The Real Debate! - Page 12

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

Souro - your proposition would justify assassination in the eyes of someone who views it as the end of power and corruption and not necessarily acquit someone. It would need proof beyond reasonable doubt that the person assassinated was guilty of crimes. It does not make sense to make a loophole to a murder law for such a narrow scenario (narrow in the sense that it is virtually impossible to prove).

Did I say that there needs to be a change in the law to allow assassination of those who are powerful and corrupt? I'm saying that irrespective of what the law is, an assassin would be morally right in committing an assassination, if the one assassinated was guilty of crimes deserving of capital sentence. Of course, there needs to be proof that the assassinated person did commit those crimes.

The only reason I'm saying this is because sometimes it's easier to bring corrupt and powerful people to justice is by eliminating them first and then proving the charges against them.

In the case of almost every trial there are people completely convinced of the opposite to what the decision is.

That being said what you propose is that Gandhi was guilty of capital offenses. I'd disagree with that. I think his intentions was good and he did wish to serve honestly, but his vision was too myopic and idealistic. Hypothetically, if you were to try Gandhi today, what charges would you bring across him and what sort of proofs do you believe you could present?

Where did I propose that? I said that those who are supporting Godse's actions, if they are able to prove that Gandhi was guilty of crimes deserving of capital punishment, only then will I believe that Godse did the right thing. But I haven't seen those proofs and so I don't support Godse at present.

Other than a few crackpot theories and conjecturing to the hilt, there's nothing the Gandhi detractors have produced so far.

Case dismissed!

Originally posted by: souro

The only reason I'm saying this is because sometimes it's easier to bring corrupt and powerful people to justice is by eliminating them first and then proving the charges against them.

Now this is a very interesting topic for another debate...I am wondering how many people will use the same logic as you...

In my opinion endorsing this logic would set a very dangerous precedent where anyone if convinced of the crimes committed by a powerful person will set out to kill them...we will have the jungle rule...and what would stop a common man to use the same logic against another common man...

Originally posted by: persistence

Ok, haven't read thru the entire thread, but got to say the following is debatable:

[quote]Its history and nothing is going to change the fact.[/quote]

people write history; different versions can and do exist. No such thing as a "fact"...just a reality/perception. Not that this is an ontological debate. :)

By fact I had meant the fact that Gandhi was assassinated. The reasons, right or wrong can be debated adinfinitum but that doesnt change the fact that Gandhi was assassinated. History does get re-written- no doubt about that! Nice to see many members joining in , but got to leave  now.  Will get back later in the evening .

Originally posted by: blue-ice

Now this is a very interesting topic for another debate...I am wondering how many people will use the same logic as you...

In my opinion endorsing this logic would set a very dangerous precedent where anyone if convinced of the crimes committed by a powerful person will set out to kill them...we will have the jungle rule...and what would stop a common man to use the same logic against another common man...

The charges of heinous crimes still has to be proved. Only thing is I'm willing to give a chance to the assassin to prove that.

Currently we view killing of a person leniently if the killer did it in self defence. Even in this case the person is killed first and then charges against him are proved. Do we have 'jungle rule' because of that?
A powerful person is responsible for the lives of thousands. If a corrupt powerful person has crushed thousands of lives that were at his mercy but went scot free because he owns the govt. & judiciary, will it be wrong to kill him before he destroyed the lives of another thousand? With his influence removed and proving his crimes becoming relatively easier, to go on and prove that he did kill the first thousand.
Edited by souro - 12 years ago

Originally posted by: souro

Ok I get it now.

I think I previously misunderstood the entire context of your argument.

Originally posted by: night13

What' s done is done, and nothing can be done to undo what is already done.  The point of this debate was to get a different pov on Gandhi vs Godse.  

The answer is already in your question! 😛

Had to stop and ask this, Are you suggesting that Gandhi put forward the proposition for the partition and if it hadnt been for him we would have had a "united" India?

Originally posted by: angie.4u

Had to stop and ask this, Are you suggesting that Gandhi put forward the proposition for the partition and if it hadnt been for him we would have had a "united" India?

If yes, would that have been be good or bad in the long run? Oh well anyway its done  so I do not know why I m bothering.  Just wanting to know about the different perceptions that an event generates, I guess!

I don't think Gandhi caused the partition in anyway, and I think he deeply regretted it. He and many others would have loved to see a United India. From the way I understand history, Nehru and Jinnah were the key players who caused partition. They both wanted to be leaders, and both refused to compromise. Had these two found a way to compromise and find some sort of joint leadership, things maybe different.

What I fault Gandhi at is his overzealous attempts to appease factions on both sides. There is only so much Satyagraha can do. Instead of forcing resolution Gandhi kept compromising and appeasing. I think those turbulent times were when we needed someone to say this is one nation, we are all one, if anyone separation - thats too bad.

Could we have avoided partition?
I don't know. Maybe it would have been a fools errand and Gandhi did the best thing.

Would no partition have been successful?
I don't know. Maybe we would have been a much more turbulent nation.

We can't change history and perhaps to many the past is not worth speculating, but I always do find myself wrapped up in the what ifs. When I study US history I often wonder, what if they had just let the Confederacy secede and the USA was two different nations today. Although the issues in the US Civil war are as different from Indo-Pak as chalk and cheese. 

I dont like to blame Gandhi, for his bad dicision, and his personal life's issues and the new stories...Everybody know the fact that, he could lead the whole nation into freedom which no one else could even think of doing ...Name any other man in contemporary Indian history who could stir the massess Atleast he got you yor freedom back which you keep on loosing again and again...I believe he was a man of virtue and values and tht is why he is still respectd both by his friends and enemy all over the world. 😊

Originally posted by: K.Resurrected.

Other than a few crackpot theories and conjecturing to the hilt, there's nothing the Gandhi detractors have produced so far.

Case dismissed!

Not so soon, K ! Do give them a chance !  Inspite of some members as well as the Mods assurance regarding freedom of expression on DM , I feel there are some who are still hesitating to put forth their views. It would be better to voice it out here , have a healthy discussion  and  try and think objectively if those were based on logic , misrepresentations or emotions.