Here Charitable Individualism is the key!… nothing less.

This issue was initiated by a group of Advocates from Madurai, who are supposed to have gheraoed the court of the Chief Justice of the Madras High court. The demand being that Thamizh be made one of the court languages of the High Court.
The Hon’ble Chief Justice is reported to have been annoyed by the behaviour of the advocates. The Tamilnadu Bar Council turns a blind eye, but the Bar Council of India swings into action and suspends the licence of ten of those gheraoing advocates.

The twist to all this comes from the former Justice of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India Mr. Markandey Katju, who is supposed to have written to the Chief Minister of Tamilnadu thus:


The ex Justice goes on to justify the proposal on the grounds that since Hindi is permitted in the High Courts of Allahabad, Patna, Madhya Pradesh, and Rajasthan, Thamizh OUGHT TO BE ALLOWED IN TAMILNADU.

What is interesting is that the support for the lawyers in TAMILNADU has come from a strange quarters!

To the best understanding of this blogger, the decisions of any High Court would be binding only within the jurisdiction of that High Court, but there is something called as the PERSUASIVE VALUE, of the judgements pronounced by other High Courts.

If the language of Tamil is used, which is more complex than English, there is every possibility that the translation into English may not be precise, as it is the judgements are being interpreted to suit each of the litigants’ convenience, leading to delays and Babel like situation. More so when old citations are going to be presented in Thamizh to the High Courts!

I wonder why these votaries of any language should push for such agenda when the proposal is more likely to lead to confusion than clarity.  Further, how would the  CJ of Madras High Court be able to conduct the proceedings when he is necessarily to be from another State, which doesn’t support Thamizh? May be there could be an argument that when Thamizh CJs are posted to Allahabad or Patna or MP or Rajasthan, why not have the same disability be imposed on CJs of TN? Good argument!

In the Justice’ letter, what I fail to understand is that QUIT AS CHIEF MINISTER! As if the people of TAMILNADU voted her to the office based on this as a part of her election manifesto.

As regards EQUALITY, there seems to be a point, but when the Official Languages Act had dignified Hindi, how can Thamizh be raised to that level without making a STRUCTURAL CHANGE to the said Act?

If in the name of the aam aadmi Hindi has been a concession, no doubt similar concessions could be asked on the grounds of Equality!

But that the issue has been raised by a person who is in no way connected to Thamizh, except as a person having occupied the highest court of India, shows the dawn of true NATIONALISM SURPASSING ALL BARRIERS!

Welcome Liberal India!


Whether Liberty or the Laws came first, is not a chicken or egg question. 

Whichever came first is not necessarily the thing to be left alone. Nor are all those which came later improvements of the first, in which case, Eve should have been an improvement of Adam. But as those who repose faith in the Biblical theology need to believe, Eve was intended to be a helper to man. That she had other ideas, including opening up of channels of communication with the Serpent on an ostensible intention for upgrading Adam’s status, is another story!

All laws are either discovered by man, made by man or informed that God told the man to give it to other men. There are NO LAWS besides these. By that very nature, man being fallible, ALL LAWS are prone to fallibility, including mishearing or even misunderstanding of God’s words.

But LIBERTY remains in the domain of the humane. The only test IN THE EXERCISE OF ONE’S LIBERTY is whether it is humane. If it is humane it has to be human and necessity based with kindness stamped on it.

LIBERTY operates in an unregulated area of human activity. For example, if  one goes to a virgin forest in his SUV or to a desert, He need not be shackled by the laws of the roads, because those are unregulated areas and ‘humanity’ would be the only consideration. A truck may park very close to the SUV but he may not have any right to oust the Liberty to park the SUV and have it removed from the place where he had parked it first. So LIBERTY operates on the principle of PRECEDENCE. When one had chosen to park his suv in a particular place first, the other has no RIGHT TO OUST THE FIRST PERSON’S LIBERTY TO PARK ON THAT SPOT. That’s Liberty.

To put that in first person, I owe no duty to obey his whims or his demands to remove my suv, except at my own will. The other could use FORCE OR SHOW A LAW TO OUST MY LIBERTY. If I have to submit to that law, which I was not aware of till then, I better obey. If the law shown is doubtful I go for dispute resolution. If by force, then I may make a whole lotta choices.

I could go to the authorities and make a claim and get my grievance redressed or I could use more force and subjugate his force and if my act spills into the society, I may have to face the consequences of my offence. If the other treats it as sport and allows me to reclaim my spot through my application of greater force and no crime is committed, then there are no issues to pursue .


That Liberty is given to mankind by the creator, not by man, therefore it is DIVINE.


Sumptuary Laws are laws relating to the dress and food habits of man, even in his private space . Consequently, they being laws, are MAN MADE and prone to fallibility. More than all the above, they are SOCIAL SANCTIONS ON THE LIBERTY OF MAN. If the society takes upon itself the task of making laws as to what its citizens should eat or shouldn’t, the society had started treading the toes of Liberty.

