Katju ka Faltu mein Man Dola

Being a blogger in India is like being a dope peddler in Jamaica, or a match fixer in Pakistan. You never run out of stuff.

Every week, there are people literally screaming to be mentioned here. People making absolute asses of themselves, in full public view, and seeming very proud of it as well.

This week’s contribution is by Justice Katju.

Now, I don’t know if the national media has an agenda to pick one person for the entire year and publish whatever they say. If you think about it, every year, there is one person who is mentioned in the news again and again. There was Rakhi Sawant, Mahesh Bhatt, Poonam Pandey, and now this year, it is Justice Katju.

The most annoying thing about Justice Katju is not the fact that he closely resembles singer Abjijit Bhattacharya (the Sunny Deol of the Bollywood music industry – always screaming against Pakistani singers, but rarely finding work these days)

The most annoying thing about Justice Katju is the utter contempt in his statements for everyone else but himself. Justice Katju has had an outstanding career as a judge, but how does that qualify him to become the Chairman of the Press Council of India? To a layman, the role of the role of the Chairman of the PCI would mean monitoring the media of the country. Not bitchslapping politicians, supporting actors, and calling 90% of the nation ‘idiots’.

Justice Katju doling out wisdom in one of his many avatars

Does becoming the Chairman of the PCI entitle you to an opinion on everything? Apparently, it does.

So Katju appeared on our newspapers this week, saying that Sanjay Dutt needs to be pardoned.

Now, I can understand that Bollywood folks want him set free. Going by the kind of stories chosen to be made, the average IQ of a Bollywood actor might mildly surpass that of an anteater’s. They can’t be taken seriously.

Most of the messages say, “Sanjay Dutt is not a criminal.” Hmmmm. Why would a person keep an AK-56 with him, then? A collector of antiques, may be? A connoisseur of firing weapons? Or may be he liked the film Ab-taK 56? I don’t know. Like their films, their arguments don’t make sense.

But why would a learned man like Justice Katju talk about freeing an actor? Not only does the idea seem preposterous coming from a former Chief Justice, it is a bukkake in the face of that idol in every court that stands for equality before law.

And not only did Mr. Katju simply state his wishes, he wrote a letter to the Governor of Maharashtra. A six point letter that will go down in history as one of the greatest letters ever written by a judge.

Here is the letter:

Your Excellency,

The media has reported today that Sanjay Dutt has been awarded 5 years imprisonment by the Supreme Court. I appeal to you to pardon him under Article 161 of the Constitution for the following reasons:

(i) The Supreme Court, having found that Sanjay Dutt had in his possession a prohibited weapon without a licence, awarded him the minimum imprisonment which was prescribed under law. Section  25 (1(A) of the Arms Act states that if a person has in his possession a prohibited weapon without a licence he shall be awarded punishment of not less than 5 years imprisonment and not more than 10 years. Having found Sanjay Dutt in possession of a prohibited weapon, which is defined in Section 2 (1) (i) of the Arms Act as an automatic weapon which keeps firing until release of the pressure on the trigger, the Supreme Court awarded him 5 years imprisonment. However, there is power in the Court under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to release the person under these circumstances of the case on furnishing a bond.

A few months back, Katju had said that 90% of Indians were idiots. The contempt comes across clearly as he defines for us idiots what is a gun (an automatic weapon which keeps firing until release of the pressure on the trigger). He then goes on to mention the exact clause under which Dutt could be pardoned, but ignores that it would be unfair to all the others ‘idiots’ who are accused of the same crime.

He then goes on to explain with the help of six points why Dutt needs to be pardoned. Each of those points are so rich, so dipped in logic that he should win six Booker prizes for each of those points.

 

a. The event happened in 1993 i.e. 20 years ago. During this period Sanjay suffered a lot, and had a cloud hovering over his head throughout. He had to undergo various tribulations and indignities during this period. He had to go to Court often, he had to take the permission of the Court for foreign shootings, he could not get bank loans, etc.

