Bid for Freedom. U.S.S.R. vs. Tarasov; The incredible true story of a young fugitive who defied the ruthless web of the Soviets and won his freedom in an international legal storm.
Englewood Cliffs, N.J. Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1966. Presumed First Edition, First printing. Hardcover. vi, [2], 199, [1] pages. Includes Foreword by G. D. Khosla, Chief Justice (retired) of the Punjab High Court. and Preface, as well as chapters on In Calcutta, and New Delhi. DJ has some soiling to rear cover, small sticker residue to front. The desperate flight of a young Soviet national, Vladislav Tarasov, triggered an international incident and set the stage for one of the most dramatic and sensational cases in the annals of Indian justice. His passionate desire for liberty was at its height when, on November 25,1962, he made his bid for freedom. C. L. Sareen (the author of this book) was one of Tarasov's lawyers in the case described in this book. Derived from a review by William P. Tedards, Jr. in the Washington and Lee Law Review. The phrase "international anarchy" is often used to describe the current status of international relations. The problem is that there is no supreme source of law in the international sphere; and in any international incident of consequence, political power rather than law decides the controversy. Recently, there has been substantial agitation by international legal authorities for "depoliticization" of international disputes and increased emphasis on justice. Bid For Freedom, by C.L. Sareen, in describing the litigation resulting from a recent attempt by a Soviet national to defect, lends encouragement to the campaign for a "rule of law" to govern international relations. Early on the morning of November 25, 1962, Vladislav Tarasov, a young Soviet naval mechanic, left his ship and slipped into the waters of Calcutta Bay to seek asylum aboard a United States merchant vessel moored nearby. The Soviet government discovered the escape almost at once and launched a recovery attempt which became an internationally publicized legal battle, matching the integrity of an independent Indian judiciary against the immense political power of the U.S.S.R. 2 C.L. Sareen, one of Tarasov's Indian attorneys, narrates the progression of events in the case that leads to a direct confrontation between principles of justice and international power. On November 28, the Calcutta police took Tarasov from the United States ship, pursuant to a Soviet charge that he had stolen money before his escape. But a demand that he be turned over to the Soviet authorities was frustrated when the Calcutta magistrate, acting under a principle of international law by which each sovereign state has exclusive jurisdiction over crimes committed within its own territory, refused to relinquish custody of Tarasov. Subsequent attempts culminated in a Soviet demand for immediate extradition. The Indians refused to extradite except in accordance with the Indian Extradition Act of 1962,4 which requires that the party seeking extradition establish, to the satisfaction of an Indian magistrate, a prima facie case of the crime for which extradition is sought. On January 22, 1963, a formal hearing commenced in New Delhi, in which the Soviets attempted to establish a prima facie case. Sareen's graphic description of the "courtroom environment" in New Delhi hardly seems to depict the appropriate setting for an international legal battle with far-reaching political repercussions: Small, dusty and cramped, it was normally the scene of hearings for such crimes as beatings, thefts, rapes, customs violations, prohibition offenses and an infrequent murder. Except for the magistrates' bench on a raised platform and a crude wooden seat for 2 reporters, the courtroom was barren of furniture. Butts of. . . cigarettes were scattered on the floor and the doorstep was stained red with splotches of pan spittle. Outside, ragged petty criminals squatted in the dust, and pigeons flew in and out of the unscreened windows to rest on the overhead ceiling fan, oblivious of the human activity below. (p. 56) But, "a court is more than a courtroom" (p. 56), and on January 22, this dingy room began to fill with high-ranking diplomats, political observers, and correspondents from major newspapers all over the world. At the hearing, the Soviet Union continued to exert maximum political pressure, but the presiding magistrate made it quite clear that the hearing would be conducted according to the principles of law, not politics. The entire incident reached its dramatic climax on March 29, 1963, when the magistrate announced a decision in favor of Tarasov before a packed courthouse of reporters, cameramen, and observers. Narrating from personal experience, Sareen combines his legal expertise with a definite flair for dramatic writing, making this "accurate and extremely readable account of what was undoubtedly the most sensational case [in] of recent years" (p. iii) useful and interesting for both lawyer and layman. The techniques employed by Tarasov's attorneys are fascinating. For example, the use of cross examination by J.G. Sethi, the brilliant criminal lawyer who served as Tarasov's head counsel, is an excellent example of the effectiveness of that tool when employed by an expert. But, most important, this book carries significant implications for the future of international law and the preservation of individual freedom and dignity. On April 1, two days after the hearing, The Statesmen of New Delhi ran an editorial entitled "The Ways of Justice." The following excerpt, taken from that editorial, indicates the impact of the Tarasov Case in the international arena: The assumption that a person is innocent until he is proved guilty is so fundamental to our system that it may seem incredible that a different system could exist and that people could be tried and condemned according to that system. . . . The difference obviously is not between two systems but between two ways of life. If the State becomes all-important and no limits are recognized to the demands it can make on the individual then it matters little what the demand is so long as it is made in the name of the State by a duly constituted authority. It is only where the individual is considered to have certain inherent rights that the State's competence to curtail them in any way has to be established beyond reasonable doubt. This is accepted by most of us without question and the fact that a totally different system might collide with our own causes little concern. To the extent that it has corrected the perspective Tarasov's case should be useful, provided its implications are realized by public opinion. Condition: Good / Good.
Keywords: Political Asylum, Rule of Law, Indian Judiciary, Vladislav Tarasov, Cold War, Soviet Union, Fugitives, Extradition, International Incident, Diplomacy, Court Trials Rs. 700, Calcutta, New Delhi, J. G. Sethi
[Book #79456]
Price: $45.00