WHO THE FUCK ARE YOU HARAMJADA MAHATHIR: SAIFUL HAS RIGHT TO SELL HIS JUBOQ SEX-WITH-FARAH

The verdict will restore some faith to supporters and neutrals alike. It will replenish the energy lost in a man who had to stand trial against accusations that has tarnished not only his image but his family’s as well

ONLY FIFTY BEGGERS FOR SAIFOOL INCLUDING KATAKS ROSLAN KASSIM

 THE POLITICISATION OF SEXUALITY AS A POLITICAL WEAPON AS SEEN FOR THE SECOND TIME IN THE CASE OF DATUK SERI ANWAR IBRAHIM. THE CASE HIGHLIGHTS THE CONTINUOUS USAGE OF THE ARCHAIC AND OUTDATED SODOMY LAW TO PERSECUTE AN INDIVIDUAL OF HIS PERSONAL DIGNITY AND POLITICAL AMBITIONS. WE REMAIN CONCERN OVER THE ACT OF POLITICISING SEXUALITY AND THE USAGE OF SODOMY LAWS AS A TOOL FOR IT VIEWS THAT CRIMINALISING ANY FORM OF PRIVATE CONSENSUAL SEX BETWEEN ADULTS AND THE ACT OF POLITICISING AND MANIPULATING ANY SEXUAL BEHAVIORS FOR A POLITICAL DECISION SHALL BE CONDEMNED AS A HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATION AND AN INVASION OF PRIVACY AND PERSONAL DIGNITY.  CALLS FOR THE ABOLITION OF OUR OUTDATED SODOMY LAWS

  KEBENCIAN, KEDENGKIAN, KESOMBONGAN DAN DENDAM KESUMAT MASIH MEWARNAI SEGELINTIR PEMIKIRAN UMAT ISLAM PASCA PEMBEBASAN DSAI. Bagi setiap insan terdapat parameter yang menjadi panduan untuk dia berfikir dan bertindak. Seorang athies yang tidak mempercayai kewujudan tuhan, akan bertindak dalam kerangka kefahaman dan kepercayaannya itu. Begitu juga bagi kalangan yang mempercayai kewujudan tuhan, akan berfikir dan … Read more  ULARMAMAK HARAMJADAH MAHATHIR MOHAMAD AVOIDED MAKING A COURT APPEARANCE

RELATED ARTICLE NOT NAJIB IT IS MAHATHIR AND HIS CONSPIRATOR TEAM CAN MAHATIR UNDO TO RETURN ANWAR SELF-DIGNITY,HIS FAMILY DIGNITY

Labelling Anwar Ibrahim as the “appeal champion” in Malaysia’s judicial history, former premier Dr Mahathir Mohamad has questioned why the complainant in the recent sodomy case is not being accorded the same right.

