Salman Khan was guilty until proven rich. He appears to have raised the bar to a new level by asserting the newly minted defence of affluenza to obtain leniency in a hit-and-run
On September 28, 2002, Salman Khan was arrested for rash and negligent driving after his land Cruiser rammed into a bakery in Mumbai. One homeless man, sleeping on the pavement outside the bakery, died on the spot and three others grievously injured. Charges of culpable homicide were levied on Salman, only to be dropped later. On July 24, 2013, Salman was formally charged with culpable homicide, to which he pleaded not guilty. On May 6, 2015, the 49-year-old actor was held accountable for all charges in the case.
It took the sessions court 13 years; we won’t say to punish Salman and give justice to the victims, but to give him ample time to appeal in the High Court. Interestingly, if the High Court and Supreme Court take the same number of years to pronounce their judgements, Salman would be all of 75 years — an age average Indian hardly reaches nowadays. Justice delayed is justice denied is an old legal maxim. Rather it’s apt to say justice is delayed to deny justice and assist the guilty. Apparently the entire session of the Judgement Day was dramatised to give each party something to be happy with. Sessions judge DW Deshpande convicted Salman for culpable homicide not amounting to murder and sentenced him to five years rigorous imprisonment. The verdict was to cheer the people fighting for justice for the poor — both killed and injured. But within hours of the pronouncement of the verdict, the Bombay High Court granted Salman interim bail till May 8, 2015, and his prison sentence was suspended by the court until the final appeal hearing in July. Interestingly, his driver Ashok Singh, who misguided the court with false witness, was seen driving the actor back.
Perhaps the judgement was delivered to create an impression that the judiciary is impartial but the way bail petitions were filed and the arrest suspended, raises serious doubts in the court proceedings. People associated with the legal machinery are well-acquainted with the proceedings of the court. The critics of the Indian judicial system opine that judiciary maintains a balance between impression and result. While it tries to create an impression that it is independent, not prejudiced, it has also created loopholes for the culprits to walk free. Analysing the consequences, it might be concluded that the impression is always an illusion. Mukesh Ambani’s son Akash Ambani killed two with his Aston Martin mowing them down inebriated. It was hushed up, didn’t hit the headlines and the family chauffeur was made the scapegoat. In 1999, Sanjeev Nanda, a Wharton Business School student, and son of industrialist Suresh Nanda, ran over six people, including three police officers. Nanda was initially acquitted and released in a trial but he was later found guilty in 2008 and given two years imprisonment, which was reduced to time served, a large fine and two years of community service by the Supreme Court in 2012.
It takes years for laymen to get their case listed in the High Courts. But Bhaijaan, as Salman is addressed, managed to get his case listed within a couple of days. This suggests the lacunae in the Indian judiciary. The poor and downtrodden cannot expect justice while contesting against high-profile people and it often proves to be a gross waste of time and money.
The humiliation that the witnesses had to face, kudos to the defence lawyers, is really disappointing. Even though the sessions court has now found Salman guilty of driving the car under the influence of alcohol, which led to the accident, but during the cross-examination the defence lawyer accused the ward boy, who took blood samples of the actor, of being drunk. Similarly prime witness police constable Ravindra Patil, accompanying Salman Khan, was accused of fabricating facts. Other witnesses too were accused of making false statements.
Considering the statement given by Ravindra Patil to be true, which even the sessions court didn’t find any reason to doubt, it will be noticed that it isn’t just a case of negligent driving but also of elitist arrogance. Patil had warned Salman more than twice but he, under the influence of alcohol, didn’t pay any heed to him.
Curiously the way Ravindra Patil was disgraced in court reminds us of an honest reel Assistant Police Commissioner Arjun essayed by Salman himself in the movie Garv: Pride & Honour. Arjun, an honest police officer, was trying to bring all criminals to justice notwithstanding the restrictions imposed by the norms of law. But the nexus of politicians, high officials of the police department and criminals led to the humiliation of Arjun. Many charges were levelled against him, which prompted the Police Commissioner to dismiss Arjun from the police force, and issue orders for his arrest — dead or alive. Arjun was captured alive and his trial commenced, with one of the allegation being that he was having incestual relations with his sister as well as having underworld connections, and killing 18 people.
Was it the story of Ravindra Patil, an honest police officer, who witnessed a high-profile film star crushing innocent people in an intoxicated state, and registered an FIR against himIJ Everyone knows how the system works, how witnesses are bought and how public prosecutors are stage-managed. Even the naïve in India would be no stranger to the high-handedness an honest constable would have been subjected to by the accused. No wonder Patil was arrested for not being able to appear in court on its hearing date. How the man, who didn’t change his statement despite a lot of pressures, was sacked from his job and later died under mysterious circumstances with tuberculosis is a blot on Indian society. Tuberculosis is not an incurable disease and it is hard to believe that a physically fit police constable would die from it.
