Self-Proclaimed Judge

Self-proclaimed Judge

We are all self-proclaimed judges, albeit to a varying degree. Simply because we are judgemental. But “judgement” means, as per the dictionary (yes, again that sacred book which is indispensable to me and without its help I refrain from using words: from fear of misinterpretation on the part of the readers and unintentional distortion of views and facts that need to be expressed, on my part!), “ability to make sound decisions”; while “judgemental” is scripted as adj (i) of judgement, (ii) being overly critical of others.
Whence I don’t know whether “being judgemental” can qualify at all as a positive trait. “Judgemental” can indicate towards a positive lineage only if the judgement is a judgement in the true sense (which it seldom is when one is judgemental) and not a proxy, which is primarily based on hearsay and prejudices. Judges are supposed to pass sound judgements instead of being judgemental. Judgemental, brings an element of self-involvement and makes it all the more difficult to elevate the self beyond the horizon of “bias”.

We as human-beings, on being exposed to various happenings: from downright mundane to outright adrenalin pumping----come up with theories behind it. We pass our judgement on the role of the participant/s and the validity or otherwise of the incident/s.
Theorizing, which we as students of Chemistry do quite a bit, is an outcome of, either or combination or all, the following factors:

(i) Generalisation :- When the same outcome is had from similar ingredients: participants, circumstances etc., we generalize that given the similar situation, the interaction between amimate or animate & inanimate subjects will yield the same result.
(ii) Retroanalysis:- Analysis done in retrospect . It is somewhat analogous to generalization, rather is its precursor, differs a bit in as much as a generalization is laid only when it attains the tag of “ being unarguably true” after innumerable analyses & retroanalyes. In analyses we need to keep an open mind instead of being rigid. We shouldn’t be afraid to find faults in our assessment of the situation. Rather should be our own biggest critic, as it is quite possible that we might be wrong (to err is human). Only then, possibly, we will attain the absolute truth.
(iii) Call of Prejudice:- This makes us do things which we deem to be correct. Prejudice blurs our vision with a wrong notion that we are right and others are wrong. We wish to see events unfurl according to our thought-to-be correct way/s. We want others to behave as per our dictates (doesn’t that make us dictators?!). If they fail to do so, we adjudge them to be in the wrong. All this because prejudice as a word, ‘has its root’, if I am not wrong, in “prejudge” which means “to form a judgement before knowing all the facts”, while “prejudice” is “an opinion based not on reason or experience”. In other words, being predisposed /pre-committed towards a particular judgement irrespective of the facts, which aren’t cared to be considered in totality.
Thus, prejudice leads to bias, rather is synonymous. Whence theories when lean upon (i) more, with help from (ii) but not entirely on (ii) and definitely not even a bit on (iii) for their existence, are successful in doing so. If not they end up being mere smear on the pages of time.

We all are liable to such indiscretions: intentional and unintentional as well, if we are not careful with our views. True, our Constitution accords us the “Freedom of Speech” but while speaking, either through our voiced words or written words, we should remember that the “freedom” is not from the underlying responsibility that comes with it as a “combo-pack”. In trying to utilize the freedom of speech the barrier of responsibility is not to be breached and domain of irresponsibility is better left un-encroached, at least by the educated, in the true sense, people. Issues need to be raised; more so if they have a high controversy quotient, in proper manner at a proper place at a proper time, instead of trying to encash its publicity possibilities. That is, if the corrective measures are really meant and desired.

Thus, when I came across the two articles in Pune Mirror (of TOI, Pune), dt.28th Oct.’09, I was stunned, to say the least. One has the excerpts from the book “Who Killed Karkare” by the honourable former IG Police, Maharashtra, Mr.S.M.Mushrif and the second one, a review of the book by Dr.Sumit.S.Paul.
As we approach the day of 26/11 a year after the deplorable acts of indefinable magnitude, I can’t quite express the feelings welling up within and so it is, I am sure with all my fellow citizens. I have no words to express my solidarity with the people who have lost their loved ones in the incident. But I am with them, for sure, in however minuscule way possible. All of us, as a whole nation and human-beings have lost our fellow beings (there were many non-Indians too at the receiving end of the massacre) and I pray to the almighty to empower them with more strength, to combat their grief, that they have been doing so courageously for the past one-year.

And to decide to pass his own judgement, in the form of his explosive book, to “shed light” on the “factual” happenings: I don’t know how responsible it is. We don’t want to see light in an explosion. We already have had too many real ones and now we want to be spared of the metaphorical one too.

