Here Charitable Individualism is the key!… nothing less.

Archive for July, 2010


In India, there is a general apathy towards any system, which is a direct outcome of not only the illiteracy, but ignorance of the purpose of systems. For example a QUEUE is a simple system that organizes the desired point of ACCESS in a disciplined manner to not only to avoid DISORDER and CHAOS, which leads to logjam and thereby defeating the purpose of ACTIVITY, but also to recognize the PERSON who joined the QUEUE and grant PRECEDENCE. Thereby a QUEUE allows free flow towards a predetermined FUNCTION.
Let us take specific examples, to reach a ticket counter one may have to join a queue to get the benefit of precedence and thereby access to the desired point or take an exam and qualify before being put in the rolls in a job or apply for a tender and get chosen for executing the task. In all these the PRINCIPLE of the QUEUE is involved even though in the second and the third examples the QUEUE PRINCIPLE is not so apparent.
Jumping the queue is the common complaint of many persons who cite instances where someone jumped the queue because of positive discrimination, privilege. These are allowed in LAW, but there are instances where jumping the QUEUE is caused by persons using FORCE, CORRUPTION and INFLUENCE. This is not only disheartening to those who are already in the QUEUE but also slows down the system to accommodate irregularities, on concocted principles.

The biggest challenge faced by a person in the QUEUE is that when he doesn’t get to SEE those joining the QUEUE ahead of him, but feels that he has stood long enough to have moved much further up whereas that had not happened and that he is stuck. By then precious TIME is lost and RESENTMENT MOUNTS and like the genie bottled up gets PERVERSE and INVENTS ways of not only getting ahead but also to use the same methods adopted by those who had jumped earlier to get even “AHEADER” than even those who were ahead of him in the queue rightfully. Like Shakespeare’s immortal line of Sonnet 94, ” LILIES THAT FESTER SMELL FAR WORSE THAN WEEDS“.  This is the BREAK POINT. This reaches a critical point when a threshold is reached. This THRESHOLD is palpable but undefinable. It is for the MANAGERS of the system to identify and defuse this PERVERSION of the JUSTIFIED RIGHTEOUS RESENTMENT. Otherwise, the system fails and the OBJECTIVE of the system gets ALTERED.

The problem with the queue getting longer ahead while one is still standing in the queue is the BANE of the Indian systems. There are too many people citing legally approved joining points to carry out their agenda through FORCE, CORRUPTION and INFLUENCE and this has to be stopped, if we want to get greater compliance and purposeful deeds from our brother Indians.

Hope we would have MANAGERS (read as politicians, administrators, regulators etc..) who would rule with greater EQUITY and contain the fissiparous forces.


Bullfights & Jallikattu

Protected by CopyrightSpot

The BIG NEWS is that the Democratically elected body Generalitat de Catalunya, has decided that BULL FIGHTING should be abolished in the provinces of Catalonia. The verdict was keen and there were abstentions, which had it been on the side of those who voted for BULLFIGHTING would still have lost the vote. Therefore to call the vote a COMPREHENSIVE one in favour of abolition of BULLFIGHTING would be apt.

The reasons cited have been varied, but the one reAson that stands out among the various voices of opinion is the one by the Catalan Regional President, Jose Montilla: “LET SOCIAL CUSTOMS EVOLVE TO THE POINT WHERE BULLFIGHTING WOULD VANISH ON ITS OWN, RATHER THAN LEGISLATE AN END TO IT AND DENY PEOPLE’S RIGHT TO CHOOSE WHETHER TO GO THE RING. I VOTED AGAINST THE BAN BECAUSE I BELIEVE IN FREEDOM.”

The context in which this was uttered by Mr.Jose Montilla was that in Barcelona there was only one functional bull ring and the other one in the whole Catalonia had fallen in disuse and is being converted into a mall.

The ANIMAL ACTIVISTS have been making bullfight an issue for long on the grounds of CRUELTY to the BULL. The unkindness unseen and practiced with greater enormity has escaped the voice of the Animal Activists. I am reminded of Thomas Macaulay’s quote on puritans and their  hatred for bear baiting:“The puritan hated bear baiting, not because it gave pain to the bear, but because it gave pleasure to the spectators.”

