Looking at the debate over whether Sanjay Dutt should be pardoned or not, it becomes clear that the argument is taking place entirely because of who he is, not what he did. Had he not been the famous man he is, there would have been far, far fewer people speaking for him - or against. His case is being treated a certain way because he is famous.
So, let's accept that. And what result is it having? Well, on one hand you're hearing that he should be pardoned because he has been reformed. On the other, you're hearing that he should face the punishment meted out by the Supreme Court, because there should be no special treatment for the rich or famous.
I agree that there should be no special treatment for anyone regardless of fame. By that yardstick, he should not also be targeted because he is famous.
Let's for a moment forget his name, and see his story.
A young man, growing up, encounters money, fame, and the loss of his mother to cancer. His father is a busy man. He himself is a troubled youth and takes to drugs. He becomes a drug addict and is sent for rehabilitation. He manages to clean himself up, and get married. He is turning his life around when his wife dies of a brain tumor. He is again shattered.
He tries to pick himself up and get back to work, but his money and fame bring him into bad company. Around this time, a mosque is demolished in a town in Uttar Pradesh, and riots start in Mumbai too. The initial fury of the Muslim community sees youth from that community in the role of aggressors. Then the reaction to the reaction starts, and with Balasaheb Thackeray and the Shiv Sena calling the political shots in Mumbai, it becomes a bloodbath.
Before these riots, Mumbai's famous underworld was largely secular. The big don of the day, Dawood Ibrahim, worked with his two lieutenants Chhota Rajan and Chhota Shakeel. He lived in Dubai, hobnobbed with visiting starlets and stars, and made the odd appearance at a cricket match in Sharjah.
The riots changed that. Legend has it that a box of bangles was sent to him at his Dubai house as an insult, because he had failed to protect his people during the riots, or avenge them after.
The revenge came in the form of the horrific 1993 bomb blasts. That was the start of Islamist terrorism in mainland India.
Sanjay Dutt is said to have met several of Mumbai's 'bhais' in Dubai during the shooting of a film. He is accused of allowing his house to be used for unloading weapons including the AK series rifle that eventually got him into trouble.
Eventually the only charge against him that was proved was under the Arms Act, for keeping that one rifle in his possession.
Well, would anyone in this country have any idea of the number of 'kattas' and unlicensed weapons? Every villager in parts of Bihar and Uttar Pradesh has one. They should all be in jail. The law does nothing about them, because they are not famous.
Does anyone in this country have any idea of the number of assault rifles circulating around this country? Nope. Every insurgent group in the Northeast and Kashmir has them, the Maoists have them. When one of those guys surrenders, the Indian government gives them a shawl around the neck, a cash stipend, free board and lodging, and withdraws all cases except the most serious ones like murder and rape. They are not charged under the Arms Act.
So, let's say our man was a bad guy, a khalnayak. He clearly stopped being one long ago. He went to jail, spent a year and a half there, and was released after none other than Bal Thackeray wrote a letter to the Supreme Court on his behalf. After his release from jail, Sanjay went straight to Thackeray's house and took his blessings.
He started his career again, got married, had children, and was leading a completely normal life within the law until this judgment.
If the aim of justice was reformation, it had already been achieved. So, why should the man be sent to jail once more? He is already reformed.
Just because the Supreme Court has said it doesn't mean the calls for mercy are wrong. After all, the system of reviews and pardons is there for a reason, and it is a former judge of the Supreme Court who is speaking of them.
Every case should be treated on merit. To react to everything the same way is the logic of 'andher nagri, chaupat raja, takey ser bhaji, takey ser bhaja'. If a case under the Arms Act has a man who was misled in his youth and is now reformed, it cannot be treated like every other case under Arms Act. The particular circumstances and qualities of the individual and his life must be taken into account - without regard to his fame or wealth.
Don't punish him just because he's famous.
So, let's accept that. And what result is it having? Well, on one hand you're hearing that he should be pardoned because he has been reformed. On the other, you're hearing that he should face the punishment meted out by the Supreme Court, because there should be no special treatment for the rich or famous.
I agree that there should be no special treatment for anyone regardless of fame. By that yardstick, he should not also be targeted because he is famous.
Let's for a moment forget his name, and see his story.
Dutt's story
A young man, growing up, encounters money, fame, and the loss of his mother to cancer. His father is a busy man. He himself is a troubled youth and takes to drugs. He becomes a drug addict and is sent for rehabilitation. He manages to clean himself up, and get married. He is turning his life around when his wife dies of a brain tumor. He is again shattered.
He tries to pick himself up and get back to work, but his money and fame bring him into bad company. Around this time, a mosque is demolished in a town in Uttar Pradesh, and riots start in Mumbai too. The initial fury of the Muslim community sees youth from that community in the role of aggressors. Then the reaction to the reaction starts, and with Balasaheb Thackeray and the Shiv Sena calling the political shots in Mumbai, it becomes a bloodbath.
Before these riots, Mumbai's famous underworld was largely secular. The big don of the day, Dawood Ibrahim, worked with his two lieutenants Chhota Rajan and Chhota Shakeel. He lived in Dubai, hobnobbed with visiting starlets and stars, and made the odd appearance at a cricket match in Sharjah.
The riots changed that. Legend has it that a box of bangles was sent to him at his Dubai house as an insult, because he had failed to protect his people during the riots, or avenge them after.
The revenge came in the form of the horrific 1993 bomb blasts. That was the start of Islamist terrorism in mainland India.
Sanjay Dutt is said to have met several of Mumbai's 'bhais' in Dubai during the shooting of a film. He is accused of allowing his house to be used for unloading weapons including the AK series rifle that eventually got him into trouble.
Eventually the only charge against him that was proved was under the Arms Act, for keeping that one rifle in his possession.
Equal justice?
Well, would anyone in this country have any idea of the number of 'kattas' and unlicensed weapons? Every villager in parts of Bihar and Uttar Pradesh has one. They should all be in jail. The law does nothing about them, because they are not famous.
Does anyone in this country have any idea of the number of assault rifles circulating around this country? Nope. Every insurgent group in the Northeast and Kashmir has them, the Maoists have them. When one of those guys surrenders, the Indian government gives them a shawl around the neck, a cash stipend, free board and lodging, and withdraws all cases except the most serious ones like murder and rape. They are not charged under the Arms Act.
So, let's say our man was a bad guy, a khalnayak. He clearly stopped being one long ago. He went to jail, spent a year and a half there, and was released after none other than Bal Thackeray wrote a letter to the Supreme Court on his behalf. After his release from jail, Sanjay went straight to Thackeray's house and took his blessings.
He started his career again, got married, had children, and was leading a completely normal life within the law until this judgment.
If the aim of justice was reformation, it had already been achieved. So, why should the man be sent to jail once more? He is already reformed.
Just because the Supreme Court has said it doesn't mean the calls for mercy are wrong. After all, the system of reviews and pardons is there for a reason, and it is a former judge of the Supreme Court who is speaking of them.
Every case should be treated on merit. To react to everything the same way is the logic of 'andher nagri, chaupat raja, takey ser bhaji, takey ser bhaja'. If a case under the Arms Act has a man who was misled in his youth and is now reformed, it cannot be treated like every other case under Arms Act. The particular circumstances and qualities of the individual and his life must be taken into account - without regard to his fame or wealth.
Don't punish him just because he's famous.
