My memory power is not unlimited. Even if it is , it is so tuned within ,that it automatically prioritises the inputs. I cannot have all that I have learnt or want to learn or do love or want to love retrieve or recollect or recover at one go. The recovery will come as per the recollection or storage priority decided by my inner-self most of which is either reflexive or automatic. Do not judge me by my recollection or recovery key output, it is really jumbled, confusing and would lead you to wild destination. Only some time and not always my input key is under my control. I intake, receive and inhale most of the time involuntarily, without filtering or scanning even from unknown sources. I need to fine-tune my rejection key and make it faster, and equip myself with such additional capability so that I can filter and identify rapidly on value based parameters the worth of every input coming to me .

Whether Supreme Court or the law Commission stands for “We the People” of India that is Bharat or for a handful of judges or Lawyers.
Whether higher communicability of laws, judgements of courts and their mass base deteriorates the value of Law, Legal Education,Legal/ Judicial Literature or enhances the worth. Whether English is still not away from 90% of we the Indians as a medium of communication completely and only less then three per cent of elite and influential Indians are easy with English? Why we are hesitant to shed our colonial mind-se.
Is there a conspiracy at some level ( easily understandable, visible and almost apparent)o exploit the 90% Bhartiya, confuse the rest 7% and make India A heaven, Paradise for elite 3%

We intentionally enact protectionist laws and gag the innovative instinct-we fail to channelise our intellectual strength- our industry houses would prefer to invest in order to innovate ways to avoid law ,avoid tax and cannot invest even if minds beg for that, in creating individual or corporate IP, we are best in the world to kill inquisitiveness , questioning minds, improving hands and are market leader for every thing worn out, stale, obsolete- we purchase scraps and deal in everything second hand, we as a nation are in the world market either beggingly or by courtesy - Our legal brain has no idea of Property Jurisprudence- may be we are still beginners .

Corporate-politician- criminal oneness is one of the perennial source of corruption.
This nexus or unholy alliance was at one point of time a tool against mighty Britishers, deadliest evil of all evil from Indian Nationalist view point and came to be tolerated by Gandhi,Himmatsinghka,Bajaj, Birla and garam dal and naram dal of 1910-47 for thr sake of justice and freedom at every cost.
But soon after 1947 the combination did not allow free india to stop corruption and post india leaders-business,politicals,criminals all remained united and did not pay heed to Gandhijee and made  corruption a courtesey, bakhseesh, Peshi,Mamooli,Nazarana, Dali, Salami, Chanda,Laag a part of life .
In last 100 years we felt no sensation for generating continuous unaccounted money and wealth .
The whole three or four generation was forced to grow up in this way. TTE, Thanedaar, Rationwala system,CA CERTIFYING BOOKS AND GENERATING VOUCHERS IN HIS OFFICE,ADVOCATE DRAFTING COMPLAINTS OUT OF IMAGINATION,Govt officer reporting incompletely,business world freely Taking two memos-one for self and other for govt records,Leaders succumbing to allurement these all have become order of the 20th century in India- Let at least the judiciary take a lead against these -let every body support-It may be difficult to fight corruption because you will find champions for that, none of us are to-day corruption free, STILL CORRUPTION REALLY HITS----let not this lead die fruitlessly-
Let us give at least one chance to ourselves.

Transparency,reasoning and fearless declaration of standards to be followed or already set up by society is the essence of healthy justice delivery system.
 We really need a continuously introspective judiciary with a forward looking vision for a meaningful prospective society.
 Judicial books,Judicial literature are very few. Law books cannot be judicial literature in strict sense. Judicial books, writings, has to be received by judicial fraternity warmly irrespective of the fact whether you agree with everything in the book or not.

 Judiciary should not avoid fair criticism at any level.
Keshawanand Bharti case and hundreds of other cases carry untold stories.
Let some one have the courage to bring them out.
The society has a right to know the real process of judging and the forces working around the realm of judging at the top-

Standard well identifiable transparent benchmarked society  only is justice conscious society. Benchmarks if decided without objective evaluation may make the observance of those benchmarks or achievement difficult, unrealistic  and ultimately farce and futile.
Standard we expect must be within reach. Benchmark we decide must be communicated intelligently. Awareness only earns compliance. Persuasion and insistence are other canons  of achieving uniformity.

आरोप ही सबसे सहज होते हैं- लगा डाला और तमाशा देखने लगे- मन भर गया तो आरोप वापस ले लिया- जिस पर आरोप लगा वह भी साँस लेकर कहे , मुक्ति मिल गई यही बहुत- जिसने आरोप लगाया वह  भी एहसान  दिखावे-जतावे। जब तक मन किया आरोपों की आग में जलाया भी- मजे भी लिये - अब पटाक्षेप। वाह रे आरोप- जब मरजी लगा दो, जब मन उठा लो। कोई पूछने वाला तो है नहीं। इसिलिये आरोपों को नासमझ ही गहराई से चित्त पर लेते हैं। समझदार तो आरोपों के बवन्डर में या तो मौन हो जाते है, या मुस्कुराते भर हैं, जानते है-- आरोप पानी के बुदबुदे के समान है, अधिकांश आरोप गंभीरता से लगाये ही नहीं जाते- केवल सामने वाले की प्रतिक्रिया जानने के लिये लगाये जाते हैं, सहन शक्ति देखने के लिये लगाये जते है या उस आरोप कै प्रभाव से किसी के आगे पीछे भ्रम फेलाने के लिये।
कोई एक आध आरोप ही प्रमाणित करने, या होने की स्थिति तक जा पाता है- आरोप को वास्तविकता से सदा जोड़ ही दिया जा सके जरूरी नहीं।

सर्वश्रेष्ठ या सर्वोत्तम कुछ भी नहीं होता, हर चीज की एक हद हमें खुद ही निर्धारित करनी ही होगी।कहीं अटकना होगा ही, रूकना होगा ही- सर्वश्रेष्ठ या सर्वोत्तम की खोज पीढ़ियों  द्वारा दौड़ी जाने वाली रिले रेस है, वह रेस जो कभी खत्म ही नहीं होने जा रही है। एक व्यक्ति या एक पीढ़ी अपनी दौड़ने की हद स्वयं तय करती है।

Law does not take unexpected routes. Law has nothing abrupt or sudden. Law avoids radicalism. Law maintains rhythm and continuity. Law has the predictability and consistency.  Basics of law change with growth of the race  and society. Themes behind law or legal thought is widely influenced by growth and politics. Economic thought also influence the legal thought path way.


law governs present and carries the society in future. It is influenced by history and past. Laws keep on changing   but this is most of the time channelised and obvious.

Human mind is only one of the dimensions of nature. Now we can know that all the creatures on this planet and even on other planet if they are there in life forms have their inbuilt reasoning , testing, feeling, sensing , reproductive systems. This system is the inbuilt mind of all the creatures and nature has provided infinite models of mind

You yourself can know your intrinsic value.  The utility you generate and ultimately invest in the society for social purpose  is your basic utility value. Utility found, generated or used for self-interestedness or  self defence may be your strength but in the society your contribution has to be judged by the  surplus utility you generated and did not utilise the same for your own cause and diverted voluntarily for the welfare of the society.
Utility contribution of each individual  makes the society healthy, wealthy and wise. Utility consumed disproportionately is symptom of decay.  Degenerating utility has to be checked and for that each of us need to be regulated. Regulating norms  are laws and regulated behaviour is the social expectation.

Civilization,knowledge, growth and development all shall  be redundant if as a society we fail to dispense equitable proportionate justice to all  the stake holders as per their requirement and expectation.
Justice expected , found  and never lost is the foundation of a ongoing society.
Justice is my proportionate good, welfare, security, maintenance and resourcefulness  in the society. Justice is my access to my right and remedy. Justice is my freedom to exercise my options to remedies and expect the same that others expect. Justice cannot be fanciful expectation without foundation, Justice if demanded must be offered as equivalent. Fairness is retuned as  fairness.

Laws and rules are not always related to state or politics. Only a very insignificant part of law is dictated by state or political whim. Most of laws are only manifestation of standards of behaviour, tenets of wisdom and basic for an orderly society. 
A society comes only under an order and law ensures that order in the society.
Laws are recognised by us, developed by us, suggested by us, felt by us- state only formalises them. We crave for law because it has basic utility value. We yield to law because we feel the absence of law and absence of law is more uncomfortable then presence of law. We suffer the penalty under the law because we feel it is worth suffering at that time.
Those who have failed to educate the utility value of law to their people are bound to suffer.
Law weaves the structure of society so that the society can bear the wear and tear of time and human instincts. Human instincts cannot be caged nor cannot be dictated but through law they can be tuned in a rhythm and regulated. Penalty is suffered onle to make our instincts get adapted to certain outer limits of our instincts. Penalties help shape and trim our reflex arbitrariness.

Cross examination of a witness is a war in a court.If the judge fails to watch it impartially but in a judicious way anticipating the risk involved because the cross-examiner is trained professional having a set agenda where as the witness is scared of the litigation, court scene and as such there is an uneven battle . there can be gross injustice.

I would like to suggest a judgement written by a judge should be written  under headings and sub-headings. It should not be a continuous composition but should take care of all the limbs of a speaking judgement  in a distinctly identifiable break up paragraphs dealing  the issues one after other. Each paragraph may be given a distinct heading so that any reader con find out the exact location of a particular discussion without improper investment of time.
Headings and subheadings shall prompt the writer to drop one or two sentence at every change of discussion with every change of paragraph and will make the judgement compact.
A judge communicates only through his judgements hence judgements must be communicating, clear, crisp, and presentable with sobriety. Dog-mat sentences, superlative degree-adjective , extreme statement should be avoided. The dignity of the parties, witnesses, privileges if any , secrecy , identity of any of the party if under protection of law , ,these factors must be taken care of the the judge.

