Geetam Tiwari, IIT Professor, wrote an erudite piece for The Hindu quite a few days ago on the recent amendment of The Motor Vehicle Act. That essay has made me aware that the structural problems are far more important than a top-dressing attitude. The modern science of law revolves around a few penal justifications, and deterrence, as a penal justification, is one of few ones, which is taken as a show-piece, to justify much higher punishment. As if, writing down on the paper becomes a socio-historical reality. The positivistic science of law doesn't allow us to diagnose the real problems. It remains expositorial in its contours, to refer a Benthamite term, or fictious like a "persona ficta". Hegel was realistically true when he remarked, "Once you start knowing someone you stop understanding him". Understanding is an "organic attitude", which requires openness in perspective, and courage to look beyond 'dogmatic castle'.
There may be so many factors, which compel a person to be a violator of law. But to draw a conclusion with the help of a few infected, incoherent, and insufficient data, is a problematic attitude towards the problem. Every solution, in fact, starts to leap on, once a problem is unearthed. For scientific attitude and scientism are two different world-views. Scientific attitude, on one hand, is liberating in its orientation and its effects, however, scientism itself is a dogma, in a sense that, it doesn't allow any other normativity to grow up. After all, science in itself is a cultural artefact. It cannot be an end itself. It is an instrument for certain other ends. Science is not merely a technology, it is an attitude.
If I go with the simple example of class-room experience, what factors contribute in low level of attendance in class rooms generally? Whether it shows inability of the teachers or disinterested zeal of the students? Whether technicality and complexity of the subject, or dysfunctional communication and cultural factors, which are instrumental in this general phenomenon? There cannot be one simple answer. In fact, there are many ones. And, of course, only the mandate of the attendance in the name of deterrence may compel some or all, to come inside the class room, but virtually, no real presence could be ensured through mandatory attendance.
The top-dressing approach of the positivistic science must be re-visited, in order to sensitize about the structural diagnosis, and to ensure structural changes, which may be viable for all. Only fear or reward factor, again Benthamite approach towards the punishment, can bring only a little obedience in law. There ought to be some categorical factor, some inner motivation, to drive near the goal. The parables of Angulimaal as a robber, and Maharshi Valmiki, those remarkable stories of makeovers, from a robber to a saint in Indian mythology, reflect upon the real aspects of Categorical moral reasoning, which was the hallmark of Kantian moral paradigm. Change is real, to my mind, when it comes from within. And a change out of compulsion, seems to be an end product of "official love" (Gayatri Spivak).
Comments
Post a Comment