যখন রাজনৈতিক শোরগোলের প্রভাব ফিকে হয়ে আসে

 

যখন রাজনৈতিক শোরগোলের প্রভাব ফিকে হয়ে আসে

রাজনৈতিক পরিবেশে হয়তো ধীরে ধীরে কিছু পরিবর্তনের আভাস পাওয়া যাচ্ছে।

যে “হল্লা ব্রিগেড” এতদিন অত্যন্ত উচ্চকণ্ঠে নিজেদের বক্তব্য, অভিযোগ ও রাজনৈতিক প্রচার সামনে নিয়ে আসছিল, তাদের মুখে এখন যেন কিছুটা উদ্বেগ ও হতাশার ছাপ দেখা যাচ্ছে।

মুখের অভিব্যক্তিতে ক্লান্তি,
বডি ল্যাঙ্গুয়েজে আত্মবিশ্বাসের ঘাটতি,
আর রাজনৈতিক শোরগোলে আগের সেই তেজ যেন অনেকটাই ম্লান।

কোনও বক্তব্য বারবার উচ্চারণ করলেই তা সত্য হয়ে যায় না। শেষ পর্যন্ত প্রতিটি দাবি, প্রতিটি অভিযোগ এবং প্রতিটি রাজনৈতিক ন্যারেটিভকে তথ্য, প্রমাণ এবং বাস্তবতার পরীক্ষার মুখোমুখি হতে হয়।

যদি কোনও রাজনৈতিক বক্তব্য অতিরঞ্জন, বিভ্রান্তি কিংবা তথ্যের বিকৃত উপস্থাপনার উপর দাঁড়িয়ে থাকে, তাহলে সময়ের সঙ্গে সঙ্গে তার প্রকৃত স্বরূপ মানুষের সামনে প্রকাশ পাওয়াই স্বাভাবিক।

সত্যের শক্তি প্রমাণে,
আর মিথ্যার শক্তি অনেক সময় শুধুই শোরগোলে।

হয়তো সেই কারণেই আজ সাধারণ মানুষ একটু নীরবে পরিস্থিতি পর্যবেক্ষণ করছে।

যে কথাগুলি গতকাল অত্যন্ত জোরের সঙ্গে বলা হচ্ছিল, আজ সেই কথাগুলিই প্রশ্নের মুখোমুখি হচ্ছে।

যে দাবিগুলিকে একসময় চূড়ান্ত সত্য হিসেবে প্রতিষ্ঠা করার চেষ্টা করা হয়েছিল, আজ সেগুলিই বাস্তবতা ও তথ্যের আলোয় যাচাই করা হচ্ছে।

রাজনীতিতে প্রচার গুরুত্বপূর্ণ হতে পারে, কিন্তু শেষ পর্যন্ত জনগণের বিচারবোধই সবচেয়ে বড় পরীক্ষার ক্ষেত্র।

মানুষ শুধু শুনছে না।

মানুষ দেখছে।
মানুষ ভাবছে।
মানুষ প্রশ্ন করছে।
মানুষ তুলনা করছে।
এবং মানুষ মনে রাখছে।

এই প্রসঙ্গে নিউটনের তৃতীয় সূত্রের কথাটি স্মরণ করা যেতে পারে—

“প্রত্যেক ক্রিয়ারই সমান ও বিপরীতমুখী প্রতিক্রিয়া রয়েছে।”

রাজনীতির ক্ষেত্রে এটিকে একটি রূপক হিসেবেও দেখা যায়।

প্রতিটি রাজনৈতিক পদক্ষেপের একটি প্রতিক্রিয়া থাকে।

প্রতিটি সিদ্ধান্তের একটি পরিণতি থাকে।

প্রতিটি অভিযোগের একটি উত্তর আসে।

প্রতিটি প্রচারের মুখোমুখি হয় বাস্তবতা।

আর জনগণের সামনে ক্রমাগত কোনও একটি ন্যারেটিভ তুলে ধরলে, শেষ পর্যন্ত তার মূল্যায়ন হয় জনমতের আদালতে।

