Dr. APJ's Speech

Why is the media here so negative?Why are we in India so embarrassed to recognize our own strengths, our achievements? We are such a great nation. We have so many amazing success stories but we refuse to acknowledge them. Why? We are the first in milk production. We are number one in Remote sensing satellites. We are the second largest producer of wheat.We are the second largest producer of rice.Look at Dr. Sudarshan; he has transferred the tribal village into a self-sustaining, self-driving unit. There are millions of such achievements but our media is only obsessed in the bad news and failures and disasters. Iwas in Tel Aviv once and I was reading the Israeli newspaper. It was the day after a lot of attacks and bombardments and deaths had taken place. TheHamas had struck. But the front page of the newspaper had the picture of aJewish gentleman who in five years had transformed his desert into an orchid and a granary. It was this inspiring picture that everyone woke up to. The gory details of killings, bombardments, deaths, were inside in thenewspaper, buried among other news.

In India we only read about death, sickness, terrorism, crime. Why are we so NEGATIVE? Another question: Why are we, as a nation so obsessed with foreignthings? We want foreign T. Vs, we want foreign shirts. We want foreign technology.Why this obsession with everything imported. Do we not realize that self-respect comes with self-reliance? I was in Hyderabad giving this lecture, when a 14-year-old girl asked me for my autograph. I asked her what her goal in life is. She replied: I want to live in a developed India. For her, you and I will have to build this developed India. You must proclaim. Indiais not an under-developed nation; it is a highly developed nation. Do you have 10 minutes? Allow me to come back with a vengeance. Got 10 minutes for your country? If yes, then read; otherwise, choice is yoursYOU say that our government is inefficient.YOU say that our laws are too old. YOU say that the municipality does not pick up the garbage. YOU say that the phones don't work, the railways are a joke,the airline is the worst in the world, mails never reach their destination.YOU say that our country has been fed to the dogs and is the absolute pits.

YOU say, say and say. What do YOU do about it?Take a person on his way to Singapore. Give him a name - YOURS. Give him aface - YOURS. YOU walk out of the airport and you are at your International best. In Singapore you don't throw cigarette butts on the roads or eat in the stores. YOU are as proud of their Underground links as they are. You pay $5 (approx. Rs. 60) to drive through Orchard Road (equivalent of MahimCauseway or Pedder Road) between 5 PM and 8 PM. YOU come back to the parking lot to punch your parking ticket if you have over stayed in a restaurant or a shopping mall irrespective of your status identity... In Singapore youdon't say anything, DO YOU? YOU wouldn't dare to eat in public during Ramadan, in Dubai. YOU would not dare to go out without your head coveredin Jeddah. YOU would not dare to buy an employee of the telephone exchange in London at 10 pounds (Rs.650) a month to, 'see to it that my STD and ISD calls are billed to someone else.' YOU would not dare to speed beyond 55 mph (88 km/h) in Washington and then tell the traffic cop,'Jaanta hai main kaun hoon (Do you know who I am?). I am so and so's son. Take your two bucks and get lost...' YOU wouldn't chuck an empty coconut shell anywhere other than the garbage pail on the beaches in Australia and New Zealand.

Why don't YOU spit Paan on the streets of Tokyo? Why don't YOU use examination jockeys or buy fake certificates in Boston??? We are still talking of the same YOU. YOU who can respect and conform to a foreign system in other countries but cannot in your own. You who will throw papers and cigarettes on the road the moment you touch Indian ground. If you can be an involved and appreciative citizen in an alien country, why cannot you be thesame here in India? Once in an interview, the famous Ex-municipal commissioner of Bombay, Mr. Tinaikar, had a point to make. 'Rich people's dogs are walked on the streets to leave their affluent droppings all over the place,' he said. 'And then the same people turn around to criticize and blame the authorities for inefficiency and dirty pavements. What do they expect the officers to do? Go down with a broom every time their dog feels the pressure in his bowels?In America every dog owner has to clean up after his pet has done the job. Same in Japan. Will the Indian citizen do that here?' He's right. We go to the polls to choose a government and after that forfeit all responsibility.We sit back wanting to be pampered and expect the government to do everything for us whilst our contribution is totally negative. We expect the government to clean up but we are not going to stop chucking garbage allover the place nor are we going to stop to pick a up a stray piece of paper and throw it in the bin. We expect the railways to provide clean bathrooms but we are not going to learn the proper use of bathrooms.We want Indian Airlines and Air India to provide the best of food andtoiletries but we are not going to stop pilfering at the least opportunity. This applies even to the staffs that are known not to pass on the service to the public. When it comes to burning social issues like those related towomen, dowry, girl child! and others, we make loud drawing room protestations and continue to do the reverse at home. Our excuse? 'It's the whole system which has to change, how will it matter if I alone forego mysons' rights to a dowry.' So who's going to change the system? What does a system consist of? Very conveniently for us it consists of our neighbors, other households, other cities, other communities and thegovernment. But definitely not me and YOU. When it comes to us actually making a positive contribution to the system we lock ourselves along with our families into a safe cocoon and look into the distance at countries far away and wait for a Mr. Clean to come along & work miracles for us with a majestic sweep of his hand or we leave the country and run away.Like lazy cowards hounded by our fears we run to America to bask in their glory and praise their system. When New York becomes insecure we run to England. When England experiences unemployment, we take the next flight out to the Gulf.