 

Okay, firstly. Let’s talk about the indignities that Sanjay Dutt went through. The media (which Katju is supposed to monitor as part of his real job, by the way) has been following Dutt since the time he was first jailed. It has created a ‘bad boy’ image for him, something he has exploited in numerous films. His case was fought for by Ram Jethmalani, that paragon of justice and equality, which obviously is what he means by ‘indignities’. Incidentally, a 71 year old woman Zaibunissa Qazi, was charged with the same crime (possession of arms) but since she did not have the entire nation asking for mercy, she was charged with TADA. For the same crime, all the others get booked under TADA, but not Sanjay Dutt.

Over the years, Sanjay Dutt was paid crores to act in unintelligent films like ‘Waah! Life ho to Aisi’ and ‘Rudraksh’ – inflicting mental torture on viewers after having them pay for it. He enjoyed a luxurious life of cars and bikes, and if the media is to be believed, is paid 5-7 crores for each of the 4-5 films he signs every year. India’s Per Capita Income has been marked as Rs. 5,729 per month. This guy earns 30 crores a year, and you say he needs to be pardoned because of the indignities he faced, like asking the court’s permission to leave the country?

 

b. Sanjay Dutt has already undergone 18 months in jail.

Hmmm. Alright. So the punishment is ‘not less than 5 years in jail’, which comes to 60 months. He has served 18 months. With the gift of Mathematics that Justice Katju is endowed with, he has arrived at the conclusion that 60 – 18 = 0. LHS = RHS. Hence Proved. The law might not be equal for everybody, Mr. Katju. Thankfully, Mathematics is.

 

c. Sanjay Dutt has got married, and they have two small children.

Katju should get a Booker Prize and a big pack of Diary Milk Silk for this point. He has gotten married and has kids. Yeah. So? The nation, its judicial system, and penal code, should bend over backwards to forgive this guy. Because he put his life at risk to have kids?

Dawood Ibrahim is married with kids, as is Chhota Shakeel. How about we pardon them too? If that is one of the points on which you demand he be pardoned, what about the rest of our criminals? With a population nearing 200 crores, why don’t we make a list of all the criminals with kids, and then pardon them? Mental fellow!

 

d. He has not been held to be a terrorist, and had no hand in the bomb blasts.

This is again baffling. A few years back, Justice Katju was part of the bench that gave bail to Binayak Sen. Binayak Sen is a doctor who was working in the interiors of the jungles of Jharkhand. He was charged with sedition and conspiring against the state. Katju said that ‘mere membership of a banned organisation would not make a person a criminal under the TADA”. Now, Sanjay Dutt was booked under the same case, TADA. He was accused of purchasing firearms from the propagators of the 93 blasts. And not just a mere pistol, mind you. Abu Salem and co-accused Riyaz Siddiqui delivered 9 AK – 56 rifles and some hand grenades, and later a pistol. And then, people say he wanted to protect his family. Against what? The Chinese Army??

In another point that no one brings up amidst the bonhomie, Dutt was known to be close to the gangsters. The pistol he purchased was given to him by Anees Ibrahim, Dawood’s brother. Also, Outlook in 2002 released a series of transcripts where Dutt speaks to Chhota Shakeel, calling him ‘bhai’, talking about film projects, and asking him to ‘fix’ some people in the industry. When you know the entire nation is looking for a person for the death of more than 300 people, and you keep in touch with him over the phone and ask for his blessings, doesn’t it cast some shadows on your character? But of course, Mr. Katju could just put it down to some extra social networking. That’s all!

 

e. His parents Sunil Dutt and Nargis worked for the good of society and the nation. Sunil Dutt and Nargis often went to border areas to give moral support to our brave jawans and did other social work for society.

This is again a load of bull. Being a Supreme Court judge, could Mr. Katju show me one document, one legal instance or ruling where someone was pardoned because his parents were good people who worked for the society? They might have done social work, but isn’t the point of a law and legal system to punish someone for their own crimes, and not forgive them for the virtues of their parents? Are we living in the times of Krishna, where Shishupala was pardoned because his mother was a noble person?