তাই এখন হয়তো আরও বেশি শোরগোলের প্রয়োজন নেই।

প্রয়োজন তথ্যের।

প্রয়োজন প্রমাণের।

প্রয়োজন বাস্তবতার।

অভিযোগ করা হয়েছে।

প্রচার করা হয়েছে।

দাবি করা হয়েছে।

এখন সময় এসেছে—

তথ্যকে কথা বলতে দেওয়ার।

রাজনৈতিক শোরগোল কিছু সময়ের জন্য মানুষের দৃষ্টি আকর্ষণ করতে পারে; কিন্তু দীর্ঘমেয়াদে জনগণের স্মৃতি, অভিজ্ঞতা এবং বিচারবোধই গুরুত্বপূর্ণ হয়ে ওঠে।

হয়তো সেই কারণেই আজ কিছু মুখে উদ্বেগের ছাপ এবং কিছু রাজনৈতিক বডি ল্যাঙ্গুয়েজে আগের মতো দৃঢ়তা দেখা যাচ্ছে না।

এখন মানুষ অপেক্ষা করছে—

যে ক্রিয়া এতদিন ধরে চলেছে, তার প্রতিক্রিয়া কীভাবে সামনে আসে।

সময়ই তার উত্তর দেবে।

আর হয়তো তখনই রূপকের ভাষায় বলা যাবে—

নিউটনের তৃতীয় সূত্র তার রাজনৈতিক প্রতিক্রিয়ার বাস্তব রূপ দেখিয়েছে।

জয় হিন্দ। 🇮🇳

অশোক কুমার সিংহ
অ্যাডভোকেট, হাই কোর্ট কলকাতা

जब शोर का असर समाप्त होने लगे

 

जब शोर का असर समाप्त होने लगे

राजनीतिक माहौल में शायद कुछ बदलाव दिखाई देने लगा है।

जिसे कभी बहुत ऊँची आवाज़ में अपनी बात रखने वाली “हल्ला ब्रिगेड” कहा जा सकता है, उनके चेहरों पर अब चिंता और निराशा की झलक दिखाई देती है। जो आत्मविश्वास पहले उनके वक्तव्यों और नारों में दिखाई देता था, वह अब कुछ हद तक धीमा पड़ता हुआ प्रतीत हो रहा है।

चेहरों पर उदासी है,
बॉडी लैंग्वेज में आत्मविश्वास की कमी दिखाई देती है,
और राजनीतिक शोर का प्रभाव भी पहले जैसा दिखाई नहीं देता।

लगातार दोहराए गए आरोप, दावे और कथाएँ अंततः तथ्यों और प्रमाणों की कसौटी पर ही परखी जाती हैं।

यदि किसी राजनीतिक नैरेटिव में अतिशयोक्ति, भ्रम या तथ्यों की गलत प्रस्तुति हो, तो समय के साथ उसकी वास्तविकता सामने आना स्वाभाविक है। केवल किसी बात को बार-बार कह देने से वह सत्य नहीं बन जाती।

सत्य को प्रमाण की आवश्यकता होती है;
असत्य को केवल शोर की।

शायद यही कारण है कि आज अनेक लोग शांत होकर परिस्थितियों को देख रहे हैं।

जो बातें कल तक बहुत जोर से कही जा रही थीं, आज उन्हीं बातों पर प्रश्न उठ रहे हैं।

जो दावे कभी अंतिम सत्य के रूप में प्रस्तुत किए जा रहे थे, अब उन्हें तथ्यों और परिस्थितियों के सामने परखा जा रहा है।

और जब किसी राजनीतिक प्रचार का आधार वास्तविकता की कसौटी पर कमजोर पड़ता है, तो उसका प्रभाव भी स्वाभाविक रूप से कम हो सकता है।

अब जनता केवल सुनना नहीं चाहती।

जनता देख रही है।
जनता समझ रही है।
जनता प्रश्न कर रही है।
जनता तुलना कर रही है।

और अंततः लोकतंत्र में सबसे महत्वपूर्ण भूमिका जनता की ही होती है।

इसी संदर्भ में न्यूटन के तृतीय नियम का स्मरण होता है—

“प्रत्येक क्रिया के बराबर और विपरीत दिशा में प्रतिक्रिया होती है।”

