I stumbled upon this article using...you guessed it, Stumble Upon. Unfortunately I am spending way too much time online, but that is material for a different forum

India's pink posse hunts down bad guys | FP Passport

Check it out...I am generally a pacifist and frown upon "taking law into your own hands" since it has a tendency of being emotionally charged and getting out of control. However, for those who have been abandoned and even abused by the powers that be, I realize that sometimes it seems as if this is the only choice. The feminist side of me says "hell yea" to this group of women that tackle domestic abuse and political injustice on their own terms. If only I could find a pink sari, those parking meters in downtown Raleigh might have a few things coming...naw, just kidding

But what do YOU think?

I can't speak to women in specific, but I just spent some time in Uttarakhand (right next to Uttar Pradesh) and it's pretty disgusting the way lower castes/lower ends of society are treated.

If the lower ends of society can't get the protections the government promises them, I see no reason why they would not try and remedy it on their own. They don't have much choice.

Wow....a pickler indeed. At what point does a well-meaning group of individuals become a mob? At what point does a mob become a revolutionist group?

The article quotes.. "Nobody comes to our help in these parts. The officials and police are corrupt and anti-poor. So sometimes we have to take the law into our own hands. At other times, we prefer to shame the wrongdoers. But we're not a gang in the usual sense of the term. We're a gang for justice."

I suppose, that while I support a person standing up for themselves against a bully(even with the help of their friends), I am skeptical when it comes to the idea of strangers in groups speaking of 'justice'. This is a case of people becoming judge, jury and executioner (as in, they perform the punishment...no deaths have been attributed to them, that I'm aware of). Which, i can't bring myself to condone due to a lack of check-and-balance.

Iandefor, your signature says, "Mohandas Gandhi broke the law, too."---however, he never 'chased a woman's abusive, alcoholic husband into a sugarcane field and sorely thrashed him' either. :P

I too have two conflicting reactions on this subject - the heart say 'Hell Yeah, you have to defend yourself as best you can', but the head says, that is not the way to a system of civilization and justice. It's a tough call - if there is no system in place to handle their defense in other ways, or avenue for them to somehow seek legal justice, then I guess it is acceptable, but they should also do what they can to effect changes legally to combat the problem. It speaks to the concept of law in society, which should apply equally on local, regional, national and international levels.

In some cultures, it is believed to be ok to abuse women and mistreate the "lower caste." Cultural relevancy anyone?

Yeah kev - you got it, they should just log into their computers, surf the web and send some emails around until they find a good lawyer, and take the issue to court.

So, you do see that in some situations, people's lack of access to resources can force them to take the law into their own hands and use whatever tools they can get their hands on in order to find justice.

Hi Kevin..

Well I kind of see it this way opposing to waiting for the knight rider..not going to happen in that part of the world. I like to think that the posse wont go beyond their call of duty at present. I think these women would battle the legal grounds but I am sure their voices would not be heard, as this is more than likely the case already. This may be the reasoning behind the group banding together. There is power in numbers, and in this a delegated authority figure with-in the group may actually get a political stance. Someone has to wave the flag and stand up.

If one thinks about this particular situation long enough its possible this type of group formation can happen all over the world given a horrendous circumstantial situation, or possible anarchy..

I feel for these women..they are just trying to do what they feel is best to overcome certain oppression in which they exist. They are adorned beautifully for the job no doubt..

Sherri

Thank heavens I didn't put that there in response to allegations of chasing a woman's abusive, alcoholic husband into a sugarcane field and sorely thrashing him, then. I mostly put it there as food for thought, since Gandhi's lawbreaking is kind of glossed over as "civil disobedience" and not as explicitly breaking the law.

Yeah, pretty much, but I reserve the right to reverse if you start playing semantics with me. If you're going to try to use this as some contrived excuse for Muslim extremists strapping bomb belts on their children, you'll fall flat on your face.

Your earlier comment about "not being the way of civilization" was useful. Do you think their primitive culture and conditions even resembles civilization as we know it? I think these women's actions, while perhaps problematic in some ways, is a move towards a more civilized way of life, not away from it, provided there isn't some other side to the story I'm not aware of.

That was priceless. Well done.

Actually I said, the way to civilization, not of civilization, meaning it in a 'where does this lead?' way. My broad point, and no it was not an excuse for justifying "Muslim extremists strapping bomb belts on their children", is that there comes a point where extreme adversity pushes one over any moral line you can imagine (and that this can at least be understood, even if one disagrees with it - once again, understanding is the road to solutions, condemnation is the road to conflict and suffering). Sure, this does relate to situations in Iraq for example, but not all of those labeled by some as freedom-fighters and by others as terrorists take the extreme measures you always point to (e.g. "strapping bomb belts on their children"). Previously it seemed that you were refusing to acknowledge that one should ever step outside one's moral boundaries, no matter what, so your post here just seemed a little incongruous.

I don't think its "stepping outside moral boundries" for someone to do what is immediately necessary to protect life and limb.

Under the law, a person who is literally starving stealing an apple is the same crime as a rich person stealing a pack of chewing gum. Nonetheless, the one that took the apple will be looked on differently by society, if not the justice system.

What is this "previously" you are referring to? What is it you're trying to compare.

I don't recall the exact thread or have a link handy, but I believe I was using a hypothetical of an invasion of the USA to illustrate that what you might be willing to do under extreme circumstances - your response was you would choose to be a good boy and would wait and participate in the legal elections to effect change.

@ Iandefor--I did not mean to use your quote as an insult, I'm sorry if you saw it that way. When i saw it I chuckled at its truth and it linked into what i was writing, so it did make me think.

@ delilahjed44--It is true- with their technology level and cultural beliefs they have to fend for themselves. I do applaud that. However, I'm also concerned for them. The road they're traveling down is one of escalation. Combine that with the sense of self-authority they're talking about and it's going to become revolution or disaster. I hope revolution, but one never knows...

@ Rasczak-- /agreed

You either have a bad memory or you are a liar. That is a near perfect misrepresentation of what was said. The only part that you got right was that you did come up with a hypothetical about an invasion of my country.

Here is the entirety of the post you're referring to where I talked about elections and an invading country:

Yep, that's the one. I do have a bad memory, but I don't think it has betrayed me much if at all on this occasion. My point (that I said your statements in this thread felt incongruous with) was your statement you would choose to participate in the enforced society until a legal opportunity was given to you (by the invading force) to effect change. Which I took to mean you would not be willing to compromise your moral standpoint, step over 'the line', given harsh, enforced, circumstances. While the situation is not identical to the topic of this thread, it has major parallels - which is probably why I chose to say it "seemed a little incongruous" rather than something like "directly contradicts".

In this case, you're missing a key qualification from the quoted post. Rasczak said he'd participate in the enforced society... given the choice of blowing his kid up and participating:

Another couple key points of clarification are that:

A: If my country were under the opression of a home grown dictator, the invading force (who I said I'd join) would have the moral high ground.

B: The Indian women are not targetting innocents like the animals did just today in Iraq. First the woman blew herself up along with a lot of innocent Iraqis, then when people ran in to help the wounded, her partner blew them up. The Indian women are going directly after the perpetrators who pose a threat. Were I ever to resist an invasion force, no, I'd never do it by blowing up innocents.

OK, so it seems like I may have taken a statement of 'I wouldn't compromise moral standards beyond xyz' to mean 'I wouldn't compromise moral standards period'. I think that clears it up. I did, as I mentioned, only ever say it seemed slightly incongruous.

I don't see how I'm really compromising my moral standards at all.