
Manthan: June 2006 www.nihindia.org Resounding Public A(Sym)pathy Last weekend, I was discussing cricket with one of my friends from India and suddenly, this topic popped up. We probably spent close to 2 hours over a cup of tea and didn’t realize how time flew by. The incidents we spent so much time deliberating/ gossiping about are actually symptomatic of the intricacy (if also the complex layers of hypocrisy and insincerity) that marks the middle class imagination in India . Frankly, I couldn’t stop mentioning these episodes that actually delve into the full complexity of human psychic and bewilderment. Not to my amazement, none are expressly interlinked yet the levels of public (and media) sympathies (read outcries) are so accurately unscrupulous, it has prompted me to mention them in this forum. Let me broach this issue here, on this platform so that we might share our views over 3 (in)famous incidents that has created news (havoc) in India in recent times (except for one which is pretty old) that dominated discussions, besides science, here in NIH Campus. First, our very own “Sallu (Salman Khan) and his exploits”. Second, “Jessica Lal case” and third which obviously comes out of the blue “Sanju Baba (Sanjay Dutt)- the original khalnayak”-- the trend setter in Bollywood. Let’s us not pick the first and the last case separately. Then what do we do? Talk concurrently. The two men have some superficial similarities. Both are industry children, both are noted for their violent tempers and both appear to believe that a good two-hour workout improves the mind. But why has public reaction to their imprisonment been vastly different? When Sanju Baba was arrested under TADA, the people of India were on his side. His continued incarceration became a national cause celebre and when he was finally released, there was dancing on the streets. Sallu, alas, can count on no such sympathy. The general reaction to his arrest has been one of grim satisfaction. A few hundred fans have protested half heartedly, but the great Indian middle class has already made up its mind: it is time to make an example of somebody like Salman. At one level, this is bizarre. The crime that Sanju Baba was accused of was far more serious. He possessed an assault rifle at the peak of the Bombay riots. When asked if he owned such a gun, he denied it while simultaneously arranging for the weapon to be surreptitiously destroyed. Thus charged for the possession of the gun not used for hunting but to kill people -- was identical to the charge against several others who were also jailed for apparent involvement in the Bombay riots. But while the other TADA detenues languished in jail unsung, Sanju baba became a national symbol of injustice. On the other hand, ‘Sallu the Brat’, the most that can be said is that he went off on shikar in an area where hunting is banned, and then shot and killed two black bucks (and then ate them for dinner). The charge against him is poaching which was upheld, does not show him in a very good light but does not, nevertheless, suggest that he is a hood, a goonda or a terrorist. Nonetheless, Sallu was convicted and probably rightly so. So why is it that Sanju Baba had the middle class cheering for him while Sallu sat sullenly in custody bereft of popular support? I doubt if the answer has much to do with environmental consciousness. We care about wildlife but we care more about terrorism. Few of us -- if any -- would argue that Sallu's crime is greater than the one Sanju Baba was accused of. The real reason, I suspect, has less to do with the crimes than with the way in which we perceive both stars. By the time Sanju Baba was charged under TADA, most people had begun to feel sorry for him. He had lost his mother in tragic circumstances, had overcome a severe drug addiction problem, had seen his marriage break up and had suffered during the Bombay riots. His father had offered to resign from the Lok Sabha because of the government's inability to control the riots. And his family had been threatened by assorted Hindu communalist organizations. In the circumstances, it was hard to see Sanju Baba as a National Terrorist. It was easier to see him as a Macho pin-up who had decided -- when his family was threatened -- that the best way to protect them was to procure an assault rifle. It was possible that he bought this rifle from one of the many Dawood henchmen who thronged the film industry but then, who else do you buy an AK-47 from, if not a hoodlum? Sallu’s case is perceived very differently. Largely as a consequence of the manner in which he is portrayed in the press, he is seen as being a rich, spoilt and successful brat. The only tragedies in his life seem to consist of the odd flop or the occasional broken love affair since ‘Maine Pyar Kiya’ to ‘Maine Pyar kyon Kiya’. His manner is perceived as arrogant and self-satisfied and the general view is that even if success has not gone to his head, it has certainly gone to his over-muscled biceps. Given its frustration with our legal system, the middle class wanted to see Sallu suffer now. It wanted some tangible proof that the law treats everybody equally and that rich kids can't shoot endangered species, and then resume their normal hump-and-pump lifestyles pretending as if nothing has happened. Situation 2 : Another level of Public Sympathy The murder of the Jessica Lal at Qutab Collonade in Mehrauli (Delhi) in April 1999 did draw a lot of public sympathy in India in the recent time. Last month, as a verdict was finally handed down in a court in the India, the horror of the episode confirmed to many that justice is rarely served when money and power have the upper hand. Not to mention the case again, Jessica, a part-time bartender in the much-celebrated pub was shot within a point blank range by a rich and powerful youth. There were hundreds of revellers in the premises at the time and eyewitnesses reported that a man whom she had refused to serve had shot her. All fingers pointed to Manu Sharma, the son of a minister in the government of the northern state of Haryana, as the man who had fired the gun. He was seen fleeing from the restaurant with a number of others. At the outset it had seemed a simple case. The murder was committed under the glare of lights in a very busy restaurant and bar. Numerous people had seen a man drawing a gun and firing at point-blank range at a beautiful young woman at the counter. But intuitively, one after another, three primary witnesses changed their version of events, saying they had not after all had a clear sight of what had happened or could not remember what the person with the gun looked like. The main witness was a young model-actor friend of Lal's called Shayam Munshi (who I also know very remotely since my college days) changed his mind, saying he could not understand Hindi and had signed unwillingly. Not to mention the fact, after signing a statement identifying Sharma as the killer, Shayam has since appeared in Hindi films and given interviews in several Hindi-language newspapers. *Mannu Sharma was eventually released on bail in 2002 and today runs a trendy pub-discotheque in Chandigarh (believe it or not). Apparently, "if there could have been a crystal clear case of murder where direct evidence was available, it was this case”. So what went wrong? Perception: Firstly, son of a Haryana Politician famous for his mischievous brawls. And secondly, imagine a scene, where all rich and famous people are invited in a party and they know each other well and one of them commit some crime. Do we expect his/her friend(s) to become a key witness to that transgression? And whom are we talking here? One, Mannu Sharma and the second, son of DP Yadav (another powerful guy/goon in the parliament)! Her murder shattered many illusions, exposing the dark underside of this exotic world, and triggered a debate about the morals of India's gilded youth. Last month, the shock returned as it became clear that no one was to be punished for this crime that stunned the nation. I remember, one newspaper came out saying (can’t recall the name of that newspaper now!)'No one killed Jessica'……..with prosecutors like this, who needs a defence?'* All of these, raise several disturbing questions about us. *Will we not have replicated Shayam Munshi’s gesture of if we were in his position?* Possibly yes, and if so why? Does it have to do with our lack or loss of faith in public institutions? Does it have something to do with the hegemony of a perverse culture of money and an immorality or amorality, of a consumption economy? What exactly is it a symptom of, what all does it index? And finally can this decline be arrested, and if so how? Do we have a role to play here? Dharmapad Mishra dmishra@NIHFCU.Org

