[nukkad] Any truth or just misleading using smart justaposing of events?

[Net Geek <>]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  This list archived on the web at:
         http://www.mumbai-central.com/nukkad/archive.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/aug/06dilip.htm

It's been so many years that I can't quite remember where I saw the sign. It was at
a cinema on Lamington Road in the heart of Mumbai, that I know. But was it Naaz or
Novelty or Imperial or Apsara or Minerva? All the way back in May of 1993, one of
these old city institutions had the sign out in front. It announced that showings of
Khalnayak -- the Sanjay Dutt film that had just been released -- had been resumed,
with the 'kind permission of Shri Balasaheb Thackeray.' 

You see, Sanjay Dutt had been arrested a few weeks earlier on suspicion of being
involved in the bomb blasts of March 12, 1993. Without any kind of trial, Thackeray
and the Shiv Sena decided he was guilty. His films, including the unfortunately
named Khalnayak, were 'banned' by Thackeray. Sainiks disrupted shows, and also spent
their free time ripping up or simply defacing posters for the film. The producer of
Khalnayak, whoever it was and to his eternal shame, agreed to various cuts. After
which the film could be seen again. By the 'kind permission of Shri Balasaheb
Thackeray.' 

The notion that Shri Balasaheb Thackeray should 'ban' something, then hand out 'kind
permission' to do something else, did not seem to strike the owners of the theatre
as in any way odd. 

But within months, Thackeray changed his tune on Dutt. In early 1995, still without
any kind of trial, he decided that Sanjay was actually innocent and must be freed
from prison. He railed against the CBI for keeping Sanjay behind bars for so long.
The authorities, he said, should not turn 'vindictive' towards this 'innocent' young
man. Everybody in the Dutt family, he said, was a patriotic Indian. He was also
deeply worried, he said, by the huge loss Sanjay's incarceration had caused the film
industry. 

200 million rupees, he said. 

That is, in less than two years, Sanjay Dutt went from being everyone's Khalnayak to
being the innocent patriot who had been greatly wronged. Which wrong, just by the
way, was causing huge losses to the industry. What might have caused Thackeray's
change of heart? Who knows? Though there had been frantic visits by members of the
Dutt family to Thackeray's home. In fact, when Sanjay was eventually released on
bail, he went straight there, before returning to his home. 

The charm of those visits, apparently, has worn off over the years. Now there has
been another change of heart. Thackeray has once again decided that Sanjay is
guilty. This time, it is because of the publication of extensive transcripts of
Sanjay's phone conversations with the mobster Chhota Shakeel. This time, Thackeray
is 'of the view that Sanjay Dutt should not be defended at any cost' (The Sunday
Times of India, August 4). 

With the tapes, it's deja vu all over again. Our news is filled with shots of
'activists' ripping up or simply defacing posters of Sanjay's just released film,
Yeh Hai Jalwa. 

Don't ask me for an explanation of all these tortuous goings-on: whether of Sanjay's
crimes and conversations or of Thackeray and his confederates' views on them. I'm
just sitting here watching these wheels go round and round. I'm just befuddled by it
all. 

And it is hardly just the flip-flops that befuddle me. There's much else in this
whole affair that will do the job as well. Start with what Sanjay was originally
arrested for, back in 1993. 

About a month after the bomb blasts, Sanjay's name popped up in the investigations
into the blasts. Two film producers, Samir Hingora and Hanif Kadawala, had been
arrested on suspicion of being part of the conspiracy around the blasts. While being
questioned, they claimed they had bought three AK-56 machine guns. They told the
police that they had sold one of them to Sanjay. When this came to light, Sanjay was
shooting in Mauritius. He immediately denied that he owned the gun. He owned other
licensed guns, he said, but: 'How can I possibly have an AK-56? This is absolutely
untrue.' 

He returned from Mauritius the next day and was picked up by the police as soon as
he landed at the airport. While being interrogated, he changed his mind and
confessed to possessing that AK-56 after all. As his family had received several
threats during the Mumbai riots two months earlier, Sanjay said, he bought the gun
to protect them. Now Mumbai remained the 'notified area' it had been declared during
the riots. Carrying a weapon in such an area, as Sanjay had, was an automatic
offence. So he was arrested under TADA -- the anti-terrorist law then in effect.
Because he had bought the gun from bomb blast suspects, he was accused of 'joining
hands with anti-national elements' in the bomb blast comspiracy. It was evident, the
police wrote in their application to the designated TADA court for custody, 'that
Sanjay is one of the members of this wide conspiracy of smuggling and distributing
firearms, ammunition and explosives brought from abroad and the occurrence of a
series of bomb blasts in Bombay.' 

