The Language Question

I do not wish to comment on the present C-SAT controversy in the UPSC examination.

However, I wish to say that we in India cannot do without English. That is because all scientific knowledge today is in English. If one goes to any engineering college he will find all the books are in English. So also in Medical Colleges or scientific institutes. For progress of our country knowledge of modern science is absolutely essential.

Moreover it is not only for learning science that knowledge of English is necessary. If one goes to a lawyer's office he will find all the books in his library are in English. Most of the history and biography books are in English.

The Allahabad High Court celebrates Hindi Diwas every year. When I was a Judge there the office bearers of the High Court Bar Association would come to meet me and request me to attend. I would tell them that it is better I do not attend because I will say things which some people may not like, and then there will be a controversy. But they would press me to come. When I went to the function I heard some speakers say " Angrezi dasi hai " ( English is a slave girl ), or Angrezi hatao ( abolish English ). When my turn came to speak I said that English is a window to much of modern knowledge, so how can we do without it ? I would also say that in fact English should be spread further, and your children's future depends on learning English. Don't you care for your childrens' future ? I would add that Hindi is my mother tongue too, and I love it, but that does mean that I should behave like a fool.

Those who say that in Germany, France, Russia, etc scientific books are in the mother tongues forget that in those countries there have been scientific books in those languages for a very long time, often over a century. On the other hand in India they are all in English. Translating even one book may take several years. So it is better to learn English and read them in English.

For more on the subject, read my articles:

1) http://justicekatju.blogspot.in/2014/06/the-language-question.html

2) http://justicekatju.blogspot.in/2012/09/think-rationally-about-learning-hindi.html

An appeal to learn Hindi

I appeal to all Tamilians to learn Hindi. That does not mean I want imposition of Hindi. I am against imposition of anything. This is the age of democracy, and nothing should be imposed. But the fact is that Hindi has developed as the link language of India. When Tamilians come out of Tamilnadu they face a lot of problems since they do not know Hindi. So for purely practical reasons Tamilians should learn Hindi.

Once I said this in Anna University where I had been invited to give a talk. At the end of my talk one elderly gentleman ( perhaps a Professor ) stood up and said that English is already the link language of India, so why should Tamilians learn Hindi ? I replied that English is known only by the 10% or less elite class in India. If a Tamilian goes to, say, Delhi he has a lot of difficulty. The taxi and auto drivers do not know English, so there is a lot of difficulty in communication. Even people in many non Hindi states, e.g. West Bengal, Kashmir, Punjab, Orissa, Maharashtra, Gujrat, North East, and many people even in south Indian states know manageable Hindi ( apart from their mother tongues ).

In fact Tamilians were learning Hindi upto the 1960s ( due to Hindi films, Hindi Prachar Sabhas, etc ), but then there was a reaction because some short sighted North India politicians tried to impose Hindi, which was unfortunate. But that is a matter of the past, and we have to move ahead.

Some people said that Tamil should be the link language of India. but the fact is that Hindi is known by 15 times or so more people in India than Tamil. I am not saying that Hindi is superior to Tamil. Tamil is a great language, with a very rich literature. I regard all languages as equal. But the fact is that Hindi is known by many more people in India than Tamil, and it has already developed as the link language of India.

For more read my articles:

1) 'The Language Question'

2) Think rationally about learning Hindi and it will make sense

Aeroplanes, Atom Bombs and Missiles in ancient India

Some people say that in ancient India we had aeroplanes, atom bombs and guided missiles. In support of this argument they refer to the Ramayan and Mahabharat.

It is true that the Ramayan mentions Pushpak Viman, an alleged flying chariot, on which Lord Ram is said to have brought Sita from Lanka to Ayodhya, after defeating Ravan. On this basis it is claimed that there were aeroplanes in ancient India.

My reply to such people is this :

We must first understand what are Ramayan and Mahabharat ? They are epic poems ( mahakavyas). In poetry there is a thing called 'poetic licence', which gives a poet the right to exaggerate. So one must not take all things in the Ramayan or Mahabharat literally. As in much of poetry, many things are imaginative.

