By Swapan Dasgupta
Judged by the lax standards of India where human
life tends to be woefully cheap, the twin blasts in Boston that led to four
deaths and many more injured, may have seemed relatively trivial. True, there
was considerable admiration for the local police and the federal authorities
that pursued the investigations with understated rigour and their success in
identifying and apprehending the two unlikely perpetrators of the blasts, but
this was offset by disagreeable comments that America “had it coming.” How the
spectators of the Boston Marathon were responsible for the problems Moscow has
with Chechnya, is a different matter altogether and unlikely to unsettle the
pre-conceived theories of those who are relentless in putting their own spin on
the so-called ‘roots of terrorism’.
President George W. Bush may well be the target of
fashionable derision but it can scarcely be denied that his emphasis on
Homeland Security has now become a bi-partisan goal, from which even the
relatively more liberal President Obama dare not depart.
Compare this with the farce that was witnessed in
India earlier this week over the sentencing of the perpetrators and
facilitators of the devastating serial Bombay blasts of March 1992 that killed
nearly 250 people and left countless others permanently disabled. The Supreme
Court this week, accorded the film star Sanjay Dutt an extra month of freedom
to surrender before the Mumbai. The ostensible reason was to allow the
Bollywood star a little more time to complete his various shooting engagements,
a move that will give a lot of respite to many film producers who had sunk in a
great deal of money in films starring Dutt.
Not surprisingly, this generosity by the apex court
didn’t go down too well with the great unwashed. It is a cruel fact of life
that there isn’t enough justice to go round the world. However, conceding the
element of iniquity in the administration of the law, there was outrage over
the belief that class bias could be so openly and blatantly upheld. There may
be sympathy for the film producers who stood to make whopping losses if Dutt
was packed off to jail immediately, but there was little appreciation of the
fact that a convicted criminal was being shown extra consideration, not to
attend a sick relative or a moping pet dog, but to make some extra money.
True, the outrage over the leniency shown to Dutt
resulted in some others convicted in the same conspiracy also getting some
extra time to be with their families. But what I found interesting was the
nonchalance with which India’s liberals and even representatives of the ruling
Congress Party argued for all-round lenience. It was almost made out that some
people were being punished for some youthful indiscretion that may have
included stealing mangoes from orchards belonging to others. That Dutt and the
others had been sentenced for their involvement in a case that resulted in a
bloodbath was quietly forgotten. Equally forgotten was the fact that Dutt
wasn’t a victim of being at the wrong place at the wrong time, and that he knew
exactly what he was doing in helping the underworld smuggle deadly weapons to
wage against India. Sanjay Dutt was convicted under the Arms Act for possessing
illegal weapons. In reality, his offence was more serious, almost treasonable. By
modifying the sentence to suit his shooting schedules, the law displayed utter
contempt for those who died in the blasts. There is generosity for those who
sided with the terrorists and little concern for those who were victims of
terror.
The Supreme Court doesn’t set the terms of the
political discourse. As such, it cannot be blamed for the onrush of contrived
sympathy for those who were convicted and still insist they were innocent. But
it can be said that the show of indulgence has created the conditions for viewing
the blasts of 1993 as a conjunctural misdemeanour that was now history. From an
avowed position of ‘zero tolerance’ of terrorism, the liberal discourse is
shifting to a forget and forgive approach. At this rate, Dawood Ibrahim may as
well surrender and then approach the court to be given time to settle business
affairs that haven unattended after two decades of absence from India. Maybe a
Katju-type person may even oblige him and take into account the fact that he
has no bank loan, speaks Urdu and probably loathes Narendra Modi.
I am not being facetious. Last week, I read in the
papers that one S.M.A. Kazmi, said to be a journalist, who has been charged
with involvement in the attack on an Israeli diplomat by Iranian terrorists two
years ago, has used his bail period to start an Urdu newspaper that is
ironically called Qaumi
Salamati (national security). I am not prejudging either the verdict of the
court or the quality of the prosecution’s case. What I found revealing was that
the inaugural function of Kazmi’s media venture was attended by the Chief
Minister of Delhi, the Chairperson of the Minorities Commission and leaders of
at least two political parties. What interests me is that a person charged with
having links with terror groups that targets the diplomat of a friendly
country, can secure political insurance with such ease.
Sunday Pioneer, April 21, 2103
No comments:
Post a Comment