24 March 2013, 07:40 PM IST
In an ideal world, the sentence handed out to Sanjay Dutt should not merit too much discussion. The facts of the case have not been challenged, and the court has given him the minimum punishment that his crime calls for. Those that argue for the waiver of the punishment have really no grounds for doing so and to suggest, as Justice Katju has that the appeals for clemency have nothing to do with the fact that Dutt is a celebrity is difficult to take seriously. No other person convicted under the Arms Act has merited even a mention in media, let alone any special consideration. Other people associated with his crime have been punished and no one has spoken out for them. That is not to say that Sanjay Dutt might not merit sympathy at a human level, but that is where it must end. Many have argued this- some have done so cogently and dispassionately , while others, particularly on social media, have reacted with hand-wringing outrage that a pardon could even be considered for a crime as heinous as Dutt's.
The anger against the possibility of Dutt's getting exempted from punishment because of who he is, is understandable, but the outrage against him personally at this stage doesn't quite ring true-after all, the sentencingmerely confirms what we all knew. That he was in possession of illegal arms, which he destroyed with the help of others , some of whom were involved in the blast. That he has already been convicted and is out on bail pendingan appeal against a six year sentence that was handed out to him. The anger against him should have been as great in the past as it is now, for really nothing has changed. And yet, in full knowledge of all this, for all theseyears Dutt has been accepted whole-heartedly by the industry and the public ; he has starred in many blockbuster films as well appeared in many heart-warming media interviews, which have been lapped up by a largely adoring public.
The contradiction is even more telling in the case of Salman Khan, the other superstar in legal trouble. Here again, we have someone involved in multiple cases, including one that involves a hit-and-run that killed one person and injured three others. Here again, the star is out on bail in one case and facing up to 10 years in prison in another. He endorses any number of brands, has launched his own line of fashion products, and is the subject off awning media attention, which rarely questions him about these issues. No brand seems to have an issue associating with someone out on bail for hunting protected wildlife and accused of running over innocent people sleeping on a pavement. The truth is that Salman Khan may not be in jail today, but that is only because of a technical debate about the section under which he should be tried and the quantum of punishment that his crime should attract. Currently his legal cases are framed as an inconvenience, a terrible burden that he heroically labours through. Of course, it is likely that this uncritical acceptance of the star's problems will turn into venomousanger if he is sentenced to jail. Suddenly, the terrible nature of his crimes will be discovered as if new, and no sympathy will come his way.
What allows a society to be separate the notions of guilt and punishment with such clinical detachment? Why is the anger visible only at the point of sentencing, and not at the crime itself, nor indeed at the point when guilt is established? In both these cases, it is not as if there is too much doubt about the facts of the case or the involvement of the stars, so if the anger was really directed at the crime itself, it should have been in evidence all along. In cases like these, where the crimes in question violate fundamental human and societal codes, one would expect social outrage to manifest itself as an instinct, gushing forth with unreasonable force, preceding the technical establishment of guilt.
Perhaps the reason for the apparent paradox is that the issue does not involve morality as much as it involves power. That Salman and Sanjay might be guilty of a moral transgression does not cause sustained outrage; their power as celebrities seems to neutralise any feeling of anger. There is more to gain from basking in their power than it is to ask troubling questions of them. It is when the power equation changes, when an external agencyrenders them vulnerable, that the tide turns. Any attempt by the celebrity to use his power now is a challenge that must be quelled . Punishment is the price that is extracted for the changed power equation that now exists.Now what makes for more enjoyable consumption is the spectacle of the celebrity's fall from grace. The choice seems to be between submission and domination rather than between right and wrong.
It appears that we live in a time of hair-trigger suggestibility that makes for volatile swings in mood based on very little. The absence of an embedded belief system combined with a great sense of one's own power makes everyevent a trial on which we preside. Each event is consumed within the context of its own logic rather than against a larger moral code. When Sanjay Dutt was seen through the lens of redemption, he could do nothing wrong, but in a flash, the logic changed . The labelling of actions becomes more important than the action itself; we suspend moral evaluation but accelerate pronouncements, based on this labelling. A heightened sense of justice,detached from larger principles and divorced from an ability to reflect on issues, creates a mob-like mindset, waiting to attack whatever is labelled prey. The issue of Sanjay Dutt's punishment is by itself easy to swat away;our reaction to it however raises more troubling questions.
Anda sedang membaca artikel tentang
Punishing the punished
Dengan url
http://osteoporosista.blogspot.com/2013/03/punishing-punished.html
Anda boleh menyebar luaskannya atau mengcopy paste-nya
Punishing the punished
namun jangan lupa untuk meletakkan link
sebagai sumbernya
0 komentar:
Posting Komentar