• Home
  • About
Friday, May 9, 2025
hrs@hemrajsingh.com
  • Login
  • Law
  • Politics
  • Personal
  • Crime File
  • Philosophy
  • Theory
  • People
  • Movies
  • Videos
  • EXCLUSIVE
  • More
    • General
    • Poetry
    • Relationships
    • Writing
No Result
View All Result
No Result
View All Result
Home Politics

Sharad Yadav and Socrates: The obvious disconnect

HEMRAJ SINGH by HEMRAJ SINGH
June 10, 2015
in Politics
Reading Time: 2 mins read
0 0
0
Sharad Yadav and Socrates: The obvious disconnect
Share on TwitterShare on WhatsAppShare on FacebookShare on LinkedIn

Sharad Yadav is against women reservation bill and declared that he would consume poison if the bill was passed in its present form. Later, in order to wriggle out of the suicide statement, which could in part be politically suicidal, he referred to Socrates’ cup of hemlock in his defence and apparently likened himself to the great Greek philosopher.

Socrates agreed to consume poison simply because he believed that irrespective of his own beliefs and regardless of his disagreement with his accusers he was morally and legally obliged to drink poison in obedience of the law because having stayed in the territory despite having the option of leaving anytime he wished, he had implicitly agreed to obey the law of the land and also bear the consequences if he was ever found in violation of the law. So, when he was found guilty and sentenced to death, he had no option but to die as stipulated not only in accordance with the law but also in conformity with his own intellectual beliefs and convictions. This is what makes Socrates one of the very, very few strictly ‘intellectual’ martyrs.

Amusingly, Sharad Yadav says that if the Bill was passed in the present form he would consume poison, which means if it became law through constitutional means he would oppose it illegally by committing suicide. Socrates consumed poison in obedience to the law whereas Mr. Yadav threatens to do the same in violation of it.

One can resist the enactment of a law through legitimate means like peaceful demonstrations, dialogue and Parliamentary debate is permissible, but to employ means like damaging public property, disrupting normal everyday life and threatening to commit suicide are certainly impermissible and illegal. Once means to persuade and convince fail and the legislature enacts a law, the law so enacted has to be accepted as the will of the people. Socrates died for the principle that one might disagree with the law but must obey.

You might also like

Spinning a Nightmare

Do I Hate Modi? Nope!

Gujarat 2002: Defending the Indefensible?

NARSIMHA RAO – II: Corruption Scandals

NARSIMHA RAO – I: Economic Liberalization and Babri Masjid Demolition

So, Sharad Yadav can disagree with and resist the Bill while it is in the process of being passed and may continue opposing it with all the means at his disposal after it becomes the law, but not in the name of Socrates because the great Greek would not have the law defied or the consequences of its violation evaded.

To be Socrates, Mr. Yadav, you need to consume poison in obedience and not in defiance of the law. So, correct your course or find a better ally among the dead Greeks.

Originally published on my WordPress Blog on June 9, 2009

TweetSendShareShare
Previous Post

FIRAAQ: The Scarred Human Face of Gujarat Pogrom

Next Post

Section 377: Questionable exercise of Judicial Review

HEMRAJ SINGH

HEMRAJ SINGH

HEMRAJ SINGH is a Delhi-based trial lawyer, specializing in both civil and criminal trials, and writes mainly on law, politics, crime, philosophy, policy, diplomacy and international relations. He is Editor-at-Large with Lawyers Update, a monthly magazine on law and legal affairs, and was Legal Editor with Universal Law Publishing Company before he started practicing law.

Related Posts

Spinning a Nightmare
Politics

Spinning a Nightmare

by HEMRAJ SINGH
March 7, 2023
Do I Hate Modi? Nope!
Personal

Do I Hate Modi? Nope!

by HEMRAJ SINGH
March 7, 2023
Gujarat 2002: Defending the Indefensible?
Law

Gujarat 2002: Defending the Indefensible?

by HEMRAJ SINGH
April 5, 2017
NARSIMHA RAO – II: Corruption Scandals
Law

NARSIMHA RAO – II: Corruption Scandals

by HEMRAJ SINGH
August 11, 2015
Next Post
Section 377: Questionable exercise of Judicial Review

Section 377: Questionable exercise of Judicial Review

Please login to join discussion

BROWSE BY CATEGORY

  • Crime File
  • General
  • Humour
  • Law
  • Movies
  • People
  • Personal
  • Philosophy
  • Poetry
  • Politics
  • Relationships
  • Society
  • Theory
  • Writing

About Hemraj Singh

HEMRAJ SINGH is a Delhi-based trial lawyer, specializing in both civil and criminal trials, and writes mainly on law, politics, crime, philosophy, policy, diplomacy and international relations. He is Editor-at-Large with Lawyers Update, a monthly magazine on law and legal affairs, and was Legal Editor with Universal Law Publishing Company before he started practicing law.

Categories

  • Crime File
  • General
  • Humour
  • Law
  • Movies
  • People
  • Personal
  • Philosophy
  • Poetry
  • Politics
  • Relationships
  • Society
  • Theory
  • Writing

Connect

hrs@hemrajsingh.com

Follow Us

© 2021. Designed by AK Network Solutions

Welcome Back!

Login to your account below

Forgotten Password?

Retrieve your password

Please enter your username or email address to reset your password.

Log In
No Result
View All Result
  • Law
  • Politics
  • Personal
  • Crime File
  • Philosophy
  • Theory
  • People
  • Movies
  • Videos
  • EXCLUSIVE
  • More
    • General
    • Poetry
    • Relationships
    • Writing

© 2023 Designed by AK Network Solutions.

Are you sure want to unlock this post?
Unlock left : 0
Are you sure want to cancel subscription?