Legendary senior counsel Ram Jethmalani, one of the most outspoken and eloquent storytellers of the bar, passed away early this morning, according to the PTI at age 95, a week before his 96th birthday on 14 September.
The former union law minister and one of the highest paid senior counsel until his official retirement from legal practice nearly two years ago, had died at 7:45am after two weeks of “round the clock medical help”.
Jethmalani, always humourous and devilishly witty, usually controversial and often politically incorrect, had always spoken his mind about issues close to his heart, sometimes to the chagrin of former allies at the BJP, which expelled him in 2013, as well as colleagues in the profession.
In inimitable RamJet fashion, his expulsion from the BJP was followed by his filing a defamation suit against the party’s parliamentary board.
The fight against black money had been at the forefront of his public life for several years and Jethmalani was widely perceived as a master of court-craft.
Although he appeared in all sorts of cases, he was a master of criminal law. In 2011, we had interviewed him on the art of cross-examination.
Lawyer-filmmaker Siddharth Acharya had profiled Jethmalani in a six-minute video in 2014.
In 2013, he was also voted as the world’s “most badass lawyer” on Q&A site Quora.
Comments
He will live in the history books and thoughts of every lawyer forever.
Examples are off colour jokes (ones that often alluded to his virility or being a ladies man), a casual hand on the knee, arm around the waist, etc. I once went to brief him (nearly 20 years ago) with a male senior lawyer who told me as we walked into his bungalow that Mr. Jethmalani would offer me the seat beside him and I should pretend not to see and take a seat across the table - I mention that because his behaviour was clearly well known in legal circles, but people ignored it/had no choice because of who he was (and let’s be honest, it’s not like he was going to give chase, even 20 years ago...).
As he has often said, "He was a sinner, but a sinner with a clean conscience". And he believed in consent. As you mentioned in your comment, that he left when you were not having any of his non-sense. He didn't continue his doings (like many other old lech would) because he was The Jethmalani.
Here's what Nandita Haskar, a human rights activist and a strong advocate of women rights, has written about him:
es, he liked women. I have seen him flirt with a Pakistani woman. But it was always with the consent of the woman.
On one occasion, I had dinner with him and there were several women discussing pearls when Ram Jethmalani came in and asked: “Girls what are you talking about?” One of them said: “Pearls.”
“Okay, I will buy you all pearl necklaces.”
Then he turned to me and said a professional but warm hello. It was this reason I felt perfectly safe working late in the night because he would not say even a word that was inappropriate if he felt you did not want it. In other words, he was a true gentleman.
(https://scroll.in/article/936687/ram-jethmalani-tribute-why-i-feel-a-sense-of-loss-despite-our-deep-ideological-differences)
At his residence yesterday was Indira Jaising, a feminist, and she was among those who wasn't just visiting but stayed around for a considerable amount of time. While she never shared the ideology and thinking as Ram, she was all praises about the man who stood for multiple social causes, including women rights.
Therefore, I think it's very sad to take one incident or two incident in isolation and look at his larger contribution to the society. Not one person who has worked closely with him for a considerable amount of time would tell that he did not believe in consent.
I'm sure this comment would upset many, so I apologise in advance. But I would defend Ram, for the person he was, for the rest of my life.
He was 95 years old and if there were any allegations/causable actions that needed to taken against him for alleged harassment, they should have been made/taken when he was alive.
Considering that they weren't, lets just give the benefit of doubt to the departed and judge him on what we know for sure, his legal acumen, his success as a criminal lawyer and his volume of experience at the bar.
While I have not known him personally, just seeing the vitriolic against a dead man, makes me wonder whether as a society we can't even let someone have his moment, even in his death.
Each of the authors have a right to judge him, in their personal capacity given their personal experiences, but to do so on a public forum without any filters or right of responses, is just crass.
I do not see anyone belittling his achievements as a criminal lawyer. In fact, none of the persons speaking about sexual harassment are speaking about any of his professional achievements. They are simply stating what they know to be a fact. Benefit of doubt has (no doubt) already been given to RJ - no one is dragging him out of his grave and taking him to court. For the umpteenth time - do you know the courage it takes to come out and allege sexual harassment, even anonymously? You sir are obviously a male (I am too), so you (or I) may not fully comprehend what it takes, because we never faced it. Which is why we love taking the higher ground - 'let the man have his moment in death', 'judging him post-death on public forum is just crass', etc.
Guess what, he could have avoided all of this post-death-crass, by not doing somethings during his lifetime.
FYI - I did interact with him several times. It is true. Infact all his sharpness, legal-acumen, etc. makes him only more culpable. He was very well aware all the time what shit he was pulling off.
If you would want to get a few cheap laughs by advancing simplistic arguments and empty insinuations, please be my guest.
But coming to a defense of someone does not make one a male chauvinist (as you are implying) and nor does coming to the defense of women in the manner as you have stated make one a feminist (as you are pretending to be).
As an analogy it's the same as someone who doesn't agree with Mr. Modi being branded anti-national even without understanding the argument or the reason for disagreement. Now to address your main points:
(i) I have never said that as he is dead, he cannot be subject to scrutiny. All I have simply stated is that scrutiny must be balanced and substantiated; and
(ii) My defence is not predicated on sex (as you are implying) but rather on a principal, that while everyone is entitled to an opinion, the person who your opinion is directed towards has a right to be defended either through himself or others.
Neither is this about a man v/s woman debate, which it is being turned into and nor is my defence predicated on me being a man and/or disregarding the stories of the women who have commented here. They are entitled to their views and if he made them feel uncomfortable with his actions, to their judgement.
The simple point I was making was that when someone is dead, it is rather unfortunate to make allegations, when neither they nor their family are around to come to their defence.
If these allegations were made prior to his departing and they were unresolved and/or had been proven to be true, that would be fair game and part of his legacy, but to simply state this without context nor clarity is just salacious, especially after he has passed away.
https://www.inextlive.com/ram-jethmalani-asked-my-permission-before-kissing-me-says-leena-chandavarkar-201502250017
Inappropriate, in a modern-day professional context? Yes, most probably. The 'trouble' with Jethmalani was that to many bystanders (myself included) he appeared to have the charm and age to sort of pull it off and make his flirtations appear harmless, humourous or 'colourful' banter, rather than actually serious propositions or harassment (at least the ones I've directly witnessed). In other words, it was hard to take what he said entirely seriously, and quite easy, with a shrug, to just chalk it up to being the product of another era and just as a facet of his larger-than-life personality.
That said, even though I'm not aware of anything Jethmalani has done ever having progressed beyond talk, I'm sure that in many cases even that banter wasn't welcome or perceived as charming at all by its recipient (I don't know if he ever pressed on with flirtations when he realised it was unwelcome or not received well?).
The question should be, was this kind of stuff Jethmalani's 'fault', or is everyone else (including me) equally to blame for (presumably) never calling him out on it during his lifetime (even if it might not have made a difference)?