Doesn’t the narrative of the police officer essayed by Salman in reel movie Garv: Pride & Honour bear resemblance to that of real-life account of Ravindra PatilIJ How dubious the lives of these reel heroes are! While Salman earned fame, money, and love of the public portraying an honest officer like Patil, ironically Patil died an unceremonious death.
While Salman in Garv finally won the war against evil and got the false charges against him dropped, unfortunately Patil lost everything, including his life. His death was not even enquired into. It reminds us of a quip by Parveen Shakir, the Pakistani human rights activist: “Main sachh kahungi magar phir bhi haar jaungi, woh jhooth bolega aur lajawab kar dega.” (I would lose even if I speak the truth; he would lie and leave everyone spellbound).
Almost the entire film fraternity seems to be united and rallying behind Salman. Rallying behind Salman is fine but the question is to whom are they rallying againstIJ The poor people killed on footpath, or the police officer who spoke the truth and lost his life under mysterious circumstances, or other witnesses who refused to turn hostile despite pressure, or the destitute family members of the deceasedIJ
It is appalling to see that film stars, whom we love and idolise, don’t owe us a copper. They are stars because we have made them stars. They fail to practice what they preach. Damini taught us to speak against crime even if committed by a family member, to stand for a cause, to be honest, empathetic and brave. But these hit-and-run cases teach us to be inhuman, arrogant and irresponsible.
In a competition to prove their loyalty towards the superstar, the so-called famous faces are uttering insensitive comments. Recently playback singer Abhijeet, who claims to have humble beginnings, remarked, “Kutta road pe soyega kutte ki maut marega, roads garib ke baap ki nahi hai (If a dog sleeps on the road, it’ll die a dog’s death. Roads are not poor people’s property). I was homeless for a year, never slept on the road”. Similarly Farah Khan Ali, a jewellery designer, said, “It’s like penalising a train driver because someone decided to cross the tracks and got killed in the bargain.”
It seems that the singer and the designer don’t know the difference between a road and a footpath. Why do they forget that a shop was also damaged, which was not on the roadIJ Abhijeet should not forget that the road is not built with the black money funnelled by the underworld, but with taxes that the common man pays. A dialogue from Jolly llB, a social satire on the law system of the country and loosely inspired by Salman’s hit-and-run case, seems to be penned just to answer the singer: “Maanta hoon footpath pe sone ka haq nahi hai , par footpath gaadi bhi chalaane ke liye nahi hoti. (Agreed one shouldn’t sleep on the footpath, but the footpath is not for driving your car either).” Footpath is not meant to drive a car at a speed of 90-100 kmph.
Many argue that Salman is a Good Samaritan and has done a lot for the poor. Unfortunately none of them realise he was drunk, and disregarding the warnings of his security guard, drove at breakneck speed, causing the death of one and serious injury to four homeless. Accidents do happen on road. But what is more disappointing is that he fled the spot, leaving the victims to bleed. He ruined their lives and didn’t look back. In order to shield himself, he mercilessly ruined the lives of the witnesses, slandering them and leading to their mysterious disappearance and death. He didn’t hesitate in misusing the social, economical, and psychological weaknesses of Ashok Singh, their faithful family driver, and make him a scapegoat.
Salman has been controversy’s favourite child. His relationship with actress Aishwarya Rai was a well-publicised topic in the Indian media. In 2006, Salman was given one year imprisonment for hunting a Chinkara, an endangered species, even though the sentence was stayed by a higher court during appeal. Whereas on April 10, 2006, he was sentenced to five years in jail and remanded in Jodhpur jail until April 13 when he was granted bail for poaching an endangered black buck. These apart, another case of illegal possession of arms is still pending against him in Rajasthan High Court.
The pending high-profile cases mock at the Indian judicial system. Whereas May 2014 case of GN Saibaba, a lecturer in English at Ramlal Anand College, Delhi University, who while returning home after evaluating answer scripts was abducted by unknown men, who later identified themselves as Maharashtra Police questions the fissures in the legal system in India. Something is terribly wrong. While someone yet to be convicted is jailed and tortured without trial, people having wealth and power are given bail within two hours of being convicted.
Salman is not just a name. His name connotes an identity with which people connect, idolise. Public has heaped immense love on him, for the roles he has essayed and for being a Good Samaritan. People expect a lot from him. Salman owes them all a little honesty and conscience to confess to his own excesses. Salman, we are waiting.
Anish Gupta and Aaleya Giri teach Economics and English respectively at Delhi University. They can be reached at pioneer.article@gmail.com
