English to Xhosa Meaning of judicious - xhosa.english ...

I recently found this article written by my colleague at work Enjoy:-
I have been thinking to write this article for a long time. For me highlight in news papers is mostly entertainment section, I choose to read only about this particular section of the news as maybe, I am loosing on to the stress other news can create to ones’ mind. Today in rather stressful life my focus is to keep myself calm and not to take any stress. I feel disillusioned with whatever is happening around me. Right now sitting on my desk and reading the news while sipping tea I stumbled upon the news of racism in India. “We the people” are doing nothing new in this part of the world. Such news just cemented my belief that “yes Indian are racist.” Earlier, we were racist against each other, “untouchabilty” is a biggest example depicting our thought process. Well, not getting into too much of detail, I am writing this based on my own experience and the perceptions of “Indian” human mind. I was an ordinary student who graduated with a professional degree, with dreamy eyes of having a career I stepped in the world of harsh realities. There at my work place, which I thought to be otherwise, there were certain reservations about women. Still paved my way by staying strong and level headed. This was first step where nobody knew me as what I was rather I was just a ignorant young girl often objectified for being my gender. I took a leap and went abroad to study further; there, I was a meek young lady. I introduced myself as Indian. And the Indians there as I thought of them were, nowhere were close to the sense of being Indian. They rather loved to introduce themselves as “Punjabi’s”, “Gujarati’s”, etc. in a contrasting difference I found that people from other countries were limited to their own countries for them they were British/ Welsh /Irish/ Scottish, not as county specific. We Indian were more racist towards each other. Groups of so called; North Indians, East Indians, West Indians and South Indians that’s how we liked it to be. For people in India we were some kind of demigod’s who lived abroad. On my visits to India I was treated as some kind of a celebrity where all the people including officers, judicial persons were so full of respect for me. I was the same young girl who when in India was not even recognized and suddenly a star status was conferred on my shoulders much to my amusement. People used to comment on others “ Madam, these Indians I tell you, are lazy people, they love to be like this that’s why India is lacking on global front( now I wanted to always ask these Indians also include you who is talking all nonsense about your own countrymen) never had courage to ask . Now I am back in India working, not even recognized as same person, back to reality but seemingly happier. To my surprise I found that people here are so racist that they hardly accept us as simple girls. They hold a perception that oh this girl lived in abroad alone, must have had fun! Really!! I would like to say “Dear People of India” please grow up; you are more racist then rest of the world, perhaps your racism in darker than anyone’s in the world. Once abroad you love to play racist card against people there, without understanding the consequences of your behavior, in your own country you having preconceived notions and see color as means to classify the real beauty of India, you charge extremely higher rates for your goods, which they don’t, once you are in their country. I they do so you will be blaming them for being racist as they charge 10 pounds for goods worth 2 pounds. Enough said! we treat people from other countries, as we would never want us to be treated and I certainly have no qualms about it.Racism is what has inculcated in our blood as a result of our own inferiority complex.

Questioning the message behind installing a priest as the head of a state in the context of Yogi Adityanath being appointed as Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh by the BJP, eminent jurist Fali Nariman has said the Constitution is under threat. In a freewheeling conversation at Off The Cuff with ThePrint Editor-in-Chief Shekhar Gupta last week, Nariman discussed a range of contemporary legal, constitutional and political issues and said this period bears resemblance to the one that led up to the Emergency. He also regretted the fact that neither Members of Parliament nor the media has directly asked Prime Minister Narendra Modi whether what is happening now is the beginning of a Hindu state.
Edited transcript of the conversation:
SHEKHAR GUPTA: Fali, when you go to bed these days, what is it that makes you happy about the state of our Constitutional democracy and what is it that worries you?
FALI NARIMAN: What makes me happy is the vibrant nature of our democracy. What makes me sad is that not too many people who should speak up, speak up for people's rights and liberties.
SHEKHAR GUPTA: Fali, when you say not enough people speak for liberties and rights, give us some examples.
