A couple of things motivated me to write this blog. I was reading a book and then I read a couple of articles in the newspaper.
I am reading "Atlas Shrugged" and I am almost done with it. In my personal opinion it is a "just ok" book. It has some high points to it but the world that Ayn Rand describes is overly exagerated. The good guys are perfect and the bad guys are pure evil. I hate that kind of characterization. I feel all of us are grey rather than black or white. Also her description of love defies my logic. Initially I thought I understood what she was saying but I was disillusioned as soon as the female lead starts sleeping with almost all the male leads of the story. That was a bit too much for me to digest. It is as if, everytime she found the perfect man to sleep with, she found someone even more perfect. It is a fair assumption that Ayn Rand must have been sexually frustrated in life as all the sex scene in all her books are so violent that at the end of it the lady involved is always left with bruises all over her body.
For all it's flaws there is something to be got out of the book. The main premise of the book is about "work". As in how dedicated you are to your work and how well you do it etc etc. It, rightly, glorifies people who are mighty good at their work and are ready to undertake any hardship to make money. To cut the long story short, she suggests that "work" and money are the only moral codes of a man's life and anything done in order to achieve the best in your work is justified.
Just as I am about to finish the book I read an article (http://www.rediff.com/news/2006/nov/03msg.htm) which got me thinking. The article pertains to the Jessica Lal murder case. The country's top lawyer Ram Jethmalani is defending the accused, Manu Sharma after the case was reopened following a huge media campaign and public outcry against the acquital of Manu. Based on the initially evidence and eyewitness accounts it has been wildly publicised and accepted that Manu Sharma is the murderer (though none of us other than the eye witnesses and Manu himself, know what happened on that unfortunate day) . The article questions "Do you agree with Ram Jethmalani's decision to defend Manu Sharma?" and there are 512 replies to the query. All of them berating Ram Jethmalani, the former law minister, the well respected lawyer and declare him to be a senile old man.
What is the connection is between "Atlas shrugged" and the "Jessica Lal case"?
The point I want to focus on here is Mr. Ram Jethmalani and his work of being a defending lawyer. Are we justified in questioning Ram's choice of clients? According to the moral codes popularised by Ayn Rand, you are not supposed to question a man who is true to his profession, who does his best with whatever job he takes up. Ram is doing just the same. He is one hell of a criminal lawyer. His cross examination skills are supposed to be the best in the country, he is true to his profession, he tries his best to win all his cases. But does that justify his choice of clients? Now before you start damning me, pause for a second and think about it. It is not as straightforward as you think it is.
Everyone in the modern society accepts that "a man is innocent until proven guilty". So Manu Sharma (like Sadam Hussein) is innocent until he is proven guilty. So if you have to try him at all, then why should'nt he have the best defense lawyer in the country. He has all the right's to hire Ram. From Ram's perspective, there is a man charged of murder to be defended. He is the best so he is getting a payment worthy of his talent. So why is'nt iy acceptable that he chooses to defend Manu Sharma? Think about it and leave me your comments.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Nice blog maga. But its quite controversial!
when a person is concerned about filling his wallet , morality does nt knock loud at the doors of his conscience its muddled by the "bling bling" noise.
well said brother.
Nice article and now i really want to read that book! Its true that you need to give your best to your work, but as you say, its not just black and white, but grey- similarly there is that invisible line that demarcates between what is ethical and what is not, and whether you can use unethical means to give your best to your profession. Mr Jethmalani has every right to defend manu sharma, but within ethical limits. A man is innocent until proven guilty,true. And even IF a man is guilty, he has every right to put forth his case to get his sentence lessened.But there needs to be honesty and integrity, even while finding loopholes. One can certainly be a good lawyer while being ethical and respecting the law and the people- and there certainly should not be a conflict between giving the best to a client and standing by one's principles: after all, a lawyer gets to choose his clientele.
Tekur, nice article. could nt quite associate with the ram jeth.....issue. that is an over simplification of the book. :))
i am no ayn rand sympathiser, but a lil bit of light on this book..... what you read and interpreted was the veneer.
There is so much more to "atlas...." than what can be interpreted on a single read.
when you read ayn rand the next time, associate it with your darkest and ugliest wants. weather animalistic or banal.....you will appreciate the writing much better....
Post a Comment