Interview

Rakesh Kishore — interview (English translation) On throwing the at the Chief Justice! Just as he said: 

Q: Don’t you realize that throwing a shoe at a judge — and that too at the Chief Justice — is an unacceptable act?

Rakesh: I did not plan it. It happened in that moment, and then it was over. That’s all.

Regarding the Khajuraho Vishnu idol case — the plea may have been dismissed — but it hurt when the Chief Justice mockingly asked, “Are you a devotee of Vishnu? Go to your Vishnu and ask him to do something about this.” That remark bothered me.

Since September 16, I have been under great mental stress. I haven’t been able to sleep for days. It felt as if God himself came to me and said, “What are you doing, are you just sleeping?” That, more than anything, pushed me to act.

Q: How did the judge react when you did it? How did he feel?

Rakesh: The Chief Justice effectively let the matter go. He did not accuse me of any crime—so I don’t know whether to think of him as a god or a man.

Police took me to the station and questioned me for four hours. They gave me tea and biscuits and offered food. I am grateful to them.

Q: Because you threw the shoe, is a new caste-based narrative being created against you — upper-caste vs lower-caste?

Rakesh: I am from Paraiyapuram in Uttar Pradesh. My name is Dr. Rakesh Kishore. Can anyone determine my caste based on that? I am a Dalit, and so is he [the judge]. But some people, without knowing anything about me, label only him a Dalit and try to politicize it.

I say: Dalits have always been Sanatanis. They are Hindus. Did the Chief Justice convert to Buddhism? If he changed his religion, how can he still be politically called a Dalit? Has anyone asked that? People want to use this to build Dalit politics and divide the nation.

There is no point in blowing up this incident. Judges must focus on their work. There are millions of cases pending; justice has not been delivered. People waiting for justice are dying. I can point to countless cases. In ordinary matters, it is easy to find the guilty. But even such clear cases can languish for years in the courts awaiting decisions.

Instead of trying to seize administrative power, the judiciary should pay attention to issues like these.

Q: In what way should the judiciary intervene in administration?

Rakesh: In Haldwani city there is massive encroachment on both sides of the railway tracks. If you try to remove that encroachment, it goes to litigation and drags on for years without justice. It is a simple matter: find out who owns the land and give it back to them. Isn’t that justice? Why does the judiciary delay? Look at what is happening in Yogi’s state.

Q: What do you mean when you say “in Yogi’s matter”?

Rakesh: I slept peacefully the day Yogi put a ban on bulldozers [targeting illegal constructions]. Why would a Chief Justice say that bulldozers cannot run this country? I am from Uttar Pradesh — don’t they know what is actually happening there? Do they know what is happening across the country?

They are not controlled by any legal framework. The constructions there—places of worship, lodges, shops, houses, wedding halls—are all built without permissions. And now they are tearing down all those illegal buildings. The troublemakers’ assets are being checked and cleared.

Q: Akhilesh Yadav claims that all those buildings, including schools, will be demolished. How can that be allowed when those same people worship and have set up those institutions?

Rakesh: Saying that schools will be demolished is a lie. How can that happen? They receive funds from abroad. Anti-national propaganda is taking place there. Women are being hidden away in ghettos; hundreds of foreigners are coming and staying there. What work do they have here?

How long can one tolerate this? How long can one remain patient? I will say this: Hindus have a great capacity for tolerance.

What Yogi Adityanath is doing with bulldozers is legal. If the court restrains that, how will administration proceed? How is the country to be governed?

Look at how the judiciary functions — they will not let anything be done, and they themselves will do nothing. If the judiciary takes legal action, it is treated as a crime. I say again: Hindus have a high tolerance.

Q: What do you mean when you say Hindus have a high tolerance? Do you mean everyone should simply accept everything? Isn’t social justice about standing together?

Rakesh: For a thousand years we have been subjugated. Even when we protested, we did not succeed. We allowed ourselves to be ruled. We tolerate everything. Sanatanis have great patience. That has eroded our foundations.

So Sanatanis should not remain quiet any longer. Patience is useless. Don’t think I am inciting people. I am not. But people must recognize the great harm done to Hindu dharma and to our country and must get involved in protecting dharma through whatever means they can. That is my wish.

In 1947 there were only seven Muslim-majority countries in the world. Today there are 57. They divided our Bharat into parts. That was not enough; many within the country remained. Population growth is alarming. If we become a minority, who knows what will happen? This anguish in my heart is the background to why I threw the shoe at the Chief Justice.

Q: What do you think about your suspension?

Rakesh: The Bar Council’s suspension of me was wrong. Barring me from practicing in courts was wrong. They should have issued a notice first. I would have responded. Then they should have taken action. That is the principle of natural justice. Doesn’t the Bar Council know this?

Q: If you expressed regret for throwing the shoe, wouldn’t that have resolved the matter? Why not follow that route?

Rakesh: Yesterday I did not feel remorse for throwing the shoe. I am not going to apologize. God said to me: “I did it.” That’s it. Am I a criminal? Should I be punished? If I go out, will someone attack me? I don’t know.

I have left everything to God. Let Him look after it.