FALI NARIMAN: When you meet a lot of people, they all are a little wary of the powers that be and the powers that be don't necessarily include government, not exclusively. Powers that be include big companies, big corporate and people like that. So I like this business of social media where people do converse, quite freely, much more freely than the regular press or the regular media and so on. It is there that you pick up all the little gossip that goes on in the country, much of which may or may not be true but at least it’s entertaining. Whereas we find that the media nowadays and I feel bored listening to all the spokesmen of each and every political party every wretched night. Because they all say the same thing on behalf of their respective parties and I don't know why the media, the electronic media cannot invite individual members of political parties who are not spokesmen of the party in order to get their views. I don't see any wrong in that. Why do you only ask the spokesmen because the spokesperson only says what he is bespoken to, he is told that this is what you must say and he will never confess that the party is wrong, never. Neither the leading majority party, nor the opposition nor any other party. Every single channel does this.
SHEKHAR GUPTA: The fact is that parties now control who speaks on their behalf. Parties don't let other people go. They give a list of spokesmen
FALI NARIMAN: What do you mean don't let other people go? Then you resign from the party
SHEKHAR GUPTA: Or you get expelled like Amar Singh
FALI NARIMAN: I don’t know why these editors of all these news channels invite the same set of fellows. I feel bored looking at them. Every night the same set of channels in every channel. You switch one, switch the other, switch the other. Boring, absolutely boring. They say the same wretched things. Why do you ask the spokesmen, there are so many eminent, decent human beings who have views who may belong to a party or may not. Invite them, ask them their views. Why don't you do that? They do it all over the world, we only don't do this. And one theme runs through all the channels why? Let's have another theme. That's my complaint. They won't invite me anymore.
SHEKHAR GUPTA: Get Fali on stage and we are the first to get an admonition. But rights, Fali, which rights are the ones, which citizen rights that you worry about now? Which ones are under threat or which ones are shrinking?
FALI NARIMAN: Constitution is under threat. Let me be very frank. With the massive electoral victory in Uttar Pradesh with the priest installed at the instance of the prime minister as the chief minister like the cherry on the victory cake so that is a signal and if you can't see it then you must be either the spokesman of the political party or you must have your eyes examined. Because it’s there, let’s face it, let’s not pooh-pooh about it, let’s not just make fun about it. There is no need to do that. They are entitled to say what they want to but the message is very clear and what you want to do in reaction to that is for all of you to decide, all of us to decide.
SHEKHAR GUPTA: You think all of us are not taking sufficient notice of it? We are being complacent?
FALI NARIMAN: We are being hypocritical not complacent. You never like to say anything like this. What will the PM say if he finds Mr. Nariman has criticised this.
SHEKHAR GUPTA: I will say Mr. Nariman said this about cherry on the cake. I'll fire the gun from your shoulder.
FALI NARIMAN: You must give it to the PM. He is quite forefront, he does not mince words and his energy is something remarkable. But there my comment ends. I don't accept all the policies of the PM and I say this quite openly there is no doubt about this.
SHEKHAR GUPTA: Does the Constitution have the strength to withstand such a statement of majority if not majoritarianism?
FALI NARIMAN: This is the problem. The Constitution has the strength but the people who support the Constitution don't. Here are Members of Parliament, many of them. They are all here in the country. It is for them to question the PM and to ask him. Why has no correspondent of any leading channel asked the PM, 'Prime Minister is it true as Nariman seems to suggest that this is the beginning of a Hindu State?' Ask him and I am sure he will say something which is quite characteristic of him because he is a very enlightened person. Make no mistake. And he speaks his mind. So at least you know what to be prepared for. Please realize this, it is the Hindu majority that gave us this Constitution, 85 per cent people at the time of the Constituent Assembly, 85 per cent members of the Constituent Assembly were orthodox Hindus with Rajendra Prasad the most orthodox of all. They gave us this magnificent Constitution. I dare anyone to say it’s not. It has given us an added advantage with that Bill of Rights, most constitutions don't. And a Bill of Rights that works or is made to work except when it didn't work during the emergency of 75-77. Which gave us an inoculation as it were, what can happen if you are not vigilant. I always say that one should be forthright in one’s views, political views also. Ask the PM is it true, what these people are pretending to say, is there going to be a Hindu state? Please tell us we must know. If there is then there will be an amendment to the Constitution. There is going to be some problem that the judiciary may have to face. No Member of Parliament has asked this, Parliament is in session. Why not? He is a very forthright person. He'll appreciate someone asking him this. Answer he gives is for him.
