Fair trials and justice

"Somebody must have been telling lies about Joseph K., for without having done anything wrong he was arrested one fine morning." -The Trial by Franz Kafka

Of all the tragicomic masterpieces to have been created in the world, 'The Trial' must surely rank amongst the best. The entire book is about the trial of Joseph K. who is arrested and is supposed to defend himself in a "court" for offenses he doesn't have the knowledge of committing and is never told about throughout his trial. I suspect that it was this work in particular that gave birth to the term "Kafkaesque," to describe travesty of justice whenever and wherever it occurs. It is also ironic that this particular work came to see the light of day only because Kafka's friend disregarded his last wish(therein betraying his trust) to refrain from destroying the unfinished novel and instead published it. It serves as a reminder to each one of us, of the importance of an independent and a transparent judiciary, especially for a nation with liberal, democratic aspirations.

We believe that in the end truth prevails, "Satyameva Jayate." The principle of "presuming innocence until proven guilty," originates from this love of justice. It is never too late to punish the guilty, but to take back a mistaken conviction is impossible. Beautifully illustrated in this short story by Leo Tolstoy, " God sees the truth but waits," it highlights the need for checks and balances in our judiciary so that, "A hundred criminals may go unpunished, but not a single innocent shall be punished."

Following through, we realize that Justice must be blind and all are equal in the court of justice. This "Rule of law," enshrined in our constitution is in place to protect that smallest minority - the individual. With this in mind, it is inconceivable that an individual is not provided the "fair trial" due to circumstances. Each exception taken to the "Rule of law" is just another body blow against the weakest individual in the society. The powerful may weather the storm - remember Jayalalitha or Karunanidhi's time in the jail, yet it is the meek who will bear the brunt of systemic abuse.

If circumstances can be used as an excuse to override these principles today in the case of a terrorist, nothing stops someone else from misusing the same "circumstances" as an excuse tomorrow to paint an innocent(innocent until proven guilty) as a "threat to the society." Remember the invocation of NSA against eve teasing?

In the '70s it was famously predicted that India would fail as a democracy and be ruled by the an autocracy. The reason, that prediction didn't come to fruitition is the courage of a few good men in our independent if inefficient judiciary. Our system may be corrupt and full of holes, the trial may only provide a stage for Kasab and his ilk to broadcast their agenda, it may result in the worst kind of mudslinging over issues of nationalist importance, yet it is imperative that we provide him a fair and a transparent trial. As Acorn put it, "He deserves an exemplary punishment after an exemplary judicial trial."

If we are afraid that we cannot prosecute Ajmal in a fair trial despite catching him redhanded or that it will take too long, then how can we claim to safeguard our own citizens and how can we claim to be a "democratic republic" which upholds the "rule of law"? What is the difference then, between us and the taliban?

Ofcourse, this also serves to shut up the psuedo liberal ostriches like 1, 2 who draw moral equivalence between terrorist and counter terrorist activities or atleast make them look like the fools they really are. But more importantly, If we are to hold onto our moral highground in this battle of ideologies; Indeed if we are to survive, we must stick to our principles even in the most trying circumstances.

Vitcimisation of the aggressor

The recent case when an American student at TISS, Mumbai accused six others of sexual assault shows the shortcomings in our implementation of "rule of law" and in our failure to reform social norms. It only reinforces the belief that Police instead of acting as the watchdog to safeguard people from crimes, have been reduced to a bureaucratic, self-serving machinery that takes the path of least resistance out in most cases. It is ironic that in most cases, we feel safer approaching another citizen than approaching the police for help. We must reform our police force before we end up surrendering our liberties.

Our social norms however are a bigger threat. For a country that claims to stand for liberty, equality and fraternity, our norms are depressingly patriarchal. Nothing is as disturbing and disgusting as the claims that a victim has brought it upon herself the crime that was committed. The basic defence against accusations of sexual assault seems to be to cast aspersions on the character of the victim and then to conclude, "She brought it upon herself".

From Jessica Lal to Soumya Vishwanathan to this case, consensus seems to be to accept a moral judgement against the victims actions and then condemn the act. In this particular case, the accused has submitted a statement

"The act of the victim accompanying the accused persons who was lonely lady (sic) with six male persons in long midnight itself shows the nature of the victim and therefore, whatever would have happened might be due to willingness of the victim (sic)"

It is a shame that we even entertain a statement such as this. Whence the pink chaddi lobby? Or is it a cause just not glorious enough for the great liberal progressive thinkers? Moral righteousness has no place once a crime has been committed. Crime should be treated as a judicial issue free from any moral judgements.

To extrapolate, the same should be the case with any other crime and that includes terrorism. Conservatives argue for "no compromise" on terrorism, but don't hold the same position when it comes to crimes against individual liberty. Liberals wouldn't compromise on individual liberty and fight against moral judgments on crimes such as these, but don't apply the same logic to terrorism. Hypocrisy thy name!

UPDATE: Exactly the mentality I'm talking about . And they call it "an age-old debate" Beyond disgust.