राजनीतिक जीवन में भी इसे एक रूपक के रूप में समझा जा सकता है।

हर राजनीतिक कार्रवाई की कोई न कोई प्रतिक्रिया होती है।

हर निर्णय का कोई न कोई परिणाम होता है।

हर आरोप का उत्तर आता है।

हर प्रचार के सामने तथ्य अपनी जगह बनाते हैं।

और जनता के बीच लगातार चलाए गए किसी भी नैरेटिव का अंततः सामना जनमत से होता है।

इसलिए अब शायद आवश्यकता अधिक शोर की नहीं, बल्कि तथ्यों के सामने आने की है।

आरोप लगाए जा चुके हैं।

प्रचार हो चुका है।

दावे किए जा चुके हैं।

अब समय है कि तथ्य स्वयं बोलें।

लंबे समय तक राजनीतिक शोर किया जा सकता है, लेकिन जनता की स्मृति और लोकतंत्र का निर्णय केवल शोर पर निर्भर नहीं करता।

शायद इसी कारण आज कुछ चेहरों पर चिंता दिखाई दे रही है और कुछ राजनीतिक शरीर-भाषा में पहले जैसी दृढ़ता दिखाई नहीं देती।

अब लोग प्रतीक्षा कर रहे हैं—

क्या होगा उस क्रिया का, जिसकी प्रतिक्रिया अब सामने आने वाली है?

शायद अब समय है कि न्यूटन का तृतीय नियम अपना राजनीतिक रूपक पूरा करे।

जय हिन्द। 🇮🇳

अशोक कुमार सिंह
अधिवक्ता, हाई कोर्ट कलकत्ता

When the Narrative Falls Flat

 

When the Narrative Falls Flat

One can perhaps sense a change in the political atmosphere.

The long faces of what may be described as the “Halla Brigade” are increasingly noticeable. The confidence that once appeared so loud and unquestionable now seems, at least to the observer, to have been replaced by hesitation and uncertainty.

The body language appears subdued.

The rhetoric appears to have lost some of its earlier force.

And the narratives that were repeatedly projected with great confidence are now facing the ultimate test—the test of facts, evidence and public scrutiny.

In politics, slogans can create noise.

Allegations can create headlines.

Repeated assertions can create an impression.

But ultimately, truth has to withstand examination.

If a particular narrative is based upon exaggeration, distortion or what is perceived by its opponents as falsification, then sooner or later the facts themselves become the real test. No amount of repetition can permanently substitute for evidence.

Perhaps that is why the present atmosphere appears different.

What was once presented as an unquestionable political certainty may now require explanation.

What was once loudly proclaimed may now have to answer difficult questions.

And what was intended to create political momentum may, in the eyes of some observers, have fallen flat under the weight of scrutiny.

But there is another interesting principle which may be remembered here—the Third Law of Newton:

“For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.”

In public life, this principle may be used metaphorically.

Political actions generate public responses.

Decisions create consequences.

Campaigns produce counter-campaigns.

Assertions invite scrutiny.

And attempts to influence public opinion inevitably encounter the response of an informed electorate.

The people are not merely spectators.

They observe.

They remember.

They compare.

They question.

And, ultimately, they decide.

Therefore, perhaps the political class should listen carefully to the changing mood rather than merely increasing the volume of the rhetoric.

The coming response, whatever form it may take, will be determined not by political noise alone, but by the collective judgment of the people and the facts placed before them.

So, perhaps, the long faces are only the beginning of a much larger political conversation.

The rhetoric has been heard.

The allegations have been made.

The counter-allegations have followed.

Now let the facts speak.

And perhaps, as people wait patiently, the Third Law of Newton is also waiting to make its presence felt in the political arena.

Jai Hind. 🇮🇳

Ashok Kumar Singh
Advocate, High Court Calcutta

The Setting Sun of West Bengal — and Perhaps Its Reappearance

 

The Setting Sun of West Bengal — and Perhaps Its Reappearance

Perhaps, the setting of the Sun of West Bengal began on 7th May, 2012.

That date may be remembered by many not merely as another day in the political calendar, but as a point from which the political, administrative and social landscape of West Bengal began to undergo a significant transformation.

The Sun is often used as a metaphor for power, hope, confidence, progress and public aspiration. When the Sun sets, darkness gradually descends. But sunset is never the end of the story.

The Sun may disappear from the horizon for a time, yet it does not cease to exist.

It rises again.

And perhaps, after a long period of darkness, uncertainty and political turbulence, the Sun of West Bengal is once again becoming visible on the horizon.

The question is not merely about one political party, one individual or one election.

The larger question is about West Bengal itself.