SHEKHAR GUPTA: When some of us ask this question in public debate we are told if somebody can be elected Member of Parliament five times why can't he be CM?
FALI NARIMAN: Let him say that. I am asking a different question. He can, nobody stops him. It is a little odd that he should also be a head priest.
SHEKHAR GUPTA: Fali, you say you worry about the fact that Constitution is under threat and people whose charge it is to protect it may not have the strength to protect it.
FALI NARIMAN: Yes, they protect it in their own interest also. Look how well looked after Members of Parliament are. I was one and I am still looked after extraordinarily well. I get an enormous pension. You are looked after by the state and the state looks after everybody, not just members of the leading party but everybody. It is part of their function to see that the Constitution is protected. They don't protect the Constitution, it's very difficult. I feel for the judiciary to do so especially if you remember the role of judiciary during the emergency which was abysmal.
SHEKHAR GUPTA: In terms of all the ups and downs you have seen over the decades, is this the greatest period of threat to the Constitution after the emergency?
FALI NARIMAN: After the emergency yes but not since the Constitution. This always happens with a majoritarian government. Majoritarian government which was there during the emergency wanted to amend our Constitution to make it different from what it is. They would have made Indira Gandhi queen.
SHEKHAR GUPTA: Or head priest!
FALI NARIMAN: Yes, quite right, this is the problem with all majoritarian parties that's why let's not only say BJP, Congress, this that. That's why I always welcome these coalitions. They may be weak, when they are weak, we lawyers are very strong. And judges are stronger still.
SHEKHAR GUPTA: How would you compare this period with the oncoming of emergency, six months before the emergency?
FALI NARIMAN: There is a comparison. Most of you haven't lived through the emergency, some of us have, so we know what it is to live through an emergency. Very difficult. People don't speak to each other. These are troublesome times. Today in majority community also, nobody says anything. All very worried.
SHEKHAR GUPTA: One thing they say is thank God I am Hindu. FALI NARIMAN: Even today 80 per cent of the country is Hindu. It is what the Hindus ultimately say that will be the rule.
SHEKHAR GUPTA: It is what the Parsis say which will be the rule.
FALI NARIMAN: Oh God no. Parsis are finished. We are the most preferred minority community for which I give Mr. Modi full marks.
SHEKHAR GUPTA: I bet he speaks with you in Gujarati
FALI NARIMAN: He is extraordinarily kind and very generous. I am amazed at his energy. When you meet him at the President’s banquet at eight at night he comes and speaks with you in Gujarati. It reminds me of Rudyard Kipling's poem. Some of it applies to the PM. They have done their homework so they have won this election so massively and so rightly. I don't belittle that.
SHEKHAR GUPTA: Six months leading into the emergency and now. Why does it remind you of that?
FALI NARIMAN: It reminds me because you have to be beware but to be beware you need to know something.
SHEKHAR GUPTA: Nobody cares what happened pre-Google.
FALI NARIMAN: That’s the problem, you must know your past, know your remote past too. Students should read Nehru's ‘Discovery of India’. There is not a better book on the history of India. I am a Nehruvian.
SHEKHAR GUPTA: Nehru is not so much in fashion anymore.
FALI NARIMAN: No not at all. Sardar Patel also wrote the Constitution.
ABHIJEET RAJ, THIRD YEAR LAW STUDENT, AMITY LAW SCHOOL, NOIDA: You said that there is threat to country or the Constitution because of the Hindutva factor but the latest census data shows that there has been a 0.7 per cent decline in the Hindu population
FALI NARIMAN: Yes, from 85 to 80.
ABHIJEET RAJ: First time Hindu population has gone below 80 per cent and Muslim population has grown 0.8 per cent. So how do you still see that there is a Hindutva factor involved in this?
FALI NARIMAN: Because 80 per cent is much more than the entire Muslim population of India.