 ’I’m pleading with the attorney-general to do so for the sake of my son’s and family’s dignity,’ says the father of sodomy complainant Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan related aticle http://malaysiaonlinetoday.wordpress.com/2011/08/28/both-father-and-son-are-in-the-wrong-business-asshole-for-hire-abetted-by-umno-in-collaboration-with- What conclusion can we draw from Rodwan’s refusal to respond to such serious allegation in Malaysia Today?  Wouldn’t he have promptly refuted the allegation if it …
Read more WILL THE PROSECUTION CHARGE MOHD SAIFUL BUKHARI AZLAN’S FATHER FOR CRIMINAL.AIDING AND ABETTING
 Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones, especially when it comes to sodomy. Dr Mahathir Mohamad should know this fact better than most.
Dr Mahathir has given his unsolicited views on almost everything and now he wants to know if Pakatan Rakyat will legalise sodomy. Even a primary school kid will know his motivation for doing so; he wants to pin down Anwar Ibrahim for apparently suggesting that sodomy should be legalised in an interview with BBC.
related article
He hopes to distract Pakatan from unearthing more corruption by BN ministers and officials and also persuade rural Malays that Anwar Ibrahim is unIslamic.
A few months ago Dr Mahathir started the debate on hudud which consumed the Opposition for a few weeks. It is quite clear why he is baiting the Pakatan group.
This man is worried more than most about Anwar and Pakatan coming to power. He ruled Malaysia for more than two decades and all the excesses and problems we have including endemic corruption and frayed race ties can be traced to him.
Cronyism and nepotism became buzzwords during his era.
Thus, it is clear why Mahathir will do his utmost and say anything to knock Pakatan and Anwar. He knows that the veneer of success which he claims will be laid bare and there could be hundreds of NFCs.
I just hope Pakatan Rakyat do not take his bait on sodomy. As for the rest of us, everytime the likes of Mahathir, Ibrahim Ali, Hasan Ali open their mouths, it should remind us why we dislike Umno so much.
THE POLITICISATION OF SEXUALITY AS A POLITICAL WEAPON AS SEEN FOR THE SECOND TIME IN THE CASE OF DATUK SERI ANWAR IBRAHIM. THE CASE HIGHLIGHTS THE CONTINUOUS USAGE OF THE ARCHAIC AND OUTDATED SODOMY LAW TO PERSECUTE AN INDIVIDUAL OF HIS PERSONAL DIGNITY AND POLITICAL AMBITIONS. WE REMAIN CONCERN OVER THE ACT OF POLITICISING SEXUALITY … Read moreJUBOQ SAIFOOL A NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUE NEED TO BE DEFENDED PROSECUTORS TO ASK A-G TO APPEAL SODOMY ACQUITTAL
The charges, when finally published, were manifestly absurd. Running over 12 sheets of paper, it was clear that quantity had been substituted where quality was lacking, and some of them actually related to Tun Salleh’s behaviour after suspension. Many of them related to his speeches and press interviews, whereby sinister meanings were imputed to various innocuous comments that he had made.
Daniel John Jambun
I must say I was flabbergasted to read Tun Mahathir Mohammad’s statement that Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s intention to hold a rally against his conviction on January 9th was an attempt to attack the judiciary in Malaysia. 

My dear Tun, you were the one who wrote a poem Melayu Mudah Lupa (Malays Forget Easily) which ended with the words: Ingatlah / Ingatlah / Ingatlah / Wahai bangsaku / Jangan mudah lupa lagi / Kerana perjuanganmu belum selesai(Remember / Remember / Remember / O my people / Forget easily no more / Because you struggle is not yet over).

You also wrote a book with the same title. So why have you forgotten so fast that you were the one who destroyed the Malaysian judiciary in 1988? The story how you destroyed the career of Tun Salleh Abbas is still fresh in the minds of Malaysians. That legal saga had become the heinous story of how Malaysia had succumbed to the lowest of the lows in its legal history, which had become a really ugly international scandal.

What Anwar is doing, out of desperation to tell the world of the injustice of the way his Sodomy 1 and Sodomy II trials were carried out, has to be multiplied a million times to equal the gravity of what you have done to the Malaysian judiciary.

Rather than going into the ugly details myself, allow me to quote parts of the write up an unidentified online writer who summarised the facts from the bookMay Day for Justice by Tun Salleh Abas with K. Das (Kuala Lumpur: Magnus Book, 1989) for the benefit of Malaysians who have missed the book.

How Mahathir destroyed the Malaysian judiciary

1.  The destruction of judicial independence

Mahathir was continually upset with the Judiciary because the verdicts in a number of cases went against the Government. According to Deputy  PM, Datuk Musa Hitam, one of  his favourite slogans was “Hang the Lawyers! Hang the Judges!”

From 1987, he intensified his verbal attacks against the Judiciary in the news media, making damaging statements which clearly demonstrated that he did not understand the role of the Judiciary as being independent from the Executive and Legislative arms of Government.

That the Judiciary exists as a check-and-balance against the excesses of the Executive appeared to have been a concept he never fully grasped. Instead, he accused judges of the sort of political interference that would result in confusion and loss of public confidence in the Government. Hence, to curtail the powers of the Judiciary and subsume it beneath the Executive became one of his cherished dreams.

In April 1987, after an UMNO leadership contest in which Mahathir very nearly lost to Finance Minister Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah, there were allegations that several delegates who had voted were drawn from branches not properly registered under the Societies Act 1966. An appeal was filed by eleven UMNO delegates to have the elections declared null and void.

