Prashant Bhushan writes-
I have gone through the judgment of this Hon’ble Court.
As a lawyer, Bhushan knows that the Bench acts in a self-interested manner with regard to suo moto Criminal Contempt proceedings. In other words, the crime occurs if the Bench says it occurs because what is in their own interest is something only they can determine. They are the offended party. You may say 'you shouldn't be offended' but the fact remains that the offended party has an immunity in this respect. They are not obliged to justify their sense of having been offended. It is enough for them to say so and inflict whatever retaliatory action they are legally entitled to do.
Bhushan, it seems, read the judgment but did not realize that it represented the law of the land. He asks us to believe that he was 'pained' by an outcome he should have been able to predict.
I am pained that I have been held guilty of committing contempt of the Court whose majesty I have tried to uphold — not as a courtier or cheerleader but as a humble guard
this is simply untrue. Just two years ago, Bhushan called for the Bench to be made accountable to an Ombudsman or 'Lok Pal'. Majesty is sovereign. Bhushan would have subordinated the Bench to a separate authority.
Moreover, Bhushan is now comparing himself to Mahatma Gandhi who refused to apologize for contempt of court in 1919 and was severely reprimanded but not jailed because the Bench thought that Gandhi might be genuinely stupid. As one of the Judges said- 'It is probable that the Editor, the respondent Gandhi, did not realize that he was breaking the law'. So Whitey very kindly explained the law to the stupid native who was so naive as to say a reporter could comment on a sub judice case if 'a son brought a suit against his father' and the reporter had the sincere, but illegal, desire to ridicule the son. Asiatics may think that way. Europeans understood a son has the same standing in law as his own father. Still, by showing his childish mentality, Gandhi had provided an excuse for the 'maa baap' Sarkar to let him off with a warning.
Of course, the Brits understood that Gandhi was playacting. What they said was, here he is posing as a 'passive resister' not as a 'law-breaker'. So we will scold him and spell out the law for him but give him enough rope to hang himself.
The Brits could not have foreseen that Gandhi- whose political following would soon grow so formidable that it seemed inevitable that the Viceroy would have to come to terms with him- would unilaterally surrender two years later. Then they had a good laugh and jailed the silly man for sedition- to which the poor fool pleaded guilty.
By comparing himself with Gandhi, Bhushan is saying 'like Gandhi, I am lying. I pretend to be all for the 'majesty of the Court' but everyone knows I want to overthrow it and establish my Lok Pal or Joke Pal or any Pal of mine is no Pal of Arvind Kejriwal. If the Bench does not jail me for contempt today, it will have to jail me for sedition tomorrow. Not till all the British- people like Narendra Modi (real name Nicholas Maugham) and Arvind Kejriwal (Andrew Kensington)- are thrown out of the country will I desist from making a nuisance of myself. After all, I am following in the footsteps of the Mahatma. He delayed Independence by twenty years and also caused the Partition of the country by betraying the Khilafatists in 1922, thus showing the INC was a Hindu party representing Banias, Brahmans and Kayasthas. By contrast, my Party represents me and Yogendra Yadav. We will certainly prevail over Britishers like Nicholas Maugham and Andrew Kensington. Jai Hind!'
Bhushan did a lot of 'Public Interest' Litigation- though, with hindsight, a most of it was counterproductive. Bhushan harps on this-
— for over three decades, at some personal and professional cost.
But there was also benefit. Bhushan entered politics, capitalising on his PIL work. But Kejriwal outwitted him and booted him out of the AAP. Bhushan now hopes to gain mass support by attacking the Judiciary. But the common man is not interested in the Supreme Court. That is only of relevance to elite plutocrats. But Bhushan himself is of the elite. That is why he has started a new, wholly useless, political party. He hopes to revive his flagging political fortunes by venting spleen at the Bench.
I am pained, not because I may be punished, but because I have been grossly misunderstood.
Bhushan has been running around like a headless chicken for many years now. He has not merely been understood, he has been seen through.
I am shocked
why? because you are a crap lawyer. Either that or you are telling porkies as is your habit.
that the court holds me guilty of “malicious, scurrilous, calculated attack” on the institution of administration of justice.