ABHIJEET RAJ: But decline has been for the first time. All this time we have been growing.
FALI NARIMAN: Take steps to improve it. Muslims have found a good way. Amend one of your acts, that's all.
SHEKHAR GUPTA: What about the other guardian of Constitution, the judiciary. Push comes to shove will they be found as wanting as they were during the emergency or will they do better this time?
FALI NARIMAN: Only time can tell but they probably will do better.
SHEKHAR GUPTA: What gives you that assurance? FALI NARIMAN: Because many of them know what it was during the emergency or at least experienced what it was. If we never had the emergency we would be on a clean slate. We would not know what it is to be under an oppressed govt. It’s an inoculation. It shows what can happen, what could be there, and never give up Parliamentary democracy. MPs collect their fee and hop off but silence of non- parliamentary democracy is silence of the grave. I am fearful that there will come a stage that there will be an autocratic government in place and the President would have to take care. I still say so.
SHEKHAR GUPTA: So the current set of judges, have their recent actions reassured you on Goa and Manipur because it became a challenge in the court.
FALI NARIMAN: No, definitely not. No one runs up to the Governor. Governor should say go away . I will invite leader of the majority party. Chief Election Commissioner will tell you. For years and years .That's how Vajpayee became PM. That's what has been going on. I am critical of it but you can't denigrate the whole judiciary. Ultimately we go running to them, even ministers go running to them when they lose elections or are locked up in jail.
PROF. ASHUTOSH VARSHNEY, BROWN UNIVERSITY: Is it possible for the judiciary of India or the highest court to give a Hindu nationalist interpretation of the Constitution?
FALI NARIMAN: Justice Verma tried it but his was a soft Hindutva.
SHEKHAR GUPTA: He tried but is it possible to give a Hindu nationalist interpretation?
FALI NARIMAN: I hope not but I fear it. But that's for the Hindus to decide. We minorities are nothing, we don’t count and rightly so, I concede that. You tell us do you want a Hindu state?
PROF. ASHUTOSH VARSHNEY: But the judge is a judge first or Hindu first?
FALI NARIMAN: He has to be a judge first under our system of law.
PROF. ASHUTOSH VARSHNEY: Judge is not supposed to bend to popular will. He is supposed to interpret the Constitution.
FALI NARIMAN: We expect the judge to interpret the Constitution in the best way possible. It is a matter of public confidence. You have a fundamental right to enforce your fundamental rights.
PROF. ASHUTOSH VARSHNEY: If you are afraid of a Hindu nationalist interpretation coming up…
FALI NARIMAN: I am not afraid, I am just telling you there might be.
PROF. ASHUTOSH VARSHNEY: If possibility exists it is because judge is acting as a Hindu first and a judge later.
FALI NARIMAN: Absolutely. No doubt about it. It happens always. Prejudices do happen you can't help it. You have to overcome it. The act to preserve the Ayodhya site, had a five-judge bench. The two judges who struck down the act were minority judges one was a Muslim and one Parsi and judges who upheld it were three Hindus. They did not uphold it because they were Hindus but you can say that it was. It's the way you look at it.
SHEKHAR GUPTA: How do you look at the recent development in the Ram Janmbhoomi case where the chief justice said this is an emotional issue go settle it outside I can give my services but not as a judge.
FALI NARIMAN: How can a chief justice do this? It is unfortunate that he struck his neck out. You decide according to law not according to sentiment.
SHEKHAR GUPTA: It is an oxymoron. A transparent, powerful executive. Do today's judges tend to play to the gallery and keep on redefining jurisdiction?
FALI NARIMAN: I don't think so. One or two judges may, one two may not. Generalisation is great difficulty. But it is a good thing that press or media keeps everybody under control. Media despite all the failings that it has, it has been a great support for the Constitution.
ASHUTOSH TRIPATHI, STUDENT, AMITY LAW SCHOOL, NOIDA: What is your view on minorities running judiciary in the form of collegium? Why don't we see that there should be democracy in that also? These are the five judges who are making all the appointments of the judiciary.