When the Gulf is war struck, we demand to be rescued and brought home by the Indian government. Everybody is out to abuse and rape the country. Nobody thinks of feeding the system. Our conscience is mortgaged to money.Dear Indians, The article is highly thought inductive, calls for a greatdeal of introspection and pricks one's conscience too.... I am echoing J. F. Kennedy 's words to his fellow Americans to relate to Indians... 'ASK WHAT WE CAN DO FOR INDIA AND DO WHAT HAS TO BE DONE TO MAKE INDIA WHAT AMERICA AND OTHER WESTERN COUNTRIES ARE TODAY' Lets do what India needs from us.

Thank you

Dr. Abdul Kalaam.

Mandal II: Oral arguments of Harish Salve & K.K.Venugopal

Mandal II: Oral arguments of Harish Salve & K.K.Venugopal In view of extraordinary interest in my posts on oral arguments in the Mandal II case, I am posting below the summaries of rejoinders of Harish Salve and K.K.Venugopal, as I could gather from my notes taken on Nov.1. I must admit that these are not exhaustive, as I might have missed out some crucial aspects of their arguments, due to my absence in the Court. Although I have tried to be as accurate as possible in reporting the arguments, I take responsibility for any inaccuracy (which could be unintentional). I wish to return to their arguments, and also to others’ arguments whom I might have missed for want of time (especially, that of Mr.Parasaran and Mr.Gopal Subramanian) within a few days (before the Bench delivers the verdict), by closely examining all the written submissions, to find out whether we have answers (may be conficting) for all the questions raised by the Bench at the time of the reference. Taken together, all these four rejoinders (Salve, KKV, RD and PPR) could shed some light on why the petitioners are dissatisfied after the conclusion of the hearing. The section on K.K.Venugopal could have been longer, but unfortunately I found my notes on his argument sketchy and inadequate. I hope to return to his submission at length later
Harish Salve: 1.Nobody said on our side that Article 15(4) is an exception. This debate is the most irrelevant.2. Strict scrutiny is called for if Article 15(1) applies. 3. There is an inherent tension between social enginnering and votebank politics. Power is given for social engineering and not for collateral purpose. That is why the Court has to carefully scrutinize. Judicial review was created for this. Compelling state interest would apply if you are treading on dangerous ground. That is why strict scrutiny test is required; it is not alien. (Justice Pasayat said we apply a test of our own, which may be akin to strict scrutiny test) Harish Salve said: We have never been insular; we have enriched ourselves. We rejected some, eminent domain for example. Justice Pasayat: American decisions can be considered as articles written by some eminent persons. They shed some light, but have no precedent value. Justice Thakker: Like we say dissenting judgments also have some value. 4. Harish Salve: Supreme Court judgment in M.Nagaraj case is not obiter (except the part relating to creamy layer). I strongly resent the remarks made by Ram Jethmalani calling some of us on this side as creamy layer. Justice Pasayat: Ram Jethmalani was referring to creamy layer among lawyers in general. (laughter)Harish Salve: We take pride in rising above these social barriers while discussing these issues. Such comments from a senior colleague in the bar are hurtful.