Moreover it is an attack from which Bhushan hopes to make political capital.
I am dismayed that the Court has arrived at this conclusion without providing any evidence of my motives to launch such an attack.
The motive is obvious. Bhushan tried to enter politics as part of the Lok Pal agitation. Kejriwal outwitted him and chucked him out of the Aam Aadmi Party. Now Bhushan is prowling around discontentedly hoping to make a comeback by blackguarding the Bench- saying it is corrupt and tyrannical and conspiring against democracy and free speech and so forth.
I must confess that I am disappointed that the court did not find it necessary to serve me with a copy of the complaint on the basis of which the suo motu notice was issued,
But the court gave you a hearing. You could have asked them why they were angry. Then you should have apologized in the customary manner. Why pretend that getting or not getting some document hurt your defence? You lied in two tweets. You needed to show you acted in a bona fide manner and that what you said was true. You could not do that. Had you apologized the outcome may have been different. But you seem to want the Court to punish you so that your political career gets a boost. I suppose the Court will give you a suspended sentence and ban you from appearing before them for a year- which is what they did to another attorney in a similar case.
nor found it necessary to respond to the specific averments made by me in my reply affidavit or the many submissions of my counsel.
But those averments were foolish and beside the point.
I find it hard to believe that the Court finds my tweet “has the effect of destabilising the very foundation of this important pillar of Indian democracy”.
That is unquestionably its 'tendency'. Moreover, we know that Bhushan wants to make the Bench answerable to an Ombudsman- i.e. he has advocated shearing it of its majesty.
I can only reiterate that these two tweets represented my bonafide beliefs,
But belief is not truth. A lawyer should know that. Moveover, circumstantially a mala fide motive- viz to undermine the prestige of the Bench so that it is put under a Lok Pal- is well established. But the Court does not need to make a determination of motive.
the expression of which must be permissible in any democracy.
No. It is not permissible for an officer of the court to lie about its being closed when that officer knows it is open. He can't say- 'Judges take bribes. They hate democracy'- unless he has proof that this is so. But, if he has such proof then there is a proper procedure for it to be made available to the relevant authorities. Free speech is not 'chilled' if has a means to make its point in the manner most productive of the public benefit it intends. I may not say 'my neighbor sodomizes stray dogs because he belongs to such and such ethnicity or religion'. I may submit evidence of indecent behavior to the Police or the SPCA.
Indeed, public scrutiny is desirable for healthy functioning of judiciary itself.
But tweeting bile is not 'public scrutiny'.
I believe that open criticism of any institution is necessary in a democracy, to safeguard the constitutional order.
But Bhushan has not provided any such 'open criticism' in a manner worthy of perusal or rebuttal. If Judges are corrupt, why would a Lok Pal be any better? He won't tell us. What was that whole Anna Hazare movement about? As far as I can see, all it did was help Kejriwal rise while Kiran Bedi and the Bhushans and Yogendra Yadav and so forth ended up looking like dicks. True, Bedi got a Governorship. But she'd have got something of that sort in any case. Bhushan himself was expected to do as well as his Dad- who was a Law Minister back in late Seventies.
We are living through that moment in our history when higher principles must trump routine obligations,
This cretin has been living that moment for years and years. Kejriwal didn't just live it, he rose by it. But Bhushan is doomed to repeating the same script in ever shriller tones year after year, decade after decade.
when saving the constitutional order must come before personal and professional niceties,
Bhushan couldn't save himself from Kejriwal's boot up his backside. He is a crap lawyer. Even our Judges look smart next to him. Venugopalan looks a veritable Solomon.
when considerations of the present must not come in the way of discharging our responsibility towards the future. Failing to speak up would have been a dereliction of duty, especially for an officer of the court like myself.
But Bhushan is also the President of a political party called 'Swaraj Abhiyan'. It is in his interest to denigrate the Bench so as to promote his own Party's panacea. Of course, he will fail as he has failed in the past. Indeed, 'Swaraj' looks like a Yogendra Yadav vehicle. If it starts getting traction, Yadav will boot Bhushan out of it.
My tweets were nothing but a small attempt to discharge what I considered to be my highest duty at this juncture in the history of our republic.
