking before and after, gave us not/That capability and godlike reason/to fust in us unused." (4.4.35-41). Hamlet examines the meaning in his life by comparing it to the life of a beast, where one only sleeps and eats and has no meaning. He states that, "I do not know/Why yet I live to say 'This things to do,' " and by that Hamlet concludes that being alive without fulfilling his purpose is not really living at all (4.4.46-47). Then, with the parallelism of Fortinbras fulfilling his purpose even if it puts his life at risk while Hamlet does not do this, Hamlet's thoughts of the relationship between purpose and real life are cemented. When Hamlet ends with "from this time forth/My thoughts be bloody or be nothing worth!" he shows his determination to fulfill his violent purpose in life because living is about fulfilling purpose rather than just staying alive (4.4.68-69).

With these two perspectives two different parts of the soliloquy can be excavated; but neither is more right than the other. Using only one would be sufficient, but Shakespeare deserves more! Both approaches, and others I did not use, unveil another layer of meaning in each part of Hamlet, so using them all in conjunction can warrant the most fulfilling reading of Hamlet. I am not sure if I even believed that before examining this passage with different approaches, but I definitely do now!

Well, that is my two cents. Let me know what you think!

Nonviolence and Power in Egypt

What I am hearing and reading about is the definite spreading of a new awareness: that people are not helpless in the face of repression, that the seemingly all-powerful dictatorships in the region—against whom struggle was perceived as futile—are actually not so powerful when faced with the real power of ordinary people, and that bringing about massive change is not predicated on the use of military power by a foreign government. It can happen organically, self-reliantly, and nonviolently, and also, importantly, with less casualties than a protracted guerrilla struggle or terrorism.

This is what Jamila Raqib, the executive director of the Albert Einstein Institution, had to say about the subject. See more here.

This got me thinking. There has been a lot written about the recent protests in Egypt (as well as Tunisia and other places), but I would like to focus on the nonviolent aspect of the protests, and what power they hold. This recent wave of protests has been marked by a trend of distinct non violence that (I think) marks a turning point in history - not only for the idea of "revolution" but also the idea of where power lies. If people around the world can truly believe that within their hands they hold enough power collectively to do what is best for their country and the world, I think we will see a shift in the power structure towards more entities that better follow the people's will. That does not necessarily mean democracy, or at least what we conceive of as a democracy, but any system in which the people can have access to the things they need and under which they are not suppress or discriminated against.

This change in the way power is viewed does not result independently from these actions, more that these protests show that the idea of power in the world today has the potential to change. Ideas and overarching and complicated as power do not change over night, but I think that people will increasingly realize that power is abstract - it can be created and destroyed - and eventually with the power a dedicated group of people hold things can be changed. This idea could also infiltrate the workings of politics on an international scale, so that people can have both a duty to their country and to their world. Common Wealth says that in an ever connected age it is becoming more and more important to band together as a world to combat problems that affect us all. If power was viewed as a more encompassing entity then we would have more reason to act. And if this idea does change, if people around the world do believe that whatever their condition they have the power to band together, without violence or war, and make a difference, then we will truly begin to see peaceful change for the better of all.

Model United Nations

This weekend I made the trek to the Palmer House Hilton where once every year The University of Chicago holds a Model United Nations Conference. I have gone for the past few years and each year my experience has been different. This year I went as a delegate from The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (fondly named BRO Venezuela) to the World Health Organization. This year the greatest thing I took away from Model UN was surprise that anything substantial is able to come out of the real United Nations. The idea that almost 200 delegations can debate effectively, one at a time, and reach a resolution that is coherent, efficient, and expedient is almost laughable. The way these sessions are set up means that there is either a set sequence of speakers, or, speakers are called on one at a time by the chair, who runs the debate. In a committee as large as the WHO this means that many points get lost in the sheer weight of the amount of speakers and quite a few questions go unanswered. The real work - compromise between parties and the writing of resolutions - came during the unmoderated caucuses where delegations would converse freely and without the encumbrance of the United Nations formalities.

In the past I have been in much smaller groups (including the African Union), and at least in these more integrated groups we could have a working conversation. It is interesting to note however, that the number of countries in the world has continued to increase in the past few decades, so the number of delegations in these committees (model or real) will only increase. So what can be done? I think it may be time to really evaluate what would best serve the world, not only fundamentally but structurally in the United Nations. Although to even discuss this kind of thing in the UN today would be long-winded. In a place where everyone's voice must be heard (after all I do not wish to change that), I think a good think about how everyone can be most effectively heard is warranted. Then, the real work of making an idea that has been heard turn into an action that can be felt can start.

What do you think?

What's in (Southern Sudan's) Name?