A State with an extraordinary intellectual heritage.

A State which produced great thinkers, reformers, scientists, writers, freedom fighters, jurists, artists and social reformers.

A State which has historically contributed immensely to India's constitutional, cultural and intellectual life.

The people of West Bengal have always possessed the capacity to distinguish between hope and despair, development and stagnation, institutional strength and institutional weakness, and genuine public service and political rhetoric.

The rising Sun therefore represents more than political change.

It represents the possibility of renewed hope.

It represents the aspiration for stronger institutions, greater accountability, better governance, employment opportunities, economic development, social harmony and restoration of confidence among the people.

But the rising of the Sun also brings responsibility.

A new morning cannot merely replace one political arrangement with another. It must bring with it a renewed commitment to constitutional values, democratic institutions, rule of law and equal opportunity.

West Bengal deserves a future in which merit is respected, institutions are strengthened, young people can dream without leaving the State, businesses can grow with confidence, and ordinary citizens can approach public institutions without fear or favour.

If the Sun is indeed appearing again, let it not be merely a political sunrise.

Let it be a sunrise of hope, justice, development, dignity and constitutional governance.

The sunset may have lasted long.

The night may have appeared even longer.

But history teaches us one simple truth:

No night is permanent.

Every sunset carries within it the promise of another sunrise.

And perhaps today, from the horizon of West Bengal, the first rays of that new Sun are once again becoming visible.

Let the people decide what that sunrise should mean for the future of the State.

Jai Hind. 🇮🇳

Ashok Kumar Singh
Advocate, High Court Calcutta

A Reflection on the Collegium System and the Future of Judicial Appointments

 

A Reflection on the Collegium System and the Future of Judicial Appointments

If I am not mistaken, and based on what I have observed so far, I have rarely come across an ordinary citizen or a commoner openly advocating for the continuation of the present Collegium System for the appointment of Judges of the Higher Judiciary.

The debate surrounding the Collegium System is, by and large, conducted within the legal and judicial establishment itself. Existing and former Judges, senior members of the Bar, constitutional experts and other persons closely associated with the judicial system are generally the principal voices in this discussion.

That, by itself, raises an important question:

Should a system concerning the appointment of Judges of the highest constitutional courts remain a subject predominantly debated and defended within the very institutional structure that operates that system?

In my humble view, the question deserves a much wider constitutional and public discussion.

Is the Collegium System capable of creating an institutional cycle?

One concern that arises in my mind is whether the continuation of the Collegium System, in certain circumstances, may contribute to the creation of an institutional cycle in which expectations regarding elevation to the Bench continue from one generation to another.

I do not suggest that every Judge belonging to a particular family background acts in this manner. Nor do I suggest that every second- or third-generation member of a judicial family necessarily possesses any unfair advantage.

However, human institutions are not completely free from social influences.

Where a person grows up in a family in which one parent is a Judge, the child may naturally grow up observing the judicial profession from a very different environment from that experienced by an ordinary member of the public. The family may have greater familiarity with the legal system, judicial functioning, professional networks and the culture surrounding the higher judiciary.

These circumstances may create advantages—whether intended or unintended—which may not necessarily be available to everyone entering the legal profession from an ordinary background.

Over time, such circumstances can also influence aspirations.

When the child subsequently enters the legal profession, the possibility of becoming a Judge may appear not merely as an abstract constitutional responsibility but as an established professional destination within the family environment.

That is where the question of institutional openness and equal opportunity becomes important.

Is there any special DNA for becoming a Judge?

There is certainly no known constitutional, legal or biological principle which suggests that judicial ability is inherited through family lineage.

There is no special “judicial DNA” which automatically determines that the child of a Judge, or the second or third generation of a judicial family, is inherently more suitable to become a Judge.

Judicial excellence should ultimately depend upon qualities such as legal knowledge, intellectual ability, integrity, independence, temperament, constitutional understanding, professional experience, impartiality and commitment to justice.

These qualities can exist in a person irrespective of his or her family background.

Therefore, the central question should not be:

“From which family does the candidate come?”

The question should be:

“What objective process can identify the person most suitable to discharge the constitutional responsibilities of a Judge?”

A comparison with entry into other public institutions

Another issue deserves consideration.

