Revenge & Order

Ritwik faults rioters for the wrong strategy . I disagree. The issue here is to consider how revenge is defined. For Ritwik revenge is exacted when the perpetrator of the original crime are hurt. This need not be the case with the rioting crowd. The understanding of revenge must be framed in terms of groups, not individuals. Since member(s) of my group was(were) hurt, reasons the rioters, hence the other group must be hurt, specific individual is not that important.

Of course, going beyond the scope of Ritwik's post there are problems with rioting. It is my conjecture, that revenge evolved as a result to establish order. People behave, if there is threat of vengeance [ ramble: hence Abrahamic creeds have a rather pissed off God, being nomad they possibly relied more on physical threat, and man creates God in his image ]. And revenge is unavoidably factored in any system of justice. Problem with mob violence, at least in India, the violence escalates beyond the scope of revenge (understood within framework of deterrence,as in case of law), and has much more to do with conflicting identities. This conflict is a result of both historical antagonism as well as propaganda. At least in case of India, there is no smoke without fire. This is somehow incomprehensible to secular establishment.