 Hello and let's talk about the sentencing of Prashant Bhushan, the senior lawyer who was convicted of contempt of court has been fined Rs. 1 and has to pay the fine by September 15. If he refused, he could face three months in jail and be barred from practicing for up to three years, the Supreme Court said. Prashant Bhushan was convicted for two tweets, an outpouring of support had emerged for him from the legal fraternity and civil society at large and even the Attorney General had suggested that he be let off with a warning. Prashant Bhushan was convicted on August 14th and the court tried to get him to express regret for his opinions which he refused to. In his press conference today, he added that he would pay the fine while reserving the right to seek a review of the verdict. He added that he had never intended to disrespect the Supreme Court and that his tweets were to court, merely meant to express my anguish at what I felt was a deviation from its sterling past record. He was referring of course to the Supreme Court. In the aftermath of his conviction but before the sentencing senior journalist Paranjay Guwathakurata spoke to senior lawyer Sanjay Hegre on some of the key issues in the case. Here's a segment from the conversation. Senior advocate Sanjay Hegre, let's look at some of the points that were raised by Prashant Bhushan's lawyers, not just Bhushan Dave, in this case Mr. Rajiv Dhawan, the senior advocate. He pointed out there were five judges, five retired judges including four who retired from the Supreme Court and he named them actually, their names are well known, who had said that democracy had failed in the Supreme Court and that there was corruption in the judiciary. And these were retired judges, Madan Lokor, Justice Lodha, Justice Joseph and of course Justice A.P. Shah. He also pointed out that these judges had supported Mr. Prashant Bhushan and did not want him to be held guilty of contempt of court. And it's not just him, not just the former judges. It's interesting that there were over 1500 lawyers who have signed a statement or supporting him and then and over a hundred of them actually stood in the rain in protest and and there have been over 3000 members of civil society and I include myself in that category who signed a statement saying that the Apex Road of the land was perhaps being, not perhaps was being excessively harsh on Prashant Bhushan by convicting him for contempt of court. So I'd like your thoughts on what I've said just now. No, it is obvious that many members of the bar and the public see this as something much beyond Prashant Bhushan. If somebody like Prashant Bhushan who has almost spent over 30 plus years in the Supreme Court done very many cases, cases that have had consequences on the politics and the destiny of this country, if he has not indulged in verbal abuse, that so and so is an idiot, so and so is this and that, but has criticized the court in a tweet which says that future historians will say some are likely to remark upon what has happened in the past six years. Now that is criticism, that is dissent, that is not disrespect, that is not lowering the authority of the court or impeding its working in any manner whatsoever, it does not to my mind at least come within the definition of criminal contempt. So and my views, I was one of those 1500 that you lawyers that you spoke of, but the number actually is I think currently at over 2000, people have kept on signing that thing on the internet. The point however is that the judiciary consists not of the judges alone. The court consists both of the bar as well as the bench. We work together. What happens on the other side affects us also and what happens to us then affects the citizen's right to seek justice which is independent and impartial. If even lawyers of the court have to be so circumspect in what they say that they almost seem to be bowing and scraping and doffing their hats to exalted lordship sitting above, then that does not make for a strong bar or for an independent judiciary. Therefore, there was much more at stake than simply two tweets or the court's response to that. But let's look at the two. Tweets are transitory. Tweets are transitory. All right. But your response defines institutions. I got you, but let's briefly have a look at the tweets. You know, one was a picture of the Chief Justice of India, Justice Bobde, sitting on a Harley-Davidson bike that belonged to a BJP leader and he was not wearing a mask. And Prashant Bhushan said while the court is locked down and justice is being denied, this is what Justice Bobde is doing. And the second tweet was really what you already mentioned about history will judge and a reference to four former judges who said that what has happened is that the exact words is destruction of democracy in the Supreme Court. I mean, these two tweets are responsible for Prashant Bhushan being convicted of contempt of court. What are your views? You think the apex court of the land overreacted? Do you think the court should have been far more, not just thick skinned, but benevolent and magnanimous and more respectful of the fundamental right that every citizen has of the right to free expression? Article 19.1A of the Constitution. What are your views? Long ago, in 1936, I think Lord Atkins said justice is no cloistered virtue. It must be allowed to suffer the respectful if outspoken comments of ordinary men. Prashant Bhushan may not be an ordinary man, but the comments were outspoken. But were they disrespectful? It is what future historians might remark on. I am quite reminded of what Winston Churchill once said about a lot of people. He said all these men will be history and I will be writing that history. So what historians will write? You had Manmohan Singh saying that history would be kinder to him than the media. Now then the media of this. So would historians agree with Prashant Bhushan's tweet or would it agree with 102 page judgment? You should leave it to history to decide. Can you hold history in contempt? Okay, that's an interesting viewpoint you've expressed. Whereas justice Arun Mishra and the bench he headed said that there was need to exercise balance and restraint. And they said that Mr. Prashant Bhushan had crossed that proverbial Lakshman rake arm. And the Supreme Court clearly wanted him to have a sense of remorse or a sense of remorse for everything that he has done. But it seems to me that Prashant Bhushan, if you go by his statement, he was not exactly remorseful. He said he was pain. He said he's been grossly misunderstood. He said the court did not provide him a copy of the complaint. And of course, he quoted the father of the nation, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. And the exact quotes, I do not ask for mercy. I do not appeal for magnanimity. I will, what he says, cheerfully