An LL.B. degree provides the necessary academic qualification to enter the legal profession, but possessing an LL.B. degree by itself does not establish that a person is automatically capable of performing every judicial function.

For several public appointments and services, candidates are required to undergo competitive examinations, assessments, interviews, training and other objective processes.

At the entry level of the judiciary also, judicial officers generally enter through prescribed competitive judicial service examinations and selection procedures.

If merit-based competitive selection is considered appropriate for identifying judicial officers at the subordinate level, the constitutional community should also examine whether greater transparency and objective criteria can have a meaningful role in appointments to the Higher Judiciary.

This is not an argument against experience.

Experience is indispensable.

Nor is it an argument that every Judge must be selected through a conventional written examination.

The Higher Judiciary performs constitutional functions of an entirely different nature, and therefore its method of selection necessarily requires a different framework.

But different does not necessarily mean completely insulated from objective and transparent standards.

The need for a wider debate

In my view, the time has come for a serious and dispassionate national conversation about the Collegium System.

The issue should not be treated as a contest between the judiciary and the executive, nor as an attack upon the independence of the judiciary.

Judicial independence is indispensable to democracy and the rule of law.

At the same time, transparency, accountability, equal opportunity and public confidence are equally important components of a constitutional democracy.

The real question, therefore, should be:

How can India preserve the independence of the judiciary while simultaneously ensuring that the process of selecting Judges is transparent, objective, inclusive and capable of inspiring confidence among ordinary citizens?

Perhaps the answer lies in developing a system which combines judicial independence with demonstrable transparency, professional merit with experience, and institutional safeguards with equal opportunity.

A possible reconsideration of the existing arrangement

At the subordinate judicial level, candidates are already required to undergo competitive judicial examinations and prescribed selection processes.

For the High Courts and the Supreme Court, the existing constitutional mechanism involves recommendations rather than a comparable competitive selection process.

Whether the present arrangement is the best possible mechanism is, in my view, a legitimate constitutional question deserving careful reconsideration.

The issue may therefore appropriately be placed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, and, where constitutionally permissible, before the appropriate constitutional forum, for a fresh examination of the principles governing judicial appointments.

The objective should not be to weaken the judiciary.

The objective should be to ensure that the judiciary remains independent, while the pathway to judicial office remains open, transparent and based upon demonstrable merit rather than perception, lineage or institutional familiarity.

The judiciary belongs to the Constitution.

The Constitution belongs to the people.

Therefore, any system governing access to the highest judicial offices should ultimately command the confidence not only of Judges and lawyers, but also of the ordinary citizen.

This is not a criticism of any individual Judge or any particular judicial family.

It is simply a question about institutional design, equal opportunity and the future of the Indian justice system.

The time has perhaps come to ask difficult questions—not with hostility, but with constitutional maturity.

Should the Collegium System continue in its present form, or is there a need to reconsider and reform the mechanism of appointment to the Higher Judiciary?

The debate deserves to be wider, deeper and more transparent.

Jai Hind. 🇮🇳

Ashok Kumar Singh
Advocate, High Court Calcutta

 

A Family Is Built Not Only on Relationships, but Also on Responsibilities

“Even to become a contributing part of a family, money is necessary.”
— Unknown | Abhyuday Sahitya

This thought reflects a practical truth of modern life: love and relationships may create a family, but responsibilities often require financial resources to sustain it.

Being a part of a family is not merely about sharing a home, a surname, or emotional bonds. It also means sharing responsibilities, necessities, difficulties and dreams.

Food, education, healthcare, housing, electricity, transportation, household expenses and the future security of children and elderly family members—all require resources. Behind every functioning household, there is often someone quietly working, sacrificing personal desires and carrying responsibilities that may never be fully visible to others.

Earning is not merely about making money.

For many people, their income represents:

• their parents' medical expenses;
• their children's education;
• household necessities;
• rent, loans or other financial commitments;
• emergencies and unexpected expenses;
• savings for the future; and
• the dreams and security of the entire family.

That is why the person who earns for the family should not be judged merely by how much he or she earns. The effort, pressure, sacrifices and responsibilities behind that income also deserve recognition.

At the same time, a person's value should never be measured only by his or her income.

Not every contribution to a family comes in the form of money.

One person may earn.
Another may manage the household.
Someone may care for children.
Someone may look after elderly parents.
Someone may stand beside the family during its darkest moments.

