yes u r rite. it is not that u r not patriotic or antisocial… but u seem to be the biggest escapist that i have ever come across. i apologize if i sound extremely rude but this article has angered me enough to rebuke in such a manner. firstly, i think u need to get ur facts rite. i am sure u know that it was only bcoz of Lalu Prasad Yadav that Indian Railways has revolutionized. and yes, it’s a case study being researched and taught at the top universities of (ur favourite) US and UK. thus, accusing him of being unintelligent is not fair. secondly, it is very easy to crib and complain but extremely difficult to take a stand agnst the wrong and endevour to make a difference. it is high time u ostracize this hypocrisy and be a ‘capable’ citizen of India and not proclaim the superiority of the Americas and ur other immigration options.

Aww… Poor Sunali is angered. Tch tch tch … how sad. sigh.

Well, Sunali, how often do you travel by train? I do, rather frequently. What Mr. Yadav has gone and done is he’s reduced the fares, by decreasing the quality of travel. Everything, from the cleanliness of the loos to the food served, has declined. So what you have is not an improvement, but rather an exchange of vices. I think that accusing him of being unintelligent is completely fair, and in fact I shall go to the extent of accusing you of the same.

And as for your ‘taking a stand and being a capable citizen’ tripe, well listen up. I see ‘capable’ citizens all around me, from the lecherous bus conductors to the corrupt government officials to the uncouth, abusive man on the street. All of these people are trying to ‘make a difference’. Only, their idea of a difference differs from mine (which in turn, probably differs from yours). With all this ‘difference’, I’m amazed you think anything can be done about this country. But it’s a good thing, you know. It’s good that you’re taking a stand, it’s just that every other inept twerp is taking a stand too, and their stand differs from yours. While you fight corruption, they protect it. Have fun educating our inefficient and uninterested friends. While I ‘escape’ by calling a spade a spade, I’m sure that you, sweetums, can make a difference by standing up for what you believe. Yep, Mera Bharat Mahan alright.

skipping all the melodramatic “tch tch tch’s” of yours, i didnt know that u considered urself to belong to this category of “lecherous bus conductors to the corrupt government officials to the uncouth, abusive man on the street”. anyway, my intention wasnt to make TheViewspaper a blogpage where in we aimlessly shower insults onto each other. i know i am capable of making a difference and i dont care if it sounds stereotypical to u though. however, i wish u all the luck in ur favourable immigration plans. India certainly doesn’t need u coz u dont seem to need her either. all the best!

The immature vein of this article really makes me wonder whether you are 17 years old. Let me enlighten you on some facts… firstly the age for working for wages is not 18 years as you claim but 14 years. Secondly you seem to have overlooked the entire function of the Constitution.It is to rule and govern a country, not as you so prudently put, make sure that your trains run on time.
Then you speak about hawkers on the road and how they should be stolen of a livelihood because the law does not allow it. Being a Lawyer let me tell you the basic purpose of a law is to protect the needs of the people. In this case it is quite clear the social utility gained from allowing hawkers is much higher than the social utility gained from allowing you to walk freely on the pedestrian path. The problem lies in the fact that our society has not been able to catch up to our laws in certain respects. The Economic demography of India does not allow for the fact that people may be able to survive without hawking wares, albeit “illegally” as you so claim.
You also seem to have a penchant for social tirades in general. From Ministers to Traffic Policemen, you seem to hate them all. But do you realise that laws DO protect you from politicians with a criminal background? Or was that another lacunae in your little speech with which you sort of got carried away. The Election Commission Directives demand that a prospective candidate/ electoral candidate release his prior criminal record along with assets owned by him and his spouse. If the people still wish to elect him it is their problem, not yours.
The arguments that you put forth in your article are quite petty actually. I hope the next time you write an article you research and do not expect the constitution to safeguard your rights against standing in the sun for dignitaries that your school has invited. As an advice, I recommend you take a day off on those days. Saves me the trouble of reading an article full of teenage angst and you the trouble of writing them

