M A I L B A G

The Judges too should find out the truth

I refer to Justice (retd) J.L. Gupta’s article, “Jessica Lall case: Tell the truth fearlessly” (Perspective, March 5), He has rightly pointed out that justice cannot be a reality till we, the people, become conscientious and conscious of duty. But why should we have this expectation only from the common man? The article is merely an attempt to defend the image of the judiciary and cover up its shortcomings.

I understand that a judge has to decide on the basis of what he hears in court. However, how can the Judge, who is expected to be a juristic person, remain a mute spectator when one witness after another turns hostile? The blame game being played by the court is no excuse for such collapse of the criminal justice system. 

GUNEET CHAUDHARY, Advocate, Supreme Court, Chandigarh

II

Everyone knows that the real culprit has managed to escape through inducements and threats to the witnesses. Justice Gupta has very rightly put the whole issue in the correct perspective. It is the duty of the witnesses present at the time of murder to tell the truth without any fear so that justice may prevail.

The witnesses must be protected through special security arrangements. Retrial in this case is fully justified and it will give relief to the entire nation and help restore people’s faith in the judiciary.

NIRANJAN SINGH, Ropar

III

The writer’s views merit respect and attention but my own experience as a layman litigant in the courts, particularly pursuing the cases on behalf of the government, gives an impression that the scales are heavily loaded against the meek and the weak. And the Jessica Lall case cannot be any exception.

The conduct of recording evidence in a case depends upon the presiding officer of the court. Otherwise too, when statistics show that acquittal is almost universal, why should any witness confront the high and the mighty?

I am inspired by the writer’s concluding remark that somebody need to stand up to tell the truth fearlessly. But who will do that?

S. C. CHABBA, Ropar

Rare contribution of RIN mutineers This refers to “RIN mutiny gave a jolt to the British” (Spectrum, Feb 12). Various writers including the late Rear Admiral Satyinder Singh, Tirlochan Singh Trewn and now Dhananjaya Bhat have written about the RIN mutiny (Feb 18-23, 1946) that gave a jolt to the British. The views of all these writers about the mutiny are almost identical in information, though independent in nature. It gave me immense satisfaction that the Indian Navy and the nation have finally recognised the rare contribution of RIN mutineers by building a majestic memorial in the busy Colaba area of Mumbai. This reminds me of an inscription on the massive monument at Kohima in the memory of those who died while fighting for the British in some of the toughest battles in Burma. The inscription reads: When you go home, tell them we have given our today for their tomorrow. MULTAN SINGH PARIHAR, Jalari-Hamirpur (HP)

Utopian ideas

This has reference to “Mahatma’s pivotal failure” by Gurpreet Maini (Spectrum, Feb 26). It is childish and naive to say that Hindu-Muslim relations nosedived only right from the Lucknow Pact of 1916. The relations were never good; they had deteriorated during the reign of Aurangzeb. Gandhiji appeased Muslim communalism (read barbarity) through and through.

GEETANJALI KORPAL, Amritsar

II

By using the Ram Rajya slogan, Gandhiji implied an ideal rajya where values of justice, equality, idealism, renunciation and sacrifice are practised. A moderate Communist and a learned Pakistani friend of mine, Dr Naseer Akhtar, asked me this question while I was working in Iran in 1984.

I explained to him the meaning of Ram Rajya and put a question to him that should Gandhiji have asked for a kingdom like that of Aurangzeb. I further told him that if he relied on Marxism to bring equality, what was wrong in Gandhiji invoking the name of Ram, the ideal king?

Dr N. K. BHARTI, Bathinda

III

This has reference to Narinder Singh Jallo’s letter (Perspective, March 5). Neither Gurpreet nor he is objective in accusing Gandhiji of refusing special concessions to Muslims. Even after Partition, they did not accept Jinnah’s proposal for exchange of population. Rather Gandhiji exhorted Hindu-Sikh refugees to go back and live in Pakistan and took pains to ensure that Muslims are protected.

When Sardar Patel refused to release Rs 50 crore to Pakistan (its share of Partition), Gandhiji went on a hunger strike. For this appeasement, Godse assassinated him. The latter ingrained this appeasement policy so deeply that it still pervades in our polity. n

DEV RAJ SHARMA, Patiala