5. If the State has quantifiable data, then it can make reservations. 6. Identified class minus creamy layer is equivalent to cohesive class. Social engineering, therefore, must go on even if it creates ripples in society. Harmony and good governance are part of rule of law. This impugned law smacks of politics, not social engineering. 7. Article 15(5) purports to overwrite Article 19(1)(g). The Act also overlooks Article 26 (a) (establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes). According to T.M.A.Pai decision, charitable purposes include education. Articles 26a –19-30 constitute one composite scheme. Nagaraj principle of interpretation must be applied. You are disturbing the delicate balance between Article 26a and A.30. T.M.A.Pai judgment deals with A.19(1)(g) and A.26. 8. Article 29(2) guarantees to all equality, where public funding is involved. Every student has a right under this Article. Both Venkataramana and Champakam were delivered on the same day. (also by the same Bench; Salve perhaps means here that the same Bench could not have delivered two verdicts with different import on the same day).9. After strict scrutiny was brought in by Nagaraj, the law must move forward. 10. Article 15(5) is an unqualified way of saying Inamdar was wrong.
K.K.VENUGOPAL:1. Mr.Parasaran says Article 15(5) must be read in addition to A.15(4). But if A.15(4) permits reservation in aided minority institutions, the impugned Act says no to it, because A.15(5) says it cannot. 2. If A.15(4) operates in a parallel position as suggested by Mr.Parasaran, then it will create confusion. Posted by V.Venkatesan at 4:46 PM 1 comments: Anonymous said... Arbitrary hiking of Creamy Layer income limit by the government to bypass Supreme Court Ruling on reservation for OBCs We do welcome the judgment given by the SC in favor of the 27% reservation forthe Backward Classes. The SC has done a commendable job by excluding the Creamy Layer from the ambit of reservation. The politicians however are opposing it. It clearly shows that they are not actually interested in the welfare of the really backward people in the nation. 1. There are 57 crore OBC in the country (52% of 110 crore population). The number of seats in the educational institutions in centrally administered institutes may be around 40000. Of the say 10000 seats reserved for the OBC candidates almost all of this is going to be cornered by the creamy layer among OBC candidates.. The real OBC will never get these benefits if creamy layer is included.
2. The Government however has devised a novel way to bypass this Supreme Court ruling to exclude Creamy Layer. It is arbitrarily planning to hike the threshold income limit from the current Rs.2.5 lakhs. It is a highly malafide intention on the part of the government to keep the real and deserving OBCs out of reservation benefits. Anyone will find it difficult to understand from where the figure of Rs.2.5 lakhs was arrived in the first instance. 3. The logical and appropriate figure for Creamy Layer income limit should be the income tax threshold limit of Rs.1.2 lakhs (now hiked to Rs.1.5 lakhs from financial year 2008-09). The current population of India is 110 crores. Currently there are 3.2 crore people coming under the income tax bracket (income of above Rs. 1.2 lakh) . Assuming that 50% of them belong to the OBC makes 1.6 crore OBC tax assesses among the total OBC population of 55 crore. This is the elite 2.8% of the OBC. Those OBC whose income falls under income tax assessment limit must be deemed to belong to the Creamy Layer. This tax paying population is definitely not socially backward and less likely to be educationally backward. It is a matter of great pride in present day to be an income tax assesse/payer. Income tax assesses are held with great respect in society today. 3. It is our sincere request that Supreme Court must intervene immediately and protect the interests of the really down trodden OBCs in India. This can be done by fixing the creamy layer income limit to that of income tax assessment threshold limit. 4. Government should not be allowed to tamper with Creamy Layer income limit. Tampering it will mean great injustice to the 97.2% of the Backward Caste people in the country. 5. The argument of the government that most of the government employees will fall under this income bracket cannot be accepted as they are no longer are socially backward. The really deserving OBC are the crores of landless laborers, petty traders and unorganized sector workers.