In Southern Sudan, from January 9th to 15th, a referendum was held to decide if Southern Sudan would secede from Northern Sudan. As of January 23, 2011, the preliminary results indicate that 98.8% of the voters voted for independence (votes per region). The result of the referendum will be declared, at the latest, on February 14, 2011. There were delays and problems in the preparations for the election, however, the elections went over with very few problems, and the African Union said that the referendum was "free, fair, and credible". This referendum comes after years of war between the north and the south. They gained independence from Great Britain and Egypt in 1956. A civil war began even before they gained full independence and lasted from 1955-1972, and a the second civil war began in 1983 and finally ended in 2005 with a peace agreement that promised this referendum. Over 2 million people have died in this conflict. Beyond the history lesson though, when Southern Sudan secedes (if everything goes as expected) they will face the question: What do we call ourselves now?

The name Sudan originally comes from the Arabic phrase bilad al-sudan (land of the blacks) which was used to describe Sub-Saharan Africa. So, the name Sudan does not have historical significance to the people of Southern Sudan any more than Native Americans have an affinity to the label 'Indian'. However, the Southern Sudanese people have grown up and struggled under the name of Sudan, they have developed an identity of the Sudanese people so to give that name up may be to forget all the struggle it took to finally gain independence. In the Sudan Tribune there have already been many articles about the possibilities of new names and arguments to keep the name Sudan. The leading contenders right now are South Sudan and The Nile Republic, as well as some other more creative and strange ideas (like Wunjubacel - a name made up of the first letter of the 10 southern Sudanese state names plus Abeyi, Nuba Moutains, and Blue Nile). Find arguments for South Sudan here, The Nile Republic here, and Wunjubacel here. Both the article for Southern Sudan and the article for The Nile Republic make valid points about each name. The name Southern Sudan helps the history of the country and the struggle towards independence apparent, and honors those that have perished to fight for it. While the name The Nile Republic gives the region its own separate identity and allows them to move forward. The Democratic Republic of the Congo (previously Zaire and the Belgian Congo) have had many names and with each one came different baggage. The name was changed to Zaire in 1965 partly in order to move past the dark ages of the Belgian Congo. However, under the name of the Congo the Congolese had developed their own identity, grown as a country, and in Zaire they found themselves living in a home that felt very different to the one that they remembered. I am not saying that if the South does secede they will be governed like President Mobutu governed Zaire, but I think it is an interesting parallel to draw. To what extent does what we call our home change us?

Beyond that, I think that Southern Sudan should decide on a name that is best for their future. Moving forward however, should be done while remembering the past. So, when they do decide what they will call themselves, be it Southern Sudan or the Nile Republic (or anything else for that matter), they should choose a name that represents them as a people - united, strong, and hopeful.

What do you think?

Mountains Beyond Mountains

Dr. Paul Farmer

Recently I finished the book Mountains Beyond Mountains, written by Tracy Kidder. The book follows Dr. Paul Farmer, an infectious disease specialist who truly cares about every human beings welfare and has devoted his life to making healthcare available to those who do not have it. The book is touching and thought provoking and will leave you with a sense of uneasiness that comes with the knowledge that so many people suffer unnecessarily in the world and wonder at the ultimate kindness of the people that are trying to stop the tide of suffering. It would have been easy to portray Dr. Farmer as someone who is beyond human, but Kidder does an excellent job at keeping Farmer both real in your mind and showing the amazing things he has done. With that juxtaposition the acts seem both closer so that the reader can help as well, but they keep their mythic appeal because they are, in reality, fantastic. Dr. Farmer is not only a doctor, he and his organization Partners in Health have developed an organization that not only provides healthcare but fights for the rights of the poor locally and globally, and attempts to provide every opportunity they can for those they encounter. I am interested in medicine and public health so that aspect of the book was interesting to me but I think that the other themes are prevalent enough for anyone to enjoy the read.

An issue throughout the book that Dr. Farmer fights with is the issue of "cost-efficacy" of healthcare. When dealing with a small amount of funds and a large amount of sick people, what are you supposed to do? Throughout the book Farmer takes the stand that no one should be turned away because medicine that can cure them is too expensive. I wish that this could always be the case but this issue is very important currently because that is not always possible. It is abhorrent that medical care that can save someones life must be denied because that money could save others more cheaply. I think though that although it is not a happy subject it deserves at least some thought because closing our eyes and pretending it doesn't exist will not make the problem of inefficient funds for healthcare go away. PRI's the World did a thoughtful series on the subject a few weeks back, where they examined both sides of the argument, and I think it is worth listening to. I think it may be one argument that does not have a right answer. The thought you should come out of Mountains Beyond Mountains thinking (or at least the one I did) is that the fact that rationing healthcare does happen, and may be necessary in certain situations today, but that as human beings we should do what we can to make it so that it is not necessary. To work towards the same ends as Dr. Paul Farmer and make it so that no one dies from a curable cause because their cure was too expensive.