This was a very serious matter for Mahathir because if the appeal succeeded, fresh elections would have to be held and he might lose. The matter finally came before Justice Harun Hashim of KL High Court who ruled that under the existing law, he had no choice but to declare not just the elections invalid, but the whole of UMNO an unlawful society as well. The country and, more particularly, UMNO, went into a state of shock.

In most modern democracies, a political catastrophe of this magnitude would have resulted in the immediate resignation of the party’s President and Prime Minister. But Mahathir did not resign. He informed the country that the Government would continue running the country. Opposition Leader Lim Kit Siang and Tunku Abdul Rahman called for a vote in Parliament to establish Mahathir’s legitimacy but those calls were ignored.

Mahathir then set in motion the machinery to form a new surrogate party called UMNO Baru. His opponents, however, wanted the old party revived. The eleven UMNO delegates then launched an appeal in the Supreme Court to have the 1987 elections alone declared illegal and the party not an unlawful society.

Mahathir fully understood the danger to him of this pending appeal. He had to act quickly. In October 1987, he launched the notorious Operation Lalang in which at least 106 people were arrested and detained without trial under the ISA, including three very articulate critics, the Opposition Leader Lim Kit Siang, political scientist Dr. Chandra Muzaffar and leading lawyer Karpal Singh.

The official reason for the arrests was that a highly dangerous security situation had arisen but this has been strongly disputed as nothing more than a shameless fabrication. The broad sweep included even environmentalists and Consumer Association spokesmen.

Four of the most outspoken newspapers – The Star, The Sunday Star, Watan and Sin Chew Jit Poh – had their publishing licences suspended. When, after five months, the papers were free to publish again, they were no longer the same.

Mahathir’s next move was to push through Parliament far-reaching amendments to the Constitution so that the Executive gained in power enormously at the expense of the Judiciary. There was general indignation at this rude behaviour which shocked a good many people. The indecent haste and the fact that the amendments were made at a time when the Government’s main critics were in detention, including the Opposition Leader and six vocal MPs and outspoken newspapers demoralized added further to the appalling injustice of the situation. Tunku Abdul Rahman, Malaysia’s beloved first Prime Minister, put it succinctly: “It was legal, but was it just?” Others noted angrily that the Constitution had been raped once again.

In a speech, the outgoing President of the Bar Council, Param Cumaraswamy, said:

“The Prime Ministe’s vile and contemptuous allegations, and the accusations levelled at the Judiciary and our judges left many shocked beyond belief. His speech which was full of venom, hate and spite with no substance whatsoever, illustrated his complete and total ignorance of the role of the Judiciary and the judicial process itself. He has indeed defiled and defaced the Constitution. It is surprising that those 142 MPs who voted in favour, after taking the oath that they would preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, had no compunction about destroying one of its basic structures.”

Next, after having curbed the independence of the Judiciary, Mahathir set about destroying its integrity. This was the removal of Tun Salleh Abas as Lord President in 1988, a move which Tunku Abdul Rahman described as “the most shocking story in modern legal and judicial history,”

2. The destruction of judicial integrity

By March 1988, Mahathir’s scandalous and violent public attacks on the Judiciary had so provoked the judges that Tun Salleh was obliged to call a conference. Twenty judges met in the Supreme Court one week after the debilitating and shameful Constitutional amendments were made.

By unanimous agreement, a letter was drafted to the King (also the Sultan of Johore) and copied to all Sultans, expressing disquiet over various comments made by the Prime Minister. The letter was delivered on 25 March. Three days later, Tun Salleh was suspended from his official capacity by the King on recommendation of the Prime Minister.

Tun Salleh’s suspension came after he refused to bow to Mahathir’s pressure to either resign or retire, even though financial inducements were offered, including mention of a lucrative job in the International Development Bank in Jeddah. The initial reason given for the suspension was that the King had taken great displeasure over the letter Tun Salleh had written on behalf of all judges.

