Thursday, October 4, 2012
CD: Dharampal on two concepts of law
One thing to notice in Dharampal's account of the events at Banares in the early 19th century is that there are, as it were, two legal operating systems in play. One is the apparently traditional relationship between a region or town and its local rulers, where protest of great hardship or (perceived or real) injustice (including sit-downs, hunger strikes, commercial shut-downs, etc.) were understood as legitimate modes of expression, and sometimes led to negotiated changes in policy. The other is an essentially Roman notion of law as absolutely obligatory, in which any capitulation to such tactics is unacceptable because it would erode respect for law -- the subtext being that without it there would be chaos. The contrast is compounded by distant authority (Calcutta, London), whereby the local magistrate has very limited authority to negotiate or compromise without a lengthy delay while he checks with his superiors. It's like watching a conceptual train-wreck.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I definitely see the contradiction in these two forms of law, trying to coexist. In another class, we are studying King Leopold II's actions in the Belgian Congo. After reading this post, and hearing you discuss it in class, I immediately thought of humanitarians protesting the rule over the Congo. The sad aspect of this was, they could not grasp the larger picture of what was causing the problem.
For example, a British shipping clerk, E.D. Morel, noticed inconsistencies in the importing of raw materials from the Congo, and eventually went to visit the land, and hence, was exposed to the incredulous atrocities being committed down there. As I mentioned earlier, the sad part of all of this was his conclusions from his visit. Morel remains a crucial aspect of raising awareness about the Congo, yet he saw no theoretical problems with Colonialism itself. He spoke of the corruption of Leopold, and the Belgian rule, yet remained an advocate of Colonialism executed in the proper way, like that of his native Great Britain. Dharampal and many others of more recent times make the connections that even humanitarians like Morel could not.
All of us have a very difficult time questioning the fundamental assumptions that undergird the way of life in which we grow up -- or even recognizing that there are assumptions to question. It's always easier to blame a few bad apples.
That's so true. Sometimes it does take so a long time to see what's right in front of you. Gandhi also accepted British colonialism in India and was for a long time very loyal to the crown, while opposing the treatment of Indians in S. Africa. Edmund Morel seems to have later opposed some of Britain's policies, especially WWI.
Post a Comment