All animals are equal. But some are more equal than others – George Orwell, Animal Farm
Recent events involving two popular film stars have brought home this banal truth somewhat forcefully, and with it, the more acute concern that we may no longer be running a democracy, but rather, an exclusivist, elitist state. The situation is serious because ever since Jawaharlal Nehru entrenched the politician-bureaucrat-businessman raj, no government has been seen to be so keen to cozy up to the rich and privileged as the one in power today. If I am not wrong, discerning citizens, intellectuals and activists need to sit up and take note.
The alacrity with which the Centre has reportedly provided security to a former superstar and his family, despite the fact that the government of the state in which they reside feels that they do not merit it, is somewhat disturbing. The state’s ruling dispensation is favourably disposed towards the superstar, who has even represented the ruling party in Parliament. Yet the gentleman has asked for security on the ground that after some years of inactivity, he and his wife are again professionally active, while his son has made a cinematic debut; and he has received it.
This is not a small outrage. Not just because both the superstar and the foreign network sponsoring his top-of-the-charts television show can afford to pay for any amount of protection consistent with his sense of security. But because the gentleman is not even a tax-paying citizen. If my memory serves me right, at the time of the international beauty pageant in Bangalore some years ago, it was revealed that the actor had become an NRI at some stage. Indeed, this was the reason why some organizations objected to the concessions bestowed upon his company by the then state government. The NRI status has never been denied.
For someone who owes his entire name, fame and fortune to this country’s adulation, it strikes me as singularly ungrateful and unforgivable to seek NRI status for obvious financial benefits. A government that bends backwards to provide security cover to such persons owes the country an explanation. After all, it has not been so punctilious in extending security to the beleaguered citizens of Kashmir in the wake of the grisly massacre at Amarnath barely a fortnight ago.
Even more astounding is the manner in which institutions of state have simply brushed aside President K.R. Narayanan’s pointed rebuke about the glamorization of criminals and anti-social elements in society. Sections of the media made at least a token attempt to introspect the media’s role in conferring a larger-than-life image upon notorious smugglers and dacoits, to the extent of seeking and securing exclusive interviews with wanted criminals.
Both the judiciary and the executive, however, have extended rather poor courtesy to the President’s legitimate concerns, which are shared by common citizens across the country. Those who have appreciated the manner in which the upper judiciary has interpreted law to expand the area of freedom since the infamous Emergency, have felt let down by the manner in which the courts in Tamil Nadu and Karnataka have gone along with the respective state governments to succumb to a wanted criminal.
Certainly, justice was not seen to be done when the courts allowed cases against TADA accused to be withdrawn, so that the notorious sandalwood smuggler, Veerappan’s associates could be released in exchange for popular Kannada cine star, Dr. Rajkumar. The Supreme Court, which has intervened decisively in a number of high-profile cases, would do well to look into this matter. After all, the judiciary is not just another department of the government; it is a pillar of the state.
A number of points deserve mention in this regard. It is nearly a month since Veerappan kidnapped Dr. Rajkumar, but neither the Central Government nor any major political party has seen fit to make a worthwhile comment on the affair. The plea that law and order is a state subject is tantamount to abdication of responsibility, given the absolutely scandalous manner in which both governments have capitulated before a ruthless brigand. According to press reports, several species of elephants have been virtually wiped out as a result of Veerappan’s ivory-poaching activities, while innumerable villagers and police officers have lost their lives on account of his sandalwood smuggling activities.
And now – when it is clear as broad daylight that the bandicoot has the audacity to dream of ‘retiring’ from a tiring forest existence by transiting to the cool confines of the Vidhan Sabha – the two governments have not even had the imagination to use the negotiation period to work out a strategy to bring him to his knees. It is absolutely inexplicable to ordinary citizens how and why the safety of a rich, privileged, and exceedingly well-connected actor has been made a non-negotiable in dealing with Veerappan. It is one thing for Dr. Rajkumar to plead for his life and give certificates to Veerappan; it is quite another for the state governments concerned to behave as if Veerappan is an honourable man with legitimate grievances. Indeed, this is the reason why so many people see shades of the shameful Kandahar affair in the Rajkumar episode.
While the Tamil Nadu government’s initial capitulation is understandable in the wake of the attacks on Tamils in Karnataka following news of the abduction, Mr. Karunanidhi would do well to re-think his government’s approach to the incident, particularly in the aftermath of Dr. Jayalalitha’s outburst which has struck a sympathetic chord among discerning citizens across the country. For one thing, the Karnataka Chief Minister, Mr. S.M. Krishna, cannot evade responsibility for the safety of the Tamils in his state. Secondly, Veerappan is no Tamil hero who has kidnapped Dr. Rajkumar to redress Tamil grievances. Hence, Mr. Karunanidhi is in no way obliged to take the latter’s sins on his own head, much less to expiate them. This would put Mr. Krishna, and his Congress mentors in New Delhi, in an unenviable position.
The present situation, in which the two governments have simply left it to a local journalist to negotiate and secure the film star’s release, must go down as the nadir of governance in India. Samajwadi Party MP, Ms. Phoolan Devi, has spoken from the heart, pointing out that Veerappan is a mere bandit, and that amnesty for him would only further encourage criminals. Ms. Phoolan Devi has rightly contended that there can be no just comparison between her own actions, wherein she took to the gun to avenge horrible injustices meted out to her personally as well as to her people, and those of a man who secured powerful political and administrative patronage for pillaging the sandalwood forests, butchering elephants by the thousands, and murdering all who crossed his path.
Nevertheless, it must be said that Veerappan is a unique phenomenon in India. As a one-man industry as the grassroots level (sic), he has demonstrated the power of the bottoms-up generation of wealth, as opposed to the niggardly trickle-down effect that economists still dream of so fondly. If I may borrow a phrase from the film industry, it may be time to have a dekho at this industry and the workings of its highly efficient administrative-political patronage hierarchy. With the Union Government having decided not to see, hear nor speak out, perhaps the President could give a nudge in this direction.
The Pioneer, 29 August 2000