Hold all that in your head while I take you a little further down memory lane. To
the time, two months before the blasts, when another man had an encounter with the
authorities. 

It was the night of January 11, 1993. Rioting in Mumbai was at its fiercest and most
rabid. In Nirmal Nagar, not far from Bandra, an army patrol stopped a jeep. In it
was an elected member of the state legislative assembly and several friends. Also in
the jeep were many weapons, including revolvers, live cartridges, choppers, cricket
stumps and hockey sticks. At least one of the revolvers was unlicensed. Even though
the MLA had a license for another, by simply carrying the weapon in a notified area,
especially during rioting, the MLA had broken the law -- as Sanjay did, just months
later. For these reasons, the army detained the occupants of the jeep and turned
them over to the police. 

It took three days for the Nirmal Nagar police to actually take the MLA into
custody. They explained that the delay was due to a 'procedural mix-up' -- by the
army, they claimed. Meanwhile, a huge mob gathered at the police station and
demanded his release. So he was let off on bail. On February 6, he was arrested
under TADA. He was soon out on a technicality. 

Who was this illustrious gentleman? Madhukar Sarpotdar, MLA for Thackeray's Shiv
Sena. 

I assume no responsibility for any irony you may sense here. But wait, there are two
other interesting angles to explore in this whole affair. 

The first: also in the jeep that January night in Nirmal Nagar was someone called
Anil Parab. At a subsequent press conference, journalists repeatedly asked the then
police commissioner, S K Bapat: was this the infamous Anil Parab who was a known
hitman for Dawood Ibrahim? Bapat was silent. Which probably answered the question
anyway. 

Riding in a jeep with Anil Parab with weapons during a riot; talking to Chhota
Shakeel on the phone; do you see a difference? If so, I'd like to know what it is. 

The second came during the bomb blast investigations. On April 12, 1993, The
Afternoon reported: 'The Bombay police have stumbled upon the names of several film
personalities [and politicians] who owned illegal arms allegedly supplied by the
underworld don Dawood Ibrahim. ... Interrogation of suspects in connection with the
bomb blasts has thrown up names of film personalities such as Sanjay Dutt.' This
interrogation, of course, led to Sanjay's arrest. 

But the Afternoon's report continued: 'The suspects have also named Shiv Sena MLA
Madhukar Sarpotdar among nine politicians who acquired arms from the D-gang or its
henchmen. The arms were mainly sophisticated revolvers, valued at Rs 150,000 each,
according to police sources.' 

A week later, Sanjay Dutt was arrested under TADA. Then chief minister Sharad Pawar
broke the news of his arrest in the Maharashtra assembly. The Indian Express (April
20, 1993) quoted Pawar saying on the floor of the assembly: 'The suspect who named
Sanjay had during the interrogation revealed several other names including that of
Madhukar Sarpotdar.' 

So as we all line up to spit at Sanjay Dutt, we might give some thought to all the
murky happenings in early 1993. 

On the face of it, Sarpotdar committed the same offence as Sanjay was arrested for.
He was even named by the same suspects who named Sanjay, as a chief minister
announced in the state's assembly. Yet while Sanjay is charged and vilified and is
the focus of those befuddling flip-flops, Sarpotdar is today a free man, with no
charges. Not only that, he ran for and won election as MLA once more, in February
1995. Not only that, he subsequently won two more elections (1996 and 1998), those
times for Parliament. 

For his murky deeds, Sanjay faces the law. For his, Sarpotdar spent years actually
making our laws. Do you see a difference? This time, I do. 

=====
Bye,



Netgeek aka Cherian
-------

________________________________________________________________________
Want to sell your car? advertise on Yahoo Autos Classifieds. It's Free!!
       visit http://in.autos.yahoo.com


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, use the form at: http://www.mumbai-central.com/nukkad/#options
This list is archived at: http://www.mumbai-central.com/nukkad/archive.html