submit to any punishment that the court may impose. If I remember right was Mahatma Gandhi when he was convicted for sedition in Ahmedabad. The thing is that Mahatma Gandhi was also a lawyer. And two lawyers, there is a gun path and there is the path of Savarkar where you write an apology. So let's say that Mr. Bhushan has made his choice. Is it a wiser choice according to the times that we live in that we let the court take a call on? And history will judge. History always judges. History, now today, would any judge of any court in India want to be compared with Chief Justice A. N. Ray who gave the judgment in Idiyam Jabalpur during the emergency? And who superseded a number of judges when he was made the Chief Justice of India? When he was made Chief Justice. That's right. Yes. And the emergency government. And from what I've heard about Chief Justice A. N. Ray, he was generally a nice man. He generally was a very conservative judge. He thought he was doing the right thing. But history has judged him for what he did when he was Chief Justice. We are all subject to the judgment of history. And specifically, if we do not want to be pitiful men dressed in a little brief authority. Now, next story, we bring you an evaluation of the ongoing conflict in North Africa and the Mediterranean. News Clicks, Pabir Purka analyzes the situation there and the various interested play. Who are the major players and what is right happening right now? You know, it's an interesting issue because we talk about mapping false lines. Really, West Asia, North Africa has multiple false lines. And what is becoming clear now that some of these multiple false lines are becoming more visible. Obvious false line has been the United States against Iran. Of course, Israel is a part of that. And then we had slowly Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates joining the anti-Iran bandwagon, or even their own contradiction. So that's been something which has been there with the larger contradiction between the Arab people. And of course, Israel takes the settler colonial power in that in that part of the world. And the United States backing them completely. Now, this has been the visible false line, but there is another false line, which is now coming out. And there is even a fourth false line, which is emerging. The other fault line, which the United Arab Emirates, Israel, in Lincoln seem to also underline, is that the monarchies, and this is United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Oman. These are all the monarchies that are still there. Something should have been irrelevant by the 20th century, let alone 21st century. But these monarchies see not only Iran as a threat, because that's also Islam, political Islam, but does not give room for monarchy. In fact, they overthrew Iran. So that is also something which, for instance, the scene Muslim Brotherhood, that Muslim Brotherhood, while being various other things, has also shown that we can coexist with Islam and yet be anti-monarchy. Now, this didn't come up out in a day. Initially, Saudi Arabia backed Muslim Islam, Muslim Brotherhood. Ikhwan was supported by Saudi money for a long time, as well as by the United States, against what was seen to be nationalist Arab States, like Nasir, as well as, for instance, what we saw in Iraq and Syria. These were nationalist Arab States, and they were seen as danger by both the United States, as well as the monarchies. Half as Assad was as dangerous to them as Nasir was. This was the way they perceived it. So therefore, that was the other underlying fault line, which has also come open with Egypt, that you have Islamic Brotherhood on one side, the monarchies on the other, and Egypt as a military regime has aligned with the monarchies on the issue of Muslim Brotherhood, but the Syria has not aligned with them. So you have a lot of crisscrossing, if you will, on these terms. But Muslim Brotherhood is seen to be a threat by the monarchies because they thought they could use Islam in order to buttress Saudi Arabia's power over the region, saying that I am the protector of the holy places. Therefore, I represent Islam. So that has been challenged. And here, Turkey becomes important because let's not forget that essentially Eddogan represents Ikhwan. They represent Islamic Brotherhood and they therefore really belong to that current, which contests in Islam. And in this case, Sunni Islam against the monarchies. So I think that there is this underlying monarchy versus political Islam threat, which is also there. And that the monarchies now think is a bigger threat and they're therefore willing to give up the Palestinian people by aligning with Israel because they feel that the United States does not have that kind of intervention possibility. This false line that has emerged now is clearly because of the weakening of the United States as a local guarantor of everything for the monarchies. And they are now looking at their own survival. What are the local alignment they create so that they can survive both political Islam and whatever Republican forces that might be there. Republican, not in the American sense, but in the anti-monarchy sense. So this kind of nationalist Republican sentiment, popular sentiment which also the Palestinian people struggles really represents now comes up against the monarchy and the monarchy also sees Islamic Brotherhood as a threat. So I think these are the currents which are there and Turkey versus Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates is a false line that is there within the region between political Islam and a monarchy, trying to also take control over the region using the monarchy and privilege of controlling the holy places, which is what Saudi Arabia is. The political guiding spirit of this is supposed to be MVZ, the Prince of United Arab Emirates, the crown prince. He's supposed to be the mastermind all of this, but let's not get into who as the individual or is not driving it. It's really monarchy versus political Islam also appearing now as a false line and that explains why Qatar on one side with Turkey is being opposed by United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia and Egypt is aligned with them. And this is what you talked about in Libya. These are the false lines. Of course, there are various European powers, Russia on one side, others on the other side, all of that is there. But the local battle is really Turkey versus United Arab Emirates versus Saudi Arabia and Qatar being with Turkey. This is the local alignment that is there and Egypt being supported by Saudi Arabia as well as United Arab Emirates and not being supported by Qatar at all. So this is the battle over Libya. That's all we have time for today. We'll be back tomorrow with more news from the country and the world. Until then, keep watching Newsclick.