| Username |
Post |
| Interested in GRS |
Posted
on 22-Jul-02 04:44 AM
Is Ganesh Raj Sharma, Senior Advocate, the great man with selfless, consistent views this newspaper claims to be? or is Bijaya Kumar up to some act of naughty image spinning again?
http://www.kantipuronline.com/Nepal/Nepalmag.htm
|
| ashu |
Posted
on 22-Jul-02 08:49 AM
I have NOT studied GRS's legal opinions in detail, but everyone I speak to -- from journalists to practicing lawyers to public-policy pundits in Kathmandu -- rave about
him, using superlatives.
Being the usual skeptic of easily-flowing public praise and facile goon-gaan in Nepal, I have tried to get GRS's fans to be SPECIFIC about his scholarly or practical
contributions to Nepal's legal landscape, but all I have gotten were/are GENERAL adulatory remarks that were not helpful (to me, anyway!) to understand his legal philosophy, much less put it in a context as to why people think that he is really great. Then again, it's more likely that I am too dumb to understand all this legal-segal stuff.
On a personal, up-close level, though, I am struck by GRS's uncanny PHYSICAL resemblance to a great Western (liberal) legal scholar -- Ronald Dworkin of NYU
and Oxford, the one who routinely drives conservatives and postmodernists crazy
by his writings in the pages of The New York Review of Books.
That said, rather than rely Vijay Kumarji's somwhat breezy opinions -- even though, as a reader, I enjoy reading them -- I too wait for an (independent) scholarly or professional assessment of GRS's legal thinking.
oohi
ashu
ktm,nepal
|
| grapevine |
Posted
on 22-Jul-02 09:10 AM
I used to see GRS in mornings, walking with his short stick swinging from side to side. He used to do that in panchyat kal. But since a couple of years he has given up that habit.
People of all shorts, used to come to his house, including Girija P. K. and Ser bahadur for his advice. I never quite understood what is the star attraction about him rather than anybody else.
In his personal life however he is commendable. He had adopted his sali or jethanis children when they(the parents) died in a bus accident. According to the latest news The adopted children and his servant turned Wokil are doing better than his own children.
|
| ashu |
Posted
on 22-Jul-02 09:19 AM
I wrote:
"Being the usual skeptic of easily-flowing public praise and facile goon-gaan in Nepal"
Let me point out that the other side of the coin is that I am also an equally die-hard skeptic of:
a) easily-flowing public and private GAALI against Nepalis in general by other Nepalis
and
b) the anger with which our fellow Nepalis lash out at their perceived and real enemies at the slightest provocation . . .
That said, a few years ago, the economist Devendra Raj Panday and the lawyer Ganesh Raj Sharma went head to head with one another for several weeks in the
pages of (was it?) Deshanter or Bimarsha.
Their verbal fight got viciously personal -- and became an all-round spectator sport,
to be sure.
As an impressionable young reader, I remember being more impressed by Panday's rational, cool and sensible arguments and counter-arguments than with Sharma's
furious, verbal sledge-hammering.
oohi
ashu
ktm,nepal
|
| Biswo |
Posted
on 22-Jul-02 10:25 AM
>As an impressionable young reader, I remember being more impressed by Panday's
>rational, cool and sensible arguments and counter-arguments than with Sharma's
>furious, verbal sledge-hammering
Do you think your initial reply in this thread was because of the prejudice you thus
had by following that argument in Bimarsha or Deshantar?
(Ps. I have heard about Ganesh Raj Sharma, but I don't know what his contribution is.