Unnecessary show of writing skill or showcasing one's word power should be avoided. Adjectives ,adverbs should be used only as per necessity. Metaphors or literary quotations, poetic similes should always be avoided. A judgement in order to be a good judgement should contain beside the format and other formal contents facts of the case as per both sides, materials available on record as evidence or to be considered or really considered, Legal or factual controversies or issues found to be decided, the arguments of the parties point wise and the finding  point wise with reasoning and finally the verdict pronounced, relief granted or disallowed or orders or directions given. It must be deciding all the necessary issues that too clearly.
Complex or compound sentences, use of double negatives, indirect  speech etc may be avoided.
If some thing is quoted from earlier judgements or reports or books , the sources should be acknowledged. Laws referred by the parties must be mentioned and commented upon by the judge. Statutory requirements of every judgement about the form and contents and subsequent or precedent step requirement be complied.

Do we need judge leaders or leader judges or both in different boxes ?
Whether judging and leading both are different fields ?

जाते जाते भी वह कब रुक जाता है
खड़े खड़े ही वह कब झुक जाता है
पता नहीं वह क्यों यूँ लुक जाता है
रुकके,झुकके लुकके, चुक जाता है

Values - no easy to erase or delete

No Rome, if has to be built can be raised in a day. But ten Rome,Romans or any institutions if raised in that way and have stood that way can be razed in even years. Of course time and resources has to be invested  in building those values for which we stand or live. But once those resources get fruitfully invested and the values  get grown, it is not easy to erase them. The life of an institution, individual may be limited but the values shall remain for ever.
Men may not live, let them go but you cannot command the values to go.
But in order to make values to be there you will have to allow time, space for them to grow and acquire health. Let those values be stable, acquire strength and then only  those value will give strength to further growth. Save the values as they grow. Values grow like a flash. Only the most intelligent would feel the birth of each value. Most of these flashes go unnoticed. We,the ordinary lot cannot feel values in the earliest form but gifted ones do that because only they can do that and  after identifying that or after they have got the clue , start to stand with, preserve and incubate those values so that they may not get destroyed or eclipsed .

Live with the values. Values have never ceased to grow. Old vales coexist with new values. There is always vacancy and scope. Possibilities never finish. Further ways to grow  always remain.
Values alone are immortal.

Justice for all , all the time , all the level at every cost

Justice for all and for all the time  at all the level at every cost must be our social thought, national wisdom and national identity.
All our efforts must be guided by this theme regardless of other consideration.
Political considerations or military compulsions may lure us to deviate us from this focal point chosen by us but in order to get highest global esteem, both political and economic we must stick to it fearlessly and courageously.
Universe is not going to disappear in one or two centuries nor the human memory lasts only few decades. Hence in order to take a permanent slot in this world , we must stick to justice for all, all the tims at all the cost, as our basic national thought. We must continuously thing on these lines, search and research in this direction in order to achieve maximum net social worth and value.
Social worth or value is different from social wealth. The earlier is necessarily linked to construction of the society and maximum utility possible for each universal individual. Political and geographical imaginary divisions if present across the globe shall get blurred  automatically.
National self -respect can have several verticles or parallels or perpendiculars , not bobstructing or crossing the other at any given point. All states can stand together with their respective worth and value.

Law- why?

Law is the price we pay for liberty and order.

 We all love our liberty, We always want to avoid hassles.In order to live by our liberty and enjoy it to the maximum we allow a part of liberty to be eclipsed or regulated. That is the law part acquiesced by us.
 We allow our liberty to be restricted and let order prevail. Law and order supplement each othe in order to create new social order where the sumtotal lioberty enjoyed by each indivedual is maximum.
Law is the instrument to maximise the enjoyment of individual liberty.
Without law though absolute freedom may be imagined but total available liberty for actual enjoyment is diminished significantly.
Optimum law maximises liberty available to be enjoyed.
Excessive law cannot be enforced  and cannot but create anarchy.

कभी सोचा  है- हमारा राष्ट्रीय चिंतन क्या है
हम क्या सोचते हैं ,क्यों सोचते हैं और कब सोचते हैं।
क्या हमारे चिंतन में कही एकरुपता है, यदि हाँ तो वह हमें कहाँ ले जायेगी।

No and never

Intelligence is the ability to understand the risk factor, analyse it, manage it and to sail through it.
 The journey  of life in all its dimensions  has inherent uncertainties because life itself is the synchronisation of various factors some of which are opposite to each other and always challenge  the very existence of other factors.
Curiously some factors  are self destructive, others are mutually destructive still they  bond and synchronise  in such a way that we find life which is really difficult to explain.
And to manage this risk we must know the points of abstinence, "no-more please".
The right quantity , quality and the point where to stop must be really clear.
The ability to stop at the right moment without injury to oneself or to others is another component of intelligence.
 The zenith must not be left unattended. This is the point where we must be watchful though it is very difficult and only a few intelligent can keep there head cool there also. Zenith has always a price.

Ambition fulfilled

An ambition has to be conceived but this process of conceiving the dream is not soothing, nor pleasant. It hurts the body, mind and soul.  An ardent desire that we can call an impulsive urge can  only make the process of conceiving bearable. At times , one can conceive even without noticing the conceiving process. Of course this process is natural but nature does not allow conceiving as per ones own sweet will. Nature governs this process and that too with iron hand. true nature takes care of all the process before conceiving and after conception but the process lies between to be or not to be. Life on one side and perhaps no life or a new life on other side?

A timid judge is liability and a adventurous judge is threat. A playful judge has to be watched carefully and continuously. A knowledgeable judge may not be soft spoken and must be tolerated.  A talking judge is less virtuous.

Why I am here? For what I must be here? Why they should note that I am here? Why it should be mentioned or taken on record that at one point of time I had been here? What is my relative value? What is my relevance? What they all would miss if I am not there?  What I shall leave after I am gone?
What I did so far? Is that enough? Did I use myself and mine-hood intelligently? How do I draw up my personal balance sheet at the end of the day? What is my contribution?
These are simple questions put by me to myself and I have to answer them before I leave. I cannot leave any of these questions unanswered.
 But then to my mind to answer these question you do not require words. Words cannot explain enough. I must show the answer through my deeds. I must act fast because time is passing very fast. I may run short of time. I must do extra hours of push-ups. Let some sleeps slip. Let few holidays disappear. I must walk few extra miles and sweat down myself once again. Let my dreams wake up once again knocking every thing in me endlessly. I have to rise again and again. I have to  glow more then ever. Let me flower once again.

Juudicial H R management authority

Justice is a product to be delivered very effectively because it is the dream  demand and ambition of every individual or institution.
Justice is consumer specific product and the same product but in different shape ,size and form  is in demand at the same time by competing consumers.This demand has several faces- moral,legal, humanitarian,social, emotional, strategic, time specific, gender specific, place specific, person specific , economic,political, system specific .
 The justice delivery system has to find out ways and means to manage all  these competing specifications in order to deliver the end product - justice.
A variety of resources have to be employed in this justice delivery system in order to arrive at a tolerably acceptable end product.
Human resources is typically the most important one in this area of services.
The big question now a days is can this system be left to E-Justice mechanism.
The latest query is can human involvement be minimised , if yes; to what extent and then in which areas.
 The next question is how and the fall outs.

Stand by rules and standards, not by your vices, prejudices and own upbringing. There are other versions also, there may be yet another view point and may be they is better than mine or yours.

There are wiser people and better ways still unexplored. Wait, think twice, give a second thought to your conclusions, get a reflection of your understanding  before knocking down the conclusion.

Yes, now it is like a judge.
Judge is open, not preplanned nor prepositioned. A judge is not programmed software. The only basic data before the judge is law and fair-play.  A judge is regularly scanned for his vices, virus.

The concept of training a judge must mean modulating a person's mindset, trimming his thinking process, deleting earlier prejudices from the person's personality and rewriting his personality on a wider social plane which must confirm the legal drawing.
A judge is like a mason who erects, constructs  strictly as per law.
Judges are members of constitutional army and are there to safeguard the constitutional boundaries of nation.
Judges are never guided by political warfare. They are guided by political philosophy as determined by constitution adopted by te nation and accepted by we the people.
Training a judge must be aimed at enhancing the knowledge and skills to judge transparently. A judge must be capable of researching law and digging out truthful facts. A judge must learn the art of not falling in the trap of skilled professional lawyers and at the same time must trust them because they are the best identifiers of risk factors. Advocates help the court and the judge in management of rick that is inherently inbuilt in justice delivery system.
Person coming to court for justice, brought to court for justice, dragged to court for justice,all are in different mind sets having different objectives and for each of them justice mean  their own view point. All have certain forces for or against them. All forces compete before the judge. These forces are handled , manned, guided by advocates and they know how these forces are competing with each other in that particular circumstances.
A judge has to be trained to identify the stakeholders distinctly. A judge must know that he has to respond to law, individual expectations,  and social ans state constraints.
A judge must know the resources that are available and try to ascertain ground reality. Generally speaking a judge has to declare the rights duties and status of a person and the standards of behaviour. He is not concerned about the consequences but at the same time being a state functionary and dealing with law and human being, its worth and dignity  he cannot altogether ignore the fall outs.

