Sunday August 25, 2019
Home Opinion Indian law de...

Indian law delivers ‘justice’ to Salman Khan

0
//

Salman Khan was finally acquitted of serious charges of running over five people, killing one and seriously injuring four while ‘allegedly’ driving his Land Cruiser on the fateful night of September 28, 2002. The Bombay High Court said that the prosecution had failed to establish “beyond doubt” that the actor was driving the car and was drunk at the time of the accident.

While giving this judgment, the court disregarded and discredited the testimony of Ravindra Patil – Khan’s bodyguard and a key prosecution witness – who had said that the Bollywood superstar was driving in an inebriated condition and had ignored his repeated warnings.

According to the judge, Patil was “partly reliable” and could not be considered a “wholly reliable witness” and that the sessions court committed a mistake by relying on his statement.

“On the basis of evidence produced by the prosecution, (Salman Khan) cannot be convicted, no matter how differently the common man thinks,” the judge said.

Verily, may I ask, my Lords, have common man’s views ever mattered to you? The truth is Indian law is not blind; it is the slave to the rich and powerful, meant to be broken by them with impunity; only the common man is supposed to follow the law and be punished for breaking it.

Alas, the vices of the poor people wearing old and torn clothes come to the fore easily while the same from big people like judges get hidden behind the robes and furred gowns they wear. Shakespeare writes in King Lear that the bitter truth is a sinner occupying a high status in life goes entirely unpunished while a sinner who belongs to a low and humble life cannot escape punishment. Sigh!

Ironically, this judgment comes when the world is observing the Human Rights Day.

Ponder over this – five wretched, destitute people sleeping over the footpath were crushed under Khan’s car and the first thing the actor did was to run away to home; a homeless human being, Nurullah Mahboob Shaikh, died on the spot that night. What about his human rights? Khan who runs a charitable trust ‘Being Human’ failed the test of humanity then.

But do we even consider people sleeping over footpath as human beings? One can only protect the human rights of those who are fortunate enough to have them in the first place. Justice and human rights go hand in hand and the former should be the basis on which the latter should be assessed. If a poor man’s family cannot avail justice in India even after running from pillar to the post for years, it only means the majority of the country’s population that lives below the poverty line is being deprived of the basic privilege i.e. the Right to Life.

It’s always the common man’s fault. When a young girl died after her car was hit by Hema Malini’s Mercedes, the latter blamed her father for “not following traffic rules.”

When Salman was convicted in the hit-and-run case, yesteryear’s actor Sanjay Khan’s daughter Farah Khan blamed Nurullah for sleeping over the footpath, calling upon the government to ensure housing for such people.

https://twitter.com/FarahKhanAli/status/595860619724660736

Today, the actor’s delirious fans are celebrating on the streets by dancing and bursting crackers, not realizing that a man – who had eyes, hands, five senses, passions and emotions – died allegedly because of their God-like ‘bhai’.

In fact, the common man has become accustomed to being subjected to such injustices. The truth is – and this is not in regard to this particular case – no institution in India is allegedly more corrupt than the judiciary.

From petty cases to high-profile ones, it is widely believed that judges give favorable judgments in lieu of a huge (or small) amount of money. I was once told by an acquaintance how a relative of his was acquitted of a criminal offence by paying a bribe to the judge. I cannot ascertain the veracity of his claims, but the common man’s experiences are not hidden from anyone.

According to  justice Markandey Katju (retd), 50% of the higher judiciary consisting of SC and high court judges is corrupt.

“My assessment is that 50% of the higher judiciary has become corrupt,” Katju said in September this year. He also claimed that no action was taken after he handed over a dossier on Chief Justice of India HL Dattu’s alleged properties to then law minister Ravi Shankar Prasad and others.

“I was targeted by former chief justice RM Lodha for my views. Let it all be investigated. SC judges are annoyed. But I am not bothered…,” Katju claimed.

Until and unless efforts are made to cleanse the judiciary that is supposed deliver justice to one and all, we would not be able to find lasting solutions to India’s social issues.

Justice should not only be done but must also be seen to be done.

Next Story

Only A Strong Leader Can Control The Mobocracy

Today we need a strong leader and strong nation. But this doesn't mean that it has to be against the culture of political pluralism. Such a leader need not be against federalism, need not run an unitary government.

0
Narendra Modi, modi biopic
EC bans online streaming of web series on Modi. Pixabay

BY: JAYANTA GHOSAL

I am a human being – Homo sapiens. But does that mean I am poor, brutish, nasty and small? That is what Thomas Hobbes had thought. Machiavelli’s prince had also said that if you want to control people, the masses, the electorate – then you’ve to keep a whip in your hand like the ringmaster in a circus. Only a strong leader can control the mobocracy.

The great Indian political circus has also had several Prime Ministers. From Jawaharlal Nehru to Narendra Modi. Each Prime Minister is unique The modus operandi is different. In 2014 when Modi entered Lutyen’s Delhi, the popular perception was that a strong man has arrived. Like the arrival of James Bond, after the World War II to dispel the darkness of the depressed British masses. Plato had preached that for a philosopher king who would also be the representative of God – that he will bring justice to mankind.