Firstly, no one asked you to take the “trouble”, or did they?
Secondly, “being a lawyer”, yourself, tell me, do you actually believe that walking space on the “pedestrian path” should be forsaken for hawkers so that they can make a livelihood? If so, what do you say of the numerous accidents that shall take place when pedestrians making their own paths on the main road? What of the hard earned money wasted just because some, like you, yourself, cannot appreciate an opinion and wholly support indiscipline while recommending a day off to concerned individuals because your puny intellect believes it to be “teenage angst”? Also, tell me, do you say it intentionally for, “being a lawyer”, yourself, you can then sue the concerned party after such a mishap, and so make your own livelihood? Or is it that when you are saying that the “basic purpose of the law is to protect the needs of the people”, you are speaking only of the hawkers, not the pedestrians who might have an accident because the sidewalk is infested with hawkers? Is it easy for you to say because, “being a lawyer”, yourself, you are unaccustomed to walking and only keep to your posh four-wheeler? (I doubt it for, “being a lawyer” like yourself, I doubt you have anything to carry you on wheels, posh or otherwise.)
Next, if a government cannot do something as elementary as make sure its trains run on time, is it really doing a good job of running the country? Or are you saying that the country’s with governments that do take care of such fundamental things is inept and its constitution does not aim at ruling and governing the country? Also, is it not up to those who govern us to take an initiative to improve the economic demography of this country, so that people don’t have to take to infesting a sidewalk in order for them to “survive”? Or are you saying that does not fall into the “entire function of the Constitution” to “rule and govern a country”?
As far as criminal records are concerned, the people spoken of may not have one that is known of, but are you really naïve enough to think that they do not have the potential for one? Or that they aren’t, in some way or the other, related to people who do? And who ultimately is elected, or who is not, is everybody’s problem. Or does it not bother you who leads the country where? As for the police force, well, you, “being a lawyer” yourself, aught to focus on daily happenings in the country a wee bit more, instead of keeping your nose in moldy law books, and peeping out occasionally to take the “trouble” of reading articles that you, unwittingly, conceive to be “full of teenage angst”.
As for standing in the sun, well, kids are made to do that. And if you, “being a lawyer” yourself, believe that kids should not “expect” the constitution to safeguard their rights, then who’s right should it safeguard, those of inept politicians, police officers, so-called dignitaries, and lawyers like yourself? The kids are the future, and assume they die of sunstroke, because they were standing in the sun, “being a lawyer” yourself, you will be the first to jump to the “aid” of the bereaved parents and sue the school, won’t you? Of course, you will. So what you’re saying, in theory at least, is that call to preemptive action, through the voicing of an opinion is just a balloon blown out of proportion, “full of teenage angst” and not actually something the constitution should take heed of; and instead, the law should sympathise with the plight of the dead kids when you’re in court, delivering a performance to bring justice to the grieving parents, so that you win the jury, the case, and the fat pay packet from those bereaved parents themselves, right?
I would recommend that you revise your way of thinking… no, that’s not right, let’s do that again… I would recommend that you make an attempt at thinking, and when you succeed i.e., assuming you do… well, then you shall know that from taking care of things, “petty” or not, only does any picture look perfect, or institution function properly; and not simply by addressing those issues that will benefit a select group. And if you do not succeed, which is more than expected of you, well, I’d recommend you take a couple of weeks off and try harder…

My primary reason for commenting on the article was the fact that it was not researched. At all.
I fail to understand though that where your problem with lawyers actually lies. You seem to have a very American concept of a lawyer, dealing with juries and posh four wheels as you so aptly describe them. For all you know I am a Public Prosecutor getting paid Rs. 350 per case, and as a matter of information:juries do not exist in India.
Nowhere in my comments do I actually say that laws should not be made to rectify the problems that exist in society. They should and that is the entire purpose of law.
As for your allegation of my addressing issues that benefit only a single group, I recommend you do a demographic analysis of what has been written in the article you shall find that it is an upper middle class urbanite viewpoint being purported. An article or an opinion must take into account what the other groups may think on that issue as well.
As far the problem of potentially criminal minded people being elected as leader goes: I have three questions
1) Who decides that they are potential criminals?
2)How do you decide?
3)On what basis do you decide?

An article or an opinion must take into account what the other groups may think on that issue as well.
Why?

@Mikhail- Firstly, a jury is an essential part of court proceedings, which has been comfortably left out in the Indian judicial system. Instead, we have a doddering fool, who has nothing, but his withering mind (i.e., assuming he has one) and his deepening senility, to guide him. According to yourself, an opinion must incorporate what other groups may think of that issue as well, didn’t you? Well, tell me, then, should not the judgment incorporate the opinion of a jury, one that is competent, of course? As for who you are, and what you earn, it’s more of your concern.

Secondly, what exactly do you have against an American concept of a lawyer? Or do you just have a problem that they have posh four wheelers and a jury to aid them, while you have nothing but free time to look around for what you consider an “un-researched” opinion.

Thirdly, your thoughts on the “entire purpose” of the law keep changing from comment to comment, and so shall be ignored. Considering you do keep your nose buried in moldy law books, you might as well keep your eyes on it, read it and retain it, as well.

Next, what’s wrong with purporting an upper middle class urbanite viewpoint, anyway? If you can speak on the behalf of hawkers, why can’t someone else speak on behalf of the people he wishes to represent?

Also, why must an article or an opinion “take into account what the other groups may think on that issue as well”? The article you have commented on is an individual’s own opinion. If he decides to include what you and the hawkers have to say, how will it be his opinion any longer? Have you not noticed the writer of the article has begun, and carried on, his article stating that it is his opinion? If not, do you not notice that the article is written in the first person, with the first person singular “I” and “me”? If not, have you not even noticed that he begins with a personal anecdote? Or were you too busy straining with the “trouble” of peeping out of your moldy law books in which you bury yourself with eyes closed shut?

As for your questions, they’re incorrectly framed. For, in questions 2. & 3., you have already assumed that I have offered “me” as an answer to question 1., which is, of course, incorrect. Whether they are potential criminals can be discovered by their actions, and the consequences of those actions. The discovery helps in the decision. And the basis of the decision is the collective human conscience, which has the ability to differentiate between criminal and non-criminal traits, and categorize accordingly.

