I would 've been a mere 10 years old when I watched the movie Gandhi the first time. Knowing that it 'll be tough to wade through the intensity alone, my family watched it with me. There was a scene when an anxious man, played by Om puri, straggles towards Gandhi in one of his meetings. The man warbles "I 've killed a small Muslim boy in the ongoing Hindu-Muslim riots". Gandhi feels the repugnance of the action and then issues out his verdict. He says "Go and adopt a Muslim boy who 's been bereaved of his guardians". The man, still confused if he can ever be exculpated, feels extenuated nonetheless. After all, Gandhi had stamped the decision. Baffled, I asked my parents what kind of justice was that. They said the country was in absolute tatters, and the only justice Gandhi could have provided was to make things somewhat better. That was pretty heavy but still pretty simple. If …show more content…
It 's been 13 years - more than half of the duration of my existence; for which I 've seen proceedings on Salman Khan 's hit and run case traipsing through the otherwise sanctimonious judiciary. I 'd seen a lot of movies to see how criminal proceedings can go on for ages. But law was always eulogized for it bringing ultimate justice to all parties. I had utmost faith in the most sound and the most intransigent pillar of democracy. I knew justice can be delayed but not denied, notwithstanding the otherwise worthy adage of "justice delayed is justice denied". Meanwhile, I also saw Salman Khan flourish, grow by leaps and bounds, and become a heartthrob of millions. And as Salman 's stardom grew by leaps and bounds, the once critical and questioning proletariat dismissed the case as mere bunkum. But I still waited with bated breath to see how the case went. After all, the judiciary had to set things right. Every one and everything had pointed towards that. So we just had to wait to see how Salman was to atone for his crime once the wheels of justice began turning
Abdulrahman Zeitoun and Mumia Abu Jamal were two names I did not know. These two men have both undergone hardships and were both wrongly accused of crimes not committed. The comparison of these cases is hard due to the fact that Zeitoun’s case was not any type of legal and did not follow any type of normal or legal judicial proceedings. Jamal’s case however did follow judicial proceedings “legally”. The first case to point out was the fact that both of these men are innocent in my eyes.
The American criminal justice system, although normally adept, still has its flaws. In Sarah Koenig’s podcast Serial, she examines a case from 1999 in which a teenage boy, Adnan Syed, was charged with murdering his ex-girlfriend, Hae Min Lee. The podcast, which brought attention to the flaws within the case presented, caused many listeners to question the validity of the verdict. There has been speculation across a wide variety of sources, and many feel as though Adnan Syed deserves an appeal. However, because there was enough evidence to convict Syed during the original case, there are those who believe the verdict should stand.
They marched saying “we burn british cloth” British soldiers got a small group of indians and beat then until they saw the large group of marchers coming, they start running after them and threw their torches into the british buildings British soldiers came out and the Indians got violent towards them and they died. Because this contradicts the campaign Gandhi says the campaign needs to end “An eye for an eye only ends up making the world blind”gandhi says this to the people who tell him not to end the campaign (Jinnah and
Amir is faced with a difficult task and he’s not willing to occupy. He use excuses, such as his life in San Francisco to make Rahim Khan understand that he can’t redeem himself. My reaction throughout the book is feeling entirely operated or manipulated. Reasons for my saying is the author's attempts at metaphor, symbolism, and foreshadowing are inelegant.
Gandhi was given too much credit for the success of the Indian Independence Movement. Discuss if this statement true? This statement is true to a lesser extent. It has been noted throughout the years that Gandhi has been, the so called, savior of India.
Gandhi once said, “An eye-for-an-eye makes the whole world blind.” What he meant is that fighting violence with violence helped no one. During his lifetime, Gandhi fought against oppressive British rule in India, and his journey was known throughout the world. Martin Luther King Jr. and Nelson Mandela both shared Gandhi’s thirst for freedom, basing their respective movements for peace on Gandhi’s. All three men fought peacefully for equality, whether it was for India’s freedom from the British empire, emancipation from apartheid laws that prohibited black Africans from being truly free, or liberation from Jim Crow laws to keep black Americans inferior to whites.
Gandhi constantly being put in jail for his peaceful protests causes people to recognize what he is trying to do for India and realize that he is unfairly being put in jail. Gandhi being thrown in jail also attracts more followers who want to follow in Gandhi’s footsteps. Even with Gandhi in jail, his followers still nonviolently protested against British rule. “Gandhi’s body is in jail but his soul is with you,” (Webb Miller, Doc B). Gandhi was not afraid or against going to jail.
"Si, se puede!" was Cesar Chavez's famous motto. Cesar Chavez was a farmer rights activist to improve farm workers rights. Mahatma Gandhi was also a rights activist when the British invaded India, in which he created a new philosophy to fight against the British without using anger. Both had so many things in common, but also contrasted in many ways.
Rather than killing them (like the British) he would persuade them. Since the British would harshly punish those who disobeyed their orders, they would lose the trust of the people. On the other hand, Gandhi would convince people around him of his beliefs, then they would have a chance to tell others of what he had said. Also, according to the picture Salting the Lion’s Tail, Gandhi would persuade his enemies (British) that he meant no harm and that they could trust him, but when he salted the tail he made it easier to catch them (Doc D). Basically, Gandhi would get close to the people so that they knew that he trusted them, whereas Britain would kill their
Imagine how a court would be run if it was dysfunctional. With many pieces of evidence to solve one problem that can lead to months after months, just to say those words, “guilty or not guilty.” There was one case that caught everybody's attention and became very famous. In 1994, O.J Simpson was accused for brutally murdering his ex-wife Nicole Simpson and her friend Ronald Goldman. He was sentence to court, and it took about 10 months to come to a conclusion as he walked out of court as a freedman.
Gandhi’s attempt to peacefully fight for independence still left a considerable amount of violence during protests. Gandhi advocated for oppressed or mistreated groups, such as untouchables, women, and those
Due to the race inequality along with the economic regulations among the Indian people, Gandhi’s ambition from the beginning of simply just wanting equality between the Indian and British transition to wanting India to become Independence. He wanted to give the Indian citizen a voice in the government and a chance to define their own nation. The Indian people lose their political power in terms of how the British authorities were exercising their power over them, implementing policies according to their own rules and administrating over the Indian’s resources. Gandhi throughout the film had the desire to help gain back India’s political power and it revolves around his method of passive resistance and self-sacrifice. He belief in “an eye for an eye only makes people blind” is what helped him achieve freedom for India without any violence involve.
At the sea, Gandhi picked up a handful of salt. This act went against the British law mandating that they buy salt from their government and this law did not allow them to collect their own salt. That act was made to let the British government know that the Indian people were tired of being under Britain’s rule and they were tired of following all of the unjust laws that were
He promised he would rededicate himself to the study of the Koran. The mullah’s son was freed. Naghma was sentenced to five years” (p. 388). This proved that the justice system is leaning against the men. Although the same crime is committed by a man or a woman, the man can make up an excuse and get away with it but never the woman.
Madame Sarojini Naidu, a well-known Indian poet, said that, “Gandhi’s body is in jail but his soul is with you. India’s prestige is in your hands. You must not use any violence under any circumstances. You will be beaten but you must not resist; you must not even raise a hand to ward off blows” (Document B). Naidu held a protesters march in Dharasana to fight against the British for putting Gandhi in jail but nonviolence even if the British soldiers lash them any hard.