Cheerleaders and the moral police…and Barkha Dutt too
Check out this piece by Barkha Dutt in the Hindustan Times. Frankly, I have never liked Dutt, nor do I find her writing logical and coherent. But, this piece exceeds all expectations. dutt makes a complete fool of herself unlike anytime in the past. Confused is quite justified in asking what exactly the point is. Seriously, what was she thinking. I don’t understand why we need bikini-clad cheerleaders to make cricket viewing more fun, but that’s their job. They have been hired by the team bosses (read Vijay Mallya and Co) to do that job. What is the point in venting our ire on them. If Dutt had the guts, she must have directed her irritation against Mallya. Her comment that white cheerleaders are trashy.
“But even if I think that the cheerleaders are (there’s no polite way to say this) essentially white trash, I find the attempt by sundry politicians to ban them — or dress them up in clothes that cover their knees — farcical and indefensible.”
I find that disgusting, especially since it comes from Dutt, who fancies herself to be a champion of liberal causes. White trash? What the @$%?? These girls show a lot of skin. True. They are all white. True. But, does that justify Dutt casting aspersions on their character or taking the moral high ground? I think not. She likes to call herself liberal. But, her most recent article seems to demonstrate otherwise. To me, she is simply taking refuge under the “liberal” tag to say exactly the same things as the moral police, spineless politicians and religious fundamentalists.
Legal System and criticism
Read this excellent op-ed in The Hindu by V R Krishna Iyer. I am glad someone is questioning what the Supreme Court says. In a recent pronouncement, the Chief Justice of India said that judges were “constitutional authorities” and not public servants, and therefore not covered by the Right to Information Act. In an excellent retort, Iyer explains that the difference between “constitutional authority” and public servant is merely semantic. He argues that constitutional authorities are, in fact, a higher category of pubic servant and are therefore more accountable for their actions. If what Iyer says is true, then why is criticism of the courts or legal procedure considered contempt of court? Must the Supreme Court not be subject to the very laws they seek to uphold? As Iyer puts it,
“The Indian judiciary must accept Frankfurter, that frank and superlative U.S. Judge who wrote: “Judges as persons, or courts as institutions, are entitled to no greater immunity from criticism than other persons or institutions.”
In a recent order on the defamation cases against Tamil actress Khushboo, the Madras High Court refused to dismiss the 29 cases against her on the grounds that she had expressed not-so-flattering opinions against the judiciary, and that she had no reason to be aggrieved. Excuse me, but I thought I lived in a democracy? A person does not enjoy her fundamental right to constitutional remedy because she dared to say something against the courts, which are responsible for providing that remedy? In a democracy, I have an inalienable right to freedom of speech and expression. Nobody can take that away from me. The courts were, until now, the only neutral and non-partisan forum for justice. If the courts put themselves above the law, how can we trust them to protect the rights of normal people like you and me?
To its credit, India’s legal system has managed to remain free from external influences for over 60 years. We cannot afford to let that change. Judges will only be more respected if they agree to subject themselves to the laws they are appointed to uphold. Judges are subject to law, not above it.