Let us come to the one of the States of India, TAMIL NADU, where in the southern and central districts there is a sport called MANJU VIRATTU or JALLIKATTU, which majorly involves the bull and the youth who try taming the bull by either clinging on to the hump of the bull for a certain period of time or un-entangle the prize which is usually tied to the base of the horns of the bull. These bulls are not ordinary bulls. They belong to a breed called KANGEYAM, named after a town in Tiruppur district of Tamil Nadu. They are raised not for “covering or studding” purposes, they are raised with their feral traits untainted. On the day of  Maattu PONGAL these bulls are let loose either from an enclosure and the vain and able bodied youth cling or unties the trophy from their horns and exhibit their valour. There is hardly any violence used against the bulls. In fact the bulls have done more harm to the men than the other way round. The most famous place where this BULL TAMING is conducted is ALANGANALLUR.

The following link would visually revolt even a staunch supporter of the Spanish Bull fight!

But even though there is no  harm or harassment to the bulls,  some who champion the causes of  these bulls have gone to court in India have obtained stay and the issue is still an unsettled one in Tamil Nadu.  Pl read the following article to get a feel of it!

Animal Welfare Board of India seeks stay on Jallikattu from Apex court

Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI) has moved to the Supreme Court seeking stay of the bull fight popularly known as ‘Jallikattu’, which is held in Tamil Nadu during Pongal festival.

According to Animal Welfare Board the organisers of Jallikattu have not complied with the safeguard norms issued by the court, while allowing the celebration of the festival.
The petitioner has prayed to the court to restore its stay order, dated January 11, 2008, vide which the bullfight was banned by the court.
During Jallikattu, bulls are forced to drink ‘arrack’, a type of wine and red chilly powder is thrown in their eyes, and they are forced to run and fight when they are in great pain. Therefore, it is nothing but torture of a hapless animal and according to the Board, it is inhuman.
The petition was mentioned before a bench, headed by Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan, for an urgent hearing. The Court, however, declined to give urgent hearing and told the council for the petitioner that let the case come in de course.
The Jallikattu is going to be organised on Pongal day in different parts of Tamil Nadu.
The petition is coming up for hearing on January 30, 2009 and by that time Pongal will be over.
The petitioner has annexed a press clipping that large number of people were injured in bull fight last year and they have also annexed a photograph showing how the animals were tortured during Jallikattu.
The petition is likely to be mentioned for urgent hearing on January 9.


So even non issues are promoted in the altar of the organizations, which have run out of issues. That is exactly why i subscribe to the opinion of Mr.Jose Montilla. Let it EVOLVE and do not LEGISLATE on such matters.

Further, a person in another state would not have any interest in preserving the CULTURE of Tamil Nadu, since Jallikattu is an integral part of the Pongal festival of Tamil Nadu, the persons from other states should not interfere in such issues, otherwise they’d just be like the puritans and bear-baiting as juicily said by Thomas Babington Macaulay!




Protected by CopyrightSpot
She unbuttoned his holster, pulled out his revolver and shot herself in her bleeding wound.

The Medical Report says, “had she not been shot in her existing wound, she’d have survived”. The courts have concluded that the revolver owner is liable, as the bullet embedded in her body had discharged from his revolver.

Nobody asked her in her dying declaration as to who shot her, but they asked her “from which revolver  was she shot?’ . The murder weapon was found on him.



Shobhaa De is a woman of no mean achievement. She founded STARDUST, SOCIETY, and CELEBRITY and edited all the three magazines at some point of time. Shobhaa comes out as a strongly opinionated woman and in India to question a person with some achievements to his/her credit would be a taboo. It is that feudal mind set which reveres the successful and the famous and thereby not only abdicates one’s liberty to hold a contrary opinion but also adopts such opinions of te ACHIEVERS  as gospel truth.

I believe every Indian should distinguish between an OPINION and a “FACT”. The line between these 2 are severely blurred in this land. A FACT is provable and  any diligent seeker of truth, with effort, would be able to prove it. An OPINION is not so. It falls within the domain of the LIBERTY granted by God. Each one could hold any number of opinions on the same issue and vary it as the situation demands.

When India is the international flavour, why are our girls dressing like Marys off to church?” was one of the opinions expressed in her book, the title of which i hold no interest in promoting! Now- i have heard of “plain Janes” but “Marys to Church” is unheard of and is inapt in the English language.

Further, Mary has different connotations. Mary Immaculate (the mother of Jesus) was no plain Jane, when she heard that her cousin Elizabeth was with child, she traveled from Nazareth to Elizabeth’s place in Judah in the Southern part of Israel, some 80 kms, a considerable distance  in those days. Must have been an extremely energetic lady to have done that.

There was this MARY MAGDALENE, whom Dan Brown insinuates in his book to have been the wife of Jesus. Well, this one had 7 devils before she was exorcised of those devils by Jesus.

