RajeshA wrote:I want to ask the jirga, what is really wrong with beheadings. We Hindus have a long tradition of beheadings. Our mythology is full with beheadings. When one imagines the image of Kali Ma, one doesn't see her writing dossiers. Do we see any of our deities with dossiers in hand. When we imagine Vishnu's Sudarshana Chakra, we don't think of it as useful for trimming beards only. What is Sudarshana Chakra used for?
I think we should stop this show of being shocked at the beheading because it was a beheading. We are shocked because it happened to one of our jawans and it was unprovoked.
All the shocking at a beheading is Macaulayite brainwashing to make us "civilized". Our civilization has always been for Dharma, and that means "putting an end to evil", and there is nothing in Pakistan which is less than evil. So if others tell us considering beheadings as okay is wrong and against modern sensibilities, we should simply tell them, we deal with our enemies in our way!
The response to this beheading is really a thousand beheadings of Pakis. And then we should make a mala of those heads and do a Bollywood jiggy, just to be in sync with the times! The rest of the bodies should always be sacrificed to Agni Dev! Let that be SOP!
+108. Wanting to say this, but could not put it across properly, so refrained. You have articulated it very well. Kudos, saar ji.
It is indeed a modern-western-liberal expression to be 'shocked' or 'disgusted' at beheading. And same is the case with labeling it as 'barbaric'. Well, killing itself is barbaric. Beheading is also barbaric. Does not mean, it should be eschewed, especially when the other party is indulging in it.
Beheading was always considered an extreme form of death in Hindu scriptures. This death was given to those who are not civilized enough to understand the general civilized way of things. For example, beheading was not done to Duryodhana or Ravana.
But, it was done to others. Ravana and Duryodhana, despite their general shortcomings, fought fair and square in a war. While, some Asuras like Chanda, Munda or Shumba and Nishumba, ...etc. did not fight fair and square. With such opponents, its 'tit for tat'. Infact, ten tits for one tat. These kind of opponents were beheaded. No dignity was accorded to them, because they did not earn it.
Even in MB, Dushshasana was given a brutal death because of his attempted 'rape'. And in Ramayana, Indrajith(Ravana's son) was beheaded.
If the other side is fair and square, then it is proper(not necessary, though) to be fair and square. But, even when the other side is immoral and indulges in all manner of deceptive and disgusting tricks, then it is wrong to be restrained with such people.
Modern sensibilities are fine, but they should not make one into an impotent. And the irony of the modern sensibilities are that they are only preached when it is convenient, no one really follows them when it comes to their vested interests. Even Indian politicians don't really follow these liberal or modern values in their personal life or political life.
These values are just used to cover up the impotency or imbecility. Otherwise, these same politicians talk of 'blood replacing ink', when it comes to protecting their beloved political positions.
This kind of hypocrisy is bad for the state. A ruler's primary duty is to protect the people from internal and external threats. If need be, a ruler must be ready to give up his life(leave alone sensitivities) to protect the people. But, here is a strange situation, where a politician is willing to do any kind of act to get elected and stay in power, but the same politician talks of 'morals' when it comes to protecting people.
Some people argue that 'barbarism' is not an answer to 'barbarism'. Gandhi felt the same. He said that eye for an eye, make the whole world blind. So, what is 'barbarism'? Are nukes not 'barbaric'? Beheading one person is more barbaric than launching nukes on an entire city?
Even killing one person(infact, killing any creature is barbaric). So, what do you do, when an enemy attacks you? Keep quiet? Show gandhigiri?
No, when an enemy shoots, one's soldiers also shoot. If they don't, then the enemy will run them over and take over the country. Similarly, if the other party is interested in beheadings, so be it.
If killing is ok, whats the big deal with beheadings? Its a western concept that somehow killing is ok, but beheading is not. And there is a background to it. In west(particularly France), as far as I know, public beheading was a popular death punishment. And the event was organized like an exhibition, where common citizen would come and 'enjoy' a 'criminal' being beheaded. It became a kind of sadistic voyeurism.
So, at some point, beheading was replaced with hanging. This happened after the French revolution, I think. So, they look at it from a different perspective.
In India, there is no such history. Indians never celebrated or enjoyed beheadings or hangings.
The problem with Indian state is that it is designed to be harsh towards its people and supplicate towards outsiders. This has to be reversed.
Lastly, some 'macualyte' Hindus have come to a stage where they ask,"Oh, why do Hindu Gods/Goddesses hold weapons? Are they not peaceful?"
The answer is that weapons are made to enforce peace. If right people do not hold weapons and keep order, then wrong people will usurp power and harass people. Its the responsibility of God/Goddess to protect the righteous and punish the wicked. Similarly, it is the responsibility of the state to take up the weapon and protect the citizens and punish the enemies.
Hindu Gods/Goddesses weapons as a promise fearless-ness to their devotees and as a warning to wrong-doers. Even those Gods/Goddesses who hold dossiers, are not averse to using weapons if the dossiers don't do the job. Dossiers are for those who are 'civil' and weapons are for the rest.
Only weapons, or only dossiers will not get the job done. By taking away the option of using force, this Govt. is emboldening the enemies.
