Posts Tagged court

The 18th Amendment Order – more questions than answers

29 October 2010

The short and interim order has disappointed many quarters that had been lobbying for a grand showdown between the judiciary and the parliament. Institutional conflicts could engineer systemic breakdowns. However, the apex court has avoided the route of appeasing its core constituency — the activist lawyers and bars — which for some odd reasons have been arguing for a governance paradigm that locates judicial dominance at its centre. Pakistan’s quest for parliamentary democracy has sought representative rule and no unelected institution, howsoever effective or popular, can appropriate that space. The interim order on the petitions challenging the 18th Amendment to the Constitution has tacitly acknowledged this reality.

The bone of contention in this saga has been the insertion of Article 175-A which revised the mode of appointments in the superior courts by introducing two broad based fora — a Judicial Commission and a Parliamentary Committee — to make the process of appointing judges inclusive, less discretionary and transparent. Several other new clauses were also challenged but Article 175-A was the subject of much debate and discussion as a few purists from the lawyers’ movement deemed it to be against the Independence of the judiciary as enshrined in the Constitution.

The decision also comes in the wake of an ongoing crisis comprising judiciary-executive collision on a number of issues. In the past two years, for right or wrong reasons, almost every executive decision of import has been challenged in the courts, thereby creating a duality of evil versus the good in terms of decision-making. Let it be clear that this is not the reality perhaps. It is a perception carefully crafted by the media and sections of the opposition who have strategized to use legality and judicial activism as mechanisms to settle scores with the ruling party and by extension the coalition. The court has, by and large, acted with judicial propriety and has avoided the brinkmanship suggested in TV talk shows and belligerent political statements. (more…)

“animal rights” for alleged terrorists!!

22 February 2009

How horrific to read this news-analysis with this grim end-note:”while the bourgeoisie likes to proclaim India the “world’s largest democracy,” it is increasingly indifferent and hostile to democratic rights and is turning to authoritarian forms of rule.”

India: Supreme Court judge advocates “animal rights” for alleged terrorists

By Kranti Kumara and Keith Jones

The third most senior judge on India’s Supreme Court has bluntly said in a public forum that alleged terrorists should be denied “human rights.” Instead terror suspects should be treated like animals. “What is required are animal rights,” declared Supreme Court Justice Arijit Pasayat. (more…)

Why Jodhaa Akbar is a disappointment?

31 March 2008

The challenge of translating a historical era into a cinematic endeavour is daunting, especially when it concerns historically contested subjects such as the fabled love between 16th century Mughal Emperor Akbar and Jodha Bai, the legendary princess from Rajputana who later ruled India as Empress and symbolised the Hindu-Muslim accord of the times. However, it is not historical accuracy, or lack thereof, which defines the rather exasperating cinematic narrative of an otherwise glorious period of the subcontinent’s history. It is the facile treatment of history, its interpretative variants and its actors that makes the Bollywood film Jodhaa-Akbar a disappointment.

Akbar’s reign symbolised the zenith of the Mughal Empire and also some of its unique attributes. Whether it was the secular, tolerant governance based on the Sulah-i-Kul (peace with all) policy, opening up the frontiers of theological discussion, effective administrative systems or promotion of Indo-Mughal art forms, Akbar was a pioneer in most respects.

Jodhaa-Akbar attempts to capture the essence of that particular moment: the Indianisaton of the Mughal court and most importantly, the royal household. Whether it is to do with the grafting of a temple within the Agra fort or the introduction of vegetarian meals, these were significant markers for centuries to come, enabling a tiny Muslim minority to rule the non-Muslim majority. But the film fails to handle this momentous phase of history appropriately and instead churns out a masala mix that, despite the massive budget, results in mediocre film-making.

This is not to say that the film is without merit. It is visually stunning in places and A R Rehman’s music is outstanding. The two stars Ashwariya Rai and Hrithik Roshan provide glamour and unreal beauty. The settings are competently improvised and yes, the feel of the whole cinematic experience does convey the cliched Mughal aura of splendour, excess and a hybrid aesthetic. Rai and Roshan exude that enigmatic chemistry which makes them an attractive pair on screen.

But it is the treatment of the subject, characters and nuances that disappoints, especially when one remembers director/producer Ashutosh Gowariker’s earthy and under-your-skin rendition in Swades . In the pursuit of commercial success, Ashutosh relies on soft plagiarism. The battle scenes remind one of the Hollywood blockbuster Troy; the inanimate army contingents resemble those in Gladiator; and the sword fighting sequences re-enact the visual tricks of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon . But these are all still pardonable. (more…)