Originally posted by: an12345678
But... people do talk about it Dew... and I believe Azad was seen as krantikari who followed non-violent means... as per Kranti, Satnam Singh followed non-voilent mode of protest, it must be well known. May be, R returned from England and is not aware about the happenings around him.
1. he won the press case by becoming their lawyer and taking away their papers... did he won on arguments and facts. NO.
2. he planted a gun to make Mama jee witness... and when it failed, he followed baldies instructions... where did he use his mind other than in planting the gun.
3. The two examples above should give him enough idea that what the baldie says is not what is right. He asked, is there witness, baldie said yes, and nothing further to ask. Who, where, how... when... and etc... he skips.
He is not a competent one.
An, Jo is best to answer issues like these, she churns up facts and instances like a walking Wiki.. but my defence is this..
The fact that Raj was corced to use unthical means by the Takla, post mamaji turning hostile witness, doesnt reflect on his competence as a lawyer. Its only that Takla cudnt afford to lose the case at any cost.. and he manipluated everything to the effect,and it had been made a private hearing too.. Raj was personally not comfortable during the whole hasty sentencing, .. that cud be seen on his face, but out of his dad's loyalty, he carried out the dirty work.
He walked out in the middle of the hanging too..
During the press case, he had been clearly told to hand over the original set of documents to the Takla, which he did..
Unethical, but he had taken the case in the first place, to lose it.. and he did.. which makes him a competent lawyer.. both his cases had outcomes that HE wanted..
If he had done the same thing in favor of KK's and against the British Raj (which he might well be doing after a while) , we wud have found him very competent. Just because he is working as an anti hero, doesnt make an incompetent lawyer.
Ganesh Kartikeya
CID
Anupamaa