The response and the only response is to RESIST. Be vocal about your RESISTANCE. It is a CONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRACY AND NOT A FEUDALISTIC HIERARCHIFICATION!

When do Liberties dwindle? First the proponents ensure that you give up something as a CONCESSION, later they stabilise those concessions into RIGHTS AND THEREBY IMPOSE A CORRESPONDING DUTY ON THE CONCEDERS!

Liberty is gone and somebody’s RIGHTS HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED & duty is imposed on you.

In the book of DANIEL, in the Bible, during the regimes of Nebuchadnezzar and Darius, a law was made prohibiting any person from making prayers to anyone but the king.

That was not merely an affront to the Liberty of man to pray to any God of his choice, but a Liberty regulated into a Law.

The targeted persons were Shadrach, Meshech, Abednego and Daniel.

The targets were chosen by the detractors of the targeted persons. They made a law making an activity in the domain of personal Liberty into an offence! The conspirers merely REGULATED AN AREA WHICH OUGHT TO HAVE REMAINED UNREGULATED, as that space was Subject to the discovered principles of  DIVINE LIBERTY.

Eating meat or not is my personal Liberty. That I don’t offend the society by slaughtering animals in public can be regulated, as that could offend the health and sensibilities of the spectators. But NOT PROVIDING MEAT THROUGH CLOSURE OF ABATTOIRS, OR GENTLY REQUESTING ME TO CONCEDE EATING MEAT FOR ANY REASON WHATSOEVER, IS SURELY TREADING ON MY LIBERTY.

I have the divine LIBERTY to eat what he wants and man should not only protect his own, but others’ LIBERTY too. Asking for concessions based on sentiment is the sneakiest form of whittling my LIBERTY.

Concessions are APPEASEMENTS, which over a period of time become RIGHTS IN FAVOUR OF THE OTHER.

Let us not treat LIBERTY so lightly, as a man’s true innovative skills and character are visible only when he is called upon to show the strength of his sense of LIBERTY.

When Jesus was asked by Pilate: WHAT IS TRUTH? Jesus kept silent . I am unequivocally certain that Jesus’ silence stemmed out of his LIBERTY TO BE SILENT, to a query which a political administrator, who thought that Caesar was ultimate, could NEVER EVER COMPREHEND!

Seven years back APPS business did not exist, today the whole communication system through mobiles is built on it, why? Somebody went to that unregulated area and innovated. Let us leave the spaces meant for Liberty alone. IF WE DON’T we risk strapping our own people against those who would use those Liberties and grow and subjugate us EVENTUALLY.

i hadn’t watched a movie in a cinema in nine month, a gestation that could have begotten …

Arvind Swamy, an actor from Chennai, was last seen by me in the role of an undeserved loser, in MINSARA KANAVU! If amnesia had not taken its toll on me, he outsources the task of confessing his love for Kajol to Prabhu Deva, and as Miles Standish was shown by Longfellow long back:

But of a thundering “No!” point-blank from the mouth of a woman,

That I confess I’m afraid of, nor am I ashamed to confess it!

So you must grant my request, for you are an elegant scholar,

Having the graces of speech, and skill in the turning of phrases.”

Taking the hand of his friend, who still was reluctant and doubtful,

Holding it long in his own, and pressing it kindly, he added:

“Though I have spoken thus lightly, yet deep is the feeling that prompts me;

Surely you cannot refuse what I ask in the name of our friendship!”

Then made answer John Alden: “The name of friendship is sacred;

What you demand in that name, I have not the power to deny you!”

Thereupon answered the youth: — “Indeed I do not condemn you;

Stouter hearts than a woman’s have quailed in this terrible winter.

Yours is tender and trusting, and needs a stronger to lean on;

So I have come to you now, with an offer and proffer of marriage

Made by a good man and true, Miles Standish the Captain of Plymouth!”

Thus he delivered his message, the dexterous writer of letters, —

Did not embellish the theme, nor array it in beautiful phrases,

But came straight to the point, and blurted it out like a schoolboy;

Even the Captain himself could hardly have said it more bluntly.

Mute with amazement and sorrow, Priscilla the Puritan maiden

Looked into Alden’s face, her eyes dilated with wonder,
Feeling his words like a blow, that stunned her and rendered her speechless;

Till at length she exclaimed, interrupting the ominous silence:

“If the great Captain of Plymouth is so very eager to wed me,

Why does he not come himself, and take the trouble to woo me?

If I am not worth the wooing, I surely am not worth the winning!”