Judges must be above ism. They must owe their allegiance only to constitutional-ism. An ideal judge is a constitutionalist judge.
Judges must not write any political or personal statement in their judgements. Quoting from authentic sources are permitted but then judges must show respect to the original author and the source. Judges must not quote religious books how so ever fundamental they are being canvassed because by quoting those books the book itself gets a sort of legal and judicial recognition .
Judges must verify the source book, its authenticity and level of its acceptability among the academicians. Nothing should be done to legitimatise any controversy. Judges should not enter into controversies not brought before them for adjudication. The writings must be straight and judges must always write what they mean, and mean what they write. Judgements should not carry sarcastic remarks, racial embarks, or never be writing like a fundamentalist. The writing of judges must not mean several  meanings simultaneously and must decide without confusion.
Writing judgements mean writing for the litigants a judgement, statement of facts and reasoning which can be carried to the litigant without much pains. Judgements are not literary works or all time literature-compositions depicting the great imagination of the writer.Great words, show of word power, ability to write scholarly write ups, showcasing ones own learning on the subject, projecting self esteem must be avoided.

Judges are judges only . They must resist the temptation to rule or govern. Judges are known for their integrity and have the duty to adjudicate but they are neither the wisest nor the most knowledgeable.
They must decide only after the best possible expert advice is made available.wherever scientific questions or technological differences arise, they must be decided  in those terms and judges must concede that they are not experts of all the fields and cannot decide these questions without the assistance of the core competence advices.
To decide complex engineering designs-their technical aspects by a judge body not exclusively trained for this type of judging may be disastrous.
Judges must resist temptation to become arbitrary. They must not thrust their incomplete scientific knowledge on the society.
Experts are not born in court rooms.
If you do not have equally weighty expert knowledge to dislodge an expert opinion, it is always better  to go with the exert then to substitute it with your own notional knowledge . Notional knowledge, howsoever  bonafide and fair appearing, cannot take the place of tested, verified and proved knowledge. Institutional knowledge should always be preferred to individual knowledge.  Courts must not accord legitimacy to individual knowledge  only on the basis of court examination. Courts are not universities nor academies. Courts as an institution must respect the institutional supremacy of all other institutions and must not take the responsibility to instruct, govern, direct  all the institutions  at a time or some of the institutions for some time or one of the institution for all the time to come.
Courts must trust other institutions and must decide only issues and must not become secretariat or directorate or reporting call or monitoring cell for any or many questions or projects or circumstances.
Court are to decide not monitor. Courts adjudicate not administer the general administration.  Courts must not become the executive limb of state and courts must not allow the executive to transfer their own hazards and load- operational  or policy driven on other organs of state. Let the executive or the legislature do their part and let them be judged by the " We The People" in a democracy.

Nothing is either pure or impure. all depend upon your perception and the relative frame in which the proposition is being evaluated.
Similarly state of inertia or motion are once again relative terms. Nothing is absolute.
Things proved correct may be disproved in another frame or even that very frame taking only a different path to examine that. All depend on the way of your examination. Further more all depend on purity of your tools, accuracy of your methodology and the way the proposition is examined. Time invested in the examination often changes the result. The experience of the examiner , the prejudices of evaluator and individual mindset,environment and other parameters. None of them can be absolute, all time proved correct hence all declaration howsoever authentic they appear  are open to check, challenge, scrutiny and re-examination and we must not feel disappointed if we are challenged sometimes

Rewards come from the master and master would reward only those who can dance his tune. Loyalty is the greatest prize winner. To remain loyal to the master  is not flattery.But it is one of the virtues.
Loyalty is tested in several ways. Loyalty is one of the ingredients of competence, ability. Loyalty is trustworthiness. Loyalty makes one dependable and close.

केवल हर समय भागते रहते हो। ठहरते कभी नहीं। बिना ठहरे कुछ दिखेगा कैसे, मिलेगा कैसे। कोई तुम्हे देखना चाहे तो कैसे देखेगा,तुमसे मिलना चाहे तो कैसे मिलेगा, कुछ कहना चाहे तो कैसे कहेगा।
मिलना, मिलाना ,कहना-सुनना रुके बिना संभव नहीं।भागता हुआ आदमी तो न जाग सकता है न सही से सो सकता है।
भागने भगाने से बचो।

क्या वास्तव में कुछ बदलता है या हम ही समय केसाथ चलते चलते साथ छोड़देते हैं और सब कुछ वैसे ही चलता रहता है, केवल कुछ पात्र सदैव आते-जाते रहते हैं, एक जाता है- दूसरा उसकी जगह लेता रहता है।
यह क्रम निरंतर चलता रहता है, बिना रूके चलते आया है, आगे भी चलते रहेगा- हो सकता है हम रहें या न रहें- वैसे हमारे पहले जो थे वे अब नहीं ही है, उनके नहीं होने से हम कब विचलित हुए, यदि हम उनके नहीं होने से विचलित नहीं हुए तो और लोग क्यौं हो।
 सभी मस्त हैं , रहेंगें , हमारे रहने या कि न रहने से फर्क किसे पड़ता है।

घड़ी,पेन, मोबाइल, गाड़ी, घर अब प्रयोजन की नहीं शोभा की वस्तु बन गये हैं, आपकी स्टेटस की घोषणा बन गये हैं। आप पहचाने ही जाते हैं- इन्हीं सब से। नहीं जानता ,ऐसा क्यों हो गया।
गाड़ी खरीदी ही जा रही है अपनी हैसियत की घोषणा करने के लिये- चलने के लिये नहीं।  गाड़ी चढ़ने की चीज कम रह गई है- फिर कहाँ जाना है,  उसी हिसाब से गाड़ी बाहर निकाली  जाती है, किसको लाना है या किसको ले जाना हे यह सब हिसाब किताब करने के बाद ही गाड़ी तय की जाती है।
समय ही ऐसा ही रह गया है।

Questions are not pure philosophy. Questions arise because these have their own free existence.
Answers to the questions are neither automatic nor spontaneous.  It is neither another manifestation of philosophical imaginations. Just like questions, answers  also have their own justifications.

We are proportionate being. Any thing that disturbs the right ratio or proportion is unwelcome. Talking sense, walking sense, reading sense, writing sense all command an optimum ratio.
Geometry is the science of ratio and proportion. drawing, painting, architecture all are art manifestations of this proportionate concepts. Fashion, dressing sense is the beautiful  manifestation of this proportionate world. Even the universe  is the proportionate expression of the will of HIM.
 Relative frame is always there.
Human mind is known for proportionate expressions, unique questions and unique answers.
Proportionate thinking, action, reaction and expectation  is wisdom.

Answers without question

Why it is so that you him and me, all have too many answers but we do not exactly know the related question. We have the answer but we do not know whether the answer is right or wrong. In fact we are ready with the answer though the question has not yet come out. We do not know whether the question shall be put before  us at all or not,any answer  will be sought or not, the answer we have already proposed without knowing the question shall be at all relevant or not, but we are very much ready with answer waiting for the question.

Why we answer without waiting for the answer. Most of our answers were never required at all and were not necessary at all.They were only our apprehensions.  We dream  and answer in the vacuum. We go on explaining when there is nothing to explain. We answer when there is no question at all .

We live that way and feel great of ourselves. 

Let us take the question

Questions came without any introduction. You cannot ask them to wait. They did come suddenly, you cannot claim any informations. Questions never come when you are really prepared. In case you are prepared, the question you are waiting will never visit. The question you have been waiting will never come up. The one that comes up is not even identifiable, no introduction,no notice but one has to answer the question, reply it satisfactorily. That is the order of life. You cannot take another step without answering the question first.

And the answer? Known to none!

Each question has only one unique answer and you have to take your chance. not even the wisest of all, always succeeded.

गाँवों को बसने  बसाने में कई जिन्दगी लग गई,
पगडन्डी को रास्ता बनने में इत्ता वक्त लग गया।

शहर बसते गये, गावों के नये कब्रगाह बन गये ,
मौसमी सपने भाग गये, उदास चरागाह बन गये।

उम्मीदों की बेल पर, नये पत्ते आये अरसा हुआ
नींद अब जगने लगी,लोरी सुनाते अरसा हुआ।

हँसी कब गायब हुई, खोजता फिरता हूँ दिन भर
मुस्कराहटें बिकती रही, खरीदा गया दिल भर।

आँचल पकड़नेवाला बचपन , पूछो तो कहाँ है
खुदगर्ज बड़प्पन, बेशर्म खड़ा,देखौ तो यहाँ है।

Let the society have only one thousand unbribable judges and watch the whole society change. Just never think of bribing a judge and in return you will get a healthier society. Impollutable  judiciary can make thighs change. Let the society and state only decide the standards of usages, actions. reactions. abstinence, indulgence, involvement. expectations, returns, results and find out a few straight judges. believe me , this society will be happier then ever.  

judging is a dutiful stress not everyone is ready to bear. judicial judging whereby the right , title, status of a person , group or institution  is decided is more taxing for ay worldly soul because it demands objectivity, standard, impartiality. judicial aloofness, fairness and reasonableness all capped by one super cap law of land. These all judge like qualities are rare especially a complete proportionate mixture at a time.
Every human being has subjective instincts  and to trim those instincts in order to be a judge for others cause is not easy. To allow the law its own course and watch any deviation from that is further calling upon additional load to set the things further right. This duty becomes more horrifying where adherence to law is rare and jealousy towards law is acceptable social norm.
Even law does not respect law. Laws compete, sometimes with contempt and arbitrariness; eve
 inter- se. Laws form groups based on some ideology and try to dislodge another group of law or legal philosophy completely.
Judges are also found having their commitment, allegiance to such tainted group philosophies and it is very difficult for a judge not to be influenced by these committed judge group.
 

