Prof. DhirendranKumar Sinha, retired as University Professor in the Faculty of PG Political Science, Bhagalpur University. He accessed this blog and is all praise for the issues addressed under the caption, 'ordeals that stare', in which the Fire Station short story is a reflection on the sluggish justice delivery system.
However, he finds nothing new in it, terming it as old wine in a new bottle.
Cry hoarse against the general failure perceptible in the justice delivery system, itnwill not seem either new or novel. As if it is akin to stating that sun rises and sets. So what, we already know it. Why should that be told what goes without saying. This is precisely what Prof. Sinha states, in substance, without hiding his general appreciation for the efforts thus put in, in an area which does not require narrations of things already known too well.
Prof. Sinha's concern and resultant criticism is well placed. The same is indicative of general pessimism which the justice delivery system has engendered, without any sign of recovery or relief.
I have two points to make in this regard.
Firstly, the legal segment has been receiving scanty media attention, the lop sided media coverage notwithstanding. There is no coverage on main issues. Why so much of pendency? Who is addressing this problem and in what way? Is the system functioning at an optimum pace and, if not, why? So on and so forth. To be frank, the media is in the hands of law illiterates who consider the legal segment an out of bound area for critical evaluation. Court's contempt powers frighten the press, hence printed words fail to over step self assessed limitations, irrespective whether law supports that or not.
Secondly, there is a parallel scenario within the legal segment which completely refuses to take into account the above said general pessimism which the legal system has produced. It is the inside players who know it too well that their system failure is undeniable, but no one is there is acknowlege one's own contribution thereto.
In this regard, let me reiterate the story earlier posted. At the cost of repetition, i reproduce it, with intent to making the four characters of the story specific, vis a vis justice delivery system.
The story goes this way.







This is the story about four people named,
(i) Everybody,
(ii) Somebody,
(iii) Anybody, and
(iv) Nobody.

There was an important job to be done.

Everybody was sure that Somebody would do it.

Anybody could have done it.

Somebody got angry about that because , he thought, the said neglected and abandoned job was, in fact,  Everybody’s job.
Everybody thought that Anybody could do it.

But Nobody realized that Everybody would not do it.

It ended up at
Everybody blaming Somebody ,
when actually Nobody accused Anybody.
Everybody blaming Somebody,
when actually Nobody accused Anybody.

This gives a tell tale picture of those who matter in the legal segment. Those who have the power and resources to change the scenario, are inert, pleading this to be the role of some one else. In the process, rules are being circumvented and it is the common man who remains high and dry, at the receiving end. Experiential narration of their plight is thus expedient, which the media has callously omitted to do.
This precisely answers Prof. Sinha's  'whys' and  'wherefores', but if there still remains any more unanswered queries, this blog may come handy for that. Participation of Prof. Sinha and likes of him may thus be extremely useful.