May be BP's Aatma Britanta or Jail Journal?)
|
| uks |
Posted
on 22-Jul-02 11:47 AM
Though I do not know much about GRS, I have always admired and have been very impressed by his stand on the prerogative of the Prime Minister to dissolve the parliament. I would definitely take this as an enviable consistency. Though I did bother to thoroughly read Bijaya Kumar's article, I particularly liked the last paragraph of his "Pathaklai Patra". That might sum up why Bijaya Kumar, like me, is so fond of Ganesh Raj. If people take an unwavering stand on critical issues, it does say a lot about the people. Or so I believe.
|
| uks |
Posted
on 22-Jul-02 11:53 AM
CORRECTION:
Though I do not know much about GRS, I have always admired and have been very impressed by his stand on the prerogative of the Prime Minister to dissolve the parliament. I would definitely take this as an enviable consistency. Though I did NOT bother to thoroughly read the main article, I particularly liked the last paragraph of Bijay Kumar's "Pathaklai Patra". That might sum up why Bijaya Kumar, like me, is so fond of Ganesh Raj. Ifsomeone takes an unwavering stand on critical issues, it does say a lot about that person. Or so I believe.
|
| Paschim |
Posted
on 22-Jul-02 09:44 PM
Ganesh Raj Sharma has established himself as more than a legal practitioner. He is an epitome of a public intellectual with a heavy-weight moral stamp in his possession. While I haven't followed and don't know about all events in his legal career, Bijaya Kumar *is* convincing in making his point that GRS has been enviably consistent - irrespective of petty personal loyalties - in critical constitutional positions such as the prime ministerial prerogative to dissolve the House in Westminster-modeled democracies. The title on the cover of that magazine is "lov laagdo nirantarata", and the story of GRS's "lov laagdo nirantaranta" in such an important politico-constitutional issue is worth deep admiration. Here the subject of affection is the substance-backed consistency, not the specific merits of his legal arguments per se, which is better left for assessment of the 11-member bench. As for his *overall* legal record, I hope a credible biography or autobiography is written so that we can separate facts from fiction, substance from slander.
As a public intellectual at large however, I know GRS's influence was and is immense. The second generation NC leaders, Sher Bahadur, Ram Chandra et al., were known to visit GRS's residence like a pilgrimage after BP Koirala's death to make up for BP's much missed intellectual sermons (of the old survivors, Bhattarai was well-read, but was also an eccentric with an unpredictable sense of humor to engage in a fruitful discourse, and the powerful virtues for which Girija and Ganeshman-ji were appreciated were non-intellectual in nature). GRS seems to have filled BP's void after 1982. He of course had a particularly close relationship of trust and mutual respect with Koirala (they are related through their wives, I hear). The "preface" he has written to BP Koirala's gripping Atmabritanta is deeply moving. Similarly the preface to "Jail Journal" by GRS is also worth reading. His transcribing of BP's words and publishing these books has been of great service to nepali history. BP's accounts have shattered several myths that were taken for granted. But after BP's death, GRS seems to have fallen out with the Koiralas, especially GPK. But as Bijaya Kumar mentions, GRS while challenging a dozen of the first GPK government's decisions in the Supreme Court, he defended his decision to dissolve the House as a member of the Amicus Curie, much to the Koirala camp's surprise. Issue-based argumentation, divorced from personalities, is a new thing in Nepal. GRS also mentions in his preface to Atmabritanta that GPK is now someone from whom "he is not in a position to get help". I thought that was a most civil and graceful way to write about someone who you are not terribly fond of.
So I am actually surprised to hear about Ashu's account of the Devendra Raj Panday and GRS duel. As someone who has actively worked and acquainted with Devendra Raj Panday, and been impressed by his standards of integrity, I would certainly like to dig up those exchanges to form a better opinion about both DRP and GRS (Ashu, I'd appreciate if you could give me the rough dates of when and where that exchange appeared). But generally, both men are known for their impeccable uprightness and moral authority. In a country where these kind of virtues are *almost* non-existent among any public figure - from the King to the Kangressi to the normal Communist to the extreme Maobadi - some of the publicly verifiable virtues that these two men embody have been personally very inspiring to me.
One additional lesson I have drawn from what I know of their public lives is that, it matters a lot whether you are good in your trade or not - so GRS must have made his mark as a good, young lawyer and DRP was an uncorrupt, well-trained administrator (who resigned as the No. 1 civil servant of the Finance Ministry in 1980 protesting Surya Bahadur Thapa's corrupt pressures to abuse public funds). But beyond being very good in your profession, when it comes to commanding loyalty, trust, respect from one's peers and the society at large, how one leads his or her personal life is also important. And I think both GRS and DRP are at a level where their fame or the respect that they command has some origin in their pucca professional credentials, but much of it is to do with the publicly demonstrated conduct of their private lives also. This is what I think.