Lawyers are like shock absorbers, educators, friend of law, public , the judge  and the judiciary at a time. They ink the path up to eexecutive and legislature.
Lawyer reflect wisdom of law, expectations of justice-seeker and define the limitations of courts. They spread the reputation of justice delivery system and save it from unnecessary criticism beyond the court.

Law ,its intention ,legislative wisdom is paramount for the judiciary and judiciary while interpreting law and its content must explain the law in terms of its purpose, intention, aim and object and that only.
However it is the duty of judiciary to carry the popular sentiment, the arguments of the parties in their judgements howsoever irrelevant they may appear at the threshold so that ultimately the society can reflect and even the higher cap of judicial cap after evaluating them can place them before the legislature. Other wise also, if those arguments are documented they can be taken note of by the researchers and te legislature suo motto.

Tax laws are draconian and arbitrary.
It is wrong that taxes are being paid by the rich.

The poor pay proportionately very high. The greater part of indirect tax comes out of the pocket of the poor. This pocket is already empty. The poor pays as he eats, travels and spends his routine days or nights. The incidence of indirect tax borne by the poor is much higher proportionately.

Robinhood tax jurisprudence ultimately hurts the entire society and poor the most.
Robbing the rich in order to reach to the poor may appear sound at the first blush but on deeper scrutiny this approach will be counter productive.
Motivate the poor to earn more, train them , upgrade them and provide them opportunities but let them realise that these are coming to them at a cost to the society and must not be wasted. Tell them that this is not a reward to them for being poor. Tell them that they are responsible for their past, present and future. Educate them that they can improve and this can be done by themselves. Try to open their mind and re-tune their mindset to-wards te realities beyond their immidiate reach. Help them to reach beyond their present  periphery.
Taxing the rich in robinhood style allowing them the impression that the wealth, richness with the rich is only theirs is allowing the goose to be butchered for a pair of golden eggg which she will never have.
The honey is not their, it is the honey bee that has created the honey and helped the flowers to. If you try to return the honey to the flowers you are mistaken and if you drive away the honey bee the possibility of honey is gone for ever.Even honey prepared at a particular point of time may disappear due to mishandling.
If you want wealth , richness create awareness about the art of making money,creating wealth and being rich rather than spread a Robinhood type myth.

Social order has a long history. Society takes the historical path forward unless their is some real intervention. Leaders dare to intervene. They get , acquire social acceptability. Society acquiesce and accept their prevalence.
Now they try to intervene as per their vision which has rather the social nod. Law comes here.

Justice is based on certain well defined and long understood values across the globe and by and large not always dependent on law.
Law shows the roadmap  as to what is the expectation of state in a given circumstance or frame of time, place or person.
Since law is always having its origin from state justice takes this care of this
peculiarity and makes sure that the law is strictly followed and nothing but law is followed. It ensures fair play and curtails the possibilities of arbitrariness at the hands of state.
Justice leans in favour of weak if possible as per judicial value within the permissible limits of law.
Justice is fair play and law is a command . The justice delivery system acts in between these two ends and ensures a balance.
Judges have to be sensitised about their role, the law, justice and expectations of individual , society and state.
State is kingly and law coming through state/king may have state compulsions.
Unless those compulsions are honoured as far as possible theinstitution of state may not survive.
On the other hand law must have a construction /reconstruction value. Utility is the essence of law and its acceptability. Law without utility or ultimate constrictive social value are resisted by people and sometimes by judges . Judges reflect the popular view and the legal view. Judges try to locate wisdom, rational behind law and explain the same to people. Similarly judges explain to the state where the law is pinching unfairly.
Judges are fair-play activists and try to chisel out law  and iron out the friction in between law and competing expectation. Judges warn the state if the heat generated is really high. They educate the people to change their attitude as per change in law.
Judges are social teachers speaking through their judgements. Judges are confidence builders.

Prosecution was the priority of Britishers in pre independence era because they were keen to establish rule of law, may be their rule in their empirical interest and hence they tried to ensure compliance and for that punished those who failed to respond as per law and legal requirement.
Howsoever wise it was administratively and politically for the British crown, its utility was not sold convincingly to Indian people and it was never implemented for the welfare or good of national locals. Gradually the system that was sought to be implemented by the Britishers sold some inbuilt new political concepts to Indian Nationals. This message conveyed to the masses was really new and due to  the vastness of Britishers own exercise it came to be spread throug out the geographical territory of british India.
But the enforcement of law by the Britishers earned them the wrath of locals and Indians grew inimical to law mainly because it was not carried to them, never sold to them, perhaps was not in conformity with local sentiments, ground reality and perhaps offended them more due to their own ignorance ,illiteracy , unwillingness. The popular politicians exploited all these dimensions . 
And the people , the locals started to rise against the system in the name of their political freedom. 

People started to rise against law, legal machinery and its enforcement. Prosecution was the most hated state wing.

after independence we did not change the values nor educated our own people and continued with the hatred with law , a mindset against law enforcement and contempt for all those who were engaged in prosecution.

The big question before most of the emerging  states is the infrastructure for implementing their laws.
 It is not that they do not ave enough law but their main problem is that those nations have not instilled enough confidence in their men that they can use law, go by law and ultimately grow through law.
General reverence hor lw is very low. These states  have but their besic fabric is that their men are not ready to accept law as their friend.
Law breaking is not immoral in these economies and states. Tax payment was once thought to be an anti-national act and paying tax or collecting tax was thought to be pro imperialist and avoiding tax through any means  , legal or illegal, moral or immoral  was thought to be a nationalist act.
Enforcing the laws, getting provisions of law complied is the only problem. Law is not complied at the threshold. Petty violations or failures to comply, may be unintentionally ,may be even without guilty mind create major bottlenecks or legal issues or lack of compliance make the resolution system ineffective for want of ground level initial compliance. The initial compliance is horrible. The  developing economies have least ground level reliable data . The data available never match reality and the ground level compliance mechanism is ill trained, ill motivated and there is almost nil voluntary even attraction or reverence towards those petty data updating at individual level. Institutional compliance is lacking. Individual response is not there. There is neither legal literacy nor awarenes.

Law generally is not the part of primary education.
Outcome of failure to comply and its national and social impact has not been coveyed to

India has a history of oppression, invasions and a system or order brought in existence through suppression. Laws in India came without even caring for the local popular sentiments. India had more of cultural or moral or religious laws and quite  little state laws. After eighth century Ad Indian moral, cultural religious laws were not really welcome by state. State itself was not very much organised and integration or disintegration of state- geographically, authoritatively was so rampant that state as such was not very much visible for the masses. State or even state hood was so confusing and use less for the masses that masses got disinterested with state, king, kings command . King failed to deliver any thing meaningful to the then Indian people. In fact India as a state identity or Indian order or law was totally missing  in the last several hundred years or so. Their was perhaps a cultural bond that came to be identified as India later on which was brought under some sort of real visible order but this order did not reflect people's will or peoples participation. Still at this stagestate did not command a voluntary reverence.

ओंठों को सिल ही दोगे तो क्या ही हो जायेगा
नजरबंद जुबाँ होगी, पर क्या आवाज बंद होगी

आखें क्या कम बोलती है, नहीं बोलेगी क्या
बहते आँसू क्या कम बोलेंगें, थाम पाओगे क्या

उबलता खून जब गरजेगा, रोक पाओगे क्या
बँधी हुई मुट्ठी जब तनेगी, सम्भाल पाओगे क्या

रोँआ रोँआ रात-रात रोयेगा, सुनोगे नहीं क्या
रात जगेगी, दिन-दिन गायेगा, सह सकोगे क्या

ओंठों को सिल ही दोगे तो क्या ही हो जायेगा
नजरबंद जुबाँ होगी, पर क्या आवाज बंद होगी

It is no part of the duty of the testamentary judge to consider the question of title to property. Section 211, Succession Act expressly provides that the issue of probate or letters of administration does not vest in the executor or administrator as the case may be, the property which is claimed to belong to a joint family of which the deceased was a member.




The mode of proving a will does not ordinarily differ from that of proving any other document except as to the special requirement of attestation prescribed in the case of a will by s. 63 of the Indian Succession Act.

 Proof in either case cannot be mathematically precise and certain and so the test should be one of satisfaction of a prudent mind in such matters.

 The onus must be on the propounder and in absence of suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the will, proof of testamentary capacity and signature of the testator as required by law may be sufficient to discharge the onus.


Where, however, there are suspicious circumstances, the onus would be on the propounder to explain them to the satis- faction of the Court before the will can be accepted as genuine. If the caveator alleges undue influence, fraud or coercion the onus will be on him to prove the same.


 Where there are no such pleas but the circumstances give rise to such doubts, it is for the propounder to satisfy the conscience of the Court.


What are suspicious circumstances must be judged in the facts and circumstances of each particular case.


 If the propounder takes a prominent part in the execution of the will which confers substantial benefits on him, that itself is a suspicious circumstance attending the execution of the will and in appreciating the evidence in such a case, the court should proceed with an open but nevertheless vigilant and cautious mind.



