Hello Augusto: I said, Indian law might have been non-existent or not in force. Apparently, it was existent, but not in force.
According to me courage lies in fighting - much less in fasting. Thank you for your comments, nevertheless. Bennet --- On Tue, 15/12/09, augusto pinto <pinto...@gmail.com> wrote: > From: augusto pinto <pinto...@gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [Goanet] Fast unto death > To: "goanet" <goanet@lists.goanet.org> > Date: Tuesday, 15 December, 2009, 5:28 PM > > Bennet Paes wrote: > > Augusto: > > In my opinion, fasting unto death is the beginning of an > act of suicide in > slow motion. And in my opinion, suicide, or attempted > suicide, or for that > matter "fast-unto-death", is cowardly,immoral and illegal. > It is also so > under the present Indian law. > > But it so happens that, at the time Gandhi went into those > 'fasts unto > death" India was still under the British rule, and Indian > laws were either > non-existent or could not have been in force.. > ........................................................................................................................................................ > > > Dear Bennet > > When Gandhi went on his fasts unto death, the law of the > land was more or > less the same as exists today. The Indian Penal Code of > 1860 which is still > in force is an exceptionally well written law. [Check > Section 309. Attempt > to commit suicide.] So whatever the action that could be > taken today could > have been taken then by the British. And yet the British > government were not > ready to act in an overly high handed manner against his > fasts. Why? > > Well, the reason could be that what is legal is not always > what is moral; > and therefore using the law to act against someone who is > behaving in an > illegal but morally exemplary manner may cause moral > outrage among the > common people, the consequences of which could be highly > inexpedient to deal > with politically. > > As far as your contention that a "fast-unto-death" is > cowardly I think you > are talking off the top of your head. The vast majority of > people (like ... > ahem ... me ) would find it a bellyache to remain hungry > for even a day, > even if it is good for their own health, forget about > remaining hungry till > one dies. > > Incidentally I believe it takes a great deal of courage to > commit any kind > of suicide. And when someone chooses to starve to death for > a social cause, > not just for personal reasons, then it is an expression of > supreme courage. > > It is a kind of courage that far surpasses the courage > needed to end one's > life because one does not want to live for whatsoever > private reason > howsoever pressing, although even this takes some > doing, whether by > flinging oneself in front of a train; or jumping into a > well when one does > not know to swim; or hanging from a rope; or consuming > poison or whatever > other manner. > > In all such cases one knows one's life is ended painlessly > in a few seconds. > Incidentally I think that those who do suicide bombings for > some cause may > be despicable, but they are certainly not devoid of > courage, although the > process might be equally 'easy'. > > Serious fasts unto death where not only has one to bear > physical agony but > also one has to resist the pressure of many who will be > appealing to you to > give it all up, cannot possibly be as 'easy'. > > Having said that, I would agree that the "fast-unto-death" > method of social > protest has been given a bad name by politicians who are > not genuinely > fasting-unto-death. They do it as a publicity stunt, and if > they haven't > been cheating in the first place, they abandon the fast at > the first > available opportunity. > > Rather than curb fast-unto-death actions by legal means - > which will always > result in moral victories for the hunger strikers - I feel > that the > Government should be ready to call the bluff of political > jokers in cases > where the "fast-unto-death" is done for what can be seen to > be unjust or > unsound reasons, by allowing the hunger strikers to die. > They should > publicly state the reasons why succumbing to the threat of > the hunger > striker is unacceptable in the most reasonable manner and > then face the > consequences if the hunger striker is adamant about dying. > > BTW the most celebrated case of a "fast-unto-death" in Goa > was the one where > Prashanti Talpankar now Mrs Sandesh Prabhudesai and (I > think) a gentleman > named Padiyar had gone on a hunger strike in 1989. This was > in protest > against Dayanand Narvekar who was alleged to have molested > one Sunita > Haldankar in the premises of the Goa Assembly when he was > the Speaker. My > hurried googles were not so informative about this cause > celebre. I wonder > if someone can recall the incident better. > > Cheers > Augusto > The INTERNET now has a personality. YOURS! See your Yahoo! Homepage. http://in.yahoo.com/