Main Rou Yaa Hasoon....
Supposedly nation is in disarray over Salman getting sentenced for 5 years of RI.
http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1671691,001100030009.htm
A housewife: "So many people commit such heinous crimes in broad daylight, but go scot-free. Why only Salman has to go through the trauma?"
Great! Let's not punish anybody since it is practically impossible to punish every single criminal. The same housewife would have been very angry when Manu Sharma went scot-free a few weeks ago. She probably issued statement on the lines of "In our country rich can get away with murder. Only poor get punished." Now when rich are getting punished, we have problems with that also.
My favourite bit from the story is from a 14 year old girl: "If Nehru can write from jail, why can't Salman act from there?"
14 year old are not dumb, except this one. The reporter is dumb to interview her, editor is dumb to publish it and I probably am the biggest of all to read and write about it.
http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1671691,001100030009.htm
A housewife: "So many people commit such heinous crimes in broad daylight, but go scot-free. Why only Salman has to go through the trauma?"
Great! Let's not punish anybody since it is practically impossible to punish every single criminal. The same housewife would have been very angry when Manu Sharma went scot-free a few weeks ago. She probably issued statement on the lines of "In our country rich can get away with murder. Only poor get punished." Now when rich are getting punished, we have problems with that also.
My favourite bit from the story is from a 14 year old girl: "If Nehru can write from jail, why can't Salman act from there?"
14 year old are not dumb, except this one. The reporter is dumb to interview her, editor is dumb to publish it and I probably am the biggest of all to read and write about it.
posted by Nikhil at 8:59 PM
5 Comments:
Ok, I will take the bait here. You have problems against this comment by a housewife: "So many people commit such heinous crimes in broad daylight, but go scot-free. Why only Salman has to go through the trauma?"
You are missing the point she is making. What she meant there are several *heinous* crimes such as murder, rape, etc. committed in broad daylight, but those people go scot-free. Against such heinous crimes, what has Salman done?
This is a valid point, but it misses its target. What Salman did was illegal under Indian law and hence, by law, he deserves to be punished. But is such a law a right law? Do you think a human being should be severely punished for harming an animal...even if it is from an endangered species? Do you know of any other species in nature that will punish one of its kind for harming other species?
If you think it's ok to punish such people, then what do you think about people who torture animals just for their own pleasure? And you are (maybe unwittingly) one of them if you drink milk, or eat eggs, meat, etc.
Btw, I am trying to be neutral here...I can provide arguments for either side of the debate. But here, I know your stand, and I am purely trying to argue the opposite so that you actually spend time thinking about this rather than shoot off whatever comes to your mind immediately.
No I am not missing the point about Salman Khan. I know exactly what is happening. We need not even discuss about endangered species and whether killing them should be punishable and if drinking milk and eating eggs is immoral.
The law enforcement officers are not stupid. This is like Al Capone's case. They could not get him for heinous crimes so finally booked him for tax evasion. I am not happy since Salman is booked for killing animals, I am just happy that he is booked.
If the same thing happened to say Zaheer Khan (in case you think I am shooting off because he is a muslim), my stand would be different. And I doubt Pataudi will go through all this.
Salman Khan is one of those who has underworld links, has done quite a few bad things including a drunken driving vehicular manslaughter. He is trying to save himself and they are trying to book him for something. About the housewife's statement, again, first she needs to understand all this. Considering she does not, there is certain added value in punishing celebrities. Punish one Martha Stewart and 10 people will stop inside trading (which she was not punished for but the message gets across.)
Were you neutral during Sanjay Dutt's case also? He also did not kill anyone. He just had an AK-56. Many countries allow you to have arms (just like many animal species do not punish their own for killing some other animal). Then why was Sanjay Dutt jailed?
"Do you know of any other species in nature that will punish one of its kind for harming other species?"
So even though animals are not able to think like humans, we should follow their example??
Anyone who wants to stay neutral about Salman Khan for the sake of arguing(you) or because of her love of Salman(housewife), does not know the frustration law enforcement has to suffer from when they cannot book celebrities for heinous crimes.
I am neutral about Sanjay Dutt's case also. In both of these cases, all I really know about the case is what I have heard, and there have been a lot of conflicting things. How can you, a person sitting at home, judge a person when you do not have sufficient knowledge about that person and the incident?