FALI NARIMAN: Appointments. This will take me one hour to explain. We fought a big case recently.
SHEKHAR GUPTA: Are you for more transparency in the collegium?
FALI NARIMAN: Of course and now we have it with the secretariat. Something will be recorded.
Dr. S.Y. QURAISHI, FORMER CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER: Indian Election Commission is considered most powerful in the world but our system of appointment has been defective. We must have constitutional safeguard and don't you think a system of collegium for appointing EC is extremely important when you have collegium even for non-constitutional bodies?
FALI NARIMAN: SC does not like to interfere with the Election Commission. It itself is of the view that it is the most powerful body in the Constitution today. Imagine if we had an EC which followed diktats of the ruling govt. It would be a disaster, no democracy.
QURAISHI: EC does not even take an oath.
FALI NARIMAN: Taking oath and misbehaving is not unknown.
ADITI, STUDENT, AMITY LAW SCHOOL, NOIDA: Just because we have a Yogi as CM we are anticipating that this will be a Hindu raj or Hindutva. How can you say it will be the beginning of Hindu raj?
FALI NARIMAN: You must go and ask Subramanian Swamy. He has said that the correct thing would be to have a Hindu state. It is not my invention. It is only an endorsement which the PM has made. Appointing such a person as CM is itself an indicator of the fact that he wishes to propagate a religious state.
QUESTION: There is a phase of judicial overreach and that is a concern. Because you can take it to any limits and where will justice prevail?
FALI NARIMAN: But what about executive overreach? It is to correct executive overreach that we have judicial overreach. Where do you stop? If it is a policy decision, then hands off. But in case of executive decision, judges must interfere. Ask citizens who file for relief and don't get relief and are told to go to the executive.
QUESTION: Can converse be also true? Can too much judicial overreach be stopped? In name of judicial overreach curbs are put. Can justice system prevent it from happening?
FALI NARIMAN: That's not correct. It won't because the judges love it.
DINESH TRIVEDI, FORMER UNION MINISTER: From your time in Parliament until now, what is the change you see? Democracy of Parliament is under threat because the presiding officers tend to take the party line and also depend on getting tickets to fight elections. That's why Parliament gets disrupted.
FALI NARIMAN: I told the President why can't you experiment. Tell them to please sit in Parliament for five hours. So long the speaker or chairman sits in his chair, the house is in session. Shouting has to stop. I don't want to say about now. My time I learnt a lot, had a great time.
JASKARAN SINGH CHAWLA, STUDENT, AMITY LAW SCHOOL, NOIDA: Beef is banned and now people are getting killed for slaughter. I am ready to support it as the Constitution says it’s our duty to prevent animal cruelty but there are so many religions that prohibit something or the other so should that also be prohibited? How does the Constitution give the right to kill someone for it and what is the way out?
FALI NARIMAN: For myself, I believe there should not be a ban on anything. I don't accept theory of belonging to a particular religious group. All over the world it is a problem. It is called racism in America and there seems to be a revival of it which is unfortunate. But we don't want that thing to happen. As Gandhi said, 'let wind blow through your house, but don't get blown off by the wind'. I don't know about beef ban, whether it's right or it's wrong. In some cases it may be right and in some cases it may be wrong. But to lock up somebody and go to his house and kill him, it revolts me. I don't think we should have this kind of system. This violence started some years ago and in my view to establish this kind of tendency by violently asserting it is something which is very wrong. Some years ago a group of American judges who came here. One of them, Antonin Scalia, who just died recently, we all expounded our fundamental rights chapter and said, ‘oh! what a great thing’. He said what nonsense are you fellows talking. He says ‘you don't have civil rights act. We in America have civil rights act. Your civil rights act is just about untouchability. You don't have a regular civil rights act which enables citizens to enforce fundamental rights against another citizen.’ That's what is happening today that is violating your right. It is somebody else, a political party opponent who is trying to violate your right. That's where you have to get some remedy and the remedy is provided by civil rights. We still don't have civil rights.
RAJGOPAL SINGH, REPORTER, THEPRINT: Do you think there should be a cooling off period for HC and SC judges before they are appointed governors?
