Re: [nukkad] 'Brutality smeared in peanut butter'

["Mahesh chandra Gupta" <>]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tip of the day:  Re-use your plastic bags. 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for expressing doubts. These may be resolved in view of facts. Facts
are given along-side the concerned doubys/statements as they appear in the
text.

MC Gupta
Oct 25
===========================================================================

----- Original Message -----
From: "Net Geek" 
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2001 4:25 AM
Subject: Re: [nukkad] 'Brutality smeared in peanut butter'


> Perhaps you are overlooking the other side of Arundhati Roy's personality.
-----------------
All of us are entitled to have our own personality and not to grudge others
their's.
============
> Notwithstanding her writing talents, she is also notorious for her utter
> disregard for the land of law,

-----------------

What is the evidence for her disregard for the law of the land, utter or
mild? I do not know of any civil or criminal case in which judgment has been
passed against her by any court. If you know, please pass on the information
to me. I shall be grateful.
============

 by openly denouncing the supreme court ruling  in Narmada dam case
-------------
Openly denouncing any court's ruling, including Supreme Court, is not
against law, as long as the criticism is fair and does attribute personal
motives to the judiciary. the following is a quote from the contempt case
against her, decided by the Supreme Court on August 28, 2001. In this case,
the Supreme Court dismissed proceedings against all the three respondents,
including Arundhati Roy. Para 16 of the judgment reads as follows: "This
does not mean that a judgment is not open to fair criticism. Section 5 of
the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, says that a person shall not be guilty of
contempt of court for publishing any fair comment on the merits of any case
which has been heard and finally decided". In para 36 of the judgment, the
Supreme Court specifically negatived the contention of the petitioners [all
Supreme court advocates] that it is not open for the public or the press to
criticize or comment upon the Supreme Court verdict. Such criticism is
permissible as long as there is no defamatory or derogatory action against
the Court. Thus openly denouncing a Supreme Court ruling is no crime as long
as there is no defamation committed against the court or its prestige
otherwise lowered.
=========

and even threatening to take law into her own hands to  implement her
agenda.

------------

Threatening to take the law into one's own hands is not a crime; actually
taking it may be, depending upon circumstances of the case.

==============

If a person of Arundhati Roy's stature can openly  challenge a court ruling
and get away with it,
--------------

Already clarified. It is no big deal. Anybody of any stature can openly
challenge a court ruling, as long as the Contempt of Courts Act is not
violated.
============

then what seperates her from
> Bal Thackarey who rubbished the findings  of Sri Krishna Commission with
> respect to Bombay riots and VHP/Bajrang Dal who gives absolutely no regard
> for the Supreme court ruling regarding Babri Masjid.
--------------

We can not compare incomparables. Both the cases cited by you are criminal
cases against the persons above named, and charge sheets have already been
filed in criminal courts and the proceedings are continuing. Nothing of this
sort applies to Arundhati Roy.

============

People should be judged
> based on their behaviour in a unform manner. If Thackarey and VHP are
liable
> to be prosecuted, then so is Arundhati Roy. Being a noted writer is no
alibi
> for irresponsible behaviour.
---------------

Already answered. Please note that everybody is entitled to a behaviour that
may appear to others to be irresponsible, but which is within bounds of law.
[Gandhi's fasts and satyagraha and picketing of foreign goods shops must
have appeared as irresponsible behaviour to the British, as also to some too
brainy Indians. But, without that irresponsibleness, we would not be
exchanging these free mails today]. Being responsible or irresponsible are
largely matters of perception, which changes in accordance with our own
positions and angles.

===========================================================================
>
>
> Bye
>
>
> Netgeek
> -------
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
>




------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Subscribe [Unsubscribe] send a blank message to 
        nukkad-list-request@mumbai-central.com 
with the word 'subscribe' ['unsubscribe'] (without quotes) in the Subject 
of your message.
The list is archived at  http://www.mumbai-central.com/nukkad/archive.html