They show that freedom of speech, even with reasonable restrictions, is at the sufferance of of the intolerant with no qualms of violence. They show that individual freedoms, far from being a Constitutional right, are treated as a function of State interest, or more precisely, the interests of the party in power. They show us that the commitment to freedom of speech and thought among our “liberal” elite is marked with pusillanimity and cowardice in the face of intimidation and threats. (Suhas’ post here says all of this, better).

One doesn’t like to speculate so freely, even on a forum as open as thus, but perhaps Prof. Dr. Vepa Partha Sarathi’s sad demise yesterday (25.01.2012) at the age of 96 is probably not unrelated to all of the above. If anything could break his strong heart (strengthened as it was by “the slings and arrows of fate”), this was possibly it. As a firm believer in the rule of law, a committed atheist, a lover of the arts (an artist himself), a man who loved his country and its founding ideals, he must have dearly felt the pain of watching his country succumb (once again) to the forces of obscurantism and intolerance. It perhaps hurt him just as bad to see 40,000 of India’s youth gathered at Jaipur, who probably shared most of his ideals, stand by and let it happen.

The biographical details of his life, while perhaps covering the major achievements in his career as a lawyer and academic do not, and possibly cannot, focus on the man himself. To us, his students at NALSAR, he will always be our “Vepa-sir” — easy going, a little hard of hearing perhaps, mentally sharp as a razor’s edge honed to the width of a molecule, with a memory that astounded us on a daily basis, and always full of good cheer and warmth. A firm believer in the uselessness of all testing and examination in the life of a student, it was impossible to dislike the man.

Yet, admirable as these qualities, these do not define him entirely.

Vepa-sir was a true polymath. Few scholars can claim to have authored a book on Ancient Indian Mathematics and Astronomy and a classic on the law of evidence, the transfer of property and the interpretation of statutes. Fewer still perhaps can claim felicity with the paint-brush or the ability to quote Gilbert & Sullivan operettas just as easily as Shakespeare; declaim from the King James Bible as easily as recite profoundly dirty limericks.

Yet, in the hands and minds of mere mortals being a polymath is a parlour trick — the ability to devote time to many different pursuits without attaining proficiency in any particular one (or as you say, “Jack of all trades, master of none”). Vepa went beyond being a mere polymath and could genuinely be called a true “Renaissance Man” – someone who respected individual freedoms, supported the pursuit of truth unburdened by religious dogma, and always brought a scientific and rational approach to the problems of humanity. As an atheist (or perhaps the more appropriate word is “rational unbeliever” for his atheism wasn’t tied merely to the traditions of Judeo-Christian & Islamic theology as the atheism of Dawkins’ and his fellow “neo-atheists’” is) he didn’t pour contempt and scorn for religions or the religious. He acknowledged the instrumental role of religion in the development and growth of civilization and was of the view that with the development of the scientific method, humanity had no need of calming superstitions that religions offered. His rationalist atheism was always worn lightly; never aggressively thrust in the face of a believer in an attempt to belittle or draw ridicule, but always propounded with a view to debate, urge, and enlighten his listeners.

I won’t say I agreed with him entirely. My own views on religion, deity and belief are perhaps more appropriate for another piece elsewhere, but suffice it to say that Vepa-sir was the epitome of the finest Indian traditions of debate and discussion that litter history and scripture, and to that extent, he taught me far more than he probably imagined he did.

Not least of all, he provided us with a role-model for a good (if not great) lawyer.

A good lawyer, according to Vepa-sir was not one who had just mastered the concepts of law, its practice and procedure, and its intricate jargon. All of those are of course necessary but definitely not sufficient to produce a good lawyer. A good lawyer had to be someone with more than a passing familiarity of literature, who appreciated the arts, who engaged freely in thoughtful debates, and engaged with the great public questions of the day. A lawyer was not just anyone with an opinion, but someone whose opinions are informed by facts, by an understanding of the issues, and by a willingness to listen to and appreciate the merits of another’s point of view. These, and these alone, stand out as the hallmark of a good lawyer.

To appreciate his idea of what it takes to be a good lawyer (or for that matter a good legal academic) read his best works; the Interpretation of Statutes and the Law of Evidence.

The first thing you’ll notice of course is the simple language. Simplicity and brevity far from being an absence of, is in fact evidence of, great understanding and wisdom. The most complex arguments on the Basic Structure Doctrine, Section 27 of the Evidence Act or the Golden Rule of Interpretation are presented with an unmistakeable clarity of thought.

Far too many of us in the daily drudgery of legal forms and practice fall prey to the sin of verbosity and prolixity (yes, irony fully intended). Monstrous, twisting clauses in contract and statute may look impressive and forbidding but make for poor application and enforcement of the law. So too are dense, indecipherable pleadings that one routinely comes across in court. Of course, simplicity is not simple, but that only heightens Vepa’s depth of learning and clarity of thought.

