I was amused and bemused at the same time.The two verbs may appear similar , but certainly carry a distinctive meaning. Amusement is a distraction, is a light pastime, is an entertainment. More so , it is something frivolous and funny
Bemused is a confusion of many contradictory ideas, is a mixed up feeling ,is a bewilderment,. More so , it is something perplexing and stunning. Well, the incident which provoked the kindred feelings of foolishness and cluelessness is the behaviour of my legal counsels . I say it in plural legal counsels, because I refer to two of them , one fromIndia and the other from abroad. Both of them , in my case preached what they did not practise.
The Indian lawyer has a wide and deep knowledge , but shows a high handedness in dealing with his clients. He dislikes queries. He requires a thorough submission to his arguments. Doubts or queries are totally out of context in his directions. He affirms a preordained solution to the case he is going to take up, and prepares his points accordingly. The client, a person with a sort of deep analysis of the circumstances, more so like me , cannot be a dumb spectator to his fancies. He , when faced with a little opposition , looses his temper which is truly a sign of intolerance and a significance of pride. The case ,which he argued got a slight beating . He was ruffled by the judge’s rejoinder. This episode provoked me most. An uncanny negligence to the client’ request was an irritating approach. it certainly bemused me. I derived amusment when his child like prattle received a derogatory remark by the learned Judge.
His counterpart abroad, is a senior counsel, mostly handling cases pertaining to property disputes. The clintele of this worldy wise lawyer are a group of Indians , who have faith in his age than inhis wisdom. This group relied on his peculiar concept of settling the dispute on the basis of majority rather than on the fundamentals of merit.To him majority is a gospel . Merit is secondary. His hypothesis runs lik this. if in a family , which has four siblings, and if three of them conjoin together , with disturbing parameters , with non con firming ethics ,the lone fourth man is out of the game, however much his side be thronged with credits and propound a collective justifiable issues. The three siblings , would have combined for reasons best known to them . The learned lawyer, stoops to the level of the majority, just because he can earn a relevant revenue . This counsel is a butt of amusement , as he plays on the fiddle of ignorance of his clients and keeps his coffers full, and is a source of bemusement , as his impressions and movements predict confusion and lack justice.
Politics is the last reort of scoundrels , goes the maxim. What about lawyers?