Oh... so you finally peeked in a mirror?
WTF is wrong with YOU?wondering the same here..oh wait I got my answer..never mind
Ha ha ha ha....
Oh, and I also have a thought on phucking Kasab getting legal representation. I think there is no need for anyone to tell any lawyer not to give legal representation to Kasab. I would suggest that Indian public should make sure that any lawyer who gives legal representation to Kasab does not get any other case in rest of his life. There should be public boycott of the lawyer who represents Kasab, rather than telling lawyers not to represent him. If MoFo Kasab wants, he can get lawyers from PAK or any other supporting country to represent him. If any Indian lawyers shows his patriotism by representing him then Indian public has full rights not to give him any business for rest of his life. Maybe, all TV channels plaster his face on TV screens letting everyone know who is representing Kasab, maybe shops can stop selling merchandise to him, Taxis can refuse to pick him, Airlines can refuse to give him tickets, maybe IT department should do an needle-in-the-haystack kind of investigation in his finances. I'm sure MoFo Kasab will find some PAK lawyer to represent him... problem solved.if what you suggested happens and if there is no lawyer ready to represent him and if I were a lawyer, I don't mind representing him. I did probably be overcome with hatred and repugnance for kasab, but I will overcome them for the sake of India and represent him to make sure his trial and his sentencing carries the stamp of international standards of justice. I did be contributing to the image of India as a modern, mature functioning democracy.
First of all, tell me what has democracy go to do with representing Kasab? See, that's the thing. Intellectual guys like you like using all these flashy words like "modern", "mature", "democracy" but forget to see where the usage is required.
Who is stopping you or any other lawyer from representing Kasab? At least not me. I am talking about people's reaction to the person representing Kasab. Since you are talking about democracy, I am saying people should make sure that they tell that lawyer what they think about him. If they like him representing Kasab, that's fine and dandy with me. If they don't like him representing Kasab, then in a democracy they have the right to make their displeasure known. And I am giving ideas on how to do it in a non-violent way (since you are a *hi fan). I am talking about *hian policy of non-cooperation. Let no one co-operate with this lawyer for the rest of his life, if people don't like him representing Kasab.
ruchir, looks like you have completely missed the import, meaning and intent behind non-cooperation. *hi waged cooperation as a means to an end. It was non-cooperation with evil until the evil doer ceases doing his evil thing.
Non-cooperation is with the evil not with evil doers or with individuals. What you are suggesting is not even close to what was suggested or how it was used by *hiji. You may not agree with *hiji, but let us not twist his acts & ideology.
In this instance, if you consider representing Kasab is an evil act (IMO it is not evil act and I am sure *hi too would not consider it an evil act), non-cooperation will take the form of not helping him in any way to represent his case or to certain extent not help him lead his life normally while representing his case. BUT, crucially, this non-cooperation should cease as soon as he stops representing kasab or as soon as the case comes to a close. Do not be under any illusion that boycotting an individual for the rest of his life is non-cooperation. If you boycott the lawyer for the rest of his life, what are you not cooperating with? it then descends into social revenge, not non-cooperation.
Above, is just to clarify the true meaning of non-cooperation as I understand.
Coming to Kasab and his defense, a lawyer representation is not about holding him not guilty, it is about making sure the legitimacy of his sentencing stands international standards of trial & justice. If we subject Kasab to lynching or killing without trial, our moral standing takes a heavy beating. This is now a internaionally followed incident, any middle eastern type of functionning will get India a very bad name. Even if we do not consider bad image, it is still in our interest to make sure things follow the process/procedure of fair trial, it will strengthen our systems. If we make exceptions each time there is an outrage, we are basically following the pak/middle east model and we too will end up in medeival ages like them. It is imperative for us to march ahead instead of back into medeival ages by resorting to uncivilized acts like public lynching, killing etc. Even a farce of a trial is better than a no trial.