It is difficult to believe that the King wanted Tun Salleh removed purely because he had protested about the public insults directed against the entire Judiciary by the head of the Executive. In any event, royal displeasure would not be a constitutionally valid ground for dismissal. Indeed, Mahathir advised the King as much in a letter written four days after this probably fictitious audience; however, the Prime Minister went further in the same letter to say that he would investigate Tun Salleh for any evidence of misbehaviour.

In any event, the King did not clear up the mystery and, in an audience with Tun Salleh, actually asked the latter to step down without giving reasons although the Conference of Rulers had already asked for his reinstatement. Amazingly, Tun Salleh was suspended and a Tribunal set up to determine his fate before any formal charges were laid.

The Constitution does not provide for the removal of a Lord President. While the Tribunal need not be an inappropriate means, its composition was to say the least, disgraceful. It was composed of six acting and retired judges, although the Constitution required an odd number to prevent deadlock. Of these – four from Malaysia, one from Sri Lanka and one from Singapore – only the Sri Lankan enjoyed a rank comparable to Tun Salleh’s. This was contrary to the very reasonable dictum that one should be tried by one’s peers rather than one’s juniors.

The fact that two retired Lord Presidents of Malaysia were available but not invited was glaring. There were grave conflicts of interest with three of the Malaysian judges that should have disqualified them from sitting: Tan Sri Abdul Hamid who was next in line to succeed as Lord President and who had also participated in the conference of 20 judges which resulted in the letter to the King; Tan Sri Zahir who, being also the Speaker of the Lower House, was beholden to Mahathir, the principal complainant in the matter at hand; and Tan Sri Abdul Aziz who, although a former judge, was then a practising lawyer and, more incredibly, had two suits pending against him at that time.

But Tun Salleh’s objections were ignored and when the Bar Council issued a statement calling for the Tribunal to be re-constituted, both the New Straits Times and The Star refused to publish it. Further, it was decided that the Tribunal would sit in closed sessions although Tun Salleh had requested a public hearing.

The charges, when finally published, were manifestly absurd. Running over 12 sheets of paper, it was clear that quantity had been substituted where quality was lacking, and some of them actually related to Tun Salleh’s behaviour after suspension. Many of them related to his speeches and press interviews, whereby sinister meanings were imputed to various innocuous comments that he had made.

To cite an instance, in a speech at the University of Malaya, he had said: “The role of the courts is very important to bring about public order. If there is no public order there will be chaos in this country and if there is chaos, no one can feel safe” On this basis, Tun Salleh was charged with making statements criticizing the Government which displayed prejudice and bias against the latter.

Another statement of his, “In a democratic system, the courts play a prominent role as agent of stability but they can perform this function only if judges are trusted,” resulted in the charge that he had ridiculed the Government by imputing that it did not trust the judges. These charges were doubly ludicrous in the light of Mahathir’s many poisonous attacks against the Judiciary.

It is not surprising that Tun Salleh, after reading this catalogue of fantasy crimes, refused to appear before what was so evidently a kangaroo court. The Tribunal, after refusing representations made by Raja Aziz, Tun Salleh’s leading counsel, that it had no constitutional validity to sit, chose instead to proceed so hastily that it wound up deliberations, including the examination of witnesses with just four hours work.

As it prepared to issue its Report, Tun Salleh’s lawyers sought an urgent stay of proceedings in the High Court. This would normally be granted immediately at the least possibility that an injustice may be about to be done but, here, events turned into utter farce.

Instead of immediately reaching a decision as expected, the presiding judge, Datuk Ajaib Singh, after the court had been in languorous session the whole day that Friday, adjourned hearings for 9.30 am the next day. On Saturday however, the judge emerged in court only at 11.50 am and, even then, postponed hearings again for the Monday!

In desperation, Tun Salleh’s lawyers, knowing that the Tribunal could easily release its Report before then, sought the assistance of Supreme Court judge, Tan Sri Wan Suleiman, in his Chambers. The latter agreed to hear them in open court in half an hour’s time and called a quorum of all remaining Supreme Court, one of whom, Tan Sri Hashim Yeop, refused to sit.