Reading his works one is also struck by the numerous and apt quotations on law and literature that fill his books. The intent is not so much to impress as to inform. Law, like literature, reflects and shapes society and individuals who come under its influence. Mere knowledge of law with no appreciation for literature makes for a lawyer ill equipped to understand the law itself and its purpose and role in society. In this respect, he follows the fine example of such luminaries as Chagla, Hidayatullah, Palkhivala and Krishna Iyer. His quotations range from the classic to the crass.

His books also unfailingly put forth his point of view; right or wrong. Whether it is on the correctness of the Basic Structure doctrine or the interpretation of Section 27, he makes it clear that he is no textbook writer churning out repeated editions of stale commentary for crammers and regurgitaters.

Unlike many academics in the field, he never shied away from a stiff debate with even the most ill-informed and barely articulate of his students. It didn’t matter that he had 70 years of experience at the Bar and you had none. Your views were received with just as much respect as perhaps the views of the Chief Justice of India’s did; never did he meet anyone with haughty dismissal or outright rejection by reference to his authority.

Most importantly perhaps from him I learnt that a good lawyer is also, inevitably, a good human being. Someone whose professional values sync entirely with his personal values; whose belief in the values of our Constitution isn’t worn merely within the premises of a court, or for the purposes of one’s own ends, but is the very basis of one’s life. In that perhaps, he left us a hard challenge, one that I fear I may not always be able to meet successfully. Or perhaps, the effort to meet the challenge is itself part of living a good life.

Vepa-sir lived by the one golden rule that he preached to us all, and which atheist or religious, we can all agree is essential to the functioning of any civilized society.

No, it is not the golden rule of statutory interpretation and has only vaguely to do with the law, but it goes:

“Do unto others as you’d have them do unto you“

Rest In Peace Vepa sir. Though you didn’t believe in a heaven, I do hope that you’re pleasantly surprised.

Not satisfied at just having been proved right, I promptly shuffled off to the nearby nets to prove my theory myself. My batting was ok, I guess, but when I tried to bowl (slow right arm rubbish basically), a bolt of pain went through my right arm as it protested at being unreasonably taxed with the effort of propelling a cricket ball 19 yards at far, far less than threatening pace. Gasping, wheezing, and clutching my side, I beat a hasty retreat from the nets to the safety of a nearby McDonald’s. Many fries and sugary drinks later, I carried my bruised and wounded ego home… and found out NLS lost (Yay! No wait, that means I lost the argument. Boo!). So much for my fat-is-fit for cricket.

Needless to say, putting the good lawyer’s maxim of never letting the facts come in the way of a good argument, I continue to hold that being gym-fit does not necessarily mean being good at cricket. Indeed some of the most memorable cricketing performances have come from the “well-rounded” cricketers of the day, and many, at the highest level of one-day cricket, the ICC World Cup.

Presenting, therefore, another piece on the upcoming World Cup: The XI Best World Cup performances by uh… cricketers with “big personalities” (as we say down in the South).

11. Jan Berrie Burger 85 (86) v England, 2003 World Cup
Namibia have had one undistinguished World Cup so far (6 matches, no wins), but Jan Berrie Burger ensured that at least one match would be memorable. Chubby, and looking like someone with a fondness for him namesake (easiest joke of this post!), he laid into the English bowling smearing 85 off 86 in a whirlwind assault that however, did not lead his team to a win (though he had the highest score of the match). Nevertheless, he struck a blow (actually several) for the cause of amply proportioned cricketers at the World Cup.

10.Dwayne Leverock that catch v India, 2007 World Cup
Easily the most iconic image of the eminently forgettable 2007 World Cup was 120 kg Dwayne Leverock launching himself gazelle-like, almost parallel to the ground and holding on to a stunning catch in the slips. You have to be a heartless creep not to watch the catch and the ensuing celebrations and not cheer the Big Bermudan. Unfortunately, the rest of the Indian batting did not share the sentiment and proceeded to brutally maul the bowling for a cruel 413/5.

Dwayne Leverock takes off!

9. Eddo Brandes 4-21 v England, 1992 World Cup
Eddo Brandes was a chicken farmer, and one look at his frame would tell you that he didn’t mind tucking into them as well. By the dozen. What he also did, with just as much success, was to humiliate England with a 4-wicket haul in the quiet Australian county town of Albury as eventual-finalists England, were hustled to a 9 run defeat against not-yet-Test-Status Zimbabwe.

8.Tariq Iqbal 2 catches v West Indies, 1996 World Cup
Kenya probably picked Tariq Iqbal for the World Cup to make the rest of us amateur wicket-keepers feel better about ourselves. It was not so much that he had poor ‘keeping technique as much as he just could not get his paws on the ball. At all. His contribution to one of the biggest upsets in World Cup history is, however, far more er… substantial. A fierce cut by Brian Lara found itself trapped between his plentiful thighs (5:30 into the video); not that Iqbal intended it so, but as we say in cricket, they all count and this sparked off a West Indian collapse. In any case, the scorecard will always read, Brian Lara c. Tariq Iqbal b. Rajab Ali 9.

