When you have been systematically oppressed, is it morally defensible to violently attack your attacker in order to deliver justice?
Personally, I am a firm believer in solving problems verbally instead of physically. However, I feel that there are such cases where physical action is the only option or alternative. This was the case in Usha's story in Chapter 3 of Half the Sky, "Learning to Speak Up." The women Dalits of Kasturba Nagar were being constantly abused and oppressed in their society. They were beaten, mutilated, threatened, and raped on a daily basis by Akku Yadev and his gang, constantly living in fear and danger everyday. Because their justice system did little to meet the needs of the poor, there was no guarantee that Akku Yadev would be stopped from continually hurting the women, and so, the women took matters into their own hands, killing Akku.
I believe that when a person is not left with any means of protection and is oppressed by their justice system or other people, it is justifiable to retaliate violently by means of self-defense. I've seen countless films where women have been physically and sexually abused by men or even their husbands, and are denied protection from their peers or the justice system. As a result, the women will often resort to killing their abusers so that they will not be subjected to abuse any longer. Although I believe all murder is wrong, I believe that this kind of retaliation is understandable and sometimes necessary when there is absolutely no other way to protect or defend one's self from further abuse.
With that said, I do not think that Mary's killing of Tehsildar in The Hunt was exactly justifiable. I feel this way because I think that Mary's problem with Tehsildar could have been more easily solved simply because of the type of woman Mary was - one who is headstrong and puts up a fairly good fight. I personally feel that Mary could have prevented Tehsildar from raping her by using her threats and strong will like she had used with others before. I do not see Mary's accosting someone after an unsuccessful attempt at rape as easily justifiable as the women Dalits' killing of Akku Yadev.
I've noticed that it is a common theme that the killing of Akku was justified but the killing of Tehsildar was not. I am curious that if that opinion would change if Tehsildar had raped Mary twice or multiple times instead of just simply threatening to rape her multiple times. Should threats so violent as rape be considered equally horrendous as the act of raping in the offended would become a repeat offender? I don't know how I feel about that line and whether it should be crossed or not. Any opinions?
ReplyDeleteTo answer your question Skylar, my opinion of Mary's killing Tehsildar would certainly change had she been raped by him multiple times or even once. But the fact that he was unsuccessful in his rape attempt makes it look like Mary accosted him without full justifiable reasons. For me, threats to rape are different from the actual act of rape.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIf a person threatens to rape a women, in this case Mary, and we know he has the full intention of doing so and will if he is not stop, is it still wrong to get rid of him? In this situation I felt like Mary did jump the gun by outright killing Tehsildar; however, I believe that she was right in taking action against him. My question is, what would the right thing have been for her to do, instead of killing him, to protect herself and other potential victims?
ReplyDelete