Then in the English history we have MARY, QUEEN of Scots, a woman who not only got her second husband murdered, but also ended up marrying the Murderer, James to rule Scotland for a while. Mary Queen of Scots even presented a threat to Elizabeth I of England that she had Mary arrested.

So history is replete with persons by name MARY, who have done extraordinary ( mostly notorious) things. Therefore to invent a phrase MARYS TO CHURCH is just not English.

Back to the topic, Shobhaa De besides her phenomenal achievements had been very forthright and open in her criticism. Maybe her profession, CINE JOURNALISM, allowed her the liberty to indulge in it freely, as none dared to antagonize a woman with such a CINE JOURNALISTIC back ground. But enter SONAM KAPOOR, an actress who hails from a Cine family and did not go through the “grind” before she was offered some decent roles. When Shobhaa De made some unsavoury remarks aginst the movie, Sonam let out a beautiful combo of 2 words describing Shobaa De- FOSSIL & MENOPAUSE!! So when i heard some channels clubbing both the words together to form a phrase to describe Shobhaa De as “ MENOPAUSAL FOSSIL” i was thoroughly gratified. Well btw, Shobhaa must be around 63 years of age.

Sonam, i know has apologised for stating her opinion on Shobhaa De, nevertheless, she has aptly helped the media in the coinage of MENOPAUSAL FOSSIL. I love these cat fights, especially when they get a lil cerebral.

Protected by CopyrightSpot

Mary Magdalene – An Apostle?

Protected by CopyrightSpot

When i reached Church for morning worship, i was amazed to find that last Sunday was the Sunday of Mary Magdalene. Whether there was any substance in DAN BROWN’S epiphany DA VINCI CODE or not i do not know, but his bunkum has had a startling effect on the Church establishment, otherwise they would not call Mary Magdalene an Apostle. Yeah, in the pew sheet for the Sunday (18/07/2010) Mary Magdalene had been described as an APOSTLE.

Well, an Apostle in the general sense is merely a proponent or a strident supporter of a postulate/hypothesis, but when the same word APOSTLE is used in a Church, it carries a special meaning. This is clear from verse 13 of Chapter 6 of LUKE in the Bible:-

And when it was day, he called unto him his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles;

Jesus had called only these 12 as APOSTLES. Later Paul the Saul Of Tarsus calls himself one. From thereon the APOSTLESHIP has caught the fancy of CHRISTIANS.

The point is when Jesus chose 12 of his disciples and called them Apostles, why did not Jesus call Mary Magdalene an Apostle? After all she was contemporaneous to Jesus. If Jesus did not call her Apostle, why are we eager to bestow that title on her? Curious. Yet, some Feminist Christians ( of both gender) take the instance of the resurrected Jesus first being sighted by Mary Magdalene as sufficient reason for elevating her to Apostleship. There is a verse in the Bible which says at Ecclesiastes 7:13-

Consider the work of God: for who can make that straight, which he hath made crooked?

But some Christians have launched themselves on that path of not only making things straight which God has made crooked, but also to HALLOW things which God had made PROFANE!!

Mary Magdalene from whom Jesus evicted 7 demons, provides HOPE for Christians, but she ain’t no role model baby!


The bill placed on the floor of the House of the Karnataka Legislature bans  sale & possession of “beef”within the state of Karnataka. The ostensible reason is giving effect to Article 48 of the Constitution of India, which falls within the head of Directive Principles of State Policy.

Article 48. Organisation of agriculture and animal husbandry.—The State shall endeavour to organise agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines and shall, in particular, take steps for preserving and improving the breeds, and prohibiting the slaughter, of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle.

Now this is the provision of the Constitution of India. Note the wordings “……..prohibiting the slaughter, of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle.” To the best of my understanding of this provision, slaughtering of COWS, CALVES and DRAUGHT CATTLE are to be prohibited as the Cows give milk which instead of nourishing its calf is appropriated by man, the calf is too young and the draught cattle have spent the best years in serving man in physical labour, this being the case of the cows, calves and draught cattle, it would be inhuman to further extract their meat for food. The reasoning seems humane and logical. However the state of Karnataka has chosen to BAN SLAUGHTER of all beef yielding animals, including buffalo (may be the Karnataka Legislature is colour neutral!)