The High Court thought that the evidence adduced by the appellant to prove the execution of the will was not satisfactory. It then examined the said evidence in some detail,

 appearing in the said evidence,
  considered the probabilities
  and concluded that, on the whole, the said evidence would not justify the finding that the will had been duly executed by the testatrix. The High Court also thought that the appellant's version about the instructions given by Lakshmamma to him 56
442
in the matter of the execution of the will was highly improbable; and, according to the High Court, the whole evidence of the appellant appeared to be unsatisfactory. The High Court then considered the question of onus and observed that since the appellant's sons had received a substantial benefit under the will and since he had taken a leading part in its execution, the onus was heavy on him to remove the suspicions attending the execution of the document and to establish that Lakshmamma had really understood its contents, had approved of them and had put her signatures on it when she was in a sound and disposing state of mind. It that the High Court also felt that the dispositions made by the will were unnatural and improbable; in particular it took the view that since the appellant had come into the family of Annaji by adoption it was very unlikely that his sons should have received such a substantial benefit under the will. In fact the judgment of the High Court appears to indicate that The High Court was inclined to hold that the testatrix may not have been in a sound and disposing state of mind at the material time. It is on these findingS that the High Court reached its final conclusion that the appellant had failed to prove the due and valid execution of the will.

However, there is one important feature which distinguishes wills from other documents. Unlike other documents the will speaks from the death of the testator, and so, when it is propounded or produced
before a court, the testator who has already departed the world cannot say whether it is his will or not ; and this aspect naturally introduces an element of solemnity in the decision of the question as to whether the document -propounded is proved to be the last will and testament of the departed testator. Even so, in dealing with the proof of wills the court will start on the same enquiry as in the case of the proof of documents. The propounder would be called upon to show by satisfactory evidence that the will was signed by the testator, that the testator at the relevant time was in a sound and disposing state of mind, that he understood the nature and effect of the dispositions and put his signature to the document of his own free will. Ordinarily when the evidence adduced in support of the will is disinterested, satisfactory and sufficient to prove the sound and disposing state of the testator's mind and his signature as required by law, courts would be justified in making a finding in favour of the propounder. In other words, the onus on the propounder can be taken to be discharged on proof of the essential facts just indicated. There may, however, be cases in which the execution of the will may be surrounded by suspicious circumstances. The alleged signature of the testator may be very shaky and doubtful and evidence in support of the propounder's case that the signature, in question is the signature of the testator may not remove the doubt created by the appearance of the signature; the condition of the testator's mind may appear to be very feeble and debilitated; and evidence adduced may not succeed in removing the legitimate doubt as to the mental capacity of the testator; the dispositions made in the will may appear to be unnatural, improbable or unfair in the light of relevant circumstances; or, the will may otherwise indicate that the said dispositions may not be the result of the testator's free will and mind. In such cases the court would naturally expect that all legitimate suspicions should be completely removed before the document is accepted as the last will of the testator. The presence of such suspicious circumstances naturally tends to 445
make the initial onus very heavy; and, unless it is satisfactorily discharged, courts would be reluctant to treat the document as the last will of the testator. It is true that, if a caveat is filed alleging the exercise of undue influence, fraud or coercion in respect of the execution of the will propounded, such pleas may have to be proved by the caveators; but, even without such pleas circumstances may raise a doubt as to whether the testator was acting of his own free will in executing the will, and in such circumstances, it would be a part of the initial onus to remove any such legitimate doubts in the matter. Apart from the suspicious circumstances to which we have just referred, in some cases the wills propounded disclose another infirmity. PrOpounders themselves take a prominent part in the execution of the wills which confer on them substantial benefits. If it is shown that the propounder has taken a prominent part in the execution of the will and has received substantial benefit under it, that itself is generally treated as a suspicious circumstance attending the execution of the will and the propounder is required to remove the said suspicion by clear and satisfactory evidence. It is in connection with wills that present such suspicious circumstances that decisions of English courts often mention the test of the satisfaction of judicial conscience. It may be that the reference to judicial conscience in this connection is a heritage from similar observations made by ecclesiastical courts in England when they exercised jurisdiction with reference to wills; but any objection to the use of the word 'conscience' in this context would, in our opinion, be purely technical and academic, if not pedantic. The test merely emphasizes that, in determining the question as to whether an instrument produced before the court is the last will of the testator, the court is deciding a solemn question and it must be fully satisfied that it had been validly executed by the testator who is no longer alive.


Section 59 provides that every person of sound mind, not being a minor, may dispose of his property by will and the three illustrations to this section indicate what is meant by the expression " a person of sound mind " in the context. Section 63 requires that the testator shall sign or affix his mark to the will or it shall be signed by some other person in his presence and by his direction and that the signature or mark shall be so made that it shall appear that it was intended thereby to give effect to the writing as a will. This section also requires that the will shall be attested by two or more witnesses as prescribed. Thus the question as to whether the will set up by the propounder is proved to be the last will of the testator has to be decided in the light of these provisions. Has the testator signed the will ? Did he understand the nature and effect of the dispositions in the will ? Did he put his signature to the will knowing what it contained ? Stated broadly it is the decision of these questions which determines the nature of the finding on the question of the proof of wills. It would prima facie be true to say that the will has to be proved like any other document except as to the special requirements of attestation prescribed by s. 63 of the Indian Succession Act. As in the case of proof of other documents so in the case of proof of wills it would be idle to expect proof with mathematical certainty. The test to be applied would be the usual test of the satisfaction of the, prudent mind in such matters.



It is quite true that, as observed by Lord Du Parcq in Harmes v. Hinkson (1) " where a will is charged with suspicion, the rules enjoin a reasonable scepticism, not an obdurate persistence in disbelief. They do not demand from the judge, even in circumstances of grave suspicion, a resolute and impenetrable incredulity. He is never required to close his mind to the truth ". It would sound platitudinous to say so, but it is nevertheless true that in discovering truth even in such cases the judicial mind must always be open though vigilant, cautious and circumspect.

There may, however, be cases in which the execution of the will may be surrounded by suspicious circumstances. The alleged signature of the testator may be very shaky and doubtful and evidence in support of the propounder's case that the signature, in question is the signature of the testator may not remove the doubt created by the appearance of the signature; the condition of the testator's mind may appear to be very feeble and debilitated; and evidence adduced may not succeed in removing the legitimate doubt as to the mental capacity of the testator; the dispositions made in the will may appear to be unnatural, improbable or unfair in the light of relevant circumstances; or, the will may otherwise indicate that the said dispositions may not be the result of the testator's free will and mind. In such cases the court would naturally expect that all legitimate suspicions should be completely removed before the document is accepted as the last will of the testator. The presence of such suspicious circumstances naturally tends to 445 make the initial onus very heavy; and, unless it is satisfactorily discharged, courts would be reluctant to treat the document as the last will of the testator

Judiciary must not lead nor judges should be leaders.  Leaders must not be judges.
Judiciary must not be reactive nor reavtives should be manning judiciary.
Judges must not be experimentalist. Judiciary must not  experiment. That is not the area of operation of the judicial system.
Judiciary may examine , decide experiments being made by different components of society but the judiciary itself must not engage in the act of organising the construction activities or the experimenting activities of the society. Judges may watch, witness, comment and if they have the occasion may decide the things that is or was or that should have been  but judges must not dictate the future course of the society.
Radicals must not be judges in any society. Too innovative a judge may not be a welcome idea. Too brave of courageous judiciary is not in the interest of a stable society. Social order develops only when there is consistency or continued stability. If the judiciary starts interrupting or dictating the social road map we will have a mechanism wholly controlled and directed by judiciary. If this is allowed, it may be disastrous because judges are revered for their judicial aloofness and fairness that starts with impartiality and ends with it. But a leader judiciary or an ambitious judiciary cannot remain unattached. An attached judiciary may have an agenda. A judiciary having its own agenda other than law or justice  will be a extension of political frame of political mind.  Politics may be anything but never justice. political thoughts are case sensitive, geography sensitive, individual sensitive, history or knowledge sensitive whereas justice is
perpetual in shape size in essence.
Justice is journey towards righteousness where as politics is journey to-wards a predetermined agenda, destination. The ends for justice are fairness and that is the means of justice.
 In politics everytinh everytime must not be fair rather experience shows that political pathways are never made of only fair material. Kings do take routes that may not be pure or fair
 But then, justice is not kingly, it is like king's soul not king's mind.  King's hans never reflect king's soul. King's soul only speaks through judges.
Judges may not always be right or wise but judges try to be and are always fair and if a judge is not fair he need not be there as a judge.
A judge is known for his fairness and sobriety. Valour is not judge like virtue but timidity has no place in judiciary. A judge must be firm and clear in his objective.
No favour and no fear, correct and fair standards, fair examination and fair conclusions- that is judiciary. Let me speak out my mind to you without fear and if you trust you can  find out where you stand after a wise standard examination- is a judgement by a judge.
A judge spoke once but his judgement keep on speaking al the time.
A judge lives through his judgements and enjoys through those judgements.
Kings change and with them changes the kingdom, kingship and loyalty but  loyalty of a judge remains even after the judgement.

.

Greed defined

Greed appears to be basically wild animal instinct. Perhaps it is closely connected with need -may be urgent needs, compelling circumstances and lack of capacity and somewhat sense of insecurity.
Gradually through adaptation or modulation in nature  it becomes habit and integral pat of a personality.
At this stage greed is more or less an involuntary instinct- reflex reaction.