Manthan: June 2006 www.nihindia.org

Resounding Public A(Sym)pathy

Last weekend, I was discussing cricket with one of my friends from India and suddenly, this topic popped up. We probably spent close to 2 hours over a cup of tea and didn’t realize how time flew by.

The incidents we spent so much time deliberating/ gossiping about are actually symptomatic of the intricacy (if also the complex layers of hypocrisy and insincerity) that marks the middle class imagination in India . Frankly, I couldn’t stop mentioning these episodes that actually delve into the full complexity of human psychic and bewilderment.

Not to my amazement, none are expressly interlinked yet the levels of public (and media) sympathies (read outcries) are so accurately unscrupulous, it has prompted me to mention them in this forum. Let me broach this issue here, on this platform so that we might share our views over 3 (in)famous incidents that has created news (havoc) in India in recent times (except for one which is pretty old) that dominated discussions, besides science, here in NIH Campus.

First, our very own “Sallu (Salman Khan) and his exploits”. Second, “Jessica Lal case” and third which obviously comes out of the blue “Sanju Baba (Sanjay Dutt)- the original khalnayak”-- the trend setter in Bollywood.

Let’s us not pick the first and the last case separately. Then what do we do? Talk concurrently.

The two men have some superficial similarities. Both are industry children, both are noted for their violent tempers and both appear to believe that a good two-hour workout improves the mind. But why has public reaction to their imprisonment been vastly different? When Sanju Baba was arrested under TADA, the people of India were on his side. His continued incarceration became a national cause celebre and when he was finally released, there was dancing on the streets. Sallu, alas, can count on no such sympathy. The general reaction to his arrest has been one of grim satisfaction. A few hundred fans have protested half heartedly, but the great Indian middle class has already made up its mind: it is time to make an example of somebody like Salman.

At one level, this is bizarre. The crime that Sanju Baba was accused of was far more serious. He possessed an assault rifle at the peak of the Bombay riots. When asked if he owned such a gun, he denied it while simultaneously arranging for the weapon to be surreptitiously destroyed. Thus charged for the possession of the gun not used for hunting but to kill people -- was identical to the charge against several others who were also jailed for apparent involvement in the Bombay riots. But while the other TADA detenues languished in jail unsung, Sanju baba became a national symbol of injustice.

