[Reader-list] fwd:An Open Letter to Hon'ble Prime Minister

[Rajendra Bhat Uppinangadi]

Dear all in the list,
 to my thinking these are some of the perceptions which need
objective pondering:-D
>From the paras of the post in the list,

a)   "You have raised the issue of Afzal being not attacked whereas Modi
being
attacked. The fact is that according to the chargesheet which the Delhi
police used, along with their investigation to prove that Afzal and others
are guilty, the facts suggested are of such a dubious nature, that right
from the Civil Court (lowest strata) to the Supreme Court (highest strata),
the Delhi police got a reprimand for not conducting investigations properly.
If you don't believe me, read the judgement." __ Is this a fact.?

b) How come a judgement based on a dubious chargesheet be acceptable to
rational human beings? Which is why I said that Modi should not be glorified
or villified. Similarly, even Afzal is being glorified or vilified, which is
not what we should do. If the facts on the ground state that Afzal has not
done the crime or not to the extent of deserving the death sentence, he
shouldn't have got it. -- Is this a fact.?

c)  The BJP protests against Valentine's day based on its perception that
westernization of society is a sin. That too is based on a perception.  __Is
that acceptable?

.
1.    Are these perceptions based on objective look, if some individuals who
are also supporters of a political party, oppose Valentines Day, does it
reflect the party's stand.?

2. Does the affidavit filed by the Home ministry reflect truth or
objectively looked at, in the case of accused by the court when Supreme
court persued it.?

3. When a CM of the state being held responsible for riots and attacks on
the basis of faith, does the same "intellectuals" look objectively at the
actions of the law keepers of Delhi State, Jharkhand State, or that of
Manipur state, and these CMs are different as they belong to different
political parties.?

4. When analyzing the facts "objectively" the weightage for faith becomes an
important issue for the "intellectuals".?
5. Deviants if belonged to a faith which is "minority" such crimes are not
big time crimes, or is it that there are no criminals in those faiths.?

Regards,

Rajen.



On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 11:31 AM, Rakesh Iyer <rakesh.rnbdj at gmail.com>wrote:

> Dear Malik jee
>
> I am happy to receive this mail, and feel nice as I respond. Here it is,
> for
> the benefit of all including you:
>
> 1) My argument about the Afzal case has no relation to as far as his being
> Muslim (or even a Kashmiri) is concerned, though this has been alleged in
> many circles. My argument is that for a crime whose charge-sheet itself is
> of a dubious nature, it is striking that the Court has sentenced a person
> to
> death on the basis of the same charge-sheet. Therefore, I have my
> reservations and I have expressed it. If it would have been a Ram, a
> Johnson
> or a Surjeet Singh, my response would be the same. And the argument too
> remains the same.
>
> 2) The second problem lies with having greater knowledge and the chances of
> its possible misuse. Just because doctors have greater knowledge than us
> does not mean that we leave everything to the doctors necessarily. Just
> because cricketers know everything about cricket does not mean we should
> leave everything to cricketers alone. The reason is that these are people
> who are professionals, and since they have a greater knowledge in a
> particular field, they can misuse their knowledge to derive profits of
> their
> own at the expense of others or causing harm to others, which can't and
> shouldn't be acceptable in any society.
>
> The same is true for Supreme Court judges as well. Just because they know
> better about law, does not mean they are the Gods of India. They are also
> fallible, and while I agree with you that collective judgment helps in
> ensuring this is somewhat rectified, it may not always be true. Hence, they
> can fall out, and we should try to get it straight.
>
> Of course, it doesn't mean judges are at fault. They can be misled as well
> by the voices of the two lawyers fighting against each other in the court.
> And model statements like the court should be partial, are not going to
> help.
>
> 3)  In the name of wrong cases, it is wrong to not apply the RTI to judges,
> because this was the same excuse adopted by the Indian bureaucrats right
> from top to bottom, and yet it was thrown into the dustbin, precisely
> because this is a good excuse of hiding things. If I am not guilty, what
> should I be afraid of? And if I feel something has been done wrong against
> me, then I have the right to go to court and settle my grievances there.
> There are also other modes of protest to account for. And if all this
> fails,
> though it may be wrong, there is also the Maoist dictum of violence to use,
> and then be ready to face the consequences, which I may be in such a state.
>
> I agree cases drag on for years and years, and our investigations are
> shoddy, but in that case, don't our courts also have to share the blame for
> it? Should they be left out of this mess?
>
> As for Sabharwal, if he is not guilty, he shouldn't worry. If he is, then
> let's hope he is caught.
>
> Regards
>
> Rakesh
> _________________________________________
> reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
> Critiques & Collaborations
> To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net with
> subscribe in the subject header.
> To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list
> List archive: &lt;https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>




-- 
Rajen.