What sort of a fucked up logic is this?

And finally, the greatest point of them all, aptly titled “f”.

f. Sanjay in this period of 20 years has through his film revived the memory of Mahatma Gandhi and the message of Gandhiji, the father of the nation.

Really, Mr. Katju? He revived the memory of Mahatma Gandhi? By acting in a film where he imagines Gandhi giving him advice? Going by the same logic, Raj Kumar Hirani should be smiling right now. He can go and shoot Anu Malik for the terrible music in Munnabhai MBBS and get away with it. After all, he was the director, the captain of the ship, right? He was responsible in keeping the memory of Gandhi alive.

Also, Ajay Devgan and Bobby Deol for Bhagat Singh, Sunny Deol for Chandrashekar Azad, Aamir Khan for Mangal Pandey, and Rajpal Yadav for Hero – Love Story of a Spy? How about we give them all some immunity because they kept the memories of our heroes alive? And going by the same logic, Manoj Bajpayee and Nawazuddin Siddiqui should go to jail for their roles in Gangs of Wasseypur, no?

The fact is that the same law through which you earned your bread and butter, Mr. Katju, is strong enough to refuse you your shallow demands. It will stand true on its own, in spite of the sycophantic ass-licking that the entire nation seems to be engaged in.

It’s true that Sanjay Dutt is not a terrorist. It’s true that he did not purchase the guns to shoot people. But he did it fully aware of the repercussions, and of the identity of the people he bought them from. For every Sanjay Dutt, there are thousands of convicts who do not have access to top lawyers, or the comfort of hundreds of crores to keep their families comfortable while they serve their sentence.

You should be ashamed, Mr. Katju. Being an icon in legal circles, you have shattered every ounce of respect I had for you.

Welcome to the 90% Club, Mr. Katju. We are all idiots, aren’t we?

Interviewing P. Sainath

It was one of those days when you think nothing special will happen. I was sitting in my room when I saw a mail from a professor.

“Dear Hriday, P. Sainath will be in the University. Could you come up with a list of questions to interview him?”

My jaw dropped.

***********************************************************

P. Sainath has been a crusader in print media, and a legend in journalistic circles. He heads the Rural Affairs section of The Hindu, and you might not believe this, but before him, not a single paper even carried a page on Rural Affairs. His book ‘Everybody Loves a Good Drought‘ won the Pulitzer Prize and with the money he has set up an organisation that encourages journalism among rural youth. He spends about 300 days a year in rural areas, and you won’t see him on television channels on news panels.

I was excited.

I started preparing my list of questions a few days in advance.

I had only seen a few of his interviews on YouTube, and they were all either speeches he was giving at some event, or interviews to people who were probably recording through their mobile phones.

And I noticed he wasn’t the most curt of people. He would randomly throw in words like ‘bullshit’ and ‘fuck’. This was going to be fun!

Now, I have watched interviews and news shows since I was in my Primary School. Since the TV is among the least democratic places at any Indian home, I had no option but to watch news interviews throughout my childhood.

Karan Thapar’s interview of Kapil Dev (which I wrote about here) has remained etched in my mind. It was when I first noticed how much power the interviewer wields over the interview. Arnab Goswami used to fascinate me for a few years, but then I saw him interview Bal Thackeray once, and the way he fell flat and licked his feet like a pussy, made me cringe.

I thought about it a lot. What sort of an interview was I going to conduct?

I didn’t want Sainath to think of the interview as just some random college interview that had some ‘safe’ questions.

Now, let’s talk about the scenario.

It was 2011. India had won the World Cup a few months back. Weeks later, Anna Hazare had started his campaign, and the nation was up in arms. Facebook was full of posts and pictures called ‘I am Anna’, and a few of my classmates unfriended each other on FB because they didn’t agree on Anna’s stance.

I had seen a few interviews of Sainath where he had spoken about how Anna’s recommendation of a Lokpal was screwed, as only the elite could be a member of the Lokpal committee. He meticulously pointed out that none of the members could be democratically elected.

