A twitter conversation with Gautam John
@acorn Civil Disobedience is a valid tool, no? Also, judiciary driven changes are a valid method as well. For which, you need opposition.
— Gautam John (@gkjohn) December 27, 2010
@gkjohn Like Ambedkar, I disagree that civil disobedience has legitimacy in an independent democratic republic.
— Nitin Pai (@acorn) December 27, 2010
@gkjohn Create awareness & political momentum that'll get you the majority you need to change the law. Isn't this route available?
— Nitin Pai (@acorn) December 27, 2010
@acorn We'll disagree on that or on the terminology. Democratic protest?
— Gautam John (@gkjohn) December 27, 2010
@gkjohn Plus, as a practical matter, do those who resort to 'civil disobedience' have the capability/intention to prevent violent protests?
— Nitin Pai (@acorn) December 27, 2010
@acorn Why conflate the two?
— Gautam John (@gkjohn) December 27, 2010
@acorn One way for the judiciary to take note is for someone to disobey. Sometimes, the only way.
— Gautam John (@gkjohn) December 27, 2010
@gkjohn Most often, it's the selfish, lazy way. Burning a bus is a lot easier than petitioning the Courts.
— Nitin Pai (@acorn) December 27, 2010
@acorn Burning a bus isn't an example of civil disobedience Nitin. And that is a crime in and of itself.
— Gautam John (@gkjohn) December 27, 2010
@acorn To turn the question the other way, what does one do when the State is indifferent? Or actively malicious?
— Gautam John (@gkjohn) December 27, 2010
@gkjohn Democratic protest & activism different from civil disobedience. The former can be done legally, the latter by definition illegal.
— Nitin Pai (@acorn) December 27, 2010
@gkjohn Raj Thackeray & Ram Sene, it can be argued, were engaged in civil disobedience.
— Nitin Pai (@acorn) December 27, 2010
@acorn Well, my contention is that civil disobedience is a necessary ingredient of democracy.
— Gautam John (@gkjohn) December 27, 2010
@acorn Sure. You can argue that. I'm not. Like I said, there are patent illegalities in the use of violence.
— Gautam John (@gkjohn) December 27, 2010
@gkjohn If govt indifferent, then create awareness. If it's malicious, then constitutional recourse. But you are arguing boundary conditions
— Nitin Pai (@acorn) December 27, 2010
@acorn Not really. I think it's safe to say that there are many areas of the country that are ignored, what?
— Gautam John (@gkjohn) December 27, 2010
@gkjohn Why is bus-burning or mob-lynching not civil disobedience? It might be violent, but involves wilfully disobeying the law
— Nitin Pai (@acorn) December 27, 2010
@acorn Sure. As is murder. I should have said peaceful civil disobedience. Curious, what is your take on the conscientious objector?
— Gautam John (@gkjohn) December 27, 2010
@acorn Though now I have to go back and read my Thoreau. Been far too long.
— Gautam John (@gkjohn) December 27, 2010
@gkjohn If civil disobedience is legitimate, then why limit it to "peaceful"? Why not use violence against indifferent/malicious state?
— Nitin Pai (@acorn) December 27, 2010
@acorn Because, in my personal view, violence begets violence.
— Gautam John (@gkjohn) December 27, 2010
@gkjohn On conscientious objectors: I am opposed to compulsory military service
— Nitin Pai (@acorn) December 27, 2010
@karthiks An excellent question. My answer, I don't even know what they want so it's hard for me to say. What do you think? @acorn
— Gautam John (@gkjohn) December 27, 2010
@gkjohn So what? If CD is the ultimate tool agnst an indifferent/malicious state, then (personal pref apart) violence shouldn't matter, no?
— Nitin Pai (@acorn) December 27, 2010
@gkjohn Gujjar blockade is civil disobedience, whatever might be their demand. It is illegal and illegitimate in our democratic republic.
— Nitin Pai (@acorn) December 27, 2010
@acorn K. In some way, reminds me of the superior order defense and Principle 4 that was a result of it.