India
The Vajpayee era could easily be said as the beginning of the ‘swarna yug’ of Indian economy. It was under his leadership that India went for Pokhran 2, but was he a strong leader? The Indian mythology of strong leadership would dictate that he wasn’t. Pixabay

Today in a democracy, we chose our leader through the process of election. There is no monarch. Nor do we have a philosopher leader like S. Radhakrishnan. We have Modi and the popular perception persists that he is a ‘strong leader’. At the eve of another election, the discourse on strong leadership has started again. But we need to understand that strong leader doesn’t mean an undemocratic leader. I think that even in a coalition government one needs a strong leadership to run the coalition. A strong leader does not mean that he will be blunt to the ideas of others – that he or she will not listen to the voice of the people. Rather, if you want to frame policies, you’ve to talk to experts, bureaucrats and even other people.

After getting 282 seats, was Modi reluctant to listen any other opinion?

I think this belief is absolutely wrong. I know his style of functioning and I can say, bluntly, that each and every day he spoke to several people on different subjects. In Lutyen’s Delhi, there is a wrong perception that he takes his own decision – this isn’t correct. In Delhi, he begins his daily routine with briefing meetings. Principal Secretary Nripendra Mishra meets him first. Then P.K. Mishra and other PMO officials. He talks to his PS and APSs daily. Then, the PM conducts video conferences with his department secretaries. He would also hold such conferences with state government officials.

He also has his own unique way of taking inputs from the feedback from the ground; a team, a set-up that isn’t just restricted to social media like Twitter or Facebook. He seeks opinion from the chaupals of different villages. Before the declaration of the election, he conducted a review meeting. The PMO wanted to know the status of implementation of different Government of India schemes in the country’s 29 states and 7 union territories.

It is true that Modi didn’t encourage the Dalal Raj of the political system. In Maharashtra, what is the reason for the deteriorating relationship between Uddhav and Modi took in the past 5 years? Was it ideological? Was it the just the BJP’s single party mindset? An arrogance of big brotherhood? The informed political circle know that the actual reason is because Shiv Sena couldn’t get the malai of Delhi’s power. It started with the Mumbai corporation and ended in a cabinet birth for Shiv Sena.

When Atal Bihari Vajpayee was the Prime Minister, Balasaheb quarrelled on several issues. But the supply line for Shiv Sena was never disturbed. Vajpayee was the first NDA PM in 1998. The Vajpayee era could easily be said as the beginning of the ‘swarna yug’ of Indian economy. It was under his leadership that India went for Pokhran 2, but was he a strong leader? The Indian mythology of strong leadership would dictate that he wasn’t.

Vajpayee was, after all, a man of political consensus. How can such a leader be characterised as strong? Here lies the fallacy. Once the late Pramod Mahajan of the BJP told me: “Do you know what is our major problem in this party and government? And what is the advantage the Gandhi family of the Congress have?” He explained: “In our party it is a tyranny of democracy. Vajpayee may be the leader but there is an oligarchy. Advani, M.M. Joshi, Jaswant Singh, Yashwant Sinha. And beyond these leaders there is Nagpur. Humhara yaha fayasla lenese jada chintan manthan hota haye!”

In congress there is a working committee but only one Gandhi will take the final call. Nobody can object. Sharad Pawar and Purno Sangma raised issues and they had to leave the party. Only once Vajpayee did not disclose the decision to Advani also — and that was the Pokhran blast and that event made Indian leadership strong! See, Advani pressurised Vajpayee to hold general election six months early. And Vajpayee accepted. He lost the election.

democracy
Our Constitution suggests a quasi-federal structure, and such a leader can be a symbol of that political entropy. But creating a hate campaign against Modi, projecting him as an autocrat – is that democracy? Pixabay

Can anybody dictate Modi like this today?

In the party national executive meeting held at Palampur (Himachal Pradesh), the BJP leadership led by Advani took the resolution in 1989 to start Ramjanmabhomi movement. Vajpayee objected but he was a loner and a minority voice. Now this model of Vajpayee leadership is desirable? When a General cannot issue order to his soldiers forcefully? Second, when you are a victim of political blackmail. P.V. Narasimha Rao had to manage JMM MPs to win the no confidence motion in the Lok Sabha. How can he be the strong man? Manmohan Singh did not like it, but chargesheeted Lalu Prasad was in his cabinet. I recall that once, while accompanying him during a trip, he said on record that keeping Lalu in cabinet is coalition compulsion. Manmohan Singh wanted to go to Pakistan to talk. The party said no. How can he be a strong leader?

Also Read: Diabetes During Pregnancy Spikes up the Risk in Kids Later

Today we need a strong leader and strong nation. But this doesn’t mean that it has to be against the culture of political pluralism. Such a leader need not be against federalism, need not run an unitary government. Our Constitution suggests a quasi-federal structure, and such a leader can be a symbol of that political entropy. But creating a hate campaign against Modi, projecting him as an autocrat – is that democracy? Actually, till today, I have not seen one Devkant Baruah statement in the BJP saying ‘Modi is India’. (IANS)