Secular and Communal

Rarely do I agree with an entire post/article these days without significant points of disagreement. But I couldn't find anything to disagree with in this article:

Secularism, like communalism, is no longer a first principles debate; it is a pretext for forcing issues where none exist. The only two interpretations of secularism that are current in India are deeply warped: secularism as erasure of identity, or secularism as communal parity. Neither interpretation has room for the core meaning: secularism is about the freedom of individuals to make of themselves what they will; it is about making “identity” irrelevant to politics, not about its enforced erasure...

Real secularism is about giving citizens the freedom to escape being tagged, whether by caste or religion. The Congress politics now has limited appeal, even for the minorities it courts, because it is still caught in the politics of tagging. The BJP tags to target, Congress tags to provide noblesse oblige. But it is the tagging that’s insidious.

It is for this reason that I support a uniform civil code. By definition, in a public sphere of life, there shouldn't be discrimination based on any parts of one's identity.

As I come to understand from the roots of the word, communalism means to discriminate people based on one's community. I wonder then about the honesty in calling religion based politics communal, but not the caste based. After all a caste is a smaller community, isn't it ?

Hate-Speech and Electioneering

It is better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than to open it and remove all doubt.

I had earlier called for the ousting of Varun Gandhi from the BJP candidates list. This despite there being no clear verdict one way or another.(Remember that in judicial issues, accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty.) I maintain that NSA and subsequent choking of his freedom to speech was ridiculous. Where are the advocates of free speech today ? The answer to issues of free speech is more free speech, not less. I don't believe in the concepts of offensive or Hate speech, speech should only be free.

Let me add, however, that it is not just Varun Gandhi, A whole bunch of others including Kagodu Thimmappa, Lalu prasad Yadav, D.Srinivas must be removed. But that still doesn't justify shutting them up. If anything, we want the idiots to speak up so that we know who is the idiot and who isn't one. The performance of our media in the backdrop of this issue however, has convinced me of the very heavy left-liberal bias in our media. All our "leaders" should be held to the same standards whether they be from the "communal" or the "secular" front.

At the same time, I feel perplexed at Ms.Sagarika Ghosh's rants over at CNN-IBN. She laments the fact that EC has slapped notices on Politicians who were seen distributing cash for votes. Coming from a network that covered up the biggest "Cash for votes" scam in our citadel of democracy - it is not a big surprise.

Mr.Sardesai's defense at that time, " we have chosen not to telecast the story yet because we did not feel that the story was complete," rings as hollow as does Ms.Ghosh's whines about the loss of a tradition.

Choice

From clockwork orange:

Choice. The boy has no real choice, has he? Self-interest, the fear of physical pain drove him to that grotesque act of self-abasement. Its insincerity was clearly to be seen. He ceases to be a wrongdoer. He ceases also to be a creature capable of moral choice.

The insincerity in this girl's testimony is also quite clear. I wonder how long denial can overrule reason and evidence.

Freedom of speech

"Take away all my freedoms, but the freedom of speech so that I can win them back"
Watch the video, "Ezra Levant" a conservative on The Micheal coren show. The interview is about "Free speech" and well worth your time, but this particular segment is relevant to what's happening across the world right now.



It is ironic that the conservatives are fighting for free speech whereas the "liberals" are bedfellows with those who want to regulate "offensive speech".



Something in our very own backyard to match it. Here's the background : the UN(or rather its oil-peddling puppeteers) introduced a legislation banning the defamation of "religion". Johann Hari had published an essay criticizing this erosion of free speech in "The Independent" which was reprinted in "The Statesman".

The UN’s Rapporteur on Human Rights has always been tasked with exposing and shaming those who prevent free speech – including the religious. But the Pakistani delegate recently demanded that his job description be changed so he seeks out and condemns “abuses of free expression” including “defamation of religions and prophets”. The council agreed – so the job has been turned on its head. Instead of condemning the people who tried to murder Salman Rushdie, they will be condemning Salman Rushdie himself.

Of course, we get the entire media crowing over how the freedom of an artist is being compromised when there is outrage over paintings of naked Hindu goddesses, but we don't get quite the same squeaks from our esteemed media when their fellow editor gets arrested for hurting the religious feelings. The editors had to bend over backwards and beg to be released from prison(and they have my sympathies here).

I am heartened to see that at least the author could afford to stand by his views.

What should an honest defender of free speech say in this position? Every word I wrote was true. I believe the right to openly discuss religion, and follow the facts wherever they lead us, is one of the most precious on earth – especially in a democracy of a billion people riven with streaks of fanaticism from a minority of Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs. So I cannot and will not apologize..... Nothing worth saying is inoffensive to everyone....

They are people like Sayed Pervez Kambaksh, the young Afghan journalism student who was sentenced to death for downloading a report on women's rights. They are people like the staff of Zanan, one of Iran's leading reform-minded women's magazines, who have been told they will be jailed if they carry on publishing. They are people like the 27-year old Muslim blogger Abdel Rahman who has been seized, jailed and tortured in Egypt for arguing for a reformed Islam that does not enforce shariah law.

It would be a betrayal of them – and the tens of thousands of journalists like them – to apologize for what I wrote. Yes, if we speak out now, there will be turbulence and threats, and some people may get hurt. But if we fall silent – if we leave the basic human values of free speech, feminism and gay rights undefended in the face of violent religious mobs – then many, many more people will be hurt in the long term. Today, we have to use our right to criticise religion – or lose it.

Read the complete article here .