Have you married a traitor, Kranti ? - Page 3

Originally posted by: jyoti06

Anshu when u hv blind faith on someone then u tend to bleieve all his words and actions..Remember when Raj came to know that Guns were exported in their trucks during the Sohan Tauji fiasco.,he did questioned the Takla about it😳 but Takla managed to convince him by saying that it was just a military consignment and later Kulbhushan too asked Raj never to question the britishers again as they r always right..now if the father himself is telling his son to follow the wrong path then how can we expect the son to b Satyavadi Yudhisthir😆😕...thats why I keep saying that a child's upbringing is very important😃...

Also he is not taking anything on face value..those files clearly showed that the britishers hv got enough proofs to prove that Satnam Singh is guilty and Raj is just believing in those proofs...

Till now noone has ever tried to show the other side of the coin to him..mayb this time Kranti will do it😳

Originally posted by: morningdew

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..

But rather than feeling any pang of guilt, he is going on the same path... his goal, get Satnam Singh hanged and get Rai-Bahaduri for his father. A dutiful son trying to fulfill his father's dream, but a professional... do not think so.

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...

Again where did he show his competence as a lawyer, did the British law school teach him only how to con people and not use your skills to win a case?

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.

Originally posted by: an12345678

But rather than feeling any pang of guilt, he is going on the same path... his goal, get Satnam Singh hanged and get Rai-Bahaduri for his father. A dutiful son trying to fulfill his father's dream, but a professional... do not think so.

Again where did he show his competence as a lawyer, did the British law school teach him only how to con people and not use your skills to win a case?