FALI NARIMAN: No, there should be a complete prohibition.
IRA SINGHAL, SDM, DELHI GOVT: Sir, the proposal for Indian Judicial service has been vetoed by the court for a very long time. I have not found any justification for that.
FALI NARIMAN: We have tried to move for it. All that is required has nothing to do with the judiciary. It's a resolution for the Rajya Sabha. Only the RS has to pass a resolution saying we need an Indian Judicial Service and there it is. The Rajya Sabha didn't do so. We tried. The Constitution does contemplate unified Indian Judicial Service. Any judge who opposes it is wrong.
VENU RAJAMONY, PRESS SECRETARY TO THE PRESIDENT OF INDIA: Sir it is being argued that the word secularism was inserted into the preamble...
FALI NARIMAN: It's a dirty word now. I don't trust this business of secularism is at the heart of the Constitution. It is not. I personally believe that this whole buisness between the Congress and the BJP is over this word. I believe you should not use this word.
DR. DEEPAK PENTAL, GENETICS PROFESSOR: Sir, my main concern is about the Indian judiciary. How would you improve this foundation because most of the cases first go to the lower court and then it takes too much time there. Maybe high courts and Supreme Court work but what about the lower court?
FALI NARIMAN: But you are wrong. The lower courts work under the discipline of high courts. Delays are in high courts.
RIYA KHANNA, STUDENT, AMITY LAW SCHOOL, NOIDA: The rise of populist and nationalist sentiment is a trend all over the world. We see the same in India as well with the current ruling which states that National Anthem should be played before screening of any movie. Don't you think this is forcing nationalism? Do you think judiciary can help protect this forced nationalism?
FALI NARIMAN: I am a refugee from Burma. When I was small my father was very fond of pictures. He used to go to the films. In the end always it would be God save the king. We all stand for the king but in the lower stalls they would bash their seats and walk out. Nobody wants to do something forced. This is unnecessary. This is one of the fundamental duties. But it can't be forced.
QUESTION: When we talk of minorities I am reminded of what Putin said, when you live in Russia you are Russians. So no minorities. Why do we after 70 years of independence are always talking of minorities? Why can't we just be called Indians? Sometimes we demonize one faith because of work of one individual. Media has reported judiciary far too much. Is there something to admonish the media as well as admonish the chief justice for having tinkered with a very important issue?
FALI NARIMAN: I don't think there is anything wrong with anybody saying anything. Chief justice saying I should mediate, I am against it. It would be a disaster if we had Putin's way of thinking here. Same case in China, everybody is a Chinese but ask the Uighur in Xinjiang how badly they are treated. And Tibetans too. Everybody is a free man and can do what he likes.
QUESTION: We are talking pendency in the judiciary, so where do you find future of mediation in this country?
FALI NARIMAN: I am a supporter of mediation. Arbitration is becoming more judicialised than even litigation. I am all in favour of mediation. In most cases mediation does extremely well, less costly but lawyers oppose it.
SHEKHAR GUPTA: The issue with the judge in Madras High Court, would you have handled it differently?
FALI NARIMAN: You cannot issue a warrant of arrest to make him personally appear because law says he need not appear, however mad he may be. There are other ways to deal with it. Jethmalani had written an open letter saying this man is a lunatic. Under the Mental Health Act anyone can file a petition to the District judge and district judge is the only person who can check this. It is unfortunate that this man has gone off the handle. I am totally opposed to warrants being issued to high court judges. Proceed with them as Constitution mentions, namely send him to Parliament and have him impeached if there is a ground for impeachment or have him freed. This perhaps shows there is lack of provision. The only way they could do it is under Article 142 which says that the Supreme Court, not high court but Supreme Court alone can decide a particular case having regard to the justice of the case. Supreme Court said that means even if you bend the law a little you decide it. There are cases where a person falls between two sections of a statute. If there is a case of injustice you can rectify it but only the Supreme Court is empowered to do. Later Supreme Court took the view that justice will only be administered according to law, not despite the law. That is unfortunate.
Source: https://www.facebook.com/theprintindia/posts/2012827012280410:0