AVALON HEIGHTS INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL

GRADE 12- ENGLISH LANGUAGE : ARGUMENTATIVE EXEMPLAR

Topic: India has become an example of a country infatuated with violence.

Last Thursday, journalists in UP’s Aligarh district were surprised to receive a call from the police at
6.45 a.m. What surprised them even more, a policeman on the other side of the line invited them to
attend an event that was to take place in Machua village under Harduaganj police station. The
invitation was for a very special event — to witness a real-life encounter. Specifies the address of the
incident.

We all know by now what encounters mean. It is a supervised killing, carried out by the police with
official or tacit sanction of the State. Till now, it has always been done discreetly, with minimum public
attention, since most encounters involve killing “bad” people without a judicial trial or sanction. They
are killed because the State believes they are terrorists, Naxalites or criminals who society can well
afford to do without. A trial may take years or the judge may not agree with the person’s culpability. An
encounter does the dirty job instantly. This presents an example that shows how violence has become
the norm for both citizens and the government, and how ordinary people like journalists have started
viewing violence as a ‘performance’ to be enjoyed. Thesis statement and stance given

It seems that people in authority have assumed the power to kill or wound in order to “set right a
wrong”. Mustakim and Naushad, the two people killed in the Machua encounter, were allegedly
criminals. They were said to be armed with .32 and.315 bore country-made pistols and hiding in an
abandoned Irrigation Department building. Four live cartridges, the police alleged, were recovered
from the spot after the encounter ended. Asked why the media was so cordially invited to watch this
gory killing and film it if they wanted to, the Aligarh SSP said, “There’s nothing wrong. We wanted to
provide first-hand information to the media.” He further declared that the police had orders “from the
top” to share details of each and every encounter with the media, and the media was welcome to click
pictures or video-record the killings as the police had nothing to hide. It is assumed this means they
had the formal sanction to kill. From whom? I can only hazard a guess. But it was certainly not from a
court of law.

The SSP added that Mustakim and Naushad were wanted for murder. This could well be accepted.
This could well be true, absolutely true (even though past history shows that policemen do not always
speak the truth — and they make mistakes as well, like all of us) but I thought the law in India was
quite clear that every person accused of a crime — however heinous —is entitled to a fair trial before
they are punished, or executed, as in this case. If you recall, even Kasab was tried. Families of the two
men killed held a press meet the same evening, denying they were criminals and alleging that the
encounter was fake. One’s mother said, “My boy was picked up from home by the police. He was shot
in cold blood.” The propensity for violence has begotten the practice of punishment without a trial!!

According to official data, 66 men have been killed in UP police encounters since the new government
assumed power. Clearly this would not have been possible without official sanction. Does this mean
the State now is mocking the rule of law? Does it want to sidestep the judicial process and take its own
call as to who can be killed without trial?

Is the common man too falling prey to the fascination of violence? Is blood and gore on a film screen
not enough for him now? With the media now being invited to witness the Machua killings, it appears
that the State is trying to make the media a part of its gory sideshow. For they have discovered by now
the media’s newfound fascination for the gruesome and horrific. In recent months, lynching after
terrible lynching has taken place (on mere suspicion of guilt — kidnapping, stealing cattle, carrying
beef, picking pockets, intent to rob) in full public view and no one has tried to stop it. Not even the
policemen present. In one case, images appeared on TV of policemen taking away the body and later
claiming it was found somewhere else — so that the killers can say they were not there.

Politics is not exempt from this inclination towards violence. This year, the celebrations marking the
start of the 150th birth anniversary year of Mahatma Gandhi were predictably ritualistic. Each political
party invoked the father of Indian nationalism for its own cause, seeking to co-opt Gandhi for success
at the ballot box. Yet sadly, today the Mahatma’s cardinal, indeed fundamental, teaching, namely that
of non-violence, is regularly overthrown. There is an outward celebration of Gandhian non-violence,
but an unprecedented violence in political language. Words are weaponised. Speeches are violent.
Name calling, threats, attacking slogans and foully abusive rhetoric is the grammar of politicians. The
violence of today’s political vocabulary shows how 150 years after Gandhi, the Mahatma’s legacy is
being destroyed by those who claim his mantle. Mockery, sarcasm, sattire

The examples are many. Addressing party workers in Delhi, the President of a national political party
referred to illegal migrants as “termites” gnawing at the country from within. In an earlier speech the
same politician had accused migrants, saying, “They enter here, throw bombs and kill innocent
citizens. Should we not protect the human rights of our people?” Another political leader from
Telangana said that if Rohingyas do not leave, they should be “shot”. Gandhi, the seeker of truth
would have been shaken to the core.

Other examples of political violence are rife. Armed political cadres regularly enforce party diktats by
terrorising citizens. Today the violent language regularly exchanged between opposing party workers
spill over into pitched battles on the streets, with party worker often caught on tape assaulting political
rivals. The Mahatma’s last days were spent trudging the blood soaked path in Bengal’s Noakhali
bringing peace to areas torn apart by communal riots. What would Gandhi have made of a Union
minister’s threat to break a man’s leg and put him in crutches at an event for the disabled? example

Verbal violence is always a precursor to physical violence. When those in power engage in verbal
violence it becomes a cue to the administrative machinery down the line to turn a blind eye when
verbal violence manifests itself on the streets. When political leaders actively rationalise violence, the
official machinery is not only tempted to overlook the rule of law, it paves the way for violence against
anyone seen as a dissenter. Like a refutation

Visual after visual on TV, haunting images of such public lynchings has inured us to pain, grief,
outrage. We watch them, we forget them and move on with our lives. We do not intervene even when it
happens in front of us because we are too frightened. We are so frightened that we do not even
intervene when people are killed in public thoroughfares and women are openly kidnapped and
molested or assaulted and left to die. We do not intervene when young girls are thrashed for wearing
jeans, smoking or entering a pub. Or when people from a specific caste are tied up and beaten to
death, on charges of petty larceny. Instead, we walk away from the scene so as not to get involved.

The pages of our newspapers are littered with stories of senior citizens being murdered, little girls
being openly picked up, abused and killed, innocent people being axed to death (and filmed while they
scream out in pain) because of the religion they were born into, and others killed for honour because
they chose to marry or elope with someone their parents or their community disapproved of. There is
even an officially recognised squad in one of the states which exists for the sole purpose of preventing
inter-religion marriages. We have, as a nation, become so inured to images of violence and brutality
that we have come to accept them as part of our everyday news.