It is ridiculous to think that tweeting discharges one's 'highest' duty. A failed politician's highest duty is to stop talking nonsense and try to find something useful to do.
I did not tweet in a fit of absent-mindedness. It would be insincere and contemptuous on my part to offer an apology for the tweets that expressed what was and continues to be my bonafide belief.
The problem with Bhushan's bona fide beliefs is that they are stupid and false.
Therefore, I can only humbly
It is not a mark of humility on the part of a failed politician to compare oneself to a successful historical figure
paraphrase what the father of the nation, Mahatma Gandhi, had said in his trial: I do not ask for mercy. I do not appeal to magnanimity. I am here, therefore, to cheerfully submit to any penalty that can lawfully be inflicted upon me for what the Court has determined to be an offence, and what appears to me to be the highest duty of a citizen.
What was the context? Gandhi had called off the Non Cooperation Movement. He had conceded that India was not ready for Independence because it was incapable of offering non-violent Civil Disobedience. Its people, infuriated by high meat prices, roasted policemen alive. But, India was equally shit at defending itself though its soldiers had prevailed against Turks, Afghans and Germans- but, Gandhi implies, only because the Brits commanded them. Indeed, India could not even feed itself. Why? Because Indians were stupid and subject to 'mad fury' such that they went around telling stupid lies.
Gandhi was supposed to be a Saintly guy who loved his enemy. But, in his statement at his trial he said spreading disaffection was a virtue. It was his highest duty. Why? It seems he didn't understand Economics. So he blamed a foreign country for problems created by greed and stupidity of a type he himself displayed. The man was constantly demanding money in exchange for some 'Swaraj' that never came. Naturally, he had to spread disaffection. That was how he paid for his stupid schemes. Gandhi starts off by telling a lie- viz that he had not always been seditious at heart because as an Indian he naturally abhorred foreign rule- and then gets carried away into talking imbecilic nonsense.
Bhushan similarly starts off by telling a lie and then ends up talking paranoid nonsense. He pretends he upheld the 'majesty of the court'. He did not. He sowed disaffection against it because he wanted it to be made subordinate to a Lok Pal.
The immediate consequence of Gandhi's stupid Trial speech, in which he pretended he hadn't always been a seditionist but had only become so because of his stupidity, was that the Viceroy became the master of the political situation. He could withdraw the Rowlatt Act as no longer needed and placate the Khilafatis who understood that Gandhi had sold them out. Indeed, the Muslims were amazed to see that 2 Jews- the Viceroy and the Secretary of State for India- had stood up for the Muslim cause while the Hindus had betrayed them.
Gandhi also betrayed the British Liberals and Radicals. How? He said two things
1) Indians were completely shit. They couldn't defend or feed themselves. The Brits must stay though, because Indians were as stupid as shit, the Indians hated their saviors.
2) Indians were completely shit at understanding that their being completely shit was a barrier to doing 'Civil Disobedience'. So they'll keep doing it unless you lock them up. Indians are mad dogs. They can't be civil and they won't be affectionate. Lock us up, but don't please stop ruling over us.
Thus, when Labour took power in Westminster, they had to appoint Olivier- who had resiled from his previous radicalism and now looked up on dusky folk as cretinous malcontents, not Wedgwood, who retained pre-Gandhian illusions, Secretary of State for India. Thus India did not get what Ireland and Egypt got.
Gandhi decided not to fight the sedition case which the Government brought. By contrast, Bhushan has bitterly contested criminal contempt charges. Gandhi said ' “I plead guilty to all the charges. I observe that the King’s name has been omitted from the charge, and it has been properly omitted." In other words, Gandhi was a loyal subject of the King Emperor. Sadly, he was as stupid as shit and was begging to be locked up for his own good. He was also a liar. He said- “From a staunch loyalist and cooperator,
The Brits knew Gandhi was a Nationalist. They had always suspected Gokhale was in cahoots with Tilak. Gandhi had distributed his stupid 'Hind Swaraj' though it was banned. He pretended to be loyal at one point- but politicians are supposed to pretend just as lawyers are supposed to lie. Still, there is an art to it. Gandhi lacked that art. So does Bhushan. They have a Messiah complex. But their actions hurt India- but only if Indians are stupid enough to buy into their hype.
