Thursday, September 22, 2011

Yielding to colleagues

[The Gravity of Things - Larval Subjects on 20/09/2011 4:06 AM
In his sublime Sublime Object of Ideology, Zizek raises the profound question of just why, after a potent ideology critique, people nonetheless continue to do what they do. How is it that they can know that x is an ideological mystification while still continuing to behave towards things as they did before? In psychoanalytic terms, why doesn’t the symptom always disappear after it’s been interpreted? Zizek’s answer is two-fold: On the one hand, he contends, ideology resides not in our beliefs but in our practices. I might not believe anything of the theology of my church, I might believe that it’s all nonesense, yet the fact that I still kneel with everyone else or that might voice becomes hushed when I’m in a grave yard indicates that I’m still in the grips of this ideology. Ideology resides not in our representations or what we believe, but rather, according to Zizek, in our doing or action. You might be the most tolerant, multiculturalist at the level of belief, but if you still clutch your purse tight when the young black man enters the elevator you’re still deep in the grips of ideology. On the other hand, Zizek contends, cynicism is the dominant ideology today. In cynicism we maintain a cynical distance from every belief, seeing all of them as shams of one sort or another, while nonetheless behaving exactly as we did before.]

After a spate of scams and a strong popular uprising against corruption, we feel the pressing and urgent need for ethics and values. However, the main moral problem for many of us is not knowing what is right but actually doing it. Dharma, but not able to actually do it. We are like Duryodhana in Mahabharata, who says, "I know what is dharma, I have no inclination for it. I know what is adharma, but cannot resist it." What are the main and deeper causes of this Duryodhana syndrome and what are the remedies? This article examines this question in the light of a deeper spiritual perspective.]

[35 yrs later, a former Chief Justice of India pleads guilty
Posted: Fri Sep 16 2011, 01:47 hrs
New Delhi: Over 35 years after he signed off — with the majority on a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court — to rule that even the right to life could be abrogated, former Chief Justice of India P N Bhagwati today said he was sorry for that ruling. ...
“I don’t know why I yielded to my colleagues,” said Bhagwati. “Initially, I was not in favour of the majority view. But ultimately, I don’t know why, I was persuaded to agree with them. I was a novice at that time, a young judge...I was handling this type of litigation for the first time. But it was an act of weakness on my part.”]

Some day, the profound significance of Justice O. Chinnappa Reddy's (Dissenting) judgement in the Auroville Case (S.P. Mittal Etc. Etc vs Union Of India And Others on 8 November, 1982 ) will be recognised and the fact that he never yielded to his colleagues will be appreciated. It is instructive to go through his thoughtful arguments and draw conclusions even with regard to the Heehs imbroglio. [TNM55]

No comments:

Post a Comment