Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site harvard.ARPA
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!harvard!paturi
From: paturi@harvard.ARPA (Ramamohan Paturi)
Newsgroups: net.nlang.india
Subject: Re: Response by a Sikh
Message-ID: <401@harvard.ARPA>
Date: Mon, 7-Oct-85 18:15:35 EDT
Article-I.D.: harvard.401
Posted: Mon Oct  7 18:15:35 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 9-Oct-85 06:40:17 EDT
References: <643@decwrl.UUCP> <141700046@uiucdcsb>
Organization: Aiken Computation Laboratory, Harvard
Lines: 60


	swami@uiucdcsb writes


> the attacks on Sikhs after Mrs.Gandhi's assassinations was understandable,
> (not justifiable of course) given mob mentalities, and that by then there
> was already a great deal of activism among the Sikhs. there is no doubt that


	It seems to me that Swami is not clear as to what he means by 
	"understandable". Some facts and clarity point to only one thing:
	"It is understandable" means it is pardonable or it is some happening
	such that the people who caused it are not totally responsible or it 
	is something which can be taken lightly. The parenthetical "not justi-
	fiable of course" seems to have been added to cloud the meaning of the
	word "understandable". Here is why I think so.

	Consider the two possible and relevant meanings of "understandable"
	in this context:

	1). An act is "understandable" means that the motives and the 
	circumstances concerning the act can be understood (in a purely
	straightforward sense like in 'I understand binomial theorem').
	But, this usage is TAUTOLOGICAL in this context. Even the actions
	of the most insane person can be understood given enough information,
	expertise and time. This leaves us with the alternative meaning which is

	2). An act is "understandable" means that one can understand (possibly 
	too well) the motives and the circumstances leading to the act. In 
	addition, it means some sympathy or leaning toward the people who 
	committed the act. In the least, it connotes a trace of positive stance 
	towards the person who did the act. (Usually, people make use of this 
	usage to pretend that one has the sympathy, but the inexorability of 
	self-interest prevents him to act otherwise as in 'I understand, 
	but I do not agree'.)

	
	Now the facts about New Delhi killings. Again, consider the following
	two cases.

	1). Some crazed mobs acted emotionally on the spur of the moment with 
	some or with out any provocation. Such mobs are highly dangerous to any
	society. They are no less criminal. Being soft on such mobs is self-
	destructive. But, most evidence points out that most of the killings
	in New Delhi are not by crazed mobs acting on the spur of the moment,
	but are conspired. This leads us to the next case.

	2). A bunch of crooked politicians and policemen ganged up to kill a
	lot of innocent Sikhs. These are organized killings. These people are
	the worst criminals.

	Enough of my clarification.


	Is it not that such an "understanding" attitude the cause of many of
	India's ills?


	-Ramamohan Paturi
	paturi@harvard