Romanticising the Workshop

The Upendra Baxi workshop has been far above my expectations…the simplicity of that apparently eccentric academician is striking. For two days I sat there, mute and mesmerized, completely beguiled by his impeccable charms, charisma and ofcourse the inimitable style. I should stop here, lest I be branded as a sycophant! : )

Insofar as the content is concerned, ofcourse, I did not understand all of it. It is sometimes difficult to get his drift; to board his train of thought.

I am here documenting some of the points that my mind cataloged (all of which I enumerate may not be his thoughts as such…many indeed are the ones he just recounted; but nonetheless I heard them at the workshop), and those which do not cease to amuse me every now and then. : )

1) How to make jurisprudence interesting? Well, raise questions; let the spirit of renaissance not die. Reinforce the fact that while it might be prudent to rely on the intellectual wealth of the preceding generations, the capacity to think was definitely not exhausted by them! How simple and yet so difficult to achieve!

2) Take examples from daily life…without the fear of being charged for ‘vulgarizing high traditional knowledge’. The example of the movie Shahenshah wherein the protagonist epitomized the Austinian concept of power and authority and enacted the directive principles of state policy by the night was hilarious and yet so apt. : )

3) Speaking of humor, the capacity to laugh and make light of the situation is a must. It invigorates the audience…a skill perfectly displayed by the maestro.

4) Habit, Custom, Tradition, Rule and Practice are all different concepts and can/should not be used interchangeably. Words should not be taken lightly as they are powerful. They create an impact.

5) The entire world comprises of two types of people…those who are book worms and the rest who are ordinary worms! : ). It is up to us which category we choose to be in.

6) Why should we study human law and not divine law? Because renaissance saw it is a sign of progress to study human will than the divine commandment; after all it was supposed to regulate human behavior.

7) There are five types of judges…and this was brilliant…1) Activists, 2) Restraint prone, 3) Moody and temperamental, 4) Dullards and 5) lazy bones! The last ones just hijack someone else’s efforts by writing ‘I agree' at the end of someone else's opinion!

8) Jurisprudence is just a method of reading law. On ‘reading’, he had so many pearls to share…

· It is a misconception that writing should precede reading. How can one possibly read an unwritten constitution?!

· Reading is a political activity…it is impossible to be completely neutral while reading. So, nothing like objective reading exists. Your own ideas, beliefs and internal convictions would make you read even what is not written.

· Reading like a man is different from reading like a woman! Oh yes, I love this one! A woman would inevitably be more sensitive and emotional towards things…especially women related aspects. So true…often I quote in my lectures on feminist jurisprudence that while a man might read section 376 of the IPC as just another crime against the human body, only a woman would understand and perhaps live through the ordeal that it explains. All, I believe, stems from the fact that a woman experience is essentially different from that of a man…and infact sometimes, there is no parallel male experience available to enable them understand the whole issue. Hence their understandings remain incomplete mostly, for no fault of theirs! Okay…so I am digressing here a bit! :)

· Reading is either Complacency or Resistance…so says one of my many scribblings...no clue what this means…I forgot!

· Birth of a reader entails the death of the author…fantastic, I must say! Sovereignty of interpretation is the denial of the authority of the author…whatever might have been the intention of the author in writing a piece, the reader has a right to interpret and read it in his/her own way…attribute his/her own connotations to it. Yes, indeed! By way of example, he gave the instance where the Supreme Court judges interpret a point of law by attributing everything to the ‘intention of the founding fathers of the Constitution!’

· Limits of my language are the limits of my words…again, so true! Some time ago I read a quote in the Readers’ Digest which said something to the effect that one cannot write what one cannot imagine…it’s the same difficulty I guess.

· Reading involves dissection, demolition, reassembling and redoing…I forget what exactly it was that he said…

· Word is the world…someone help me on this. There was more to this...the capacity of human mind to forget is remarkable isn’t it!

9) An activist would consider speaking for others morally wrong, so he/she speaks with others…another option is to speak after (in regard to) others when it becomes impossible to speak with others…say when one is protesting for animal rights…cool distinction I must say!

10)Why the Constitution is called the ‘constitution’ and not anything else? Any novel thoughts on this one? ; )

11) Some people say that ‘we the people of India’ constitute the sovereign…but how can the quintessential common man…illiterate, impoverished…with no roof over his head, no bread to eat, minimal shred of clothing over his body, and not even the prospect of a decent burial be a part of the sovereign? Well said…Laxman’s common man just lost another case! : )

12) Then somewhere he mentioned something…bits and pieces of a story which included the following quote “I am a regular bullshitter myself, but I do not mind an expert doing it for me occasionally!” Sorry, I do not remember the context…loved the saying though ; )

13) When someone felt offended at one of his remarks, he quipped that if he ever intends to insult, there would not be any ambiguity to it!!

14) Upenisms…his experiments with language…one of the best ones stated that Constitution is of three types…C1, C2 and C3. C1 comprises the pure form…the words on paper; C2, the interpretation given by the State and citizens wherein the politicians act out of self interest and the citizens out of ‘enlightened’ self interest!; C3 is that ideal form that does not exist but influences C1. Original! Nothing more to say…

15) Perhaps the most disturbing of all for me was his idea of demolishing the manner of teaching through schools of law…as it promotes parochial thinking, stifles creativity. Now, when I see it…it appears to be so true. Why schools…why not topic wise…or say scholar wise…to keep things less rigid/more fluid. As he said, in some context which I again forget…we should change…by teaching the same things, we systematically foster and prescribe ignorance and then make rhetoric about lack of intellectual progress (or gripe about stagnation, if I may take the liberty to modify: ))

I am sure there were more …and it is the capacity of my mind that has failed me…would definitely add as I remember.

Meanwhile enjoy these!!

: )