7. Mike Gatting 56 (62) v India, 1987 World Cup
“Fat Gatt” as he was often called never let a good lunch come in the way of tucking into the bowling on the pitch. In the 1987 World Cup, he swept and swept India’s spinners through his innings to dash the hopes of several hundred millions and with Graham Gooch, put up a huge total (in 1987 terms i.e.) and helped take England to their second final of the World Cup. Unfortunately for “Fat Gatt” his overconfidence in sweeping also cost England the World Cup in the finals, but they wouldn’t have got there without him.

6. Inzamam ul Haq 60(37) v New Zealand, 1992 World Cup
Inzamam Alu Ul Haq burst on the scene (or at least strolled in serenely at a pace more commensurate of a gentleman his size) in the 1992 World Cup where he tore up the New Zealand bowling attack scoring 60 of 28 balls and got Pakistan into the finals from a seemingly hopeless situation. Poor Inzy got much flak for his girth, but as if to prove that his cricketing brilliance was inextricably linked to his waist size, the one World Cup he turned svelte, he promptly lost form and scored 19 runs in the whole tournament. Someone soon found him an all-you-can eat buffet and the next thing you know, bowlers around the world lost their appetites.

5. Virender Sehwag 82(81) v Australia, 2003 World Cup
Before he started posing bodypainted and topless (ugh and double ugh) for ads, Virender Sehwag was, what is called in these parts, “haalthy”. As the rest of the Indian top order crumbled around him to the wile of McGrath and the fire of Lee in the 2003 World Cup final, Sehwag decided to go out all guns blazing and blazed away to a quickfire 82. Alas, that was as far as he got, and but for him, India would have gone down in a World Cup final by over 200 runs (in the event, it was a much more acceptable 125 run loss).

4. David Boon 75(125) v England, 1987 World Cup
The record holder for the most beers consumed (52*) on a flight from Australia to England was also the top scorer in Australia’s underdog victory in the final at Kolkata in the 1987 World Cup. Never to let a bad ball go unpunished, or a 3 course meal uneaten, David Boon, with Allan Border, Merv Hughes, Craig McDermott, Steve Waugh and Geoff Marsh dragged Australia from the swamps of mediocrity to the peak of World Cup success. With the current obsession in the Australian cricket team for blonde metrosexuals who twitter about their every bowel movement, one longs for those glory days of beer bellies, aggressive hirsutism, and the repeated questioning of the opposition player’s parentage, sexuality, and propensity to engage in Biblically forbidden sexual acts.

3. Arjuna Ranatunga 47*(37) v Australia, 1996 World Cup
Sourav-da wasn’t the first Asian captain to get under the Aussies’ skin. Arjuna Ranatunga was there first, wrote the book, and won a World Cup along the way. From asking for runners when he was tired, to threatening to take his players off the field for bad umpiring Ranatunga did it all to the Aussies with pomp and relish. Needless to say, he also featured in the unbeaten partnership that took Sri Lanka home in the finals against Australia at Karachi; something which, unfortunately, Sourav-da failed to do seven years later.

2. Shane Warne 4-36 v West Indies, 1996 World Cup and 4-29 v South Africa , 1999 World Cup
Never the paragon of physical-fitness virtue, he dragged Australia to the finals of two separate World Cups pretty much on his own. His sheer presence (ample as it was, I am talking psychological here, not physical), and ability to get into the minds of panicking West Indian and South African batsmen, meant that he needed to do little more than pitch the ball and wait for the batsmen to lose their brains, and hand over their wickets. It is therefore a matter of supreme irony that he was banned from the 2003 World Cup for allegedly taking pills “to look less fat”.

1. Aravinda De Silva 107*(124) and 3-42 v Australia, 1996 World Cup
No all-round (hah! Last pun, I promise) performance in a World Cup final comes close to Aravinda’s magnificent century and three-fer on that steamy Karachi evening of 1996. It is tempting to imagine that beefy cricketers make the most of their bulk and smash everything out of sight, but Aravinda’s innings was the very opposite of that stereotype. He flicked, drove, leg-glanced and caressed the ball to the boundary in a manner that would have had the purists purring in delight. A worthy man-of-the-final winner and the ultimate two-finger salute to joyless gym infesters.

Given the fitness-fascists currently sucking the fun out of international cricket with their diet plans and exercise routines that seem to constantly result in players being injured before a ball is bowled, I fear future world cups may not feature more entries to the above list. Not all hope is lost and there is still one man bravely flying the flag for fellow fatties in the World Cup: Jesse Ryder.