Everyone in the world knows that the first aeroplane in the world ( the Kitty Hawk ) was built by the Wright brothers in 1903. Hence we make ourselves a laughing stock before the whole world by claiming that there were aeroplanes in ancient India.

If there were aeroplanes in ancient India then there must have been engines in ancient India ( because an aeroplane requires an engine). In that case soldiers should have fought in tanks instead of in chariots and horses in the Mahabharat.

Similarly, the claim that there were guided missiles and atom bombs in ancient India,( because there is mention of brahmastra, agnyastra, narayanastra, etc in the Mahabharat and Ramayan ) is also nonsense. These were only poetic imaginations.

Such people who talk such nonsense do not know the real great scientific discoveries of our ancestors, e.g. the decimal system in mathematics, plastic surgery in medicine, etc ( I have mentioned about some of them in my article 'Sanskrit as a language of Science'). Instead they make us a laughing stock before the whole world by talking such nonsense.

Justice Dave's Statement

I totally disagree with Justice Dave's statement that Gita and Mahabharat  should be made compulsory in schools.

In a country of such diversity as ours, nothing of this kind should be compelled or imposed, as that is against our nation's secular feature and Constitution. Muslims and Christians may not want their children to be taught these books. Should their children yet be forced to read them ?

Some people say that Gita only teaches morality, and has nothing to do with religion. But Muslims may say that only the Quran teaches morality, Christians may say that only the Bible teaches morality, Sikhs may say that only the Guru Granth Saheb teaches morality, Parsis may say that only the Zend Avesta teaches morality, etc

 In my opinion such compulsion or imposition will do great harm to the unity of our country.

What is to be done?

The test of every system, whatever it may be called, is one and only one : does it raise the standard of living of the masses ?

In other words, does it provide employment to the masses with adequate incomes and abolish unemployment, does it provide good eduacation, good healthcare and housing for the masses, etc ?

Now to raise the standard of living of the masses requires a massive, highly developed and modern industry, for that alone can generate the wealth necessary for this purpose. Agriculture alone cannot do this. in fact modern agriculture requires a highly developed industry to supply it tractors, combines, pesticides, fertilizers, etc.

Money does not fall from the sky, it can only come from a highly developed industry on a large scale. Even for setting up one primary school requires a great deal of money, to buy land, build schoolrooms, pay salaries to teachers and other staff, etc. We have to build tens of thousands of primary schools, high schools, colleges, Universities, scientific institutes, Medical colleges, Engineering Colleges, hospitals, etc. Where will the money for all this come from ? It can only come from a highly developed industry.

But to have a large, modern industry we must have a large market, because the goods which are manufactured must be sold. That is why we must remain united as a country, otherwise we will not have a large domestic market.

Over dependence on foreign markets is very precarious, because that foreign market may be captured by some other countries goods,or there may be a recession in that foreign country due to which it may not be able to buy our goods, and then our export industries will close down. So for stability we must mainly depend on our domestic market.

But if our people are largely poor they will not have the purchasing power to buy the goods which our domestic industry produces. That is why we must raise the purchasing power of our masses by raising their real incomes, that is, incomes relative to the price index, so that the goods manufactured can be sold.

The problem is therefore not how to increase production. There is no difficulty in increasing production, for the position today is very different from what it was in 1947. In 1947 there were few industries ( the British policy was to keep India largely unindustrialized so that our industries do not become a rival to British industries ),and few engineers and managers as compared to today. Today, however we have thousands of bright engineers and managers, and industry has grown compared to 1947. We can at any time increase steel production, or chemicals production, or production of anything with the help of our engineers and managers, many of whom are brilliant ( the Silicon Valley in U.S.A. has thousands of bright Indian engineers). We have also huge natural wealth which can give us all the raw materials we require, because India is huge in size.