@Hanedin- Exactly. Thank you.

An article or an opinion must take into account the views of other groups for the very simple fact, that by doing so the author and his article both gain credibility. The article/opinion must say how the views of the author are suggesting a change, how his views are more logically sound than what is being propounded by the opposing group and how his/her solutions are going to work. An article must not only critique but suggest a solution as well. Highlighting a problem is well and good, but if you do not suggest or invite a solution the article is meaningless. The very basic idea behind an article is to convince the readers. Readers are not convinced without sound logic backed up by properly researched facts. Please take this as constructive advice.
Secondly, I gathered from the promiscuous use of quotation marks whenever you wrote “being a lawyer”, the fact that maybe you were trying to mock me. I have no problem with that, but the basis on which you were mocking me is on a very western concept of what a lawyer should be. I just wanted to point out that it may not be true in the Indian context, hence the example.
I agree with you on the fact that my questions were ambiguously worded and I request you to exchange ‘you’ with ‘one’ in the questions. For, informations sake however, I would like to point out to you that the method in which the questions were framed is oft used and does not mean the reader but a hypothetical you meaning the entire society/ gamut of people living under the same law as is in this case.
I cannot however, agree with you on the fact that collective human conscience can be used as a method to identify those who may contest in collections on the basis that nothing called a collective human conscience can be said to practically exist. Theoretically it is a utopian ideal, but then utopian ideals do not translate into reality. It is a good idea, but in a multi-ethnic and religious society like ours it is extremely difficult to formulate something like this. Maybe next century, when society is evolved enough. But I doubt it will ever be.

I was extremely apprehensive about writing the first post itself because I was afraid it might degenerate into something like this. So this shall be my last post. Anyone wishing to contact me may do it at whatziznehm@gmail.com. Taking the advice of an old proverb I recuse myself from this conversation. The proverb goes, if I am not mistaken as:
“Never argue with a fool. They drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience”.

“Never argue with a fool. They drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.”

And who should be more experienced than you, “being a lawyer” yourself.

Firstly, I would advise you to read what has been written in the by the author, and in my comments. The “article” here is not an argumentative essay by a tenth grade student. It is an opinion. An opinion is a view a person holds. When an opinion is given, it need not always be a solution, or even suggest a solution. For example, in my opinion, while we (the author and me) were drinking at the fountain of knowledge, you were busy gargling (“being a lawyer”, you were probably getting your throat clear for your next “argument” in court). But when I state my opinion, I am under no obligation to suggest, in it, a solution. It is like giving an address to someone. How that person reaches, whether or not he knows the direction, or how he will ultimately find it, or even bothers to reach, is another story altogether. Giving an opinion, and leaving it at that, may at times help in the development of new opinions, provided the reader is capable of thinking, and isn’t as lazy, just waiting to be convinced, as you believe them to be. If they are, as you come across as saying, just waiting to be convinced, so much so that everything written must be convincing them of something or the other, then wouldn’t that make them fickle, irresponsible, inconstant?

Secondly, the quotation marks where doing what their names suggest of them- quoting, namely, you. And I wasn’t “maybe” “trying” to mock you— I was mocking you, whether or not the “basis” was “a very western concept of what a lawyer should be”, is irrelevant.

Thirdly, ‘collective human conscience’ is, I agree, a theory, and so is ‘democracy’. If you say that ‘collective human conscience’ is an “utopian ideal”, you must also consider the fact that ‘democracy’, too, is no different, and can, therefore, as you, yourself, put it, cannot “translate into reality”. But, all this aside, I’d like to point out that I did not say that “collective human conscience can be used as a method to identify those who may contest in collections (??)”. I said that whether or not they (those who are contesting in elections, not collections) have criminal tendencies may be judged by collective human conscience.

As for your apprehensions about you first post, don’t worry; I was apprehensive about it as well— I didn’t know people with such puny intellects existed [but then all I had to do was scroll a wee bit higher and check out Ms. Sood’s posts— which were (and this is the correct usage of your clichéd phrase) “full of teenage angst”].

Your posts have not “degenerated” into anything. You’ve got to be blind not to notice how brilliantly entertaining our exchange has been. But you can go ahead with being a spoilsport escapist and recuse yourself from this fencing tournament. ‘Tis sad, though— “being a lawyer”, I thought you’d put up a better show.

Lastly, you should try to appreciate pieces/articles/opinions or whatever you read at being pieces of literature, at some level, at least. By that I mean you should try to appreciate style, wit, humour, even sarcasm— and not always be a spoilsport and try to throw your weight, your e-mail id, or your familiarity with the Indian law around. “Please take this as constructive advice.”

Never wrestle with a pig, you both get dirty and besides the pig likes it. Sorry to break my word, but couldn’t resist this one

Considering you did break your word, and did get down to what you consider a wrestling tournament– Oink! Oink! to you–