But I would really like to hear more from people who know GRS better about his publicly verifiable acts of greatness in his legal career as well as beyond, especially in his enviable role of a public intellectual with influence.
|
| ashu |
Posted
on 23-Jul-02 04:10 AM
Biswo wrote:
Do you think your initial reply in this thread was because of the prejudice you thus
had by following that argument in Bimarsha or Deshantar?
***********
Possibly, Biswo, possibly.
Then again, as someone who's been totally brainwashed by the practices of the Western (i.e. American) academia and thus carries his own silly biases as to how influential and academically-oriented "law practioners" should go about their work
(i.e. by publishing heavily-cited and little-read articles in those fat Law Reviews :-)!),
I sit here and wonder:
For all his legal prowess and public intellectualism, how come GRS -- at the grand old
age of 60-plus -- seems NOT to have published a single book detailing his own constitutional philosophy, arguing where he agrees and disagrees with Lord Ivor Jennings (a British Constitutional law expert -- and a darling of afew constitutional theorists at the Nepali Supreme Court), and so on and so forth?
Let's face it: GRS's reputation seems to have risen primarily from the assessment of:
a) journalists
) politicians
c) younger lawyers ( who can rave about him but cannot convince a skeptic such as me as to why GRS is indeed maahan.
His fellow law practioners -- the ones I have talked with -- seem either too respectful
of him or fearful of him.
I find all this very curious, to say the least.
Finally, I am NOT a lawyer, and I am NOT trying to cut GRS's gigantic reputation down
to size.
But, in these days, when one can read convincingly critical articles about even Isaiah Berlin (that famous Oxford philosopher), being RESPECTFULLY critical of GRS should
not be seen as some act of impudence but an act of OPEN inquiry.
PS: A few years ago, I did meet and talk with GRS at length about the state of Nepali legal system at his house near Putali Sadak. He is a fine man. But I found him a little
too remote, a bit aloof, possibly bit of a snob. Twice, I even invited him to give a presentation at Martin Chautari -- both times, he said no.
oohi
ashu
ktm,nepal
|
| Biswo |
Posted
on 23-Jul-02 07:32 AM
Ashu,
I am still ignorant about GRS, even after reading all postings here. But
I understand what you are trying to say about GRS's intellectual ability.
GRS is not said to be the best lawyer in the world. And it is likely that other lawyers
in Nepal have not published a single word in reputed law journals too.
GRS's strength may be his consistency, and in Nepal, where loyalty shifts fast,
to some, that is an enough evidence of someone's mahaanness.
|
| Paschim |
Posted
on 23-Jul-02 09:38 PM
I am sure almost all of GRS's legal arguments throughout his career have been archived as court material. It would be interesting to see if he has shown consistency in just this one issue, or on several other issues as well. I hope a book on his track record gets published. Some years ago, another senior advocate, Shambhu Gyawali published his memoirs, which I enjoyed greatly. The legal domain is so important, and although the judiciary has been made extremely powerful after 1990, there is so much we non-lawyers don't know about…and the occasional news about corruption there, together with their archaic practice of imprisoning anyone on grounds of "maan-haani" is ridiculous. Anyway, my interest in GRS is more on his role as a public intellectual. And in the past 5 years, I must have read around 10 of his analyses in Deshanter and Himal. Didn't always agree with his thesis - he places way too much emphasis on external factors. I happen to belong to the "bigger devil is within us" school. But definitely most of his pieces are must read items.
On a general note though, to be published in respected publications, or peer-reviewed journals, is important and it is a crucial litmus test of one's academic credentials. No doubt about it.
------------
As an aside, I have often been intrigued by some geniuses who publish so little, but get it just right, enough to make them a legend. The 1991 Nobel laureate Ronald Coase for example has published so little, just two great pieces I believe - The Nature of the Firm and The Problem of Social Cost. Bob Solow, the great 1987 Nobel laureate from MIT is of course prolific but his Nobel was also singularly attributed to his one 1956 paper on Growth.