But the point is that the goods manufactured have to be sold, and how can they be sold if the people are poor and do not have the purchasing power to buy them ? That is why the problem is not how to increase production ( for that can easily be done ) but how to increase the purchasing power of the masses, which will automatically raise their standard of living and give them decent lives, and also ensure that the goods manufactured are sold.

It is here that our genuine and patriotic intellectuals must apply their minds.

Taslima Nasreen

I read in the newspapers today that Taslima Nasreen's visa has been extended by the Indian government by only 2 months. In my opinion she should be given a permanent visa to reside in India.

Several bigots and fanatics have hounded her ever since she wrote her book 'Lajja'. I have read the book. It only depicts the atrocities on Hindus in Bangladesh after the demolition of Babri Masjid. There is nothing against Islam in that book.

She had to flee for her life to India, but even here the bigots and fanatics hounded her. Evidently writing about the persecution of Hindus is anti-Islamic, according to these fanatics and bigots.

I think it is time now to charge sheet and try in Court these bigots and fanatics, and if found guilty these criminals should be given long sentences of rigorous imprisonment, because nothing else will bring them to their senses.

NL Interviews Markandey Katju - Part 2

NL Interviews Markandey Katju - Part 1

Dilemma of an I.N.A. accused and Dr. Katju's advice

Generals Gurbux Singh Dhillon, Shah Nawaz Khan, and Col. Sehgal, of the I.N.A. were put up on trial before a Military Tribunal in 1945 in the Red Fort, Delhi along with others for waging war against the King.

The accused had the privilege to make a written statement to the Tribunal. In this connection General Dhillon has written :

" During those days Dr. Katju often used to ask me to recite some of my poetical compositions like 'Chalo Delhi' or ' Netaji ka Farman desh bhakton ko'. 

One day I took Dr. Katju aside and asked : 'Sir, what is your advice? What should I say in my statement ?". He said 'Gurbux, say whatever your conscience tells you'.

I said ' Doctor Saheb,you are my counsel. Can't you help me make a decision ? Isn't it part of your duty ? Please advise me whether I should tell the truth or a lie.'

It was probably Saturday when the aforesaid conversation took place. Dr. Katju told me that he would think it over and advise me on Monday.

Monday came, and when I approached him, he said ' Sorry, I have not been able to make up my mind what to advise you'

I said 'Doctor Saheb, can I ask you after two days?' He said yes, and was happy that I left him alone.

During the next two days I thought about the matter, and decided not to admit the charge. When I met Dr. Katju I asked him 'Sir, what is your advice ?. He said ' Gurbux, it is a difficult problem, I have not been able to make up my mind '.

I said ' but I have '.

Dr. Katju then asked me what I had decided, and I said that I had decided to tell a lie. He asked 'why ?'.

I said ' Among the principles of war there is one : mystify and mislead the enemy. This Court, consisting of British army officers, is the prolongation of the battlefield where I had been fighting, and the members of the Court are as good as my enemies now as they were on the battlefield. Therefore I have a right to mystify and mislead them. My first duty is to save my men. I cannot please my conscience by telling the truth, and as a result endanger the lives of my junior officers and men'.

Dr. Katju attentively listened to me and then said : 'I am glad you have taken a decision'. 

' Do you agree with me ?', I asked.

Dr. Katju repeated ' I am glad you have taken a decision', and saying this walked away.

I felt I had fallen low in his esteem.. How great, noble and upright were those legal luminaries who would not advise their clients to withhold truth even in the face of a certain capital punishment.

In the evening, after last post, I retired to my tent, and closing the flies of the tent I sat down to write my statement. By daybreak it was ready, and I handed it over.

Today as I write these memoirs after a lapse of half a century, I confess that in spite of all arguments, I should have told the truth. I do feel sorry for having told a lie."

The I.N.A. Trial

Perhaps the greatest legal argument ever delivered in India was never made before a law court at all but before a Military Tribunal.

The argument was made by Shri Bhulabhai Desai, the legendary lawyer of the Bombay High Court.