On the other hand, ‘Sallu the Brat’, the most that can be said is that he went off on shikar in an area where hunting is banned, and then shot and killed two black bucks (and then ate them for dinner). The charge against him is poaching which was upheld, does not show him in a very good light but does not, nevertheless, suggest that he is a hood, a goonda or a terrorist. Nonetheless, Sallu was convicted and probably rightly so.

So why is it that Sanju Baba had the middle class cheering for him while Sallu sat sullenly in custody bereft of popular support?

I doubt if the answer has much to do with environmental consciousness. We care about wildlife but we care more about terrorism. Few of us -- if any -- would argue that Sallu's crime is greater than the one Sanju Baba was accused of. The real reason, I suspect, has less to do with the crimes than with the way in which we perceive both stars.

By the time Sanju Baba was charged under TADA, most people had begun to feel sorry for him. He had lost his mother in tragic circumstances, had overcome a severe drug addiction problem, had seen his marriage break up and had suffered during the Bombay riots. His father had offered to resign from the Lok Sabha because of the government's inability to control the riots. And his family had been threatened by assorted Hindu communalist organizations.

In the circumstances, it was hard to see Sanju Baba as a National Terrorist. It was easier to see him as a Macho pin-up who had decided -- when his family was threatened -- that the best way to protect them was to procure an assault rifle. It was possible that he bought this rifle from one of the many Dawood henchmen who thronged the film industry but then, who else do you buy an AK-47 from, if not a hoodlum?

Sallu’s case is perceived very differently. Largely as a consequence of the manner in which he is portrayed in the press, he is seen as being a rich, spoilt and successful brat. The only tragedies in his life seem to consist of the odd flop or the occasional broken love affair since ‘Maine Pyar Kiya’ to ‘Maine Pyar kyon Kiya’. His manner is perceived as arrogant and self-satisfied and the general view is that even if success has not gone to his head, it has certainly gone to his over-muscled biceps.

Given its frustration with our legal system, the middle class wanted to see Sallu suffer now. It wanted some tangible proof that the law treats everybody equally and that rich kids can't shoot endangered species, and then resume their normal hump-and-pump lifestyles pretending as if nothing has happened.

Situation 2 : Another level of Public Sympathy

The murder of the Jessica Lal at Qutab Collonade in Mehrauli (Delhi) in April 1999 did draw a lot of public sympathy in India in the recent time. Last month, as a verdict was finally handed down in a court in the India, the horror of the episode confirmed to many that justice is rarely served when money and power have the upper hand.

Not to mention the case again, Jessica, a part-time bartender in the much-celebrated pub was shot within a point blank range by a rich and powerful youth. There were hundreds of revellers in the premises at the time and eyewitnesses reported that a man whom she had refused to serve had shot her.

All fingers pointed to Manu Sharma, the son of a minister in the government of the northern state of Haryana, as the man who had fired the gun. He was seen fleeing from the restaurant with a number of others.

At the outset it had seemed a simple case. The murder was committed under the glare of lights in a very busy restaurant and bar. Numerous people had seen a man drawing a gun and firing at point-blank range at a beautiful young woman at the counter.

But intuitively, one after another, three primary witnesses changed their version of events, saying they had not after all had a clear sight of what had happened or could not remember what the person with the gun looked like.

The main witness was a young model-actor friend of Lal's called Shayam Munshi (who I also know very remotely since my college days) changed his mind, saying he could not understand Hindi and had signed unwillingly. Not to mention the fact, after signing a statement identifying Sharma as the killer, Shayam has since appeared in Hindi films and given interviews in several Hindi-language newspapers.

Mannu Sharma was eventually released on bail in 2002 and today runs a trendy pub-discotheque in Chandigarh (believe it or not).

Apparently, "if there could have been a crystal clear case of murder where direct evidence was available, it was this case”. So what went wrong?

Perception: Firstly, son of a Haryana Politician famous for his mischievous brawls. And secondly, imagine a scene, where all rich and famous people are invited in a party and they know each other well and one of them commit some crime. Do we expect his/her friend(s) to become a key witness to that transgression? And whom are we talking here? One, Mannu Sharma and the second, son of DP Yadav (another powerful guy/goon in the parliament)!

Her murder shattered many illusions, exposing the dark underside of this exotic world, and triggered a debate about the morals of India's gilded youth. Last month, the shock returned as it became clear that no one was to be punished for this crime that stunned the nation.

I remember, one newspaper came out saying (can’t recall the name of that newspaper now!)'No one killed Jessica'……..with prosecutors like this, who needs a defence?'

All of these, raise several disturbing questions about us. Will we not have replicated Shayam Munshi’s gesture of if we were in his position? Possibly yes, and if so why? Does it have to do with our lack or loss of faith in public institutions? Does it have something to do with the hegemony of a perverse culture of money and an immorality or amorality, of a consumption economy? What exactly is it a symptom of, what all does it index? And finally can this decline be arrested, and if so how? Do we have a role to play here?

Dharmapad Mishra

dmishra@NIHFCU.Org