I had a starting point.

Another of Sainath’s pet peeves is the way media functions in the country. He loves to give the example of the India Fashion Week, where 500 journalists covered an event where clothes that were worn by 1% of the country were displayed. At the same time, the number of journalists who cover the farmer suicides in Vidarbha is a pittance.

As a media student, I had my second question.

Upon further digging, I found that on one hand Sainath was proud that the media was partly responsible for starting the anti-corruption movement (something that he had been talking about for years). At the same time, he was angered by how the entire movement had become an event on Facebook, with nepotism and jingoism overtaking logic.

I had found my line of fire !

**********************************************

I sent my questions to the department and apart from a few changes, the list was okayed.

I was to conduct the interview with another classmate, and I had to remind myself that this was not a class debate, and I couldn’t simply stand up and shoot off my opinion. I had to wait and listen, and then ask questions when the person was done.

I read up on how to be a good interviewer. I saw some interviews of my favourite guys – Thapar, John Lipton, Stephen Fry. I imagined how the interview would happen, playing it over and over in my head.

I had long hair back then, and much against my wishes I got them cut. Feeling a bit like Samson without his locks, I stood in front of whatever mirrors were left in our hostel toilets, and practiced my expressions. I put on my pedophile glasses and a new kurta.

You could say, I was suitably prepared.

After his address at the University’s auditorium, Sainath walked into the department.

 

********

 

The interview began slowly, like the first few overs of a Test match.

I bowled a few outside off, and Sainath looked at them carefully, and safely blocked them with a straight bat.

I remember thinking about this analogy. That I was a fast bowler, and if I bowled too safe, I would only get cover drives. I was looking for the lofted six over long on. As I said, I was on my own trip!

The questions got a bit riskier.

I had attended his address, and I tweaked the questions a little bit.

“You had spoken about Gandhi being a prolific journalist. Do you think he would have approved of the Anna campaign that’s going on right now?”

Now, I should admit there is no point to such questions, really. It’s a hypothetical question, and no one would really know for sure. But such questions make for ‘quote-worthy’ replies, and I persisted.

I saw him flinch, and turn away. He sounded a bit agitated. Ha!

As the interview progressed, he got more and more animated.

The topics then moved on to the media, and why the media doesn’t cover news about rural affairs. He had spoken about this a lot, but I thought that for a media college, it had a lot of relevance.

That did it!

He flew into top gear. He spoke about assumed target audiences. About the problem of ‘Paid News’ that plagued every paper in the country. He spoke about the corruption of the Rajas and Kalmadis, and how the lesser reported incidents – the ones that could actually make or break a poor man’s life – were of equal importance.

He spoke about the exalted Liberalisation measures. Of how it might not be as haloed as it is made out to be.

After a point, it stopped being about me vs. him.

He spoke clearly – not once rushing his words, or looking away. He looked straight at me when he talked, and stressed on the words he wanted to stress. Not once did he treat me like some chutiya college interviewer, he never smiled at my questions, or dismissed them away as trivial.

Amidst the lights and the cameras, it somehow felt good. It felt good that he had taken me seriously. Felt good that I had his interest throughout the interview.

The next few questions flew by in an instant, and by the end of the interview, I felt foolish about wanting to spike him.

I thanked him for the interview, and we stood up. He was polite, shook hands, and spoke to the professor.

I stood there, genuinely pleased with myself.

 

**********

After he left, I walked into the studio room, and I saw everyone sitting silently, some with their hands on their heads. I asked them what happened.

They had forgotten to record the sound for the interview.

Not a word from the 30 minute interview had been captured.

I don’t remember if I felt shattered or angry. I just walked out.

I don’t normally tell people that I had once interviewed Sainath. When they ask me for proof, I have nothing to show.

It must still be lying around somewhere, that interview. If you walk into the Communication department at the University of Hyderabad, you might find it in the archives. A video where the people are talking furiously, nodding vigorously – but no sound escapes their mouth.

It’s true what they say. Truth is often stranger than fiction.