Every genuine contribution has dignity.

Money may help sustain a family, but money alone cannot make a family.

A truly strong family is one where financial responsibility is respected, but human dignity is respected even more.

It is important to understand that earning members may carry significant financial pressure, but they also need appreciation, emotional support and understanding. Similarly, those who do not earn an income should not be made to feel that they are without value.

The real strength of a family lies in mutual respect, shared responsibility, trust, sacrifice and compassion.

Therefore, we should remember:

A family should be a place where responsibilities are shared—not a place where one person's contribution is taken for granted.

Money may be necessary to run a household, but love, respect, trust and cooperation are necessary to keep a family together.

In the end, the greatest wealth of a family is not the amount of money it possesses, but the people who stand beside one another when life becomes difficult.

— Ashok Kumar Singh
Advocate, High Court Calcutta

परिवार केवल रिश्तों से नहीं, जिम्मेदारियों से भी बनता है

 

परिवार केवल रिश्तों से नहीं, जिम्मेदारियों से भी बनता है

“परिवार में, परिवार का हिस्सा बनने के लिए भी पैसे की जरूरत पड़ती है।”

यह पंक्ति केवल पैसों की बात नहीं करती, बल्कि परिवार के भीतर हमारी भूमिका, जिम्मेदारियों और वास्तविक जीवन की मजबूरियों को सामने रखती है।

परिवार में प्रेम, अपनापन और भावनाएँ निःसंदेह सबसे महत्वपूर्ण हैं, लेकिन जीवन की व्यावहारिक आवश्यकताओं को भी नज़रअंदाज़ नहीं किया जा सकता। घर चलाने के लिए भोजन चाहिए, बच्चों की शिक्षा के लिए धन चाहिए, इलाज के लिए संसाधन चाहिए, बुज़ुर्गों की देखभाल के लिए आर्थिक क्षमता चाहिए और भविष्य की सुरक्षा के लिए बचत चाहिए।

कई बार परिवार का वह सदस्य जो सबसे अधिक कमाता है, वह केवल अपनी इच्छाओं के लिए नहीं, बल्कि पूरे परिवार की आवश्यकताओं और सपनों के लिए संघर्ष करता है। उसकी कमाई में माता-पिता की दवाइयाँ, बच्चों की फीस, घर का किराया या EMI, राशन, बिजली, यात्रा, आकस्मिक खर्च और भविष्य की चिंता—सब शामिल होते हैं।

इसलिए कमाई केवल पैसा कमाना नहीं है; यह कई रिश्तों को सुरक्षित रखने की जिम्मेदारी भी है।

लेकिन इसका दूसरा पहलू भी उतना ही महत्वपूर्ण है—किसी व्यक्ति का मूल्य केवल उसकी आय से निर्धारित नहीं होना चाहिए। परिवार में रहने वाले प्रत्येक व्यक्ति का योगदान अलग हो सकता है। कोई आर्थिक रूप से सहयोग करता है, कोई घर संभालता है, कोई बच्चों की देखभाल करता है, कोई बुज़ुर्गों का सहारा बनता है और कोई कठिन समय में भावनात्मक शक्ति देता है।

पैसा परिवार का आधार हो सकता है, लेकिन परिवार की आत्मा नहीं।

एक स्वस्थ परिवार वह है जहाँ कमाने वाले का सम्मान हो, घर संभालने वाले के श्रम का भी सम्मान हो, और आर्थिक कठिनाइयों के बीच किसी व्यक्ति की गरिमा कम न हो।

आज के समय में सबसे बड़ी आवश्यकता है—
आय के साथ विवेक, खर्च के साथ अनुशासन, रिश्तों में संवेदनशीलता और भविष्य के प्रति जिम्मेदारी।

क्योंकि अंततः—

परिवार वह स्थान है जहाँ जिम्मेदारियाँ बाँटी जाती हैं,
बोझ नहीं।
जहाँ कमाई का सम्मान होता है,
लेकिन इंसान की कीमत उसकी कमाई से अधिक होती है।

परिवार को चलाने के लिए पैसा आवश्यक हो सकता है,
पर परिवार को जोड़कर रखने के लिए प्रेम, विश्वास, सम्मान और सहयोग उससे भी अधिक आवश्यक हैं।

— Ashok Kumar Singh
Advocate, High Court Calcutta