Betrayal by Judiciary

SUPRIME COURT IN NEW DELHI ON MONDAY PICTURE BY PREM SINGH 19 APRIL 2010Famous cases where minorities in India were betrayed even by judiciary.

Case 1: Special trial court in Gujarat gave a verdict in the case of a Muslim man and a Member of Parliament Ehsan Jafri who was killed by right wing hindu mob during riots saying “Ehsan Jafris’s firing towards mob made the mob angry and then they killed Ehsan Jafri”.

Hence, Jafri himself is responsible for his death.

Case 2: Gujarat HC sentenced 11 people to death for Godhra train burning in 2002 saying “Godhra train burning caused rioting which resulted in death of more than 2000 people throughout Gujarat”.

Those 11 men were indirectly held responsible for even the murders done by right wing hindus.

Case 3: Orissa HC gave a verdict in Killing of Christian missionary Graham Staines’ case saying “Though Graham Staines and his 2 minor sons were burnt to death, the intention behind killing was to teach Graham a lesson for all his conversion activities”.

This gave right wing hindus free hand to kill missionaries and their family with no fear of incarceration.

Case 4: Bombay HC grants bail to the accused in killing of techie Mohsin Sheikh saying

“The deceased belong to another religion, and this is in favour of the accused, who were provoked in the name of religion and murdered victim”.

This means, even the existence of people from other religion is now a provocation and thus they can be killed.


I have highlighted only four cases for their deranged conclusions by judiciaries, but there are hundreds of cases where minorities lost faith in Indian judiciary system due to their biased, partial and sometimes nonsensical verdicts.


diplomacy-and-world-order-img-01We heard about Kissinger and Kerry in the world of diplomacy, we hear their successful stories of back channeling and conspiracies to keep up the status quo, they are the torch bearers and the inspiration in the diplomatic world.

In the olden days, kings and their ministers use to have a strategy to combat another power through war, those days did not have any back channels, boycotting, or summoning of high commissioners. Those were the days of straight talks, face to face, left or right, with us or against us. Totally different from today’s world.

But what does all the new age diplomats from all over the world do?

Well, there is an explanation for the above question, but i as a student of Political Science would like to explain it in my own way as i have understood.

According to my understanding, today’s diplomacy can be explained as

  1. To say what you really don’t mean
  2. To do what your really don’t want to
  3. Show utmost care for the people on whom you can easily turn your back
  4. Your closest ally is the one who materialistically benefits you
  5. One is not your enemy until he becomes ‘most inspiring leader’
  6. Be a mediator between parties in a conflict, but never solve the conflict
  7. Keep the aid box always open for the most hated
  8. Show that your suggestions are sincere, and then put in on a Mary go round and round and round, until seeker gives up
  9. Shower praises on the one who is incapable and incompetent
  10. You are always right, even when you are proved wrong

Will add more points if my thinking goes little more deep. Thanks for reading