Then John Alden began explaining and smoothing the matter,

Making it worse as he went, by saying the Captain was busy, —

Had no time for such things; — such things! the words grating harshly

Fell on the car of Priscilla; and swift as a flash she made answer:

“Has he no time for such things, as you call it, before he is married,

Would he be likely to find it, or make it, after the wedding?

That is the way with you men; you don’t understand us, you cannot.

When you have made up your minds, after thinking of this one and that one,

Choosing, selecting, rejecting, comparing one with another,

Then you make known your desire, with abrupt and sudden avowal,

And are offended and hurt, and indignant perhaps, that a woman

Does not respond at once to a love that she never suspected,
Does not attain at a bound the height to which you have been climbing.

This is not right nor just: for surely a woman’s affection

Is not a thing to be asked for, and had for only the asking.

When one is truly in love, one not only says it, but shows it.

Had he but waited awhile, had he only showed that he loved me,

Even this Captain of yours — who knows? — at last might have won me,

Old and rough as he is; but now it never can happen.”

So like in the case of Miles Standish, Arvind Swamy becomes a victim of the woman’s whim and transference of love to the messenger!
Contrast it with the Biblical episodes of Eliezar asking for Rebekkah’s hand on behalf of Isaac or the servants of David going to the recently widowed Abigail for her hand on behalf of David!

Arvind Swamy came out as a quintessential decent non-intrusive cool guy in his earlier avatars. But in THANI ORUVAN, he has portrayed himself with the élan of Robert De Niro, with a disappointed twitch of his eyes when things don’t go as planned, or a pensive internally focussed look in his eyes when crossed!

Arvind Swamy has taken Thamizh cinema, rather lifted it from those loud villainy of the Asokans, Nambiars and Kabalis!

Hope Arvind Swamy would act in more roles of this type. The movie was an experience in flawless logic, with each strand of the plot justified  with ease without any contrived deus ex machina!

Wouldn’t mind watching it the third time!

The Dodgers!

Dodging is not an art as much as an inability to PERFORM! Most of the Dodgers are not only unable to perform, but are afraid of the consequences of such non-performance!

It is therefore made of two parts, one is the inability to perform and secondly their cleverness in avoiding the unpalatable consequences.

In essence to be a Dodger, one has to be, in the modern context UNSKILLED to perform, and also be CLEVER enough to avoid detection !

So there is a breed of UNSKILLED BUT CLEVER people populated in any institution, who acquire the ability to GRAB CREDIT!

This breed is the worst and the never ending malaise of any Institution or organisation.

Three things happen because of such types, they OCCUPY POSITIONS and thereby deny a skilled person of an opportunity. Secondly, they AVOID doing the task as they are UNSKILLED. Thirdly, they GRAB THE CREDIT due for others and PROJECT themselves as competent.

In the melee created by such types, one has to have the good fortune like Oliver Twist to escape from the Jack Dawkins and brother Monks, who have their own agenda of concealing their novicehood  and grab inheritance!

The body blow that INDRANI Mukherjea has dealt to the Feminist agenda, of forwarding the innocent lamb taken to slaughter by the macho and merciless men, seems immense.

Seems, the forwarders of the Feminist agenda in the path mentioned above, may be have to stick to such theories in respect of rural women, whose menfolk are still treating their women as chattels. Not anymore, the women of means and those raised in cities.

I can understand every strand of the epic of INDRANI Mukherjea, except for the way she had USED Sanjeev Khanna! The guy says his weakness is for his biological daughter through INDRANI!  So he had to acquiesce with INDRANI ‘s whims, which has ultimately led to him becoming an alleged murderer!

Peter claims oblivion and he has good reason not wanting to know all the past of a woman with such a super past! Vir Sanghvi, has bowled a googly by stating that Indrani’s kids were fathered by her step father! Why Vir Sanghvi couldn’t have wondered that Ms. Indrani could have possibly lied to him also, is a mystery!

Are they portraying INDRANI as a mega villi, as she is not there to defend herself? Are her ex-colleagues settling age old scores? Why are they jumping in and adding their own opinions which do not have anything germane to the murder on hand.

SHEENA, is dead, with no evidence of her body, instead of lighting a candle for the disappeared SHEENA,  everyone is baying for immediate justice Of RETRIBUTION on INDRANI !

Arnab Goswami, initially made it seem as if Peter Mukeherjea was his wife’s daughter’s keeper, and as if Peter owed a duty to tell all and sundry, especially the nosy Arnab, about all he knew, of all these women and men in Indrani’s life! As if , Peter ought to have known !

Are we rendering to our CONSTITUTION our due? Are individuals like Peter, merely because of their association with a woman accused of murder, to forgo all their RIGHTS , to silence, to defend one’s spouse, to presume innocence till proven guilty, and come to the ALTAR OF ARNAB GOSWAMI, and make a clean breast of all that they might have known?