The soap opera reached an apogee of ridiculousness when Tan Sri Abdul Hamid, head of the Tribunal and Acting Lord President, gave orders for the doors of Supreme Court to be locked and for the seal of the Supreme Court to be secreted away!

Undeterred, the five Supreme Court judges ordered the policeman on duty to open the door forthwith. After less than half an hour, the Court ordered the Tribunal not to submit any recommendation, report or advice to the King. Tun Salleh’s lawyers were typing the Order to serve personally to the Tribunal at Parliament House when news arrived that the gates of Parliament House had been locked! At this point, Justice Wan Suleiman rose to the occasion and, calling the office of the Inspector General of Police, told a senior officer that any impediment to serving the Order would constitute contempt of court.

The gates of Parliament swung open and, at 4 pm, Raja Aziz and his team served the Order to the Tribunal members who were found to be still hard at work on a word-processor that Saturday afternoon. All six members accepted service without complaint…. four days later, all five Supreme Court judges were suspended.

Almost every rule that was broken to suspend Tun Salleh was broken again to suspend them. The prohibition order they had made were revoked within days. A second Tribunal eventually reinstated three of the judge: Tan Sri Azmi Kamaruddin, Tan Sri Eusoff Abdoolcader and Tan Sri Wan Hamzah but Tan Sri Wan Suleiman and Datuk George Edward Seah were removed from office.

The UMNO Eleven case was quickly dismissed. The removal of Tun Salleh also saw the resignation of Deputy PM Datuk Musa Hitam who, according to popular wisdom, could no longer stomach Mahathir’s ways.

A truly suspicious case

feedom is the recognition that no single person, no single authority or government has a monopoly on the truth, but that every individual life is infinitely precious, that every one of us put in this world has been put there for a reason and has something to offer.”-Thomas Jefferson

What a joke to say there’s no conspiracy. Conspiracy did not begin or end with the court. It began with the planting of moles, fabricating evidence, and then framing charges. Of course. if we get a judge with high integrity and conscience, the conspiracy chain is easily broken, if not too bad. Questions Malaysians should ask are : Why waste the court’s time when the evidence produced had seemed so flimsy even to the layman ? Eg, a person being ‘sodomised’ seemed so casual, keeps his evidence in his arse for a few days before making police report and that only after consulting the PM and the IGP. Wouldn’t he run to the nearest police station to make a eport the very instant after the act ? And even then, different MO’s had come out with different findings of whether there was penetration………and so on. If I were the judge hearing this case, I would have thrown out the case at the first instance not only to save the court’s time, but to prevent the accused from being dragged thru the mud. So don’t fool us by saying there was no conspiracy.
No conspiracy? If not because he who craved near absolute power & consumed by power beyond redemption, why on earth then Mr Anwar needed to waste 6 years in jail. The mere fact that Mr Anwar was subsequently exonerated also proved that the court then was under Maha-devil’s evil thumb to persecute Mr Anwar in all blindness.The conspiracy is not so much with the judgement. The conspiracy is more related to the decision to frame charges. Why the PM discussed with Saiful, Saiful’s getting the mobile number of the IGP and the meeting between police and Saiful before the police report etc. The objective may not even be to jail Anwar but more to keep him busy and worried that he cannot function effectively as a political leader to topple the government. The not guilty verdict may even be beneficial to the BN government. Anyway the story may not be finished yet because there is the possibility of the AG appealing the case. The higher courts sometimes reverse the verdict as had happened so many times before.Mahathir, time for you to acknowledge that another UMNO plot has failed. You guys finally acknowledged that a guilty verdict would have turned Anwar into a martyr and decided that it was better to have him out of jail than in jail. You aren’t fooling anyone but simply displaying yet again how often UMNO’s leaders rush in with half-baked ideas only to have to recant. It is time to toss out a leadership with no leadership and no brains
As the pain and anger of Anwar’s 1998 sodomy trial fade in intensity after 11 intervening years, slowly replaced by fresh, hopeful anticipation of change, we are yet again confronted by an almost comical repeat of the stale sodomy charges that threaten to open deep scars of shame and regret in our national psyche.
Future generations of Malaysians will look back aghast at how we could have allowed it to happen, how we could have permitted one despot to subvert and manipulate all our cherished instruments of democracy to serve his personal agenda of demolishing a political enemy.
As we look back in anguish and plead that we were helpless to resist the iron-fisted dictator who controlled all the levers of power in a climate of fear, we now face another chance to resist the naked assault on decency and justice and we wonder if we are just as helpless as we were before.
How have things changed in more than a decade and what are we up against?To convict an innocent man of false charges, there must be four parties acting in concert, three of them in the criminal justice system. They are the Police to fabricate evidence, the Attorney-General to frame the charge and the Judiciary to convict the accused irrespective of whether he can put up a creditable defense.
However in a democracy, even these three powerful institutions acting in concert are not enough. To this must be added a fourth institution – the press, also aptly referred to as the ‘Fourth Estate’.These four institutions which protect our freedom and democratic rights are also called the pillars of democracy.
Unfortunately, all of them have been severely damaged by Mahathir during his iron-fisted rule. If even one of them had been healthy and functioning properly in 1998, the unjust conviction of Anwar back then would not have been possible.

