Ordeal of battle

William the conqueror introduced in England the method of trial called 'ordeal of battle'The mode of trial was simple, the plaintiff and defendant in a civil suit or the prosecutor in a criminal trial fought each other.Both parties to the litigation were required to be engaged in physical combat.only women and church were permitted to appear by their champions and the champion was the precursor of the modern Advocate. It was assumed that in such physical combat God would help the party which was in the right.The party who was beaten was pronounced to be guilty and the party who won was declared innocent and to have justice on his side.The method of employing an 'Advocate' to appear in place of litigant was extended later from priests and women to other categories of litigants.   In the 13th century the most famous 'Advocate' to appear in place o litigant was Gladiator called William Graham .It is an interesting comment on eternal spirit of private enterprise that a businessman soon employed him on a good salary and then he let out for a certain fee per fight Grahams services to any litigant.Graham was the most successful 'Advocate'.when he was engaged by any party the case usually went uncontested.                                                                                This is a passage from Mr palkiwala's book,we the people. This law was repealed in England in 1819,I wonder whether any thing changed .

Food for thought

Govt of India maintains whole of J&K as it existed on 15th of august 1947 is an integral part of India and therefore it calls part of it under Pakistan control as Pak Occupied Kashmir [pok]. Recently, I had an occasion to meet Justice Manzoor Geelani,  a former Chief Justice of Azad kashmir (POK). He told me that this stand of India is not even supported by Indian Constitution. What followed was surprising to me and  I am sure will surprise many.
Let us first see the relevant provisions of J&K  Constitution for TERRITORY OF THE STATE - The territory of the state shall comprise all the territories which on fifteenth day of August 1947, were under the sovereignty or suzerainty of the Ruler of the State. There is no confusion or ambiguity as to what territories constitute Jammu & Kashmir. But now see the provisions of constitution of India Art 1 reads:
 [1]  India that is Bharat shall be a  union of states.
 [2]The states and territories thereof shall be as specified in the first schedule..
Reading of this Art would mean that territories and states mentioned in schedule one only will be constituents of  Indian union.  Entry 15 of schedule one deals with J&K and mentions,'THE TERRITORY WHICH IMMEDIATELY BEFORE THE COMMENCEMENT OF THIS CONSTITUTION WERE COMPRISED IN THE INDIAN STATE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR'/ Constitution of India became operative from 26th Jan 1950 and on that date part of J&K was not 'Indian Territory'
 I am purposely not giving an opinion as I hope it will generate some debate and I should wait for opinions of others.

Book reading

Every book has three parts- part one contains what you already know, part two is what you need not know, it is only part three which you need to know and must read. This is what Justice Hidayatullah advised students of Aligarh Muslim university while delivering a convocation address four decades ago.This he had learnt from a class fellow in England with whom he was competing for 1st position.
I have been practicing this theory from the day I heard the speech and was convinced about its correctness till recently. I purchased a book for almost Rs 1000, tried hard to find 3rd part but failed, could not give up as I had invested Rs 1000, so started reading from cover to cover 1100 pages.Theory in which I believed in for 4 decades became doubtful as the book I read had only one part, the part I never needed to know.

Again a failiure?

LIBERALS,selective

More and more states are enacting laws to make cow slaughter a cognisable offence.Perhaps j&k the only Muslim majority state has the distinction of having enacted such a law before any other state.on jan 3,2012 News papers reported that a jam mu court convicted two persons for cow slaughter and awarded a sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs2000 to each.
Every society has its own set of laws based on the value system and sensitivities of its constituents and this case did not surprise me.There is a law making cow slaughter an offence keeping in view the belief of millions of Indians who almost worship the cow,
What is surprising me is the reaction of so called English speaking liberals when some body questions the writing of an author on the ground of freedom of speech
I would have perhaps agreed with them had they not been selective.If an offence is committed by a celebrity like Rushdie or Hussein these people are up in arms and TV channels open there studios for Talk shows to these men and women,but if there are two poor boys committing an offence of cow slaughter it does not catch there imagination.What Rushdie or Hussain did is an offence under our laws as what these two jummu boys did is also an offence. Why are our these 'intellectuals 'selective'. I leave it to my readers. .http://www.earlytimes.in/newsdet.aspx?q=86535

Remembering shastri ji

To day is 46th death anniversary of one of the great indians,who came from a poor family and died as prime minister of India.lived a poor mans life even when he was prime minister.History has its own ways of forgetting and remembering people.
Today in the morning as usual i was going through pages of TIMES OF INDIA,on page six a paid advertisement caught my eye because of a photograph of shastri ji.The advertisement is published by shri P.N. Mahotra retired Asst commissioner of police and it reads as under,' REMEMBERANCE IN EVERLASTING MEMORY OF BHARAT RATNA SHRI LAL BAHADUR SHASTRI Ex Prime Minister of India son of Mother India on his 46th death anniversary'.
This is the reality of world,this can happen to shastri ji what will happen to lesser mortals.

Rather snubs Omar

The chief minister mentioned three circumstances which indicate that Altaf was murdered.He was fired at from a close range,two bullets were pumped in his chest and thirdly incident occured outside the premesis of NHPC.
The chief minister was of the opinion that persons involved deserve death penalty.He assured he will do all possible to bring people involved to justice.For this purpose he will knock at every door.
Almost at the same time when CM was making this statement his senior minister Mr Rather was singing a different song in jammu.Rather said govt is not even remotely responsible for the death of Altaf.Office of an institution was attacked and security personnel of that institution fired in self defence resulting in Altafs death.
Will the CM sack Rather,he belongs to his party and he has not to take permission from any body in Delhi.If he fails to act against Rather we will be justified in believing that CM was not serious while making his statement.