Contemporary societies necessarily create a balance of justice and law—justice is proper treatment and law is the attempt for concrete rules of justice. Justice is intrinsically situational, personal to the individual and their unique situation. Notwithstanding, law must be universal—rules applied equally to everyone. Parvaiz fatally collides with this dichotomy, his motivation to leave Britain was manipulated and his approach of the British embassy was in sorrow. His actions are externally perceived as malicious, but Aneeka knew—deep down—that Parviaz was a good person. And that his situation should be treated specialized to him, and who he was—in the name of justice. However, in Karamat's black-and-white world of law, "men and women are punished with exile, bodies are kept from their families—their heads impaled on spikes, their corpses thrown into unmarked graves. All these things happen according to the law, but not according to justice. I am here to ask for justice. I appeal to the prime minister: Let me take my brother home” (Shamsie 237). Parvaiz lives in the gray, he made mistakes but was willing to accept his due retribution—but law never gave him a chance. Karamat did not care about why Parvaiz left Britain, just that he did: “Heads impaled on spikes. Bodies thrown into unmarked graves. There are people who follow these practices. Her brother left Britain to join them” (Shamsie 238). Karamat argues that Parvaiz volitionally left, knowing the legal consequences and knowing who was joining, so Parvaiz should face due repercussions. What Karamat misses is that he fails to understand the person, Parvaiz didn't know who he was joining—Farooq had played into Parvaiz's weaknesses to manipulate him. Karamat and the law look only at the outside, while justice must look internally at the person.
What stood out to me at the beginning of Antigone was the parallel fight between Ismene vs. Antigone and Isma vs. Aneeka. Ismene—like Isma—took the logical stance of conservative protection, opting to sacrifice a proper burial of her already dead brother for the safety of the two living sisters. Both Ismene and Isma sacrifice a level of their integrity for the larger picture, knowing they would like to fulfill their religious obligation to bury their brother as they are supposed to. But at the same time, knowing that adherence to their beliefs would be detrimental to their lives. They both choose to look towards the future and what their—and Antigone/Aneeka's—lives could hold if they do the socially expected outcome of not properly burying their brother. They choose to avoid conflict in the name of safety. Whereas both Antigone and Aneeks cannot continue their lives if they sacrifice their integrity to abide by social pressures. Both of their lives are so dependent on faith and fa...
Hey Noah! I really enjoyed your thoughts about how justice is perceived differently through Aneeka and Karamat. I also agree that Karamat's impersonal, over-generalized view of Parvaiz's situation is not the best way to judge the case. It would be interesting to look into the way the justice vs. law debate comes into play during other scenes in the novel such as the airport interrogation, or Karamat's decision to revoke "enemies of Britain" of their citizenship.
ReplyDeleteHi Noah, I really liked your perspective on the Justice v. Law in Home Fire and how everyone views justice differently, but the law is what is it, the law. Aneeka and Karamat are a great example of the conflicts of justice v. law in the book! Karamat upholds the law and views everything as black-and-white, whereas Aneeka considers the facets of the situation. Although Karamat sometimes sees the facets of life, his politician side almost always shines through and blinds him from the different perspectives.
ReplyDeleteI have never really thought about the relationship between Justice and Law in this type of way before. I would have to agree with your perspective. Aneeka and Karamat where looking at Parvaiz's through different view sets of Justise and Law. I appreciate your perspective on Justice and Law.
ReplyDeleteHi Noah! This is awesome insight, I especially loved how you pulled direct evidence from the text to help show this. I think, as you were saying, reading from both Parvaiz's and Karamat's perspective gave me an idea of how difficult it is to provide justice when the law must be applied in such a "black-and-white" context. You really wanted there to be justice for the Pasha family, but it was easy to understand where Karamat felt he had to come from, if you look from a by the books perspective. I hadn't thought about this theme much while reading, so I really enjoyed reading your perspective!
ReplyDeleteHi Noah! I think your post really shows the importance of operational definitions. Although justice means different things to Aneeka and Karamat, they both rigidly adhere to it. This makes me wonder about Karamat's need to be rigid because of his position as home secretary, and how that relates to his whole personality. Parvaiz, who is much more artistic and in touch with his surroundings, is definitely more open to being open-minded about his own definitions of justice.
ReplyDeleteThe ideal, what we all hope for, is that justice and the law are fully aligned. But this story, like the story of Antigone, draws its force from the recognition that they are not aligned. And when they aren't, how should we respond?
ReplyDelete