Whenever I read about any protests against State, I always remember Gandhiji. His concept of "Courteous Protest" has never been fully understood. Gandhiji was against idea of going on "fast unto death till some one resigns." This is a form of blackmail. A person tries to blackmail the State and that person, by saying that if his demand are not made, he will starve himself to death and then there will be public anger against State. This was not the Gandhi's idea of "Courteous Protest". In last 70 years, many have tried to go on fast unto death for resignation for someone, and all of them have failed. The State just put them in ICU and kept there for years. The last fast unto death till resignation of Education Minister was never a success. It was a compromise by State because BRICS International meeting was coming and needed to be concluding without sending wrong messages to international community. The government choose to compromise temporarily, and some people claimed it as a success and credit to them. Gandhiji wore hardly one or two unsewn khadi cloth and slipper. It was very easy for State to crush him. But he used utmost courtsey to State while placing his reasonable ideas of truth. He gave them enough advance notice so that government can put him before bar if it wants. He did not have any social media account to give protest calls. He did not bother whether anyone follows him or not. He had no hidden motives for becoming a leader of masses or for gaining a position in government. He neither wanted to become President, Prime Minister, nor wanted any paid position in government. Some billionaire philanthropist had assured him to provide him with his livelihood expenses and this was enough for him. He di not receive gift. He was not interested in Nobel Peace Prize or any awards or recognition. Some gave me recognition of Mahatma and some gave him recognition of Bapu, but he always disliked and regretted conferment of such recognition. He refused to use his influence to get a job for his son. He tried to purify his mind to ensure that no selfish thought enters his mind. Every Monday he observed silence so that he can review and purify his thoughts. His methods of "Courteous Protest" came from Leo Tolstoy story "Evan the Fool" which can be found on YouTube. Gandhiji also had a correspondence with Leo Tolstoy to ask him what should be do if inspite of Courteous Protest, the State remains obstinate. Then Tolstoy wrote him giving more guidance Actually, Tolstoy had written an article in Hindu newspaper to suggests how Indian can protest against British without using violence. Gandhiji had read this article and then he had written to Tolstoy for more clarifications. I write this post today so that you can compare the protests which are now called at Ramlila Ground in Delhi and to compare the motives of people who are organising these protests as professionally planned events. If you use use violent means against State, then State and Deep State both will counter you with force. These paths only lead to loss of lives and damages of public properties and losses to general public.

I have some simple rules to judge public statements given by celebrities in legal profession. 1. Their names and designation do not matter. Their fame in media do not matter. The fame is now bought through influencers. 2. When they make some public statements, I ask "Why now?* Why this public statement is being made by person of High stature in legal World at this time? Usually there is some agenda. Someone has nudged them to make this statement in public. Sometimes they also want to give some veiled message to someone without naming them. 3. If their statements are impromptu, spoken in spurr of moment, I ask what provoked them? Who provoked them? What will be the fall out of this statement? 4. The optics of public figures are not always true. What they say for public consumption could be very impressive but not real to them. What they do and say when they are not speaking in public is important. 5. Final rule. We cannot judge anyone. When I look inward, I realise that I am the most undeserving person. The persons whom I am trying to judge are far better than me. They are atleast doing something. Whereas I am doing nothing.

What really happens when Bar Associations refrain from doing work in order to protest against police excesses? The police have their own Kingdom. The have been authorised to use sticks. So they form opinion that all laws are helpless against power of their sticks. The lawyers live in another Kingdom. They believe that all laws are written in books. The laws written in books are mightier than the sticks of police man. The whole country runs as per law books. And they as lawyers, know all laws. So they think that they are mightier than police. They would not tolerate a policeman to show them power of a stick. When a policeman tries to show a stick to a lawyer, it goes against everything for which he stands. The word goes viral and Bar Associans call for strikes. The fire sparks. All lawyers feel indignant and they show solidarity in protest by bringing court works to a standstill. The judges have power to take suo moto action and to suggest government to make sure that the every policeman respects every lawyer. I hope some judge will do this.