Media also has to circumscribe to its limits. We in India have have gotten rid of the Jury Trial, as PERVERSE FINDINGS by the Jury had become a true bane to the administration of Justice.

Now with the ilk of Arnab we have brought back jury trial by media! As it is, no one knows what Rights an individual has, forget about exercising those! In this confusion, the voluble and disruptive Arnab has declared himself the high priest, into the slippery path of slavery in the name of EXTORTING A CONFESSION!

Let us return to sanity and let the Police collect the evidence and allow the courts to determine if the police had done its duty or not! Let there be order and decency in our discourse. SHEENA ain’t gonna come back and I am sure that the Mumbai police would bring out the best possible evidence.

When Peter the chiefest Apostle of Jesus was asked by Jesus to come walking on water in the boisterous sea, Peter without a thought, jumped out of the boat he was in and started walking towards Jesus. But, after a few strides on the sea, Peter started to sink and started shouting for help towards Jesus. Jesus lifts him up and asks a superb question: PETER, WHY DID YOU DOUBT? 

In Peter Mukherjea’s case, the question to be asked is : PETER, WHY DIDN’T YOU DOUBT? 

Peter Mukherjea has been accused of having been blinded by his love for his wife INDRANI MUKHERJEA, who is the main suspect in the disappearance of SHEENA BORA, who is stated to be the uterine daughter of INDRANI Mukherjea through one of those classic cases of exemplifying the Shakespearean SHE HAD A CHILD TO HER CRADLE BEFORE SHE HAD A HUSBAND TO HER BED! 

It is not as much as she had a child, rather children, two in the last count, but the fact that she is stated to have signified them to be her siblings instead of offsprings, which is intriguing. INDRANI doesn’t seem to have owned up to her own acts, even after hitting her forties! 

But that’s her choice, but when she is the main suspect in the murder of another human being, it is no more a family affair. To complicate matters, the disappeared SHEENA, was in a relationship with Peter’s son through his earlier marriage. 

In all these relational melee, Peter was willing to believe everything that INDRANI was feeding Peter with! 

All this is normal. But what is most interesting is that the vocally disruptive Arnab Goswami seems to be milking the media TRPs with his heavy duty analysis and talking sometimes like a DGP and at times talking like the Chief Justice of Asia! Arnab Goswami is getting panelists in batches and enjoying his high credibility and decibels!

I wonder if Arnab thinks that all his shouting would make sure that the police does their job without any let! I like that zeal with which Arnab Goswami suspects facts and launches on his hypothesis portraying everyone except him as a villain! 

Just five days back he had named and shamed  a guy in a matter where he called the guy who was alleged by a young girl for some misdemeanour as a Pervert! 

Arnab moves on calling all and sundry with the flavour of the moment! Lives for the moment, what an enlightened person! I can’t imagine a world minus Arnab! 

But why is he after Peter? God knows! But in Arnab’s case: THIS TOO SHALL PASS AWAY! 

One woman’s word!

Since Macaulay formulated the Indian Penal Code and subsequent to the adoption of the same, the offences had been defined clearly, but the proof of EVIDENCE of the act done or not done, depended on WITNESSES! 

So if there aren’t any witnesses, there would be ALLEGATIONS, but no proof, unless out of contrition, the accused herself/himself pleads guilty of the alleged offence. 

Essentially, therefore, LACK OF WITNESSES, became the single largest reason for discharge for lack of evidence. Besides real lack of witnesses, sometimes the willing witnesses are threatened or offered inducement to turn hostile . This is the second reason for acquittals! 

More than all these, is the lack of belief in the system to control, punish and give succour to the victims, which leads to NON-REPORTING of the offences committed, which do not have witnesses. 

In the recent episode of a girl who had alleged ‘lewd remarks’ by a man of 29 years coupled with an unsolicited offer by him to drop her at her place while crossing a road, is another instance where no witness has come forward to confirm what the girl has alleged. 

But does that mean, if the event had happened the way as narrated by the girl the man should be allowed to go scotfree in anticipation of lack of evidence? I THINK NOT. 

The man has to be brought and told of the allegations and asked for his explanation. Who knows, he might confess and be contrite. If he denies, then to look for evidence which is INDEPENDENT, would arise. To defend the man even before confronting him with the allegations against him, is anticipation of human nature to resist charges and not trust in the system.

It is not merely a case of one woman’s word against a man, it is an unprovoked assault on a human being. That’s the way to look at it. 

For better evidence, since the numbers of cops patrolling the streets have dwindled and the numbers of humans walking on streets have increased, it is very important that powerful live cc TV recordings are made and stored for substantial period of time. 

Allowing all these one person’s word against another, to lead to lack  of evidence should be denied, not out of naming and shaming, which can disturb the equilibrium of the society, and more independent evidences made available through cc TV s and people video graphing instances as clips, for evidentiary value! 

Tag Cloud


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 93 other followers