Some are more equal before the law or so it seems

If it were not for injustice, men would not know justice. Indian Supreme Court’s judgement, handing a five-year sentence to superstar Sanjay Dutt under the Arms Act has stunned Bollywood, setting off a furious, endless debate within and outside media circles. While the industry has rallied around Dutt, the country seems to have been split down the middle over the question of pardon to the actor.

Many feel Dutt has suffered enough. Drowning himself in drugs after the death of his legendary mother, he has been in and out of prison for his alleged underworld ties and acquisition of the much-touted gun, the AK-56 rifle. His travails have not been limited to the 20-year-long legal battle in the courts. It is a miracle that through those ups and downs, he has survived in the cut-throat world of showbiz. The actor is loved for the generosity of his spirit, much like the adorable, goofy Munnabhai that he has twice played.

Some very prominent names have come out in Dutt’s support — Congress leader Digvijay Singh, former Supreme Court judge and Press Council of India chairman, Markandey Katju, and numerous others, urging the Maharashtra governor to pardon the actor. In an article in the Hindu newspaper this week, former law minister, Shanti Bhushan, ripped the Supreme Court verdict terming it a “travesty of justice”. Quoting section 96 of the Indian Penal Code, the veteran lawyer argued: “Nothing is an offence in the exercise of the right of private defence.”

Understandably, the security establishment and right-wing parties have not taken kindly to the talk of mercy for Dutt. They want an example made out of the actor for the tinsel town and everyone else who dares stand up for the weak, as he and his father Sunil Dutt did during the devastating riots in Mumbai, following the Babri Masjid demolition.

The Dutts saved hundreds of Muslims, risking their own lives. They received repeated death threats. Some targeted women of the family. The Shiv Sena mob even assaulted the senior Dutt, a matinee idol himself and a much loved MP from Bombay [Mumbai]. It was in this atmosphere of fear that the star, son of Hindu-Muslim parents, acquired that rifle.

More thoughtful voices in the media have sought to draw attention to the less fortunate. There are many who have been condemned and like the actor, spent 20 traumatic years awaiting their fate away from the media glare. Zaibunissa Kazi, who is in her 70s and has already spent more than eight months in prison, has no one running around seeking pardon for her, except for her feisty daughter. Kazi has a tumour in her kidney, requiring constant medical attention.

Like Dutt, she has received a five-year sentence for illegal possession of weapons. But unlike the actor, who sought weapons to defend his family, Kazi had only agreed to keep a bag for Abu Salem, known to her as a “real estate agent” — with little knowledge about its contents.

She is not the only victim though. Hundreds of innocent lives have been shattered and livelihoods perished along with those unfairly targeted by the series of attacks that hit the financial capital apparently on the orders of underworld don Dawood Ebrahim. While the court has upheld death sentence for Yakub Memon, a chartered accountant who voluntarily surrendered and insists he had no inkling of the plot by his brother, Tiger Memon, sentences of ten others have been commuted to life terms. Justice has seemingly been done to the memory of all those who perished in those abominable attacks.

Indeed, those who play God and take innocent human lives deserve nothing but severe retribution. There is no greater sin in the eyes of all faiths — more so in Islam which warns that taking one innocent life is akin to targeting the whole of humanity.

That said, what strikes one in this whole debate is the fact that no reference, whatsoever, is made to the original crimes that were the apparent cause behind the 1993 serial blasts — the first and most devastating act of terror to hit India. Even a layman like me understands that in any crime, the motive not only matters, it determines the final outcome of the case and severity of the sentence. Yet, it figures neither in the special Mumbai court judgement nor in the final verdict of the highest court in the land. The elephant in the room remains ignored also by the all-knowing judges on the television.

In case our collective memory fails us, Mumbai [then Bombay] had burnt with the rest of India for more than two months before terror struck in March 1993. Even as the Muslims tried to make sense of the Ayodhya outrage, they found themselves in the path of the worst storm of religious violence since Independence. And the nation’s most cosmopolitan city was in the eye of the storm with mobs led by Shiv Sena and its Hindutva allies hunting the Muslims.

The Congress government in Maharashtra and also in New Delhi — the latter under prime minister Narasimha Rao — not just stood mute spectators, but added fuel to the fire. More than 2,000 Muslims perished in the pogrom. Which in turn sowed the seeds of wrath that the city reaped soon in March in 1993.

What happened during 1992-93 was a two-part crime and neither can be seen in isolation. Both were reprehensible crimes against humanity. Why then do you see a stark difference in the approach to the two? While those who planned and perpetrated the first bit remain at large, enjoying power, justice has caught up with the small fry, who were at best “arrows” in the hands of distant players — as the Supreme Court put it.

The Justice Srikrishna Commission, which probed the 1992 pogrom and the subsequent strikes, had this to say in its findings: “Shiv Sena took the lead in organising attacks on Muslims and their properties under the guidance of several leaders from Shakha Pramukh (local unit chief) to Shiv Sena chief Bal Thackeray, who, like a veteran general, commanded the loyal Shiv Sainiks [Shiv Sena activists] to retaliate by organising attacks against Muslims.”

The Commission’s findings were shelved by the Shiv Sena-Bharatiya Janata Party government and remain shelved till date. Thackeray — and his henchmen — evaded the long arm of law till his death last year. Indeed, he was given a state funeral with Maharashtra chief minister and several central ministers in attendance and the president and prime minister offering copious tributes.

We live in strange times. In the words of Faiz, stones and bricks are locked away while mongrels breathe fire (Ke sang-o-khisht muqayyad hain aur sag azad). There are some who face the law for killing a blackbuck 15 years ago. And then there are those who sent thousands to their death, turning the whole country upside down and undermining its very foundations. They remain not just free, but dream of ruling India once again. Evidently, some are more equal before the law. If this is not double standards, what is?

Aijaz Zaka Syed is a Gulf-based commentator. You can follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/aijazzakasyed