That all those who claim that all is lost should go back and try to tweak their mouth-organs to see the realities!
And the realities are:
Both the good and the bad co-exist in our society – the good people and the bad people – the good ideologies and the bad ideologies – the good objectives and the bad objectives – the good behaviours and the bad behaviours – the good language and the bad language – and so on.
Something that is good for the proponents of that ‘good’ may be ‘bad’ for others – and vice versa.
But they co-exist as long as someone or some of them doesn’t/don’t look and found breaching the norms of laws in our democratic society.
For many Sadhvi Pragya is a terrorist who should be put behind bars for her alleged role in propagating terror in India.
For many, she is a crusader of Hinduism who did a brave job.
For many others, she is someone who was made a scapegoat and she had nothing to do with all the terror activities she has been alleged for.
Accordingly, there have been allegations and counter allegations on attempts to implicate or exonerate her in the cases – involving the 2008 Malegaon terror strike case.
The political sides with their differing ideologies would always see and would want to see the event from their own respective perspectives.
So, some say that all has been lost and everything has been compromised – especially after the NIA removed her name from the supplementary chargesheet it filed in the case and removed the MCOCA charges on her.
Those with rival ideologies say nothing like that happened and law is taking its own course.
That is the normal diplomatic discourse in the our democratic country.
The good thing is – the spirit of law is still maintained. Yes, corruption has afflicted all wings of our administrative institutions including the judiciary – but if curative and responsive hopes lie somewhere, it is in our judiciary only – and it upheld that today – when it rejected Pragya Thakur’s bail plea.
The court made it very clear that though framing of the charges may be the domain of the law enforcement agencies but deciding on the merits of the case lies well within the judicial domain – and thus the judicial interpretation of charges and counter charges.