Tok-article: You Said It

B.D. Somani International School

Name: Shreyas P Pardiwalla
Grade: 11
Tutor Group No. : 5
Subject: Theory Of Knowledge (TOK)

You Said It- by R K Laxman (The Times of India, dated April 9, 2009- Pg 1)

The media source is The Times of India, dated April 9, 2009. The knowledge claim of the media source is: The legitimate means to show disagreement. Is it ethical to hurl a shoe at a politician or any other human being in order to express ones disagreement? The cartoonist R K Laxman has used satire and in order to ridicule and mock people in the world of politics.
Recently, Jarnail Sing a journalist hurled a shoe at the home minister P Chidambaram to demonstrate his protest against the CBI giving a clean chit to Jagdish Tytler, a Congress candidate, in a 1984 anti-Sikh riot case. The shoe missed the home minister and he gained composure and urged security men to be gentle with the furious Sikh. The cartoonist with lampoon shows a speaker hurling the shoe back in rage. It is not a new mania to fling shoes or any type of footwear in political gatherings. In fact, in India it goes back to the times when Bal Gangadhar Tilak an aggressive nationalist flung his slipper at Pheroz Shah Metha a moderate to lodge his protest at moderate action against the British rule. Recently the flinging of footwear seems to be a maniacal trend not only in India, but also around the world. A shoe was hurled at former US President George Bush by Muntazer al-Zaidi last December in Baghdad, the Chinese PM Wen Jiabao had a shoe hurled at him buy a German student at Cambridge in February, in March, the Iranian President was also targeted and on March 21st , a sandal was hurled at the SC judge Arijit Pasayat in court.
However, in my view, there is a difference between the actions then and the current actions. Tilak flung his slipper in order to demonstrate that actions speak louder than words and just by making speeches and petitions, India would not get her independence. According to Tilak force was required to liberate India from the British rule. On the other hand, in this recent affair, Jarnail Singh got sentimental and thus, flung his shoe at the home minister. His emotions overpowered his reason and therefore, he was lead to commit such an act. Whereas in the case of Tilak, in my view, even though the action was crude it was to make a point and an expression used to communicate that only aggressive measures would lead to independence. Similarly, for more or less the same reason Sardar Bhagat Singh bombed the assembly. His actions were not to inflict harm on people but to make noise loud enough so that even the deaf British and their supporters in the assembly could hear the cry for independence. However, is it legitimate to hurl shoe’s at an individual in order to state one’s point of disapproval?
In my opinion, if the reason is viable and apt such as that of Tilak’s, then yes, I agree that hurling shoes maybe legitimate, but if this act is done out of uncontrolled emotions, then I disagree with this action. Nevertheless, is it still ethical? No, (without any exceptions). A distinction between the action of a Tilak and the actions of a Jarnail Singh’s or some of the other similar actions, I have described about is of course a point of view and open to debate. In all these acts, the shoe flingers clearly demonstrate their bias towards their cause -legitimate or otherwise must be assessed by each individual independently.

*Note: Some information is taken from the Times of India dated April 8, 2009.