— Gautam John (@gkjohn) December 27, 2010
@karthiks Well, the other thing the State must do is actually arrest them. Which it hasn't done. @acorn
— Gautam John (@gkjohn) December 27, 2010
@gkjohn Would you say the same in every case of civil disobedience? Or do ends justify the means? Should rule-of-law be subjective?
— Nitin Pai (@acorn) December 27, 2010
@acorn Don't quite follow. Should the State arrest all who disobey?
— Gautam John (@gkjohn) December 27, 2010
@sanjit_krish Lovely logic. @gkjohn
— Nitin Pai (@acorn) December 27, 2010
@acorn The way I'm looking at it is what is worse – anarchy or despotism?
— Gautam John (@gkjohn) December 27, 2010
@gkjohn The way I'm looking at it: how do we organise the politics of our diverse country so that bargaining is done in a civilised way.
— Nitin Pai (@acorn) December 27, 2010
@acorn I'm trying to include morality and some notion of universal human rights in my argument as well.
— Gautam John (@gkjohn) December 27, 2010
@gkjohn Sure. But then arresting them might cause the State to be labelled as indifferent/malicious/oppressive.
— Nitin Pai (@acorn) December 27, 2010
@acorn Or in dereliction of its duties. 🙂
— Gautam John (@gkjohn) December 27, 2010
@acorn I agree. At the end of the day, we wouldn't need all of this if the normal channels worked. To start with, we need to listen?
— Gautam John (@gkjohn) December 27, 2010
@gkjohn To me, the choice is btwn anarchy & constitutionalism. The latter, by definition, rules out despotism. The former leads to despotism
— Nitin Pai (@acorn) December 27, 2010
@acorn And, more importantly, we need the institutions of democracy that deliver and seem to deliver speedy justice. Also, less CYA.
— Gautam John (@gkjohn) December 27, 2010
@gkjohn Sure. Those notions can be incorporated into the Constitution, through the process laid out for such purposes. That's the only way.
— Nitin Pai (@acorn) December 27, 2010
@acorn Fair enough but not every cause can be pursued within the legal mechanism, no? And what if the Constitution is the problem?
— Gautam John (@gkjohn) December 27, 2010
RT @gkjohn: And, more importantly, we need the institutions of democracy that deliver and seem to deliver speedy justice. Also, less CYA.
— Nitin Pai (@acorn) December 27, 2010
@gkjohn: Re: what if the Constitution is the problem?
Well, there's migration.— Nitin Pai (@acorn) December 27, 2010
@acorn Heh. Come now, Nitin. Surely you jest? If I disagree, I am free to leave? Bit of a monoculture, what?
— Gautam John (@gkjohn) December 27, 2010
@gkjohn The exception mustn't be the enemy of the rule. For, the more const. oriented a society is, the easier it is to handle exceptions.
— Nitin Pai (@acorn) December 27, 2010
@acorn I see what you mean but I am finding it hard to favour order over individual morality. Shouldn't there be some common ground?
— Gautam John (@gkjohn) December 27, 2010
@karthiks The mobs are now seen as a legitimate political tool also, no? So not just indifference also indulgence. @acorn
— Gautam John (@gkjohn) December 27, 2010
@gkjohn Only partially. It's happened btw. Reservations, for instance, causing Brahmin families to migrate to other states/countries.
— Nitin Pai (@acorn) December 27, 2010
@acorn Indeed. But IMHO, a less than ideal situation. Where are the libertarians when you want their views on interesting things… 🙂
— Gautam John (@gkjohn) December 27, 2010
@gkjohn Agree that there's tension; inherent in the social contract. How much freedom do you cede to the state in order to enjoy the rest?
— Nitin Pai (@acorn) December 27, 2010
@gkjohn Yes. All non-ideal Kali-yuga stuff.
— Nitin Pai (@acorn) December 27, 2010
@acorn I'm prepping my escape pod for 2012. I'm telling you, the Mayan's had it all down pat.
— Gautam John (@gkjohn) December 27, 2010
