K Narayanasamy talks tough about violence. He sounds like a Real Man, from one of those Wild West towns where Clint Eastwood would drawl 'Make my day', where rough and ready justice would be administered at the drop of a hat. 'String him up, boys!' and the poor galoot would be danglin' in the air.

Narayanasamy speaks:

  • from his perspective of living in a cruel and violent world

  • of the need to keep the violent nature of humans in check

  • of every advanced nation that outwardly champions human rights having enough forms of violent methods to keep its society civil.

  • of a fashion to decry violence as a form of education (!)

He speaks approvingly of 'approved' forms of violence as when young children and teenagers are compelled to watch whipping demos.

He seems to despise 'Western' education and the use of psychology and counselling. He regards with contempt theorists and moralists but exempts himself from the need to justify his own peculiar 'theories', which I shall call Nara I and Nara II, as follows:

Nara I - 'Children are under the protection of the teachers while whipping demos proceed. As they are not in a position of helplessness, the chances of them suffering 'trauma' is remote.'

Nara II - 'Whipping demonstrations will leave a strong impression on students that negative actions, no matter how profitable or viable they may seem, will land one in a situation where society's combined retribution takes effect. Therefore the crimes for which whipping was demonstrated will greatly diminish.'(my italics).

What is the basis for your two theories, dear Narayanasamy? Presumably, zilch. I shall be pleased to be corrected if you can provide chapter and verse on the efficacy of such methods as in Nara II.

Secondly, were the children fully briefed, as per Narayanasamy's injunction on 'full education' as to which crimes were associated with the punishment of whipping?

We can then do a longitudinal study on those thousands of children over the next 50 years and check whether the specific crime rates, for such favoured children, were significantly less than for the other children who, mercifully, did not receive such a full education.

I daresay there won't be any difference; perhaps violent crime rates might even be higher.

Thirdly, your arguments on Nara I are sheer bluff. What is the relevance of 'helplessness' here? What 'protection' do the teachers provide against the traumatising effects of watching brutal beatings by persons in authority?

The children will feel fear and dread, a feeling of helplessness that they are unable to leave the spectacle, since attendance is compulsory. For some, maybe those with latent sadistic impulses, the sight may induce feelings of fascination, desire to see more, perhaps even arouse the motivation to inflict such suffering themselves.

Remember the case of Jim Bulger, a three-year-old boy in Britain in 1993? Two small boys aged eight and 10, led him to a deserted railway siding and battered him to death with stones.

Surveillance cameras identified the assailants. At the trial, I believe defence counsel referred to viewing by the two boys of a particularly violent video, as the origin of the act.

Fourthly, what is your take on cinema rating guides such as '18SG, 18PL' which restrict viewing of, inter alia, excessive violence in films? Could they have an 'educational' function?

Perhaps we should ask ourselves why we, personally, see violence as a means of bringing about order. Is there some character flaw in ourselves? Are we responsible for perpetuating a culture of 'acceptable' violence, beating dummies to 'teach' children, beating children to 'teach' them basic rules of conduct?

What is your answer, K Narayanasamy, to Gandhi's philosophy of ahimsa or non-violence? Was he a failure then, in not promoting 'educational' violence?

You criticised the tunnel vision of the overspecialised 'West'. Perhaps, my letter will inspire you to ask them to bring back crucifixion as an appropriate punishment and for demonstrations to be held to educate students about the 'realities' of this cruel and violent world we live.