The facts were that in 1943 Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose set up the Indian National Army ( I.N.A.) for liberating India from British rule. A large number of Indian army officers and men, and also civilians living in countries of South East Asia, joined the I.N.A. and fought against the British.

When the I.N.A. surrendered in 1945 the British decided to try the I.N.A. officers on the charge of waging war against the government (section 121 I.P.C.) and murder (Section 302). For propaganda purpose the trial was held in the historic Red Fort in Delhi, and was widely publicized. The Military Tribunal hearing the case were all senior British army officers

For the defence were Shri Bhulabhai Desai, assisted by Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, and Dr. K.N.Katju.

Shri Desai's argument was probably the first legal argument before any court in the world which sought to establish the legal right of an enslaved nation to wage a war of national liberation against its foreign ruler.

Bhulabhai spoke for 2 days, altogether for over 10 hours, and had almost no notes. Had he been arguing before a superior Court of law such as the Privy Council or a High Court, or an International Tribunal consisting of eminent jurists, he would have been assisted in the development of his arguments by observations made from the bench. But speaking before a court martial consisting of army officers not trained in law he had no such advantage.There were no interruptions from first to last, and the whole argument was a sustained effort to present a case which counsel believed was correct in law.

The substance of Bhulabhai's submission was that under international law an enslaved nation has a right to fight for overthrowing foreign rule.

Shri Desai first placed the facts. After the Japanese occupied South East Asia in 1942, the Indians living there, with Japanese support, set up a Provisional Government of Free India, with Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose as Head of State. This Government set up the I.N.A. and 23,000 volunteers joined it.

The Provisional Government had ministers and departments. It enacted laws. It had its own finances, and later acquired territories (e,g. Andaman Islands). It declared war on Britain, and the army it set up ( the I.N.A.) fought against the British army in Burma and the Arakans.. It had its own organization,emblems and badges. The Provisional Government was recognized by the Axis Governments.

This being the position, Bhulabhai argued, the Provisional Government complied with all the requirements of a sovereign state.

Bhulabhai submitted that at one time the old idea was that only an independent sovereign state could validly declare war. This idea, however, created the vicious circle that a subject race would remain in perpetuity a subject race. Hence modern international law recognizes the right of subject people to get organized and wage a war for freedom.

Shri Desai submitted that if 10 villagers in India had rebelled against British rule, the matter may have been different. But where a stage is reached where the rebels have set up their own political organization and army, it is a war recognized by international law.. For instance, in the American Civil War from 1861 to 1865 both North and South had their own governments and armies. A similar example was that of the Spanish Civil War.

Shri Desai submitted that if insurgents even in independent countries can wage a civil war and acquire the status of belligerents, the greater must be the right conceded under International Law to a subject people who rise in revolt against foreign rule.

Shri Desai quoted extensively from works of eminent jurists specialized in international law, e.g. Oppenheim, Lawrence, etc. He referred to President Wilson's 14 points, the U.N. Charter, etc.he referred also to the American Declaration of Independence, 1776, the Greek War of Independence against Turkish Rule, Bolivar's struggles, etc.

Shri Desai submitted that it was a settled position in International Law that when two governments are at war with each other, the combatants acquire the status of belligerents, and the soldiers cannot be punished for murder, and other offences under the municipal laws. The matter passes from the domain of municipal law to that of international law. Amidst the clash of arms, the ordinary criminal law becomes silent. Consequently, he submitted, the charged I.N.A. officers were entitled to be treated as P.O.W.s

Bhulabhai's brilliance can be realized from the fact that he asserted that the very charge against the accused, of waging war, was his main defence, since it was recognized by international law. He referred to section 79 of the Indian Penal Code which states that " Nothing is an offence which is justified by law ", and submitted that International law was also law.

By his outstanding advocacy of India's right to freedom ( made when he was in failing health), Bhulabhai acquitted himself in the highest colours. In the words of his assistant in the case Dr. Katju " It was a great forensic performance, an argument well delivered in accordance with the highest traditions of the bar, and in furtherance of justice".