FROM 1998 TO 2009

How do these institutions fare now compared to eleven years ago? Is it possible for a repeat of the shameful sodomy caper of 1998? There is certainly no improvement in the institution of the Attorney-General and the Police.They are now helmed by men who actively participated in the prosecution of Anwar in 1998. The current A-G, Gani Patail was the head of the prosecution team and the current IGP, Musa Hassan was the head of the police investigation team in Anwar’s previous sodomy case.
The judiciary sometimes shows a rare spark of independence but only rarely and planned judicial reforms appear to have gone nowhere. As the Perak crisis has shown, there is certainly no lack of judges willing to serve the government instead of serving justice.
The mainstream media is less slavish than it was under Mahathir but is still a well controlled boneless wonder. However there is one significant difference – the alternative media is now fully developed.
In 1998 the Internet was at its infancy. The government controlled the flow of information through the mainstream media to mould public opinion and anything could be buried by the powers-that-be. But this is no longer possible as online penetration is at least twelve times what it was in 1998 and the online media has reach mainstream status.
An example is the Lingam video scandal which was ignored by the mainstream media and the government initially but knowledge of it became so widespread via the online world that the Bar Council and the government were forced to act.
So the first three institutions are still compromised – enough to do the the hatchet job again; in fact, some would say they have become worse. Only the press has improved somewhat although it must be said that the improvement in information access was an unintended side effect of the proliferation of the Internet and not from any positive action by the BN government. Can the freer flow of information save Anwar now as he battles for his political future?

