Gautam Bhatia Profile picture
Aug 10, 2020 19 tweets 3 min read Read on X
Re-reading Whom The Gods Love tonight, and is it even possible to get through this gorgeous prose without tearing up?
"Yes, I wish to die and I find it pleasant. I have lived my life. I have achieved some fame as a mathematician. I never hated anyone. I did no wrong, and it will be good to die.”

- last words of Lagrange
"The government tried to stop these arguments by dragging before the courts those who “threw contempt upon persons or things connected with religion.” Yet in most cases the accused were freed by the judges, after which their language became still more violent and abusive."
He entered this new path alone, without friends, without encouragement, without understanding from anyone. Mathematics seemed to him an experience too great, too intimate, to personal to be shared. Only to himself he repeated proudly in his thought, “I am a mathematician.”
"The secret of M. Richard’s success with students was very simple and consisted in one guiding principle: to treat them as equals."
"He did remember now that some time ago he had thrown away another manuscript. But unfortunately this foreign name stuck in his mind. Why was he so stupid as to read it? A curious name, a Biblical name, very difficult to forget. Yes, it was Abel’s manuscript."
"Louis XVIII once said about his brother, Comte d’Artois, “He conspired against Louis XVI, he conspires against me, he will conspire against himself.” And conspire he did!"
"It was the voice of Charras, a former student who had been expelled from the Polytechnical School five months before for singing the Marseillaise five months too soon."
The lofty speech of the great scientist and liberal was interrupted.

“Shut up! We don’t want to listen to you.”

Arago became excited.

“Don’t you understand that I share your views?”

“Men with coats of different cloth can’t have the same views.”
"The transitions from light to shadows were sharp, disappearing and reappearing to the rhythm of the passing clouds. Here the greatest mathematician then living in France chose to lecture on his theories to all who wished to listen."
"The government wanted first to establish a principle to prove that conspiracy was punishable, before prosecuting other Republican leaders."
"Here, on the Place de Greve, they were to plant trees of liberty in memory of that liberty which always seemed near enough to be won today and far enough to be fought for again tomorrow."
“On the walls of your pistole you drew a head and a guillotine, and you wrote underneath ‘Philippe will yield his head on your altar, oh Liberty!’ Is this true?”

“I did not draw a head; I drew a pear.”
"By calling it “preventive” they made it nonexistent in the eyes of the law. But it was as real and as horrid as any imprisonment served after sentence."
"“You are a mathematician.” He whistled. “Fancy that! A real mathematician.” He whistled again. “Never saw one in my life before. Never knew that nowadays they put mathematicians in prison."
“I had thought before I met you that men like you ought to be hanged from the first lamppost, that bullets are too good for them. I still believe in the principle, but I would not like to see the prescription applied to you.”
On July 2 1832, Galois’ friends carried his coffin to a common burial ground that is unknown today. 3000 Republicans listened to orations that praised Galois’ Republican virtues. 77 years later, French mathematicians, Academicians, officials paid homage to Galois’ genius.

+
During these intervening years France fought wars and revolutions, overthrew its kingdom, its second Republic, its second Empire, and the Paris Commune, finally to build and rebuild its third Republic. +
During these intervening years, Galois’ mathematical results were printed, discussed, and taught; they influenced the development of modern mathematics."

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Gautam Bhatia

Gautam Bhatia Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @gautambhatia88

Aug 1
Pending longer analysis on the blog (not be me), a couple of quick clarifications about today’s sub-classification judgment.

1. SC hasn’t said that states *have* to sub-classify. It has said that they *can* sub-classify, based only on empirical data of relative marginalisation.
2. The only question before the SC in these proceedings was whether the previous judgment in EV Chinnaiah’s case - which said that sub-classification is *unconstitutional* - was correct or not. The SC said it wasn’t correct, based on the wording of Art 341 of the Constitution.
3. There was no other question before the Court, including “creamy layer.” Nor have the four judges who’ve (unnecessarily) talked about “creamy layer” issued any binding or enforceable directives to the State. At the highest I think these have no more legal force than advisories.
Read 7 tweets
Jun 22
Just re-read the 2013 judgment of the Gauhati HC that declared the CBI to be unconstitutional, primarily on federalism grounds. So well-researched and reasoned.
No wonder it was immediately stayed by the SC, which hasn't touched it in the last 11 years:

indiankanoon.org/doc/133280611/
Interestingly, the judgment of the Gauhati HC came exactly a month after the Bombay HC passed a diametrically opposite judgment upholding the validity of the NIA. The federalism arguments raised in both cases were almost identical (Entry 8 List I, etc).

indiankanoon.org/doc/114121933/
The difference between the two judgments was that the Gauhati HC based its analysis on a close reading of history (including the CA Debates) to arrive at its interpretation of how the federal scheme deals with policing. The Bombay HC did not.
Read 5 tweets
Jun 5
The judiciary and the 2024 General Election: a thread of the coverage on the ICLP blog.

1. A Critique of the Election Commission’s Order in the “Real NCP” Dispute (17 Feb 2024), by Yogesh Byadwal --

indconlawphil.wordpress.com/2024/02/17/gue…
2. The Unexamined Law: On the Supreme Court’s Stay Order in the Election Commissioners Case (22 March 2024) -- indconlawphil.wordpress.com/2024/03/22/the…
3. An Injudicious Judicial Opinion (27 April 2024) --

(on the VVPAT-verification order)indconlawphil.wordpress.com/2024/04/27/an-…
Read 9 tweets
Mar 27
Reading this excellent book, which has a lot of resonance with present-day events.

Sharing some of the most striking paragraphs. Image
“Mau Mau had to be eliminated at all costs,” he later recalled, “something had to be done to remove these people from society.”

Thinking about where that kind of language has been used recently. Image
“He and his finance minister, Ernest Vasey, despaired that Mau Mau was not communist. Had it been, the British government would have given them a blank check to suppress the movement, as it had done with General Templar and the communist uprising in British colonial Malaya.” Image
Read 10 tweets
Mar 10
In light of recent events with respect to the Election Commission, there is persistent confusion about the constitutionality of the current selection process, and the Supreme Court's 2023 judgment on the appointment of Election Commissioners.

A brief thread. (1/n)
Article 324(2) of the Constitution grants to the President the power to appoint the Election Commissioners, subject to Parliamentary law.

The intention of the framers of the Constitution was that the President's power would be transitional, until Parliament made a law.

(2/n)
The text of Article 324(2) of the Constitution:

(3/n)indiankanoon.org/doc/950881/
Read 20 tweets
Aug 10, 2023
Have seen some confusion about the new Election Commissioners Bill, and what the SC held in its judgment earlier this year. Here is a brief thread to clear a few things up.

Earlier this year, a 5J-bench of the SC passed a detailed judgment on the independence of the EC. [1/n]
The SC was examining Article 324(2) of the Constitution, which says that appointment of the CEC and ECs shall "subject to the provisions of any law made in that behalf by Parliament, be made by the President."

Article 324: [2/n]indiankanoon.org/doc/950881/
Examining this provision in light of its context, its history, the debates in the Constituent Assembly, and the role of the EC, the Court found that the intention behind Article 324(2) had been that Parliament would soon pass a detailed law securing an *independent* EC. [3/n]
Read 20 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(