What beats me is that in the neighbouring state of Kerala (Proposed KERALAM), beef is one of the staple food of the non-vegetarians from Central Kerala upwards, where there is a higher percentage of Christians and Muslims. As per the Wikipedia’s demographics of Karnataka, 83% of the population are Hindu, 11% are Muslim, 4% are Christian, 0.78% are Jains, 0.73% are Buddhist, and with the remainder belonging to other religions. Which means 15% of the population , by their religious belief need not subscribe to the prohibition of eating BEEF.  Yet ignoring the LIBERTIES  of the minorities, the Karnataka legislature seems to have passed the bill.

Further, this bill is being presented as an agenda of the strident Hindu organizations, ignoring the fact that the rural poor in the non-coastal areas have no better form of protein in their food except through beef.

Firstly, a reference made in the Non Justiciable Directive Principles of State Policy is mis-applied to the whole genus of cattle instead of confining the prohibition to milch cattle, draught cattle and the young ones.

Secondly, the Karnataka Legislature is trying to be more loyal than the states which have fewer  Muslim and Christian population like Madhya Pradesh, Chatisgarh and Rajasthan, and thereby subscribing to the ostensible prejudices of the bigoted religious persons, who are keen on enforcing their beliefs on others.

Thirdly, the minority opinion has been ignored and the bill has been bulldozed giving the go by to democratic modesty!

Hope some one takes up the issue with the High Court/ Supreme court and gets the ACT reviewed, in case the Governor gives his assent, which i think is very unlikely!

Murder for Love!

The murder is 7 years old, but the verdict is fresh. It has taken 7 years for the judiciary of the first instance to convict and sentence for life the fiancee Shubha,  her paramour Arun Verma and their 2 accomplices. This delay is despite the trial being held in the FAST TRACK Courts! We Indians, love epics, in fact, we do not want to conclude matters. If it is prolonged there is a false notion that there has been “THOROUGHNESS” to the proceedings.

Getting back to our story, Shubha was in love with a guy called Arun Verma (TOI, Bangalore dt. 15th July, 2010 puts him to be from the state of Bihar, whereas the other Newspapers have been cagey about mentioning the statehood of the perpetrator of the crime!) but in the meanwhile, Shubha’s father gets her engaged, against her wishes, to her neighbour and friend for 15 years by name Girish. The engagement ceremony was over in 2003 and Shubha  “forces” Girish to take her out for dinner and on the way back after dinner, they stop to see the planes take-off and land near the old Bangalore airport. While waiting on the side of the road, a guy walks up and hits Girish with a “shock absorber” and he is taken to the hospital by the alarmed Shubha, where he is declared dead.

Investigations reveal that Shubha was in “deep” love with Arun Verma and he had engaged the services of a history-sheeter through his cousin and the deed was done.

Well let me take you thru the compulsions of the woman Shubha.

She probably wanted to please her father by accepting  the marriage with Girish.

She couldn’t say NO to Girish or her father.

She did not want to  have an “illicit relationship” with Arun after marriage ( what noble intentions!).

Shubha did not want to “elope” with Arun, as that would tarnish the image of her family.

Arun did not want to share Shubha with Girish and therefore wanted Shubha to demonstrate her love for Arun by giving out the details of Girish’s whereabouts, so that he could get the deed done and keep Shubha in the dark.

Shubha wanted to be LOYAL to to ONLY ONE man and that privilege she wanted to bestow on Arun and not on Girish.

Shubha probably thought that when she was not directly involved in the ACT of murder, she would not have to bear the “sin” of the act, though as per the Penal Code she would be criminally responsible.

Shubha could have probably hoped that Arun Verma would fail and go to jail for attempt on the life of Girish, and thereby Shubha would have a happy wedded life with Girish, with no interference!

Shubha probably wanted to put to test the devotion of Arun and start their wedded life on the foundation of the secret of a MURDER MOST FOUL!

The mind is capable of taking its own convolutions before one’s TIME crystallizes the deed to ascribe ownership to the deed!

Shubha is very good looking. One wonders how a woman of such demeanour and carriage could do a deed so foul. I used to muse that Lady Macbeth was a woman who could never be paralleled, leave alone excelled in MURDER. But Shubha comes close to excelling  Lady Macbeth. Shubha knew Girish for 15 years as a neighbour and friend, yet for a few years of  co-habiting with a paramour, she forced her fiance to go for dinner, let out their location, stopped him to make Girish an easy target, set up a false story to set the police on a false trail, continued her life without any compunction after the murder, maintained stony silence as if murdering for LOVE/LUST was a good justification for murder!!

Wah! Wah! Wah! A murder most foul, by a fair lady!!