A QUESTION TO PONDER

this mother fucker judge
It is sad that 11 years after the infamous sodomy trial we still have to ponder this question instead of declaring confidently that thing have changed so much that sending an innocent man to jail under fabricated charges is no longer possible. What the new information environment means is that nothing can be hidden, obscured, obfuscated or distorted. Every proceeding of the court and every evidence tendered or argument advanced will be dissected and scrutinized in detail by a local and international audience.
The mainstream press cannot be too one-sided now. It must at least show some decorum of balanced reporting in the face of widespread public knowledge to avoid insulting its readers.
A blatantly unjust conviction will draw strident condemnation from politicians, social activists, rights groups and NGO’s and the transparent political persecution of an opposition leader will invite outside condemnation and make Malaysia an international pariah.So does this mean that Anwar is safe? The answer is “not necessarily” because despite extreme negative publicity, UMNO is arrogant enough to ride roughshod over public opinion when it suits them.
Being good isn’t an easy task. In order to be so, you must acknowledge the bad within you. Are you almost good and not quite bad?Am I really good? This is a question that has always bothered me. I think I am, and I am pretty sure the world I inhabit, on the whole, thinks so too. Basically, a good human being who wouldn’t harm another and if possible, would go out of my way to help someone.Is that good enough? Or, does one need to apply more stringent, rigid standards? If so, I’m sure I’d win some, lose some. As I go through Gurcharan Das’ latest book, The Difficulty of Being Good, I am even more confused. The book examines the Mahabharata through an analysis of the one predominant characteristic — good or bad — of each of the epic’s characters. What is heartening is that all good characters in the epic seem confused too, at some point or other.Yudhishthira is convinced he cannot declare war against his elders and brothers, but still does so; Arjuna is dead against killing his grandfather, his teacher and an unarmed Karna, and yet does it; Bhishma is goodness personified, but he doesn’t try to stop his grandchildren from attempting to disrobe the hapless Draupadi in court. He also leads the armies of one set of grandchildren against another!Who can deny Lord Krishna’s goodness? And yet, at times we question the advice he gave Arjuna that led to the killing of his grandfather Bhishma, his teacher Drona and his brother Karna! Goodness, it seems, is confusing.“I am good,” declared colleague Debasish with great confidence when I asked him.  “I’m good because I try not to hurt anyone and because I try to follow the dictates of my inner voice.” Rashmi replied, “Yes, I am good because I try to be conscientious and do the right thing, though my definition of ‘right’ may change from time to time.” A kind of shifting goodness?“Yes,” says Jyoti, “because my intentions are generally good and because it’s important to think positively of yourself, as that makes you capable of being positive.”The self-effacing Anuradha was the first to say, “No, I’m not good. Though I do try to measure up to a moral science kind of ideal, I feel guilty when I fall short. In many situations, I find other people’s reactions more humane, with more feeling… I look at them and feel they are so much nicer than me. Are we good if we’re better than the next person?”The most interesting response was Urvashi’s.  “I think I am a good person because there have been people who’ve performed worse deeds than I have, deeds I think I’m incapable of… And I don’t think I’m a good person because I’ve met people who are far better than I am — in their thoughts and deeds!”Urvashi’s is by far the most realistic answer. Here’s someone who tries to be good, and yet leaves some scope by questioning her goodness and ideals.The goody-goody characters on television confound the confusion. They are so good, so pure, so butter-wouldn’t-melt-in-their-mouth that they are not just unbelievable, but actually irritating! They suffer vicissitudes and insults with never a word against those who persecute them. Their ‘nobility’ makes you squirm in your seat.Now, why should goodness irritate? But truth is that too big a shot of goodness does arouse discomfort! All of us know at least one friend, aunt, cousin or even a parent or sibling who irritate with their saccharine goodness or obsession of self-sacrifice! They are so good that they seem Divine! Such people are an anachronism in today’s world! They set such high standards that they make us feel inadequate.Mahabharata too has its moments of irritating goodness. Yudhishthira  is calm and unmoved during the period of exile as Draupadi’s temper blazes. “Why be good?” she asks and “Why doesn’t your anger blaze?” His goodness at that point is irritating to his beloved wife and brothers, as enumerated by Gurcharan Das.Eklavya cuts off his thumb and gifts it to Drona to ensure Arjuna has no equal. And Arjuna is reported be happy at this. My anger turns against Eklavya for following an instruction from a self-seeking and devious guru who had refused to accept him as a pupil because he was a low caste! Was it good of Eklavya to cut his thumb? I think not!Then there’s the incident when Lord Indra dressed as an ascetic, demands Karna hand over his protective inborn armour and earrings. Knowing that handing over these will make him vulnerable, Karna still does so. Was it good of him? I don’t think so. The selfless Bhishma actually reveals the means of his self-destruction to the Pandavas as he is bound by an oath he gave them. Yudhisthira, the upholder of dharma exploits this.
Gurcharan Das says that Bhishma’s ethics of selfless detachment fails the day he fails to protect Draupadi and suggests that this may be the Mahabharata’s way of telling us that “even an exalted virtue like selflessness and commitment to disinterested performance of duty can get one into trouble!” The Mahabharata reminds us once again about the difficulty of being good.Is it important to have some bit of vice because the bad instinct is inborn, a part of us? And goodness is the struggle against that instinct; we all achieve varying degrees of success and so are good in different ways. That’s human. And so Krishna is good, so are Yudhishthira and Arjuna. Their struggle against evil, their moments of weakness and their repentance make them so.So then, are we saying that actually, it is the evil within us that makes us good? Just as without darkness, who would appreciate light? How can you be good if you have no shade of bad within you?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s