when nations and communities apologize for crimes committed in their name/behalf

[happyhindu]

Share:

Facebook Twitter WhatsApp Email Share Link

Ji,

since this is an indian social issue, and so i have referred indian hindu undivided family inheritance law, which was framed mainly based on the hindu philosophy 'pious obligation'.

unlike u.s law of inheritance of ancestral properties, as per indian law, by default the assets goes to the children, so are the debts. for eg, the said father must have inherited estate from his great great grandfathers, but borrowed money and died without paying. the 10th generation ancestral property will come to the son automatically, and also his debts.

you know,our custom/culture/philosophy/hindu inheritance laws emphasize,that every one to take the responsibility of the good or bad done by the ancestors.if its an inheritance of assets, get cherished, and if its debt repay it (or) apologize to seek waiver. that's the foundation of the hindu philosophy of 'pious obligation'.

if one takes proud in ancestors,glorifies him in all the rituals, then by any logic,and with the same yard stick, one should accept the mistake of the same. or else, one should have been adopting the policy, he is 'dead and gone'.

i'm not here to debate which community to apologize whom! all i know is, tendering an apology is always good and beneficial to both the persons. this is what i have explained in one of the previous post

however in one of your response, you expressed your apprehension that, tendering an apology may develop hatred or adverse effects. would be nice, if you could quote some incidences from history, that, tendering an apology had turned out to be a wrong move.

I always thot indians are cultural representative of old socio-religious structural divisions. No caste can claim to be an ethnically exclusive group atleast in terms of biological descent. But if one claims exclusive biological descent or failsafe descent he should be able to prove it.

Also, if one claims descent from Manu, s/he is automatically responsible for the negative side too, not just the glorious side. IMO this apology business will apply to those who think they have had failsafe biological descent from creators of Dharmashastras like Manu.

IMO this apology business will not apply to those who consider themselves as just cultural representatives. "Cultural representatives" are those who do not claim biological descent from Manu and include those whose recent ancestors adopted dharmashastras in the process of sankritisation and/or brahmanisation.

Also, way back there have been europeans trading with india (examples are roman coins found in archeological sites of tamilakam). There are no guarantees where those settlers went. Considering they were traders and well-placed, for all we know, they may have chosen a high-class position for themselves or merged with the natives along with their pre-christian religious concepts (like worship of Mitra).

IMO it will be very difficult, atleast as of now, to prove biological descent (let alone failsafe descent) from IE speakers all the way from vedic period or from the dharmashastra period, for any caste group, irrespective of B or NB.

Nice post Shiv. Although i do not agree with the apology business.

 

[Raghy]

Dear Sri.Shiv, Greetings.

Personally I feel all the communities that participated in oppressing and discriminating other communities should extend an apology to the affected communities. But I am not sure about this though -

unlike u.s law of inheritance of ancestral properties, as per indian law, by default the assets goes to the children, so are the debts. for eg, the said father must have inherited estate from his great great grandfathers, but borrowed money and died without paying. the 10th generation ancestral property will come to the son automatically, and also his debts.

If the money was borrowed against the said property, then the lender could attach the said property in the event of the father's death. But otherwise, I don't know if the son/daughter can be held responsible for the father's loan in the event of his death. If you can show us the Indian Penal code to support this, it would be nice, please. I have actually seen the loan amount getting written off in the event of the borrower's death; that's why I am curious.

you know,our custom/culture/philosophy/hindu inheritance laws emphasize,that every one to take the responsibility of the good or bad done by the ancestors.if its an inheritance of assets, get cherished, and if its debt repay it (or) apologize to seek waiver. that's the foundation of the hindu philosophy of 'pious obligation'.

I don't know about this. Holding a whole community reponsible for the actions of a portion of the ancestors of the community is stretching it thin. I personally find it hard to buy this kind of logic, please.

( Although the message was addressed to Sri.KRS, I took the liberty to extend my views. Hope you don't mind. If you do mind, kindly let me know, I shall delete this post).

Cheers!

 

[ozone]

just curious!

why the law of our modern land, makes the son liable for his fathers debt?

after all, what talked here is all about an intangible thing, may be a simple lip service..

Does this analogy really fit in here?
Is there a law or have there been instances where a lender has not collected the debt from the son but later holds the great grand son responsible for it?
Additionally, can this one to one - father to son debt repayment concept be extended to a community being discussed here. Has there been any instance where the entire family has been asked to repay a debt?

 

[sarang]

Key points: ancestral property, avyavaharika debt (not tainted, illegal, immoral)

Introduction

Under the Hindu Law, a son is under a pious obligation to discharge his father's debts out of his ancestral property even if he had not been benefited by the debts, provided the debts are not avyavaharika. The sons get exonerated from their obligation to discharge the debt of their father from the family assets only if the debt was one tainted with immorality or illegality.

The duty that is cast upon the son being religious and moral, the liability of the son for the debt must be examined with reference to its character when the debt was first incurred. If at the origin there was nothing illegal or repugnant to good morals, the subsequent dishonesty of the father is in not discharging his obligation will not absolve the son from liability for the debt.

family law-son's pious obligation - Priyanka Tiwari & Ritu Sharma