The Sins of The Son

8
1625

In a different Bombay, in September 1959, a man was pardoned for murder. The man, Lt Commander KM Nanavati, admitted to shooting his wife Sylvia’s lover, a “rich, swinging Sindhi bachelor”, three times through the chest with a revolver he had procured hours before the crime. There could be many reasons why the governor of Maharashtra pardoned Nanavati — that he was a well-connected, highly decorated officer; that he had acted in the heat of the moment; that he had committed a crime men could understand and women could forgive. There was no question that Nanavati broke the law, but an urban elite abetted by a compliant, scandal-hungry media insisted that he deserved mercy.

Unlike Nanavati, Sanjay Dutt, 53, is no upstanding naval officer. Nor can it be argued that his crime — the illegal possession of arms in a TADA-notified area — was provoked in one blind, hot moment of rage. But, like Nanavati, Sanjay Dutt seems a character out of Shakespeare or the Greek epics. He was born a blessed child, one to whom the gods had seemingly given everything. Tragic heroes though are afflicted by a fatal flaw, a faultline that brings an entire edifice down. In the end, it was himself that Sanjay Dutt could not escape.

Was this why the chairman of the Press Council, Retd Justice Markandey Katju, felt moved to invoke Nanavati as an argument for why Dutt should be pardoned? In a recent newspaper editorial, senior advocate Shanti Bhushan agreed that given the facts — that Dutt’s father was helping Muslims in a riot-affected area, that Dutt himself had received threatening phone calls — it was evident that there was “clear danger of a mob attack on Sanjay Dutt and his family”; and since “an attack by such a mob could not have been deterred except by the threat of an automatic weapon”, Dutt should be pardoned for procuring and keeping just such an automatic weapon, unlicensed or not, by his bed.

The crowd of supporters outside Sanjay Dutt’s residence at Pali Hill is growing. The A-listers hiding behind dark glasses, emerging from cars with tinted windows, agree with Katju. MPs Jaya Prada and Jaya Bachchan are calling for clemency. Mamata Banerjee believes that Dutt, who has already served 18 months of his five-year-sentence, has “suffered enough”. Somewhat inexplicably, Digvijaya Singh has described Dutt as “a great man”.

According to his apa Zaheeda, star of the ’70s, “Sanju is no Khalnayak, he is the kind-hearted, bumbling fool from Munna Bhai. He is innocent and has a heart of gold.” This is a familiar version of Dutt, the infantilised ‘Sanju baba’ forever evoking maternal responses from the women in his life. Even as one section of Bombay, still singed from the riots, sees no reason why Dutt’s fate should be any different from others convicted for their roles in the blasts, to another, he is a pitiable figure. Like Walter Benjamin’s angel of history, Dutt has lived life with his face turned towards the past. What we perceive to be a chain of events, he sees as “one single catastrophe which keeps piling wreckage upon wreckage and hurls it in front of his feet”.

But there is no denying his agency in causing that catastrophe.

Dutt first met underworld don Dawood Ibrahim in 1991, when shooting for Yalgaar in Dubai. Anees Ibrahim, Dawood’s brother, a former ticket scalper, soon became a frequent visitor to Dutt’s sets. Dutt, then 31, was tall, lanky, droopy-eyed and fast turning into Bombay’s new golden boy. His debut film, Rocky, about a Rambo-like youth who sets about avenging his father’s death, had done particularly well. For Dawood, Dutt held more star appeal than his co-stars Feroze Khan and Kabir Bedi. At a time before Bollywood finance had been san itised by banks, before the government had decreed it an industry, the underworld was a source of ready capital for filmmakers. The dons, living in their gilded cages in Dubai and Malaysia, enjoyed fraternising with the stars, and flying them out for Bollywood roadshows. Most of all, they liked turning their own black money white.

8 COMMENTS

  1. A very touching portrayal of Sanjay Dutt , I wish you would take the time out to so lovingly detail out & humanize the lives of the other accused & sentenced folks………oh actually I am sorry I asked,they are the non famous, poor ,non entities of the world so why should you waste your precious time & brain space to do so….

    • Are you reading Tehelka for the first time ?
      Plz do some constructive criticism.

      Nishita, im sure the article must be insightful & well researched.
      But I have 5 more tabs opened in my browser window, & 5 more tasks on my to-do list. And I cant take out time on weekends & evenings to read this.
      And for Sanjay Dutt?

      Maybe I can make more time. But not for Sanjay Dutt.

      • read the article at least before you comment, your remarks show the comments of a lazy sod who hasn’t even read what he professes to comment on !!!

  2. Hey Nishita
    Loved the complete writeup and kudos to the details which you put in about him…Reading your complete article is like reading a complete excerpt of his auto-bio graphy… No doubt Sanjay made a come back everytime and this is probably the weakest moment of his life..

    If his arm possession is more of a self-defence act…and considering the situation back in 1993, and Bollywood involvement with underworld, he has done the right thing..Any normal human being wuld have done the same, if he had that kind of connection..!!

    It’s true that nothing is beyond the law and one of the major reason his escape from all this is tough because if his high-profile identity… But if we sum up all the odds here and his change of personality over the time..He should not be published again..!!

  3. Well written, Nishita..but u should’ve done much more research into his early life..he was still an active drug addict during his mother’s death & the release of Rocky(1981)..he was doing films in this situation for 2 more years..then dad Sunil Dutt send him to the rehab centre in US in 1983..he came back clean after 2 years..was sitting at home with no work for around 6 mnths..no producers really wanted to try him again..his come back movie was ‘Jaan ki Baazi’ in 1985..but it was Mahesh Bhatt’s movie ‘Naam'(1986) brought him back to the limelite and established him as dynamic actor rather than a glorified star kid..

    P.S: The irony is tht, dad Sunil Dutt was the hero in the bollywood version of Nanavati story, Yeh Rasthey Hei Pyar Ke(1963).

  4. Thank you for the piece which was on Sunil Dutt really!! Brought back fond and wistful memories of an Indian for whom secularism was a living value…

  5. Very well written..As a fan I love Sanjay Dutt and his films. I love his father and the works he had done. But then to say he should be pardoned would be unfair for all those many innocent victims behind bars who doesn’t have the means and the resources he has access to. One has to pay for what he or she has done. And possession of illegal arms in such sensitive times was against the law. But then as a Law student, I understand the circumstances under which he acted. Bombay in 1993 was thick in communal riots and his mother was a Muslim and threats were made against his family. As a son, his acts of protecting his family at any cost was justified but then his associations and the means to do it was not right. its been a long time. 20 years have passed. Despite all of this, he gave us some memorable and loving movies. I think may be serving the 3 years in jail will ultimately help him become free and lead an uninterrupted life as the author says..

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Comment moderation is enabled. Your comment may take some time to appear.