DEATH OF OSAMA: FUTILITY OF INDEPENDENT ENQUIRIES

Osama Bin Laden was killed last week. Majority of people felt that he deserved it. However a section of society felt that state killing of an unarmed, old man in cold blood was morally unjustified. Some people thought that the killing was illegal and demanded an independent enquiry led by UN.

Recently all over the world calls for independent enquiry have become a norm for even slightly controversial incidents.

Can an enquiry ever be independent and unbiased? How can one vouch for the independence and unbiasedness of the person or persons leading the enquiry? Usually a High or Supreme Court judge is appointed as the lead. It is perceived that being a senior judge, the person has the skill and will to disassociate him or herself from any vested interest and emotional bias.

But is it possible for any human being to make a truly independent and zero bias decision? One can learn to distance oneself from the obvious illegal or immoral influences but then the glaring question comes to mind; whose laws and whose moral codes. And even after agreeing on these codes, in really controversial cases one finds that the difference between right and wrong has to be taken on a subjective level.  

And here lies the inherent problem. The way our brain thinks depends upon how it has developed and modified with the experiences or the inputs in its life time. We can not not  look at the world without the glasses coloured with our life time experiences.  Whatever decision one takes it has that inherent bias.  You ask an independent advice from your friends and family.  You will get a number of different opinions based on their life experiences, and sometimes on their self interests too.

An enquiry cannot be truly independent if a human element is involved. But then who wants an inhuman decision?