I have become an uncompromising disaffectionist and non-cooperator
But this was obvious from 'Hind Swaraj' and his previous contempt of court case.
… To preach disaffection towards the existing system of government has become almost a passion with me … If I were set free, I would still do the same. I would be failing in my duty if I did not do so …
In other words, Gandhi- by reason of some personal quirk- was a seditionist even if he had no better plan for his country. He just didn't like things as they were. He was not amenable to reason. He needed to be locked up, otherwise he would continue to run amok committing 'Himalayan blunders' all over the place. He was basically saying 'I thought India could become free. I was wrong. Lock me up because I'm a crackpot. Also don't you dare fuck off back to Blighty. You've got to stay here to keep the wogs from murdering each other. As a wog myself, my duty is to encourage this sort of craziness. Yours is to lock me up till I calm down.
I had either to submit to a system which has done irreparable harm to my country, or to incur the mad fury of my people, bursting forth when they heard the truth from my lips …
In other words, British rule was harmful but its absence would be worse because Indians suffer from 'mad fury'. Lock them up till they cool down. But don't fuck off back to Blighty to leave these furious lunatics free to slaughter each other.
I do not ask for mercy. I am here to invite and to submit to the highest penalty that can be inflicted upon me for what in law is a crime, but which is the first duty of every citizen
To a Christian this may sound crazy. How can one's first duty be to commit a crime? The answer is that Hindus and Jains etc believe in reincarnation. Commit crazy crimes now so as to get reborn in Satya Yuga where everybody lives a million years and there is no Crime and no Scarcity and all the clouds are made of cotton candy.
… Affection can not be manufactured or regulated by law. I hold it to be a virtue to be disaffected towards a government which, in its totality, has done more harm to India than any previous system … It is physical and brutal ill-treatment of humanity which has made many of my co-workers and myself impatient of life itself.”
But, that's cool because they will get reborn in Satya Yuga or gain Kevalya or whatever. India, of course, will remain a shithole filled with the 'mad fury' of Bhushans whose highest duty is to make a nuisance of themselves.
Gandhi's panacea for India's ills was 'khaddar' spinning and weaving cotton cloth. Bhushan's panacea is a Lok Pal. But, both panaceas are utterly mad. Either 'khaddar' is economically viable- in which case rich countries would be doing- or it isn't and the thing needs to be replaced by mill cloth. Blaming the Brits for imaginary crimes is the act of a fool. Similarly, either there is some method of choosing incorruptible Lok Pals who can uncover corruption anywhere it exists- in which case advanced countries would have them- or Lok Pals would be just like Judges or 'Vigilance Commissioners'. Pretending some evil Judicial conspiracy is stopping such Lok Pals sprouting up all over the place is pure lunacy.
Gandhi said-
I came reluctantly to the conclusion that the British connection had made India more helpless than she ever was before, politically and economically.
Gandhi was lying. He had published 'Hind Swaraj' long before and had distributed it in India though it was banned as seditious. The British knew Gandhi was lying. It was the stupidity of his lies which served them well. He could have forced them to prove their case. He could have simply uttered the true Nationalist credo which involves saying 'India can only become rich and powerful if it is ruled by Indians for Indians.' Instead Gandhi affirmed the 'die hard' Tory case. India was a shithole. Its people had no loyalty or affection or other canine qualities. They were rabid creatures who need to be locked up for long spells till they come to their senses. Gandhi gave the Brits a walkover. He showed them that Satyagraha was a well organized method to bring about the failure of any spontaneous political movement. Gandhi would run amok. Then he would admit defeat- coz India is a shithole and Indians are rabid dogs- and the Government could just arrest all the Congress leaders and lock them up till they suddenly remembered that they had to go to Vienna for urgent medical reasons or else that what they really wanted to do was 'constructive social work' etc.
Gandhi, it should be remembered, was a Gujerati Bania. He didn't understand that the First World War had shown that Indian soldiers could alter the balance of power in distant theaters of war. Instead of saying, 'India can force project. It doesn't need guarding from Afghans or Burmans. Thus India should be powerful and independent.' Gandhi said-
A disarmed India has no power of resistance against any aggressor if she wanted to engage in an armed conflict with him.