Let me ask you this. Suppose some militant came running in your house, banged into your house, and threatened you to not open your mouth about his visit...and say, left his gun sitting in your house. Before leaving, he again threatened you to not tell anyone about it, and told you that one of his colleagues will come and pick it up later...what are you going to do? (Have you seen Drohkaal by any chance?)
As for Salman Khan, do you think it is as obvious a case as say that of Al Capone? You mention heinous crimes committed by him, and his links with the underworld. Unfortunately, this has neither been proved nor even substantiated up to a certain point. So your claim that he should be booked for this to make up for his other crimes for which he has not been punished is unjust according to the law. Is it his mistake that our law enforcement officers cannot obtain sufficient evidence to nail him? Anyway, I have also heard several people mention Salman is a good guy who does significant charity, help, etc. Now, whom do we believe and why?
I agree with what you said about law enforcement officers: I don't know about their frustration regarding capturing criminals. But I have heard of quite a few law enforcement officers who take bribes... especially here in Karnataka. That probably comes because their frustration with their low salaries...but this is going off the point. Just because some "good guys" are frustrated doesn't mean you let them catch any guy and beat him up!
Regarding the argument about animals and humans, who told you that it is right to punish a human being because he did something which you think is wrong? Who gave you the right to do so?
I am neutral about Sanjay Dutt's case also. In both of these cases, all I really know about the case is what I have heard, and there have been a lot of conflicting things. How can you, a person sitting at home, judge a person when you do not have sufficient knowledge about that person and the incident?
How can you, a person sitting at home, know what I know about Sanjay Dutt's case? I also know a person who used to attend his case. Read a book called "Maximum City" by Suketu Mehta, and Suketu is a friend of Sanjay Dutt. He tells how Sanjay Dutt helped another common friend, Vidhu Vinod Chopra from Dubai underworld.
Let me ask you this. Suppose some militant came running in your house, banged into your house, and threatened you to not open your mouth about his visit...and say, left his gun sitting in your house. Before leaving, he again threatened you to not tell anyone about it, and told you that one of his colleagues will come and pick it up later...what are you going to do? (Have you seen Drohkaal by any chance?)
I sincerely hope you do not believe that this was the case of Sanjay Dutt. If you are believing this, just to be neutral, then you are arguing for the sake of arguing. Seriously Anand, read some more about his case.
Unfortunately, this has neither been proved nor even substantiated up to a certain point. So your claim that he should be booked for this to make up for his other crimes for which he has not been punished is unjust according to the law. Is it his mistake that our law enforcement officers cannot obtain sufficient evidence to nail him?
About not being proved, most of the crimes commited by the rich are not proved due to technicalities or witness turning hostile etc. Sounds like you would be sympathising with all of them saying it was never proved. Salman was driving drunk and killed a man. I guess it would be tough to convince you of that also :)
but this is going off the point. Just because some "good guys" are frustrated doesn't mean you let them catch any guy and beat him up!
That's your problem. You think of Salman as "any" guy. He is not. He is different. There is a reason he was singled out. And it is not because of refusing to pay bribes to low-salaried policeman.
Anyway, I have also heard several people mention Salman is a good guy who does significant charity, help, etc. Now, whom do we believe and why?
We can question our every action. There can be arguments from either side. Even if he did the charity work, does that mean he is either only good or only bad? Can he not commit a crime AND do charity work? Are people that simple? Forgetting all your "neutral" arguments and the fact that he is Salman the basic question from the housewife (the point I was missing) since some serious crimes are left unpunished, lets sympathise with everyone who is punished for lesser crimes, is just plain wrong.
Regarding the argument about animals and humans, who told you that it is right to punish a human being because he did something which you think is wrong? Who gave you the right to do so?
It seems you are questioning the basic institution of law and order. They are not that bad in India. Sure there are some weird laws but it is not difficult to comply with most of them. From the tone of your last paragraph, I don't think I want to argue further. I cannot go to the basics of why law and order is required etc. Sounds like you like to question some basic things, it would be great to have a society where there is no laws or law enforcement, right? We are not living in an ideal society and everyone's IQ is not like yours.
:-)
I question almost everything. When you are trying to argue, you base it on certain axioms in which you believe in. And there is always a problem if the axioms that people have are different. So in any argument, there are two levels at which you can think about. One is the standard way in which you think...btw, I agree with you on most points. But there is another level where you can question each thing in the larger scheme of things...
Post a Comment
<< Home