India's Pink Vigilante Women

India's Pink Vigilante Women

news.bbc.co.uk

They wear pink saris and go after corrupt officials and boorish men with sticks and axes.

The several hundred vigilante women of India's northern Uttar Pradesh state's Banda area proudly call themselves the "gulabi gang" (pink gang), striking fear in the hearts of wrongdoers and earning the grudging respect of officials.

The pink women of Banda shun political parties and NGOs because, in the words of their feisty leader, Sampat Pal Devi, "they are always looking for kickbacks

(visit the link for the full news article)

I think and political action committee is a good thing. Unfortunately some action groups do more against what is good for the people then for them. This group sounds like a very good group. They expose corruption and help the poor from what it sounds like. I can't support the violence, but it sounds like the corruption is wide spread.

news.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

I have to argue that violence has its place. Why? Because the oppressors have adapted to peaceful movement. It used to be that peaceful resistance could confound the oppressor, make him question what he was doing, and win over the support of the populace when said oppressor went ahead and brutalized, until all parties involved could swallow no more and change happened.

Peaceful movements are now ignored by the oppressors, while skillful propaganda makes those protestors who end up brutalized seem to "deserve it" before the lens of the masses. Mohandas and Martin's tactics are largely ineffective these days.

In other words, sometimes things really do get so bad that one must return fire.

I think this is a BAD thing for a democratic country. What they are doing is nothing more than mob justice. It may be a desperation on their part. But in the end they have no right to stop something they think is wrong. Just because they are women and in a group, it will not save them long. After sometime, they will get seriously injured or killed and it will be a shame. Also by carrying out vigilante justice they are in conflict with the law and that would lead to many legal troubles for them. Democratically, they should be reporting crimes to the police and media rather than taking action themselves.

I think it was Gandi who said "The ends do not justify the means".

Originally posted by The Walking Fox
Peaceful movements are now ignored by the oppressors, while skillful propaganda makes those protestors who end up brutalized seem to "deserve it" before the lens of the masses. Mohandas and Martin's tactics are largely ineffective these days.

That is absolutely not true. I would actually say that violent methods have failed gloriously in all parts of the world to bring about change. Violent methods have only caused more damage and harm to the oppressed than before. The classic examples are Palestine and Kashmir. No amount of violence has been able to make them acheive their goals. It has only brought them defeat. But non-violent methods have brought more change and toppled more powerful adversaries than any violent revolution. Gandhi defeated the British Empire and King defeated White supremacists in America.
Even if you take Ann Sung Ki, she has accomplished a lot and brought a lot of the people to the banner of freedom. And despite the brutality of the government and the people they are still continuing. There is massive international support for her and her cause because she is fighting the right way, the dignified way and when they do acheive their goals on their own their victory will be greater than the sweetest victory we will know. Fighting fire with fire is foolish, it will only burn everybody.

Originally posted by IAF101
That is absolutely not true. I would actually say that violent methods have failed gloriously in all parts of the world to bring about change. Violent methods have only caused more damage and harm to the oppressed than before. The classic examples are Palestine and Kashmir. No amount of violence has been able to make them acheive their goals. It has only brought them defeat. But non-violent methods have brought more change and toppled more powerful adversaries than any violent revolution. Gandhi defeated the British Empire and King defeated White supremacists in America.
Even if you take Ann Sung Ki, she has accomplished a lot and brought a lot of the people to the banner of freedom. And despite the brutality of the government and the people they are still continuing. There is massive international support for her and her cause because she is fighting the right way, the dignified way and when they do acheive their goals on their own their victory will be greater than the sweetest victory we will know. Fighting fire with fire is foolish, it will only burn everybody.

And yet, fire is very successfully fought with fire. Use a small fire to burn a swath of forest, and you can contain a larger fire behind the area you burned. A counter-burn can suck away fuel and oxygen from a more dangerous blaze, making it easier to contain and put out.

I will concede that the actual use of violence can be counter-productive. However, what is a revolution? A revolution is people standing up to demand their rights, their freedoms, or just change. Present with every workable revolution is an ultimatum; "Give us what we want, or we will take it." And at times, your bluff is called... and you have to actually try to take it, or concede that you've lost your revolution.

reply to post by The Walking Fox


Some could call even a peaceful protest against the ruling body to be violence inducing. I would not. Because when you are pushing for a change that is what is going to need to happen. I doubt any revolution can be with out any form of violence. I just do hope these women can bring an end to the corruption they are protesting against.