And so the king looked upon all those he had defeated. All of them evil men who had roamed his lands killing and raping his people. The same ones who had brought ruin to his cities and had destroyed the temples and mosques of his nation. Among them was the barbarian who had skinned the young princess alive and sent her corpse to the king as an act of defiance.
His people raged all around the chained prisoners and his soldiers fought against an angry crowd intent upon lynching those captured.
The king silenced the crowd with a motion of his hand. He didn’t want the hands of his people sullied with the blood of murderers. His people were not killers. They were builders and poets and traders. He will not let them turn into the object of their hate.
The king dispensed justice swiftly. To those who had killed his people, he gave death. Those who had desecrated his people’s holy places, he sentenced to slavery, so they may help build back that which they had destroyed.
And to the one who had taken his only child from him, the brave king gave forgiveness.
Unfair, inconsistent and selfish king. The least he could have done to his son’s killers is kill them. As if his son’s killing was not a killing comparable to killing of his citizens. Why didn’t he forgive other killers too?
Trying to gain fictitous moral high ground through assumed personal sacrifice and forgiveness without regard to the another individual’s rights who happens to be your dead relative is high selfishness. Down with the king.
If not their sons, I would have given the king’s son’s killers same treatment they gave the king’s son.
Why so? There can not be discrimental apathy. I disagree, not out of anger but logical reasoning.
@Squid
I guess that the quantum of justice sought should be decided by those who are wronged. If the quantum of justice sought is fair, that is.
In that case, since the public, whose relatives have been killed are in a mood for lynching the murderers, it is obvious that the justice they seek is death. So murderers get death.
In case of the princess, it is therefore up to the King to decide what justice he wants for the wrong done to him. He decided to pardon. You might have decided differently. “@me” certainly has expressed what he would have done.
This is not unusual, and is frequently how old system of justice worked. Remember Nagesh Kukunoor’s “Dor”? It was up to the wife (Ayesha) to pardon the crime of Gul’s husband. If she could forgive, then the matter could be closed.
Modern system of justice doesn’t work like that. You make a mistake and hurt somebody .. then you have to pay for it. No matter whether the person you hurt wants to forgive you for it.
Ooh – tingly.
This is an awesome awesome story. Its conflicting. Because the king fails to follow his own rules and precedents. But its heart warming too. Because forgiveness is on a higher moral ground than revenge or even justice.
Loved it.
Please write more stories! That is your strength.