The Kasav case; Legal Bonhomie

Kasab's Prosecution.
TELEVISION NETWORKS and newspaper correspondents are running around seeking opinions and arranging shows on the terrorist Kasav and his entitlement to legal assistance. I have not been spared and I have freely expressed myself to many an interlocutor. But I have not failed to remark on the futility of the effort. I do not believe that Kasav needs a lawyer. Someone in this country needs a client. This effort has started at the instance of some lawyer who wanted to amuse himself by imagining that Kasav has desperately asked for his services and he has declined the lucrative invitation only to oblige Mother India. Kasav has certainly not asked for my services, nor has the Pakistan High Commission. The Commission has not even received Kasav’s request; probably it has not been sent, or some Ministry in the Government of India is holding it up, the usual bureaucratic rigmarole. A great English judge, Lord Mansfield, once had to try a poor old woman on a charge of witchcraft brought by her neighbours. The feeling against her was strong and the judge sensed it. The neighbours swore they had seen the woman walking in the air upside down. At the end of the trial, the judge reviewed the evidence calmly and observed, “I do not doubt that this woman has walked in the air with her feet upward since you have all seen it, but she has the honour to be born in England as well as you and I, and consequently cannot but be judged by the laws of this country, nor punished but in proportion as she violated them. Now, I know not one law that forbids walking in the air with feet upward. We all have a right to immunity. I see, therefore, no reason for this prosecution and this poor woman may return where she pleases.”
Before the century of Galileo and Newton, witches were a despised lot. Though they had been believed to exist since ancient times, whether in Greece, Rome, China, India, Egypt, Japan or Sumeria, they were uniformly regarded with fear. From time to time, they were burnt by furious mobs. They never got a fair trial and no one dreamt of giving them one. Blind prejudice, irrational fear and undeserved punishment were all they got. Modern society has its ‘witches’ too. Human nature has not basically changed. The ‘spy’ has taken the place of the witch and with social and judicial prejudice as intense as that of the primitive mob, he, too, is frequently the unfair victim of injustice. You mention a spy and you conjure up a vision of secret conspiracies fomenting disorder, of knifing and shooting in dark alleys, of governments toppled and wars unleashed. A vital difference must, however, be acknowledged. Witches just did not exist and the danger posed by them was wholly imaginary. Some spies really are such and their activities do pose a threat to the public weal and national security. But many are just stigmatised as such. The result is bad law and a failure of justice. The measure of civilisation is the way society treats those it hates. I confess to a concern for the despised. The purpose of this essay is to demonstrate to what extent my concern extends to terrorists like Kasav.
I certainly do not approve of any Bar Association passing a resolution stating that a particular accused should not be defended. It is the duty of every lawyer to defy such a resolution. Many years ago, I decided to defend the accused allegedly involved in the conspiracy to kill the late Mrs Indira Gandhi, the prime minister of India. Even so-called champions of constitutional liberty and repositories of integral humanism decided I was not fit to hold the membership of a political party. In substance, what I was told was that the crime of the accused was so vile and dastardly that they must not be allowed even to demonstrate their innocence. A lawyer who assisted them must be a bird of the same feather for whom there can be no place inside a party that practices ‘value-based politics’. So important is the right of an accused to have the services of a lawyer that the Constitution makers were not satisfied with the rights created by the successive Codes of Criminal Procedure. The Constitution-makers introduced it in the chapter on Fundamental Rights so that no tyrannical regime could curtail or destroy it. Article 22 declares that no accused shall be denied the right to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice. These two accused, while in death row, communicated their choice to the court. Three judges of the Delhi High Court, naturally anxious to respect their constitutional choice, rightly enquired whether the lawyer chosen would also respect the choice of the condemned men. A lawyer worthy of his robes has no option in such a situation. Being a lawyer whose sole reason for being in politics is to preserve constitutional verity, I could not, without sullying my entire past, frustrate the constitutional rights of two human beings languishing in the shadow of the sentence of death.
BY THE 42nd Amendment of the Constitution, during the Emergency, the Congress government introduced at least one wholesome provision to the Constitution. The newly-added Article 39-A mandated that the legal system shall provide free legal aid to ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to anyone by reason of economic or other disabilities. The role of an Indian lawyer, brought up in the traditions of the British Bar, is clear, admitting neither doubt nor ambiguity. Thomas Paine, a late-18th century political journalist and a champion of the rights of the common man, achieved fame with the pamphlet Common Sense, which was a powerful plea for independence of the American colonies from British rule. Naturally, the British treated him as a seditionist guilty of the highest treason. His pamphlet, The Rights of Man, which began as a defence of the French Revolution, evolved into a violent attack on the evils of arbitrary government, poverty, illiteracy, unemployment and war. He spoke out effectively to the ruling class of his time in favour of republicanism as against monarchy. His proposals spelt bloody revolution. The book was banned and Paine was jailed and tried for treason. The great advocate, Erskine, was briefed to defend him. Erskine, at that time, was the Attorney General for the Prince of Wales. Though he was allowed private practice, he was warned in advance that if he accepted Paine’s brief, he would be dismissed from office. Of course, Erskine accepted the brief, and because of the brave defence he made on behalf of his client, he was deprived of office