Coming into NUISANCE- SOCCER issue!

When a corner is being taken in soccer, one could see that the players -defending as well as the corner awarded players -jostle for space near the goal mouth. This jostling reaches such proportions that one could see players crumble in packs and some rising over the crumbled players and head in or out the ball.

The issue is “WHEN A BALL IS HEADING TOWARDS A PLAYER’S HEAD AND THAT PLAYER IS WAITING FOR THE BALL, SHOULD ANOTHER PLAYER GO OVER HIS HEAD AND HEAD THE BALL AND FALL ON THE FIRST PLAYER INJURING HIM?” Would that act of falling on the first player who was standing there prior to the second one reaching there be an infringement? Or was it the duty of the first defender to move out of the way of the falling person?

The whole sequence could be mentally expanded, but in real-time the sequence is so fast that it is not possible to be so clinical.

I wish i had a slow motion shot of a sequence where the defender was waiting to head the ball and the ball was reaching him, but another player butted in from a distance and met the ball before the ball could hit the first player and fell on the first player with a thud. Is the aggression allowed or is running into nuisance allowed?

It probably needs a Lord Denning to resolve this issue.   The bigger problem would be to frame the issue!

Spain &their brand of Soccer!!

There has been a lotta brouhaha about the way the Spaniards had lifted the World Cup, especially with stories as to how the Spaniards had been subjected to much violence on field by the Dutch. I do not deny that there has been rough play by the Dutch, but the Spaniards have not been angels either.

If there was one team that relied purely on their skill minus fouling the opponents with body-line tactics, it was the Germans. Yet in the semi-finals against Spain they were fouled twice (Oezil) inside the penalty box, without any remedy from the referee. The roughest tackles came from Ramos, and at least in 3 instances he should have been given an yellow card, yet it was surprising that the referee read those as minor infringements!! The Dutch served them well in the finals, taking the tournament as a whole.

To accuse the Hollanders for having played rough with the Spaniards is ignoring poetic justice. Had Robben scored that goal which accidentally tipped the toe of Casillas, the story could have been very different. But there is no point in pondering on “could have beens & should have beens ” as the proof is in the lifting of the world cup, which the Spaniards did somehow!!

The type of soccer played in the Continent is NETWORK SOCCER, whereas the South American soccer is skill based individual soccer. It is sad to see that network soccer has won over skill based soccer this time around, even Robben with his blistering pace and accurate kick couldn’t get the goal, which was saved by the foot of God!!

Male hymen!!

Protected by CopyrightSpot

Now for those who are amused at the title to my blog, let me take you to a news item in the following link:-

Women who have been clamouring for gender equality have finally discovered something that should be very easy for them to identify “VIRGIN” males without much ado.

Pham Thi Hong, the female Acupuncturist from Vietnam, who claims that there is a red spot on /behind the ear of men who have not had sexual intercourse with women, has been instrumental in getting , shall we call it, acquittal for three young boys charged for rape on the grounds that these “red spots” are still intact and therefore these boys COULD NOT HAVE HAD sex with any woman- leave alone the victim!!

In India, such quack observations and assertions, however reputed their practice, would not carry any weight with the courts. But the courts in Hanoi seem to trust the assertions of HONG, which has in all probability has not gone through the sampling process. I hope the American Universities would come forward and do a study on this. Otherwise, it may continue to be an assertion with no proof like what Aristotle said: WOMEN HAVE FEWER TEETH THAN MEN and as Bertrand Russel puts it, it just needed Aristotle to check up the mouths of women before making that assertion.

Till Hong came out with the discovery, i have been quite sceptical about this MALE VIRGINITY issue. When Oprah Winfrey asked Michael Jackson, ” ARE YOU A VIRGIN?”, I was stunned as much as Michael Jackson was, even though i liked his reply- “I AM A GENTLEMAN.” Now what Michael meant by that was, probably, that MEN and VIRGINITY are unequally yoked. Yet Oprah Winfrey in her understated, disguised feminist style glossed over taking advantage of the severely embarrassed Michael Jackson. In any case the reply was as stinging as the reply given by Humphrey Bogart to the impudent , supercilious question about Rick’s nationality in the movie CASABLANCA.

Major Strasser: What is your nationality?
Rick: I’m a drunkard.
Captain Renault: That makes Rick a citizen of the world.