Even the famous Isaiah Berlin (one of Ashu's favorite I believe) published nothing before his first academic appointment at New College after he left Corpus. But to be elected to All Souls at the age of 23 (for a Jew from Riga in such a snobbish place as Oxford in the 30s) was quite something. He went on to publish prolifically, but Noel Annan has written in "The Don as Magus" on Berlin that even until late in his life, his fans longed for Berlin to publish one "big" book setting out his credo and defending it in an academic classical tradition. In addition to "The Don as Magus", people interested in knowing more about Berlin must read Michael Ignatieff's superb biography on him (although I myself have covered only a third of it so far).
On a lighter note, in this weekly paper from Kantipur publications, The Saptahik, there's a column on housewives,"saata ki grihini". Believe me, I don't miss a single issue of that. Great way to find out how urban Nepali housewives think. Anyway in a recent issue there was one woman who said she has the "habit" of publishing at least one book a year. Her aim I think was to publish 100 books before she died! I know I am verbose too. But can't help it, sorry. Once I write on a topic, I have to say everything I want to say on that topic at that moment in time. Euta rog nai ho yo!
|
| ashu |
Posted
on 24-Jul-02 07:21 AM
Paschim wrote:
"As an aside, I have often been intrigued by some geniuses who publish so little, but get it just right, enough to make them a legend. The 1991 Nobel laureate Ronald Coase for example has published so little, just two great pieces I believe - The Nature of the Firm and The Problem of Social Cost. Bob Solow, the great 1987 Nobel laureate from MIT is of course prolific but his Nobel was also singularly attributed to his one 1956 paper on Growth."
**********
Yes, one of last year's economics Nobelists Michael Spence too has published so little, busy as he was being a dean (i.e. administrative head) at Harvard and Stanford for the last 15 or so years.
And in the case of John Forbes Nash, the one with "a beautiful mind", his almost-30-page ko PhD thesis in mathematics, written at the age of 23, at Princeton became the basis of his eventually winning a 1993 Nobel in economics.
I too marvel at such geniuses -- who publish relatively little but with what they publish they revolutionize their fields of studies and change their (professional) peers' thinking.
Still, as another Princeton economist Paul Krugman has written someplace: It is very, very hard to consistently come up with blindingly original insights every time you sit down to write a professional, academic paper.
What most academic economists routinely do, then, is tweak the 'standard models' in some minor way -- perhaps by applying those models to new areas or by sexing up the math part -- and writing up the results, and getting them published in various peer-reviewed journals.
This is a fairly standard practice -- at least in economics.
Then again, as Isaiah Berlin (yes, one of the few philosophers I have consistent tried to follow and I highly recommend the book Paschim talks about here: "Isaiah Berlin: A Life by Michael Ignatieff) so memorably wrote about the hedgebox and the fox, and I quote from a Web site:
"In one of his most famous essays, 'The Hedgehog and The Fox' (1953), Berlin focused on the tension between monist and pluralist visions of the world and history, and drew the line between different authors and philosophers.
As the Greek poet Archilochus said: "The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing." The Hedgehog needs only one principle, that directs its life. Typical examples are Platon, Dante, Pascal, Nietzsche and Proust. The Fox, pluralist, travels many roads, according to the idea that there can be different, equally valid but mutually incompatible conceptions of how to live. The roads do not have much connection, as is seen in the works of Aristotle, Montaigne, Shakespeare, Moliére, Goethe and Balzac. In Tolstoy, whose view of history inspired Berlin to write the essay, he saw a fox who believed in being a hedgehog.
********
PS: For the third time in seven years, I am going to request GRS to come give a presentation at Martin Chautari. Doesn't hurt to try, and I am willing to be turned
down again :-)
oohi
ashu
ktm,nepal
|
| Lawyer's sis |
Posted
on 28-Aug-02 08:11 AM
Have lawyers become too powerful in Nepal? Are they making fun of democracy and promoting anarchy in the name of rule of law? Examples: what the supreme court did, and what the election commission is set to do?
|