Law for revenue is necessarily the command of sovereign, may by arbitrary,may not always be rational or standard. Revenue laws keep changing as per whim, necessity, wealth available and required and as per the level of education available to state and its subjects.
Revenue laws are enforced through command of sovereign .
This branch should always be watched jealously by courts of justice and very strictly whenever it comes to courts of law.
So long the institution of state and governance through state is acquiesced , accepted and ratified we will have to bear the stress of tax laws . Only a vigilant court of law can keep tax laws within bearable range otherwise tax laws will be gateway to  oppression, suppression and corruption. A vigilant judicial system can only ensure a proper legal check and balance on state greed.
Liberty is also frequently attacked through state made tax-law and these are known to be in gross misuse for political purposes also. Human rights are also abrogated, subjugated, violated through the tax- law mechanism , that too surreptitiously .
A court of law must ensure that each and every move under tax law has the strict  sanction  of law in substance, procedure and mode.
Tax laws rob the people lawfully and hence only law and nothing else be permitted to do so.

Transparent decision making process based on standard objective parameters is the process of judging. A person practising these in order to decide and ready to express his decision and reason thereof, is judge. Judge is the father of a judgement but neither the owner nor the victim of the judgement. A judge is not associated with the judgement at any stage- neither with the subject, nor with the process never with the outcome- still he is the father of the decision. He has to own the judgement but not as an owner but as a witness to the judgement making process and that is why a judge has to describe his entire journey, experience when he he likely to deliver the judgement.

इतिहास,सच और परदा

बन रहा इतिहास, बीते इतिहास की तरह बेतुका, बड़बोला ,बदहाल ही हो ,कोई जरूरी तो नहीं। विभत्स होने, बनने तथा बने रहने की होड़ क्यों लगी हुई है। काट लिया सर और अमरहोने का वर दे डाला- क्या है यह सब। रास्ते चलते किसी को भोगा लिया और सदा कन्या बने रहने का दे डाला वर। पूछा न ताछा, हुक्म सुना डाला --बाँट लो सभी भाई- वाह भाई।
क्यों केवल राजाओं का ही इतिहास बना करता है। राजा था, राजा हुआ, रानी थी, रानी बनी, राजकुमार-राजकुमारी, सोने चाँदी के महल, किमती कपड़े, शिकार ,महल, रथ, सेना, मंत्री, संत्री--इन्हीम का जीना जीना या मर जाना मरना, खेलना, खाना, लड़ना, शादी-विवाह , रुठना -मनाना-मान जाना- इतिहास में  क्या यही सब कुछ होता है।
इतने भब्य कीमती महल, विशाल - इतनी खास नक्काशी, कारीगरी, आश्चर्य में डालने वाली मुर्तियाँ, कैसे कैसे रत्न, भब्यतम सुन्दर कृतियाँ- सोचता हूँ इन सब के लिये साधन कहाँ से जुटाये गये होंगें।
इतना ऐश - इतना संग्रह- कैसे संभव हुआ होगा।
क्या यह सब  ही उचित था या बहुत कुछ ऐसा थ जिसकी जान बूझ कर उपेक्षा की गई है। असल तस्वीर इस सब की आड़ में छिपने का प्रयास किया गया।
मेरी समझ मै आज बी वह सब छिपाया जा रहा हे या फिर किसी के मनोरंजन, ऐश,ब्यापार, भोग, विलाश के काम आ रहा है।
इतिहास जैसा बताया जा रहा है व सत्य न है,न था, न होगा- वह सत्य नहीं- सत्य के सिवा कुछ भि हो सकता हे - सत्य नहीं था,  न है , न रहेगा।
जैसा इतिहास बन रहा हे या बना रहे हो वह भी भ्रम भर है- सत्य से बहुत अलग, अपूर्ण, अस्वाभाविक।
ऴह भी तुम्हारी कुटिलता की उपज था, यह भी।
वह भी एक परदा भर था, यह भी।

Pick up those minds that talk in utter silence, walk miles n miles stealthily without getting moved.

Full of energy
beaming with joy
full up to brim
life is not always a toy

To my mind marketing has never been really moral

To my mind marketing has never been really moral. Marketing is selling and convincing. When you sell convincingly you are called to have marketed.
Now how you convince is your choice.
Now this choice is not always moral, or ethical.
What you choose to sell is another area where I found morality absent.
To whom the offer to sell is being made is yet another aspect often overlooked by so many. Who is being convinced and through which means- not any body's concern.  Market forces are out to sell and for that they must convince anybody or somebody either by hook or by crook.
 Here I am worried.
Would you or any body share me or my concern.
Marketing or selling or convincing for one's own purpose is wrecking.
Activities without social concern cannot yield social good. Individual wealth  or individual gain at the disadvantageous real loss of society or individual  cannot be encouraged. Any body's gain through exploitation of my ignorance or incapability cannot be encouraged.
Selling without offering equal utility is immoral. guised satisfaction or promised satisfaction or only felt satisfaction  if traded in society shall only lead to practices of deception and exploitation of those who cannot resist.
 

Judging and responsibilities

Judges without zeal and conviction for justice and for law may be only liability. Judges must not judge sans recourse  but they must administer justice- long time justice for the society. Judges must declare those standard of human conduct as are acceptable as per law and those which will help the society in standing right and firm.
 Even in individual cases the judge must walk extra furlongs if not several miles to examine what and how the justice that is being dispensed to the individual in a given circumstance is going to affect the future society.
Every occasion to judge and to pronounce a judgement is a liability for a judge which must be discharged wisely, as per standard and with foresightedness.  A short-sighted judge  may decide some cases but may inject  incurable maladies into the frame of society.  Judgements walk centuries. Judgements talk endlessly. judgements are gossips. Judgements breed new proper nouns, pronouns. adjective, adverb and so on.
Judgements purify but there are judgements that worked sheer pollutants.
Judges must be social pathologists. Though each case is to be decided on its own facts, law and arguments but for a sensitive judge it may give clues for the past or future behavioural  patterns of the society or of individuals.
 The facts and way the arguments are coming or are being countered before the judge in the court gives the judge an opportunity to watch the social drama in his courtroom and a prudent wise sensitive judge may find out many a trends from those facts, arguments, moods, tenor etc. A judge can foresee and warn the society about the hidden under currents.

अपनों को ठगना या धोखा देना अच्छा नहीं लगता। ऐसा करना शायद अधिक कठिन है,इसलिये यह अच्छा कम लगता है।
 अपनों से जाल फरेब शायद अधिक अनैतिक है और शायद समाज इसे अधिक वितृष्णा की दृष्टि से देखता है। समाज अपनों के साथ किये छल को अधिक बुरा मानता है।समाज की इस तीखी प्रतिक्रिया से बचने के लिये हम अपनों से बेइमानी करने से कुछ अधिक बचने की कोशिश करते हैं।
ऴैसे देखें तो अपनो को ठगना अधिक सहज है। बुढ़ापा अपनों के पास भी होता ही है। अपने भी  अशक्त, अपाहिज, बिमार, मंदबुद्धि, आश्रित, बालक , अनपढ़ आदि होते ही हैं। इन सभी को अपनेपन का आसरा, आस्वस्ति, वास्ता देकर, दिखा कर, मुलम्मा चढ़ा कर धोखादेना अत्यन्त सहज।
 फिर अपनों के साथ किये छल के आम होने की संभावना कुछ कम तो होती ही है।
कुछ तो छल को समझ ही नहीं पाते- अपनेपन की विश्वसनियता उन्हें छल की संभावना तक की सोच तक जाने ही नहीं देती । कुछ  छल को लेकर संशय में रह जाते हैं- उन्हें सहज विशवास ही नहीं होता की अपना ही छली हो सकता है। कुछ को अपनों का छल समझ में आते आते इतना विलम्ब हो चुका होता है कि अब समझने का कोई अर्थ ही नहीं रह जाता।
बहुत से अपनों के छल, फरेब, पाप  को देखकर भी अनजान हो जाते हैं, नजरअन्दाज कर डालते हैं- शायद प्रेम वश या प्रमाद वश - कभी कभी लोक लाज वश। कुछ तो अपनोंकी इस हरकत तो देख किंकर्तव्यमूढ़ हो जाते है- उन्हें समझ में ही नहीं आता कि क्या करें। अपनों का पाप देख वे स्वय़ं को ही पापी समझ बैठते है। पिड़ित होने के बाद भी स्वयं को ही दोषी माने लगते हैं। अपनों की गलत हरकतों को अनावश्यक रूप से बरदास्त करने को अपना होने का प्रमाण जो समझा जाता है।
समाज की सामुहिक निन्दा कुलघाती के प्रति थोड़ी अधिक होती आई है। अपनों को समाज की निगाह में निन्दित होने से बचाने के लिये भि लोग अपनों के छल को आम नहीं करते।
फिर अपनों से  उसी अपनेपन की आड़ में उसी छल -कपट से माफी भी मिल जाया करती है।
अपनों की उदारता का दोहन अधिक सहज है। अपनों को डराना,उकसाना ,रुलाना, मना लेना बड़ा सहज है। अपनों की भावना समझी हुई होती है, उसके विभिन्न आयाम जाने पहचाने होते हैं,अपनों की कमजोरिया भी जानी-पहचानी होती है। आपनों की भावनाओं से खेलना सहज है, उससे अनुचित लाभ उठाना सहज-संभव है। अन्यथा अपनों कि कमजोरिया तो है ही आपनों की कमजोर कड़ी-दबाने के लिये। परस्पर छली मिल कर गुट बना लेते हैं।
बाँट-चुट कर भी छल पर परदा डाला जाता है।
समाज भी छल से प्राप्त लाभ में हिस्सा लेकर शान्त हो जाया करता है।

Justice- my first choice

Asking a fee for doing justice, for whatsoever reason it may be; is inhuman, draconian, authoritarian and regressive. It must be held against public policy, public interest,and state morality. justice is the only bonding force behind formation of any group, society. Security is a necessary integral part of the concept of justice. Uniform sense of security floating across the society freely, without any hindrance, impediment is available justice. No cost can be levied for doing justice. We, as members, of the society are entitled to it in all and every circumstance. We must do justice in order to get justice.
 Justice is proportionate security to all, rational enforcement and reasonable expectation from all and standard observation of reasonable standards keeping in view realistic constraints and expected growth of individual dignity competing with collective interest.