Erskine’s immortal words, which the editor of Howell’s State Trials printed in capital letters, stand out as a shining light for generations of lawyers to come: “In every place where business or pleasure collects the public together, day after day, my name and character have been the topic of injurious reflection. And for what? Only for not having shrunk from the discharge of a duty which no personal advantage recommended and which a thousand difficulties repelled. Little indeed, did they know me who thought that such calumnies would influence my conduct; I will forever, at all hazards, assert the dignity, independence and integrity of the English Bar without which impartial justice, the valuable part of the English Constitution, can have no existence. Form the moment that any advocate can be permitted to say that he will or will not stand between the Crown and the subject arraigned in the court where he daily sits to practice, from that moment the liberties of England are at an end. If the advocate refuses to defend from what he may think of the charge or of the defence, he assumes the character of the Judge; nay, he assumes it before the hour of judgement; and in proportion to his rank and reputation puts the heavy influence of perhaps a mistaken opinion into the scale against the accused in whose favour the benevolent principle of English law makes all assumptions, and which commands the very Judge to be his Counsel.” IT IS interesting to recall that in later years, the British public that had lambasted Erskine, and the establishment that had despised him, silently accepted him as a Lord Chancellor. Towards the end of his life, he achieved widespread prominence for his role in the defence of Queen Caroline, whom her husband, King George IV, brought to court for adultery before the House of Lords. Lord Campbell, a later Lord Chancellor and author of the Lives of the Lord Chancellors, recorded that, as an advocate, Erskine was “without an equal in ancient or in modern times”.
Indian lawyers have followed this great tradition. The Razakars of Hyderabad were defended. Sheikh Abdullah and his co-accused were defended; and so were some of the alleged assassins of Mahatma Gandhi. No Indian lawyer of repute has ever shirked responsibility on the ground that it would make him unpopular or affect the electoral prospects of his party. To spare Indian lawyers the trouble of discovering the great traditions of the Bar by investigation and research, the Bar Council of India, in exercise of its statutory power, has formulated standards of professional conduct and etiquette. The following need to be cited: “II. An advocate is bound to accept any brief in the Courts or Tribunals before any other authority in or before which he professes to practice at a fee consistent with his standing at the Bar and the nature of the case. Special circumstances may justify his refusal to accept a particular brief… “15. It shall be the duty of an advocate fearlessly to uphold the interests of his client by all fair and honourable means without regard to any unpleasant consequences to himself or any other. He shall defend a person accused of a crime regardless of his personal opinion as to the guilt of the accused, bearing in mind that his loyalty is to the law which requires that no man should be convicted without adequate evidence… “46. Every advocate shall in the practice of the profession of law bear in mind that anyone genuinely in need of a lawyer is entitled to legal assistance even though he cannot pay for it fully or adequately and that within the limits of an advocate’s economic condition, free legal assistance to the indigent and oppressed is one of the highest obligations an advocate owes to society.”
So Kasav has a right under the Constitution of India to be defended by a lawyer of his choice. If he cannot afford one, he or his High Commission may request the courts to give him one. But the point still remains what will the lawyer do? I do not wish to discuss the merits of Kasav’s case, because normally my comments would cause him prejudice. But this is an exceptional case in which they probably would not. It does not seem to me possible for any lawyer, or even a combination of lawyers, to seriously dispute that he committed the atrocious act he is reported to have indulged in. It is a classic case of an accused being caught in flagrante delicto. The arguable question will be one of sentence, namely the choice between death and life imprisonment. Though this is a rarest-of-rare case, in which a death sentence would be more than justified, there are circumstances which must be judicially weighed. Obviously someone indoctrinated Kasav. He was made to believe that his dastardly action had the approval of Allah, who would welcome him to paradise to enjoy its pleasures for the rest of eternity. Is not his act that of a person who has lost the capacity to distinguish between right and wrong by reason of intoxication, where liquor has been forced upon him by some superior will against his wishes? If I were a judge, I would not sentence Kasav to death. It is only by remaining in the hell of an Indian jail that he would realise that what the mullahs told him was false. God has no place for him in heaven, and probably none exists. Only long stay in an Indian prison can detoxify him of all the superstitions and illusions instilled in him.