Disturbed by the sight in High Court

Thankfully,  Mr. Hanumant Deshmukh did not object to the following :

1.  The Indian Consitutiton, which is not actually Indian, but is a adopted & twisted version of the British.
 

2.  The Pant and Shirt, which he is presently wearing, is a British garment, and the Indian traditional garment is not the Pant & Shirt.
 

3.  The language in which he posted his post, is in the British language.
 

4.  The mumbai HC building and the  SC building and the Parliament building  are made and designed by the British.

Consider this :
"It is better to know some of the questions than all of the answers."

Keep Smiling .... Hemant Agarwal
 

Dear Mr Hemant,

I appreciate your views but you've missed the point. There is a difference between learning from others and copying blindly. I am not objecting merely because something is English or western. If something suits us or satisfy our requirements, there is no harm in learning from others. But at least give a thought to what we are copying or what we are continuing.

During imperialism, britishers were the masters. Indians were slaves. The set up of the court that I observed reflects that same mentality. When the judges are Indian and chaprasi/peon are Indian, why is there a difference between the style of the dress between them? I don't think anybody is India now wears a traditional Maharaja kind of attire. Why should a peon be made to wear that? It is a blatant denigration of Indian culture. Nobody in May be you've been so accustomed to being a slave that you don't feel anything. But I do and I am not sorry about it.

Wearing Pant/shirt, talking in english, using british made buildings is the need of the hour. Whole world speaks English. It is a necessity. But is putting on a Indian costume on a court peon, while the Judges are wearing "the masters" dress any necessary?

And btw, UK does not have a written constitution. Indian constitution is not a mere copy but an effort to learn what is good in others and how to make use of it in Indian scenario. Calling it a mere copy shows ignorance.

Very well written Mr Hanumant. I fully agree with you.

Mr. Deshmukh,
 

I think you might have  "ignored" few words in my post :
 

What I wrote was this  "The Indian Consitutiton, which is not actually Indian, but is a adopted & twisted version of the British."

Whereas, you countered and wrote  "Indian constitution is not a mere copy but an effort to learn what is good in others and how to make use of it in Indian scenario. Calling it a mere copy shows ignorance."

Does  "adopted & twisted constitution"  and "mere copy of constitution"  mean the same thing.

AND I'm VERY VERY SURPRISED, when you say :
"And btw, UK does not have a written constitution"
OBVIOUSLY, when there is no written constitution,  you cannot  MERELY COPY it.

AND that is the precise reason I said that the Indian Constitution is a "ADOPTED & TWISTED" from the british constitution (statutes)  and I did not write anywhere that the Indian consitution is a MERE COPY of the british constittution.

I further think that literally everything in India, has a British touch and it has been imbibed very nicely and working perfectly for everybody, barring the  "emotional and sentimental" nuisance of Indians, who have a chronic and egoistic habit of criticizing everything beyond their understandings.

Keep Smiling .... Hemant Agarwal

Dear Hemant, You are needlessly getting upset. You said, "The Indian Consitutiton, which is not actually Indian, but is a adopted & twisted version of the British."  Kindly read the meaning of "adopt": As per dictionary.com: "to choose or take as one's own; make one's own by selection or assent" Does this not imply "copy"? Secondly, what do you mean by "twisted"?

The fact is that Indian constitution writers have "adopted" ideas from constitutions of several countries but the constition itself has not been "adopted" from any single country as you seem to believe.

Regardless, this is not my point. The whole world has always been influenced by big and powerful cultures throughout history. Britishers were the most powerful people for a long time and influence of its culture cannot be avoided. However, my point is that there is no need to denigrate our own culture in front of it. If you want British dress for court, fine. Then make the chaprasi also wear pant shirt. Do you see the point?

 ROTF LOL. Kaha ka argument kaha chala gaya. dont take each others words dissect it and then argue over it. the POINTS BEEN TOTALLY MISSED ON THIS ONE>

Mr. Deshmukh,
Apologies for still not being able to understand your point.

Okay,  I'll try, when next time I go to Ambica Xerox Centre,  I'll ask the xerox (photocopying) operator to  "Adopt" a copy instead of  "merely copy" from the original.

Further, I do not have to the guts to tell the HC chaprasi to abandon his attire and wear pants.  I usually accept him looking the way he looks and carry on working.

Keep Smiling .... Hemant Agarwal