Now coming back to our VIRGINITY ISSUE, it is quite interesting that when it comes to the male ( according to Pham Thi Hong) virginity the identifying spot should be so far away from the epicentre!! The irony is that the FEMINISTS who have been linking VIRGINITY idea with MEN, on grounds of equality, have finally stumbled upon something quite serendipitously which has gone in favour of the accused men in Vietnam! Good luck to them. The only trouble is that men who want to get married to VIRGINS have to make their candidates go through a dead-frog procedure whereas, with this discovery, women who want VIRGIN men could easily get under the ears of their prospective grooms and get the proof!!


The Bailee test!!

Recently a test of honesty was conducted by BANGALORE MIRROR and widely published in their edition dated 02/07/2010. For further details please read in the following link:-

The interesting part is not the half-baked HONESTY TEST conducted by the newspaper but the widely published story which has irretrievably maligned three persons who are imputed to have retained the wallet found at Koshy’s, Brigade Road, Forum Mall, in Bangalore, with an intention to thieve.

Let us examine the legal rights and liabilities of the FINDER OF THE GOODS. Firstly what should the Finder of the goods do, as per the Indian Laws? The relevant provisions of the Indian Contract Act are excerpted here below. A cursory reading of the provisions of the Act would certainly help us in the understanding of the RIGHTS, DUTIES and LIABILITIES of the Finder of the goods.

Section 71 of the Indian Contract Act 1872

A person who finds goods belonging to another, and takes them into his custody, is subject to the same responsibility as a bailee.

Section 148

A “bailment” is the delivery of goods by one person to another for some purpose, upon a contract that they shall, when the purpose is accomplished, be returned or otherwise disposed of according to the directions of the person delivering them. The person delivering the goods is called the “bailor”. The person to whom they are delivered is called, the “bailee”.

Explanation -If a person already in possession of the goods of another contracts to hold them as a bailee, he thereby becomes the bailee, and the owner becomes the bailor of such goods, although they may not have been delivered by way of bailment.

section 151

In all cases of bailment the bailee is bound to take as much care of the goods bailed to him as a man of ordinary prudence would, under similar circumstances, take of his own goods of the same bulk, quality and value as the goods bailed.

Section 152

The bailee, in the absence of any special contract, is not responsible for the loss, destruction or deterioration of the thing bailed, if he has taken the amount of care of it described in section 151.

Section 168

The finder of goods has no right to sue the owner for compensation for trouble and expense voluntarily incurred by him to preserve the goods and to find out the owner; but he may retain the goods against the owner until he receives such compensation; and, where the owner has offered a specific reward for the return of goods lost, the finder may sue for such reward, and may retain the goods until he receives it.

BANGALORE MIRROR, by not only disclosing the names of the persons who had found the wallet but also printing the photographs of the persons, has imputed that all the three- one a male with his female friend in front of Koshy’s, another a driver of a Mercedes on Brigade road and the third a security staff in the FORUM Mall, have shown dishonesty and thereby has irretrievably tarnished their image in the society. This is NO JOKE.

Leaving aside all the questions of morals and ethics – as that would also bring the tempter who placed the wallet, the photographer who clicked the series with an intention of not only ascertaining the HONESTY QUOTIENT but also to publicize their acts imputing a sinister motive, into that ambit of ethics and morality- the persons had become BAILEES as defined under section 148.

We as Indians, immediately sit on judgement on the three, as that puts us up also on a pedestal in the Altar of Righteousness.

A bailee is only responsible under the civil law.

But the Bangalore Mirror dated 2/7/2010 has made it seem as if the security man had a duty in a public place to remove the wallet in a way an innocent man would take a wallet found in a public place. May be the security man apprehended that if someone noticed him take the wallet, he might have been overpowered and lost the wallet, and therefore he resorted to take it in a stealthy way. Probably he wanted the claimant to identify the contents before he returned it in the presence of his superiors. But we Indians do not believe in giving benefit of doubt, even in civil matters!!

May be the same holds good to the driver of the Mercedes. But it has been projected as if both of them stole the wallet from some person and did not return it to that person, all with an INTENTION to thieve!!

We Indians do not have any sense of self-respect and the PRESS like Bangalore Mirror is only highlighting it. All the three who have been projected badly, could have ignored and gone their way. But a wallet on the pavement must have been picked up more out of curiosity and then what happened in the FINDER’S mind need not be pondered upon, as there was an abandonment preceding the finding and therefore there is no criminal liability.

BUT the BANGALORE MIRROR has maligned all the three persons and have tarnished their image and prestige in the society and suitable compensation should be awarded to each of the three and an apology tendered by the newspaper.

Tag Cloud