I do not want to question the authenticity of the data he has been supplied with, which he has compiled in the form of the book and complied with his urge to tell the whole world about the “actual” culprits. I am not that qualified nor do I have the requisite privileged information. But I too want to utilize my freedom of speech, as I can’t refrain from asking the following questions:

(a) Whether the case pertaining to the whole chain of spine chilling incidents of 26/11 has been completed & the real and authorized judge has passed the judgement?
I think not. The court of enquiry has not yet been closed.

(b) If so, then the matter is subjudice , pending with the specific court of law.
Under the circumstances coming up with a book with parallel views on the issues (sorry, I haven’t read the book as yet but as much I could envisage from the excerpt) on a subjudice matter is nothing short of “contempt of court”(as much as I know about it).

(c) If he really wants to bring the truth out in the open in the truest of senses, why didn’t he go to “the court” with his findings?

(d) By his insinuations, the evidences collected by various investigating agencies: international as well, and most importantly the FBI; and theories forwarded subsequently by them will be projected as false, at least partially. Did he meet with them and try to “dispel their notion” based on “their less than accurate findings”? He has said that IB will not help in his mission of unraveling the truth. But what about the FBI? He could have surely talked to them. Or has he?

(e) He has tried to solve the mystery of who killed the top cop Hemant Karkare. In that he has adjudged the “Brahminists” (for the first time I was made aware of the existence of such a sect and for that I am really thankful to Mr.Mushrif) as culprits and those as “criminals” who carried out the rest of the very meticulously planned heinous chain of events. Well, it has been proved beyond doubt that our friendly neighbouring nation was involved in it, at least indirectly by allowing the perpetrators use of their soil for the entire planning, if not directly by supplying them with the necessary logistics (that they are strongly denying).
So does Mr.Mushrif wants to state that the evil spirits from the neighbouring nation joined hands with their religious and ideological rivals, “Brahminists” in this country and worked in cahoots sending the “criminals” for the purpose to our country? Does he mean to say, the murder of Hemant Karkare formed a part of the planned mass murders of innocent people? Then how are the “Brahminits” different from his “criminals”, as all perpetrators of crime are criminals in the broad sense? And then who are terrorists? Definitely who spread terror by their dastardly acts. So is spreading terror not a crime? By redefining of terms, as I perceive (I might be wrong), has he not ended up lessening, if not obliterating, the participation of our neighbouring nation? And if so, what message will it carry to the world as a whole when they are trying to help us out on this matter?

Questions can be aplenty. I too have a compelling one, that which has disturbed me for the past one-year: why the three top cops, heads of three different wings, the slained Hemant Karkare, Vijay Salaskar and Ashok Kamte were moving together? Who had given them the orders to go to the same place at the same time in unison? What was the logic behind centralizing/localizing all three, instead of decentralizing them and allowing them the freedom to plan counter attacks from three different sides? God only knows, but I feel in that circumstance they wouldn’t have, at least not all three of them, met with such a cruel fate.
I too can add two and two to get four, but I refrain from doing so, as my retroanalyses might lead me to different two’s than the actual ones in action and would thus make my arrived at four to be inaccurate.

So instead of passing my judgement on a subjudice matter, that which is not pending at my court of law, I pray that the real perpetrators are brought to book via a process that will not utilize the religion of the people concerned as a tool to either falsely implicate them or illegitimately exonerate them. Only then the souls of the departed will rest in peace. My religion, as a true Indian, has this indelible philosophy and ideology imprinted on my heart, soul and mind. And I am sure, so it is with the majority of the fellow citizens. We want justice to be delivered. This is the least that could be done to assuage the pain of the still mourning families and a bleeding nation as a whole.

Lastly coming to the terminal lines of Dr.Paul’s review of the book. He has urged us to read the book, not to discard it and even if we do not agree with the author, we should challenge his views and not the individual. Dr.Paul further states that the sign of an educated and enlightened mind is to entertain an idea, even though one doesn’t agree with it. Very true. Though, I don’t know whether I am properly educated and posses an enlightened mind, at least in this context. But I do know that I wouldn’t have written a book on a subjudice matter. If I had the requisite information worth vouching for, I would have gone to the court of law.
Yes, I challenge this very concept of the author. I challenge the prudence of writing such a book in an already volatile situation. True, the urge to proclaim self, as a judge, is an irresistible lure. But writing a book (which is a finished product of a reaction) on a subjudice matter (which implies the reaction is still in progress), can be LEADING, MISLEADING or MANIFESTATION OF PREJUDICE, if not CONTEMPT OF COURT.

Sushmita Mukherjee,
21st November 2009