![]() Wednesday, Mar 13, 2002 |
| Opinion | ||
|
News:
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Advts: Classifieds | Employment | Obituary | Opinion
-
Letters to the Editor
Sir, This letter is about certain parts of the Supreme Court Bench's verdict in the Arundhati Roy case that made me uneasy. One, "showing magnanimity of law by keeping in mind that the respondent is a woman... '' Do I detect a veneer of condescension in this "magnanimity"? Another, "... has landed herself in the dock of the court, apparently by drifting away from the path on which she was traversing by contributing to art and literature''. Who is to say that a person contributing to art and literature cannot "drift away" to another vocation or cause? Is this a new one, the "Ministry for Permissions to Pursue Paths other than the One Already Traversed''? I am told a judgment may be criticised, but not a judge. If it is possible then to take exception to words in the judgment without meaning offence to the judge, this is what I have to say: that while chauvinism of any kind from the average person can perhaps be forgiven as bubbling up from a cesspool of insensitivity, even the whiff of such an attitude from the Supreme Court is disappointing. It is after all about the only institution that we have any faith left in. The above statements, for example, seem irrelevant to the case in question and only stick out as random exhibitions of for lack of a "bailable" word prejudice. It might be hardly noticeable, but the highest court in the land has to stand for unquestionable fairness. Though given as we are to episodic senselessness, I am sure there is enough wisdom left in the country to prevent the "destruction of the institution itself" for as long as its judges continue to demonstrate that, in the line of duty, they can truly rise above all bias. If Ms. Roy does not show repentance or remorse for the simple fact that she feels none, it is our hypocrisy that a token retraction might have sufficed to mitigate her crime (refer the Editorial `The conviction of Arundhati Roy', March 7). I am reminded of a book Albert Camus' Outsider where a murderer is hanged, not so much for the murder as for not having cried at his mother's funeral. Surely justice would not ask for pretence?
Kashmira Kakati,
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail
News:
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
|
|
|
The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription Group Sites: The Hindu | Business Line | The Sportstar | Frontline | Home |
Copyright © 2002, The
Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of
this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of
The Hindu
|