कुछ एक नायक चाहिये थे जमाने को
कुछ मकबरे तामीर किये जाने थे आने वाली सुबहौं के लिये
नुमाईस के लिये कुछ तो चाहिये था
कुछ चाहिये था दिल बहलाने को
जलाने के लिये भी कुछ का होना लाजमी था
हमें क्या, चाहे हो दिल, या गाँव,शहर, या कि इँसान
तिजारत के लिये भी तो कुछ चाहिये
कुछ बुत, कुछ किताब कुच हिसाब चाहिये
सुलतान के बिना सल्तनत ,वह भी चाहिये
बादशाह के बिना बादशाहतवह भी चाहिये
और इन सब के लिये चाहिये बेबस जिन्दगी
इन्हें बेबस गुलाम रखने के लिये कुछ कायदे चाहिये
आओ किसी, गौड, भगवान, मजहब, धर्म गढ़ें अब
रियाया की बेबसी को पोख्ता बनाये रखने को
जिल्लत, जलालत ,नफरत औ खुदगर्जी
इन सब की फसल उगाने के लिये
 सिर कटा नायक, कुछ बेतरतीब इमारतें
बरबादी के लिचे चाहिये कुछ बकवादी
बस अब नुमायश सजाओ, तिजारत शूरू
कुछ भी लाओ जो बुत सा दिखे या एक किताब सी
सुलता औ बादशाह अपने आप बन जायेंगें
जैसे ही इन्सान गुलाम बनते जायेंगें
इन नायकों के , या इन किताबों के,
या किसी इमारत के या मजहब, धर्म के।

हर सख्श को अपनी चादर खुद ही बुननी पड़ती है
यदि साफ बेदाग चादर ओढ़नी हे
ओढ़ कर जस की तस रख देनी है ,
तो
हर शख्स को खुद को ही  ताना बना ही देना होगा
भरनी भी बाहर से ली तो ,चादर बनने के पहले दगदार
हर चादर वाले को बनना ही होगा, चादर का पहरेदार

जतन से पहनने का जनून-चादर पहनने का,
बेदाग पहनने-बने रहने की कालजयी प्रतिज्ञा
जस की तस रख देने की खुद को दी कसम

कुर्बानी का माद्दा, सहने का जिद्द
बँधी जीभ,खुली तब भी बँद आँखें
न बोले पर सब तोले सो जुबान,

खाते पर चखते नहीं
भोगते औ भागते पर रूकते नहीं
देखकर भी ताकते नहीं

जागते ,जगाते, न सोते, न सोने देते
हाथ जो कभी थकते नहीं, रुकते नहीं
उढना-बैठना, बोलना -चालना सब फकीरी

तब जा कर बड़े जतन से एक चादर बनती हे
तब जाके जतन से ओढ़ी जाती है
तभि बेदाग रह पाती है

औ तभी जस की तस रख दी जाती है
मन तो इस चादर तो मैला ही करना चाहता हे
कभी कोई इसे मन से बचा ले जाता हे

बेदाग जस की तस रख देने के लिये।

A judge without authority to do justice or without zeal to administer only justice and without courage to stand with the weak and oppressed and to adjudicate on predetermined standard benchmark on predictable lines in a transparent way cannot be called a judge. A judge knows no fear.
justice system ensures a stand right position for the society.
It commands to serve  and serves through commands. A judicial punishment is always proportionate and fair.
Any thing not fair cannot be justice oriented.
Law serves justice but not always.Justice is not always dependent on law.
A judge is explorer to justice. Judges implement through their speakin judgements, the rest is depedent on other limbs of society.
Let us hope , some day justice will not be dependent on state or state made law.

बासी सब्जियों  की खटास से अटी पड़ी हवा
धूप मे सूख रही बासी झूठन
कौवों से लड़ रहा नवय़ौवन
रह रह कर सिहर जाता है
कैसे और कितना मुस्किल था
उस दरवाजे फैंकी हुई इस झूठन को लाना
इसी को लाने में य़ौवन को लगी नजर
झूठन के लिये बना खुद झूठन
अब फेंका हुआ लगता है बदन।

पर पेट अकेला नहीं है
इस झूठन से आज तो पेट भरा ही जायेगा
खट्टी पड़ गई सब्जी आज-कल सुखाइ जायेगी
रोटियों के टुकड़े, कौए और हमारे सब
लड़ेंगें इसी झुठन के लिये
ताकी अगली बार हममें से एक और
नई झूठन बन जाये
फैंकने के लायक बदन के साथ।

अलसाई पसरी पड़ी थी जिन्दगी
अभी मरी नहीं थी जिन्दगी
विमोह मुक्त मुक्ति के मार्ग में
मुरझाई पड़ी थी जिन्दगी।


अधखुली आँखों से झाँकती
अनिंद्रा की शिकार जिन्दगी
झील सी गहरी आँखों मे
सपनों का शिकार करती जिन्दगी।

तड़पते हुए जिवनकामी सपने
इन्हीं के बीच उलझी जिन्दगी
शिकार किये सपनों में है जिन्दगी
उलझी जिन्दगी को सुलझाती जिन्दगी।

अलसाई जिन्दगी,पसरी जिन्दगि
सपनों की बाहों में स्खलित जिन्दगी
कल तलक जो मुरझाई जिन्दगी
अब उम्मीद से हे नई जिन्दगी।

उपन्यास सा जीवन अब नहीं रह गया
मुक्त छन्द,नयी कविता,बन कर रह गया है।
प्रस्तावना खोजता रहा हूँ, खो गई है कहीं
उपसंहार तक की यात्रा ,मैं कहीं नहीं मिला।

छन्दों के बन्धन से, मुक्त कर दो कविता को
पक्षी को तो गाने दो, साँस लेने दो सविता को।

रूकता क्यों नहीं सपनों का हर दिन आना
आ गये सपनों का इस तरह उड़ सा जाना
अखरता क्यों नही फूलों का झड़ सा जाना
अखरता तो है,अपनों से यूँ लड़ सा जाना।

अपने आते नहीं, आते तो ठहरते नहीं, क्यूँ
काले बादल,गहराते तो है ,बरसते नहीं, क्यूँ
ऊँचाईयाँ झुक झुक जाती है, अड़ी नहीं ,क्यूँ
मंजिलें चलती ही आती है, खड़ी नहीं , क्यौं।



 

What, when, why and how?
These are the fundamentals of human psychology.
Man kind has been travelling around these roads since the earliest age.
Only a few out of trillions of human queries have ever been answered.
The strangest part is that ,these questions have not , never been put intelligently in an identifiable way to ourselves. We came across every such questions and skipped without waiting for the answer. Resultant being unanswered questions  around.
An opaque knowledge block got over us. Darkness grew darker.

Law and its future

How the 21st century think tank will be different from 20th century- any idea ?
Scientists have some imaginations, even writers have an idea, performing artists have formed a rough view-------------------------------------.

There is always a way ahead and in most of the cases there is always a discernible thought process, thinking philosophy and there is always a debate on what further and how. When may be decided by time but even time is sought to be governed through discussion courses.

Do we have this way ahead defined in law field also. 

Whether the law framers have a continuous thinking process? Whether the legal minds have an organised continuous common platform to deliberate upon and share the future shape, size,destination, objective, demand, supply of law and its purpose?

Got any idea about law, 2025, 2035, 2045?

Any idea about legal institutions -10 years from today, 20 years from to-day and so on.

What would influence the legal frame of a country most in next 20 years?

Whether the institution of state will get stronger or will be a diluted or compounded concept? 

Whether political wisdom will govern the law and whether this wisdom shall still be linked with the state head or will be governed by other socio-economic consideration?

Whether law shall always remain kingly and identified through sceptre ? 

Whether law shall be more assertive or shall it be more submissive?

Whether law in order to be law must always be suppressive or in command mode backed by sanctions and executions?

Whether laws shall be guided by our concern for self defence, self esteem ?

Whether geographical or political peculiarities or specifications laid down either by ourselves or power groups shall govern the legal structure?

Whether legislatures of 2050 will think at all , if yes; in which direction----early 20th century had the REDS, They led the law and legal field

What about 21st century Judiciary, judges and other neo-law forces,

what can be other fields where law will step into ,

to what extent, how effectively, whether extended legal intervention will be productive ,

Whether legal intervention at any point will be measured in investment terms, input/output relativity terms, utility terms

,what would be the scenario if there is a real legal data base world wide,

can there be a shared or common legal frame work across the world,

What would be the effect 0fsynthesis or amalgamation of laws at different levels,

whether laws will compete internationally,

Whether law will grow giant, mammoth of tiny or nano, Law for every village or micro law or macro law- what would be the scale of law

, Judiciary-- How shall we meet the demand of justice, what will be projected demand and supply of Justice,

how we plan to restructure our system of governance as per law, whether we shall have old law- the command or a constructed law or, acquiesced law or law as administered-------------------------

Do you think 2090 law will be guided by basic features of law only administered through highly rational standard devices-----??????