Why was this apostle of non-violence burbling about armed conflict? Brigadier Dyer had defeated the Afghans. Nobody expected anything similar from a Gujerati Bania. But the agricultural castes produced good soldiers. Indeed they were clamoring for more peace-time recruitment.
Why was Gandhi so stupid? The truth is telling lies causes stupidity. Gandhi was lying and so, as always happens when liars seek to explain away their lies, he said more and more stupid things. This delighted the British. They were justified in excluding the INC from decisions about India's political future. Why? Its leader was a cretin.
Gandhi explicitly concedes the 'die hard' thesis. Smart Indians want the Brits to stay. Some stupid High school kids and other such rabble are behind the agitation.
So much is this the case that some of our best men consider that India must take generations, before she can achieve Dominion Status.
Gandhi, it turned out, was more Imperialist, because he was more Racist, than Churchill! He says 'some of India's best men' are pessimistic about India's ability to rise up politically- presumably because the people are stupid and subject to 'mad fury'. The country can't defend itself. It can't feed itself. The place is a basket case.
She has become so poor that she has little power of resisting famines. Before the British advent India spun and wove in her millions of cottages, just the supplement she needed for adding to her meager agricultural resources.
So it was naked and hungry then and is hungrier and more naked now for Malthusian reasons. But England too would have been naked and hungry if it had relied on cottage industries. Gandhi, being Indian, is too stupid to see this. No wonder Bhushan thinks of himself as Gandhi's current avatar. He says 'England has got rid of criminal contempt!' But Scotland and Northern Ireland has retained it. But where is the British Bench and Bar and where is the Indian Bench and Bar? The smartest people in the world want their cases decided in London, and are willing to spend a pretty penny to make this happen, because British judges and barristers 'add value'. They are very very smart. Indian lawyers and judges are utterly shit. You go to Court not to get a decision but to delay a decision. But, if you are smart, you disintermediate the Indian Courts entirely. Look at the Italian Marines case. The Indian Supreme Court did not even understand that a diplomat can't waive his own immunity. Only his Government could do so. What was the outcome? The world decided that the Indian Bench is a ship of fools. Steer clear of it.
Gandhi's craziness arose out of a stupid economic theory-
This cottage industry, so vital for India’s existence, has been ruined by incredibly heartless and inhuman processes as described by English witness.
This was a lie. English people weren't stupid. They did speak of weavers cutting off their own thumbs to escape debt slavery or other exploitation. But the exploiters were Indians, not Europeans.
No doubt, some of Gandhi's financial backers were making money out of the boycott of British textiles and sugar. But the consumer was losing. Muslims were getting alienated. Gandhi's stupidity came at a price.
Little do town dwellers know how the semi-starved masses of India are slowly sinking to lifelessness. Little do they know that their miserable comfort represents the brokerage they get for their work they do for the foreign exploiter, that the profits and the brokerage are sucked from the masses.
But Gandhi was a 'bania'- a broker. His chums were doing well. Like the Bhushans they enjoyed affluence while pretending to champion the poor.
What was the outcome of Gandhi's stupid lies? The British saw that he was a cretin who blamed them for the stupidity and greed of his own class. What has been the outcome of Bhushan's stupid lies? The Bench sees he is a cretin who blames them for the stupidity and greed of the class of advocate that he himself represents.
What of the masses? All they wanted was to get out from under the boot of the zamindar and the bania and the vakil. But they had to do it for themselves. Gandhi was no help. His big achievement was dividing the country and keeping the Brits around for an extra 20 years.
What of contemporary India? Will the masses show enthusiasm for Lok Pals who, as Baba Ramdev promised, will bring back so much black money from Switzerland that everybody would get an Air Conditioner? No. They remember demonetization. I suppose, if you like Kejriwal, you will feel some good came out of the Anna Hazare movement. But who will find a kind word for Bhushan? His 'mad fury' bites at the air. Perhaps a spell in a nice quiet padded cell will calm him down. We can only live in hope.
No comments:
Post a Comment