Editor,
It is shocking that Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal should scream in chorus with Pakistan that Indian Government needs to give proof of the recent surgical strikes? Taking the fullest advantage of this, nearly all media in Pakistan showered praises on the Delhi CM as he hit the headlines the next day. Further, top leaders of the Congress willfully added fuel to Pakistan’s sinister ambition. Sanjay Nirupam literally rubbished the surgical strikes calling them fake. I daresay, if one can doubt the country that nourishes him then he can doubt his own mother who gave birth to him. How do we describe such leaders who can humiliate the country before the eyes of the world? Could we still crown such leaders with our precious votes to rule the country?
This aside, we also have Bollywood stars who have enthralled us for ages but lethally wounded our hearts now. Their comments have sent shudders down the spine of the nation. Well, these artists who soulfully expressed sympathies for the hapless Lahore victims, which all did, remained conspicuously silent when our army personnel were gunned down in Uri while asleep. Now some stars are even mustering courage to question the integrity of the army and their sacrifices but stand up in defense of the artists from Pakistan. Anyway, I salute those Pakistani artists for their love and loyalty towards their country but they too once they reached the land of their birth began badmouthing India. Will this fact not hammer the right message to our Bollywood stars and citizens? We Indians are so large-hearted that we would rather choose to relish ‘Ae Dil Hai Mushkil’ when it will be released after a couple of weeks.
Yours etc.,
Salil Gewali, Shillong-2
Of moot courts and mockery thereof
Editor,
NEHU is again in the news for something unwarranted. And this time it is the seemingly invincible Law Department, which adopted an irrational method of eliminating the participating teams of the National Moot Court Competition as pointed out by Peter Dohkrut in his letter, “National Moot Court Competition” (ST Oct 9, 2016). It is shocking that a law institution/department that is supposed to teach its budding lawyers and jurists the principles and values of fairness, reasonableness and non-arbitrariness, itself practices just the opposite. Unless the organizers had prejudged and prejudiced a particular team/s with the objective of eliminating them by any means, sheer commonsense and a sense of justice and fairness would dictate that winners of one moot court room would be allowed to compete with winners of other moot court rooms in the next round of the competition. Or how else can the organizers justify such elimination?
Yet again, sheer commonsense on the part of the organizers would indicate that it is normal that judges of different moot court rooms while assessing the most competent teams of their own respective rooms to have different ranges of marking the competing teams; and that while they (judges) know the best team in their own respective room, they do not know the best team in other rooms, which are assessed by other judges. Hence, no matter how many marks the judges may give to the winning team of a particular room, the fact remains that it is the best team from that room, which is qualified for the next round and which has the right to compete with the winning team of another room. The organizers failed to see this fact and, as a result, they eliminated even the winning teams of some rooms as their marks are lower than the winning teams – even the losing teams – from the other rooms. By this method, a high possibility is that the losing team of one room is qualified for the next round whereas the winning team of another room is disqualified as its mark is lower than that of the losing team. This is indeed a bizarre and absolutely an irrational and unfair selection process, which can be further illustrated below: Suppose there are four competing teams (A, B, C, D) in the competition. Two teams (A, B) are sent to room 1 to be assessed by Judge X. the other two teams (C, D) are sent to room 2 to be assessed by another Judge Y. Judge X in room 1 gives a total of 90 marks to the winner team (A) and 80 marks to the loser team (B). Judge Y in room 2 gives 50 marks to the winner (C) and 40 marks to the loser team (D). The result in the first round is:
In room No.1 (as assessed by Judge X): Team A: 90/100 marks (winner) Team B: 80/100 marks (loser) In room No. 2 (as assessed by Judge Y): Team C: 50/100 marks (winner) Team D: 40/100 marks (loser)
Now, applying the faulty method of elimination adopted by the organizers, it is team A and team B (both from room No. 1) that are selected for the final round of the competition since they obtain the highest marks; whereas team C the winner in room No. 2 is eliminated since it obtains lesser marks than teams A and B. Any reasonable person would understand that it makes little sense for team A and team B to fight again in the final!
The letter By Peter Dohkrut, a participant is obviously an expression of exasperation, disillusionment, disappointment and bitterness towards a trusted institution that ultimately turns out to be a betrayer in the end. This has a demoralizing effect on the participating students who are on the other hand sincere, earnest, well-prepared, competent and qualified but unjustly deprived of the next round of the competition. One can understand a situation when a student loses faith in the very institution that is entrusted to groom him/ her. Readers of this letter may have the impression that I am over-reacting, but this response comes from a deep concern for quality law education, professional ethics and overall training of future lawyers vis-à-vis the significance for a law student of such a national level Moot Court Competition, the mockery and [mis]management of which ultimately speaks volumes about the blatant error, incompetence and unprofessional conduct of the NEHU law department in particular, which leaves a blot on the University as a whole.
Yours etc.,
Lynda Suantak
Shillong -14