Last week i had posted my reaction at Dick Cheney being offended by the use of the word Gulag. I observed that it would have been so much more humane if he had been offended by torture perse.
Bernardo, Yazad and I have been having an interesting exchange of ideas on Semantics. Essentially the use of the word Gulag. The contention is that as the Soviet run Gulags were far worse than Guatanamo Bay, to compare the place to a Gulag was probably denigrating those who suffered in the Gulags. Other arguments were that the US, although it has had multiple foreign policy blunders is responsible for Democracy in some states.
My response to it ended up being so long, that i have decided to put it up as a separate post. To see the full set of views you can go here.
Let’s for a moment assume that it is one of us getting tortured. Does it really matter whether it is a “benevolent†state that is carrying out the action, a theological state or a police/military state. It really doesn’t matter whether you are being tortured in the name of God, Demorcracy or Communism. The fact is that you are being tortured.
Now, the question is - is it all right to torture terrorists, anti-national forces, and other bodies that generally cause social mayhem and a leave citizens with a general sense of insecurity? I really don’t know the answer to that - because it is so very difficult to draw the line on “whom is it ok to torture?â€. I will give you an example:
Let’s now take forward the argument that Madarassas are breeding houses for terrorists. Where young men come to learn hate - and graduate to commit acts of terror. Now as far as torture is concerned where will you draw the line? At the terrorist who has been caught in the act of terror. At a person who has graduated from the ’school of terror’ whom you suspect may be a terrorist, the teacher who trained the students, the students’ families who probably knew what they were upto, - but kept quiet - where? Where do you draw the line.
I understand the general fear and anger towards terrorists. they have caused a lot of death and destruction in my country too. I am wary about giving the state absolute power. Very often in times of national crisis or war or internal strife - states end up assuming absoulte power in certain areas. Therefore, when states take on such powers and run roughshod over human rights - we all need to sit up and take notice, and bring the state back to its “normal” level. The state - if it could have sealed all leaks - would have made sure that this news never got out. You have to be grateful for the moral courage of ordinary American citizens who work within the system, and who have been repulsed by what their Government has become, for coming out with the truth.
The primary objection seems to be the use of the word Gulag. I see it as an effective communication tool:
Amnesty Internation, CRY , Coca Cola - Ford, any organisation - worth its salt - will put out their message in a manner that cuts through the clutter and catches popular imagination. For Amnesty Gulag did the trick. Do you really think that the world would sit up and notice, if they put out a bland “human rights violations of prisoners in Guatanamo†press release. After last years little outing at Abu Ghraib - do you reckon anyone would even notice “human rights violationâ€. The Gulag statement did its job. That along with the koran descecration - recanted by Newsweek, and then confirmed by the FBI - has put human rights back in the front line. This kind of sound byte communication is the RealPolitik of organisations today. Remember Bush senior and “read my lips, no new taxes†or Clinton “the Economy stupid”, or Cokes’ “paanch matlab coca cola” these are all lines and words meant to stick in popular perception. And, in that sense, Amnesty’s Gulag tag will also stick. Unless the US government does something quite unexpected, and comes completely clean on the issues. Until such time it blusters and bullies - the Newsweek fiasco amongst others- and evades the issue it is going to be lumped with states that systemise torture. I am not quite sure which organisation is feeling more stupid today - Newsweek for recanting so soon, or the US government for going blue in the face protesting that no such thing had happened, and then having one of its own departments saying yes, it did.
Next, on the use of the word Gulag. The contention being we shouldn’t use the word Gulag because violations by state A is not as bad as violations by state B, is a dangerous one. Again a set of examples:
In India, a couple of years ago, we had a Hindu pogrom against Muslims in the state of Gujarat. 2000+ people died. Pregnant women were gang raped and their bellies cut out. Children were burnt alive. Many of us called it a holocaust. Now, extending the logic - on American Human rights violations - not being as bad as the Soviet one - what happened in Gujarat was not a holoucast. What happened in Yugoslavia was not a Holocaust. Are we saying that if 6 million people don’t die, an event cannot be termed a Holocaust.
In an Indian riot 2000+ people die without any questions asked. A decade ago there were race riots in the US. 2000 people didn’t die. Less than a hundred died! was it a bad riot or a not so bad riot? It’s like saying, he owns slaves but he is a good master. Or he is a somewhat ok rapist because he doesn’t maim or kill the victim. Is a Tsunami that kills tens of thousands of people a worse disaster than an earthquake that kills only thousands of people. This sort of a view says that the individual does not matter, only numbers do. It’s a view that is very difficult for me to defend. It doesn’t matter if the offending state is mine or yours.
Now on the Democracy aspect. I believe that the American people have managed to question their government at every stage, and made the government accountible to the people. I have a great deal of respect for the way the people of the US have managed their freedom. I admire the fact that an uneducated woman can take the government to court, and win. I admire the fact that the poorest citizen in their country can hope to aspire for a better tomorrow. I aplaud the fact that when human rights violations happen in the US, the people of the country protest. As far as the state is concerened, it is like any state - secretive, power hungry, and interested in maintaining the status quo. Respect of the American people preserving the Democratic nature of their society does not have anything to do with the conduct of their government outside their shores.
Finally guys, in an ideal world you won’t need the police, the army, the tax collector, the state, or bureaucracy let alone amnesty international. But, we don’t live in an ideal world
Sphere: Related Content Tags: Middle East, US, World
