The Hindu Business Line : Of convictions and justice delayed

So Sanjay Dutt is behind bars, convicted by the Special TADA court on the charge of illegal possession of an AK-56 rifle. And a section of the political community that has been screaming from rooftops about the threat of terrorism — real and imaginary — must be quite satisfied. Some of Dutt’s colleagues from Bollywood who said the punishment meted out to him was harsh, as he had already spent 16 months behind bars, have been threatened with legal action i f they try to drum up support for him, through blogs, SMS campaigns, etc.. The argument is that before Mr Dutt moves the apex court — which he did on Tuesday — to seek relief, such activity would be “illegal” and, hence, attract prosecution. Whatever happened to civil liberties and the freedom of people to respond to a situation — in this case, a court verdict many feel is far too harsh — as they deem fit?

More important, now that the Special Judge, Mr P. D. Kode, has delivered the verdicts on the heinous bomb blasts in Mumbai in 1993, handing out death sentences to many of the accused, the question that begs an answer pertains to the punishment meted out to those who participated openly and brutally in the communal riots that broke out in Mumbai, as other parts of the country following the “illegal” demolition of the Babri Masjid in December 1992. However unjustified, in more ways than one, the Mumbai blasts were a response to the post-Babri Masjid demolition riots that ravaged Mumbai.

This should be a good occasion to find out whatever happened to the recommendations of the Sri Krishna Commission report, which had indicted, among others, the Shiv Sena.

Basic rights

The basic right of people, including efforts by Dutt’s colleagues in the film fraternity to launch a “Save Sanjay” campaign, had support from an unexpected quarter — Mr B. A. Desai, who retired on August 6 as the Additional Solicitor-General of Maharashtra. Criticising the special public prosecutor, Mr Ujjwal Nikam, for warning Bollywood stars that legal action would be initiated against them if they came out openly in support of Sanjay Dutt, Mr Desai has said in a written statement that Mr Nikam had “no concept of democracy” and wondered how he could prosecute anybody who expressed support or solidarity with Mr Dutt.

By and large, apart from the hardcore elements, who are ready to pounce on the Indian state for being “too soft” on terrorism and are constantly giving sermons on how we should learn from such states as Israel, and of late, from the US, on how to deal with terror threats, there has been a groundswell of support and sympathy for the actor.

It is interesting that he should get so much sympathy compared to, say, Salman Khan, whose case is again coming up for hearing before the Jodhpur court in connection with chinkara poaching. There are several reasons for this, not the least of which is the way in which the actor endeared himself to lakhs of Indians with his role in the two Munnabhai films made by Rajkumar Hirani.

Indian audiences have always loved stars who have skilfully acquired the Robin Hood image, as MGR did so successfully in Tamil films and NTR in Telugu movies. Their do-good images, accompanied by the real-life haloes these bring, were greatly responsible for the phenomenal political success of these two south Indian actors.

In Sanjay Dutt’s case, his second film advocating Gandhigiri was such a hit with people across various strata of society that sympathy and goodwill have been pouring in during his hour of need. Thanks to his sister Priya Dutt’s position in the Congress party, Congress leaders too have been supportive of the family, even while being cautious enough not to say anything in public as this would be construed as criticism of the judicial verdict.

Immense goodwill

But more than his film roles or screen persona, there are two reasons from real life that have caused distress over the six-year-long rigorous imprisonment sentence. One is, of course, Sanjay’s reputation in the film industry, where actor after actor has gone on record that more than any other established star he reaches out to newcomers and helps them find their feet and get decent roles.

The other, perhaps more important, reason is the fond memories of his father, the late Sunil Dutt, who had earned the label of being a thorough gentleman, not only in the film industry but also in the political arena, where there is such a dearth of good-hearted souls.

While Sanjay Dutt’s illegal possession of the gun — and, worse, the destruction of evidence once he heard that his friends associated with the delivery of the weapons were in trouble — cannot be condoned, the reasons why he felt compelled to acquire an AK-56 from a don like Abu Salem, should also be studied in context. After the communal riots of 1992, when many Muslims in Mumbai were targeted and often butchered, Sunil Dutt and Sanjay Dutt had gone around providing succour to many riot victims. After this the Dutt family had started receiving threats to their lives. Sanjay, we are told by close family friend Saira Banu, was particularly perturbed about threats such as “teri baheno ko utha lengey” (we ’ll kidnap your sisters), and was both rash and stupid enough to acquire an AK-56 — actually three guns were delivered, but he returned two.

Perhaps the young actor thought he could become a real-life hero and protector of his sisters, when the correct thing would have been to seek police protection. While ordinary mortals might find it hard to get this privilege, VIPs like the Dutt family members could have certainly been provided such protection. Particularly as the Shiv Sena chief, Mr Bal Thackeray, was a close friend of Sunil Dutt. He did play a role in Sanjay getting bail after spending 16 months behind bars in this case.

Coloured justice

Anyway, on Tuesday Sanjay Dutt moved the Supreme Court against the TADA special court verdict. It remains to be seen if the apex court looks at the six-year RI term as too harsh or not. Meanwhile, it is interesting that there are so many shrill opinions in some parts of the country on why Dutt should get so much sympathy. Some even argue that his sentence should be harsher!

While in a democracy different sections of society will express different shades of opinion, this should be a good enough occasion to pull out details of the actual punishment awarded to the perpetrators of brutal crimes against Mus lims in the Gujarat communal carnage in 2002. Was that not an act of terrorism?

Surely, just like the victims or family members of those who died in the Mumbai bomb blasts, these victims/relatives too are crying out for justice, which they might never get. Or perhaps, since for a crime committed in 1993, the verdict has been handed down only now, the same arithmetic can be applied to the Gujarat carnage of 2002? When that happens — if at all — will there be jubilation from the same quarters that are now hailing the TADA court’s verdict? Doubtful, indeed. Unfortunately, in our country, ‘justice’ is mostly interpreted according to the colour of one’s religious or communal affiliation.

(Response may be sent to rasheeda@thehindu.co.in)

More Stories on : Terrorism | Courts/Legal Issues

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page

Stories in this Section
Value proposition

Imperatives in corporate forex hedging

Scientists sidelined in deal-making

The bitter truths behind cane pricing

Of convictions and justice delayed

Postal financial services are developing at a rapid rate

Let borrowers pay