इतना मुझे तोड़ते रहते हो, सच
फिर भी मैं टूट क्यों नहीं जाता।
गलाते रहते मुझे ग्लानि मै , क्यों
फिर भी मैं गल क्यों नहीं जाता ।
अपमान -ज्वाला, जलाती है, क्यों
फिर भी मैं जल क्यों नहीं जाता।
तोड़ने से टूटूँगा नहीं,यही सच है
गलाने से गलूँगा नहीं, यही सच है
जलाने से जलूँगा नहीं,यही सच है।
मैं खुद से हूँ, खुदी मेरा वज़ूद है
मेरी गवाही मै हूँ, बस मेरा खुद है।

छियासठ साल की बुढ़िया हो चली है ईमानदारी,
किसी तरह बचते बचाते, आज भी जिन्दा तो है ही।

कितनी बार नंगी की गई, सरे राह चौराहों पर,
बोलियाँ लगी, बिकी भी खूब ,बाजार सजे चारौ ओर
दम घुटा, शर्म आई, मरना चाहा, तब भी जिन्दा तो है.

बूढ़े इमानदार बाप की खाली तिजोरी, चीखता घर
बेरोजगार जवान बेटा, कुवारी बेटी, सब डाँटते
काटने दौड़ता घर तब भी इसी घर में ईमानदारी है।

टैक्ट के नाम पर कितना सताया है हमने आपने
ट्रैफिक  पुलिस को बेखौफ खरीदते रहें है हम
नही बिके तो अपनी और भी औकात दिखा जाते हम.

ट्रेन में बेशरमी से अपने बटुए से टीटीई को तौलते हम
सत्ता के गलियारों में, कोर्ट कचहरी मे, चान्स टटोलते हम
मिल गई जो इमानदारी, तो उसे ललचाते हम.

बहकी तो ठीक, न तो उसे लुटवाते हम
रोज बुढ़िया इमानदारी से बलात्कार करते हम
फिर भी इमानदारी आज तक न मरी न मरेगी.

इमानदारी अपने तमाम सितमों के बाद भी जिन्दा है।
बस उसे देखने की चाहत रखना, न भी रखोगे तो भी वह है
छियासठ साल की बुढ़िया हो चली है ईमानदारी.

ताकत है तो दया के दर तक चल कर दिखाओ
हिम्मत है, साहस है तो किसी को क्षमा कर के दिखाओ
पर
दया करने के पहले,
क्षमा करने के पहले
उस लायक बन के दिखाओ
अपनी ताकत तो दिखाओ
अपनी हिम्मत तो दिखाओ
अपना इतमिनान बताओ
साहस है, यह तो दिखाओ
जीत कर दिखाओ
हार को हरा कर दिखाओ
फिर देखेंगें- दरियादिली तुम्हारी।

रास्ते कहीं नहीं मिलते रेडीमेड
रास्ते बनाने पड़ते है,
बार बार चल कर
और पहली बार 
पहली बार चलने के लिये
केवल सपना चाहिये
और चाहिये हौसला
किठकिटाते दाँत,
तनी मुट्ठियाँ
टेढ़ी भृकुटि
गरम खौलता खून
इन सब के साथ चाहिये
जुड़े हुए हाथ
एक सी आवाज
मिल चुकी साँस
तब जाकर बनता है
एक अदद रास्ता
जो चल देगा
आपकी-मेरी मंजिल तक
देगा सकून
कुछ कर गुजरने का।

हमने एक कहानी सुनी है,
गढ़ी गई कहानी नहीं
भोगी हुई कहानी-
आखों ने सुना,
कानो ने देखा
दूरियाँ चल कर तय की है
पावों से नहीं हाथों से
जज्बे से
केवल दिल से नहीं
दिमाग से
जोड़ा है
एक एक पत्थर दिवार का
अपने हुनर से
जिजिविषा से
बस एक उम्मीद बाँधे।

रौशनी चलती है
रौशनी देखती है
यह साँस भी लेती है
रौशनी के भी अरमान होते है
सपने होते हैं
अपने होते है
ऐसा नहीं है कि रौशनी थकती नहीं
निराश नहीं होती
बस इतना सा है
रौशनी कभी मरती नहीं
जीती चली जाती है
तब भी जब लगभग सब कुछ मर चुका होता है
जहाँ कुछ भी नहीं रह जाता
वहाँ भी उम्मीद रहती है
रौशनी रह ही जाती है
बस दुबारा उम्मीद जगाती है

Dishonest law makers cannot check law breakers nor can make honest laws.
Law without conviction for the cause and the law itself cannot earn the respect from the common man.
Barrel  of the gun cannot breed effective law for the society.
A law for revenge is never revered.
To make laws for suppression  is an act like self-immolation.

बेगार सचमुच भली चीज है। पर वह भी सभी को सब समय नहीं मिलती।
बेगार भी एक अवसर है।अपने आप को माँजने का, तराशने का, सिद्ध करने का।
बेगार से झिझक मिटती है, अनुभव तो मिलता ही है। पर बेगार भी मिले तब न ।
कोई साथ में बैठने तक तो नहीं देता।झिड़क देता है, दुदुरा देता है, जब देखो आँख दिखाता रहता है।
बेगार भी करे तो किसकी।
फिर अपना मन ही कम पापी तो नहीं।बेगार करते वक्त भी डरता है। कहीं कुछ नुकसान हो ही गया तो, बिना किसी कारण परेशानी में पड़ जायेंगें।
बेगार भी तरीके से करने वाले को ही मिलती है।
कभी कभी बेगार ही बाद मे इनामी-जागीर बन जाती है।
बेगार भी इतमिनान से ही की जानी चाहिये। बेगार में बेगारी करने से बेकार हो जाता है।
बेगार में मौज़ आ जाये तो फीर मौज ही मौज है।

पारस्परिक  निकटता ही इर्ष्या  की जननी है। जितनी अधिक निकटता होगी उतनी ही इर्ष्या की संभावना।
 

अपमान भी कोई याद रखने की चीज है। पान कि पीक की तरह तुरत फैंक दीजिये। रोज बिना बुलाये चले आये धूल गरदे की तरह मिले या चले आये अपमान को कब तब बैठा कर रखेंगें, तुरत डस्टर से झाड़ कर साफ कर दें।
पर अपमान के साथ ही ऐसा व्यवहार क्यों।
आप मान को तो ताजिन्दगी अपने ड्राइंग रूम में  बैठा कर साथ रखते हैं।कभी भूलते नहीं। बड़ै इतमिनान से संभाले रहते हैं।
मान मनपसन्द है,मनमाफिक है,टेस्टी है। अपमान दुःख देवन है, इसीलिये दौनो के साथ दो तरह का व्यवहार करते हैं, यही न।
पर अपमान आभिमान का नाश करता है, कुछ कह जाता है, कुछ समझा जाता है, स्वयं अपने कारणों के बारे में संकेत दे जाता है।
मान सोया हुआ अभिमान जगा देता है, बहुत कुछ भुला डालता है, गफलत मैं उलझा देता है और अपमान के रास्ते ढकेल डालता है।
अपमान के क्षणों को याद करते रहने से नुकसान कम होते हैं, वे बार बार आपको सावधान करते हैं। हाँ ,कभी -कभी उत्साह को कम करते हैं, विषाद से भर डालते हैं पर आत्मनिरीक्षण को बाध्य भी तो करते हैं।
अपमान के कारण शायद हम स्वयं होते हैं। इससे बचने का उपक्रम भी हमें स्वयं ही करना होगा।

Whether it is true that backfooters sympathise with co-backfooters only till they themselves are on backfoot , once they get a chance to put them selves on front foot by any means or by chance, some times through their hard labour, they start loosing sympathy for co-backfooters , start l behaving ike those old feudal frontfooters or profess and claim to be declared the leader and idol for the backfooters.

आज गुल्लक में कुछ रेजकी एक एक कर डालते जब मैंने अपने आप को पाया तो समझ में आया की अपने बचपन को जिन्दा रख पाना कितना मुस्किल है- हर रोज मुझसे कोइ मेरा बचपन छिन लेना चाहता है, समझाता है- बड़े हो गये हो ,अब तो दुनियादारी समझो ।
मुझे मेरे बचपन की सहजता, सरलता के साथ जी लेने दो।
बड़प्पन के साथ जो विकार चले आते हैं उनसे घृणा के साथ ही मर लेने दो।
सहज होना और बना रहना तुम्हारे विकृत बड़प्पन से अधिक महत्वपूर्ण है। बचपन निष्पाप तो रहता है न।

पहले ही पढ़ी गयी या सुनी गई ज्ञान की बातें दूसरे को सुना या बाँट कर विरुद या प्रसंशा प्राप्त करना बहुत अच्छा काम है, मैं ऐसा नहीं मानता, किन्तु अपना भोगा हुआ सत्य, अनुभव,ज्ञान दूसरो को हू बहू नहीं बता पाना कायरता है, कृपणता है, आने वाली पीढ़ी के प्रति आन्याय है।