Sanjay Dutt deserves another trial
While there is little doubt that actor Sanjay Dutt is guilty of possessing illegal weapons for which Supreme Court has sentenced him to a five-year jail term, unfortunately only a part of the story is being given importance in India. Dutt’s possession of weapons is linked with 1993 Bombay blasts case. It may be recalled that Bombay blasts were allegedly organized by Dawood Ibrahim, an international criminal, apparently to avenge the demolition of Babri Masjid on Dec. 6, 1992. The demolition was followed by widespread riots across the country, including Mumbai, then known as Bombay.
Dutt had earlier confessed to having received arms from underground criminals, from which he retained the AK-56. He also claimed that he kept the weapon as his family was under threat following Babri Masjid’s demolition. The point to be noted here is that the actor feared about his family also being targeted following the nationwide riots. Sadly, the credibility and legitimacy of his fear have not been given much importance in the media. Even though this is backed by evidence of entire country having been affected by riots following Babri Masjid’s demolition.
Equally relevant is the fact that Dutt did not play any role in a series of bomb explosions in Mumbai on March 12, 1993. The blasts claimed more than 250 lives and injured over 700 people. Also, there is no proof of Dutt ever having used the weapon, he had illegally acquired, causing destruction on that fatal day or earlier.
True, in keeping with the Indian law, Dutt deserves punishment for illegal possession of weapons. At the same time, his stand on keeping them for his family’s security needs should also be taken into account. If the Indian security forces and the police personnel had done their duty of providing adequate security when the atmosphere was tense following demolition of Babri Masjid, the riots would not have occurred across the country. Nobody, whether a Muslim or Hindu would have fallen a victim to those riots. Even Babri Masjid would not have been demolished. In this context, the situation in which Dutt illegally acquired the weapons cannot be ignored.
Besides, Dutt’s illegal possession of weapons cannot be linked with 1993 Bombay blasts. He had acquired them two months before the incident, when the city he was residing in was reeling under the impact of riots. Yes, he is correctly accused of having acquired weapons illegally and that too from wrong sources. But then, at that time, he was probably more concerned about security of his own family than other formalities.
Ironically, the Supreme Court pronounced its judgment on Dutt as a part of its Bombay serial blasts verdict. The two main accused in this case, Dawood Ibrahim and Tiger Memon, are still absconding. They have not yet been tried and arrested. The court upheld the death sentence of Yaqub Memon, brother of Tiger Memon. The death sentence of 10 others was commuted to life as, according to the apex court, the convicts had been behind bars for 20 years and their economic condition was weak. The court pronounced its verdict on appeals and cross-appeals filed by and against 100 people, including Dutt, who were convicted by a special TADA (Terrorists and Disruptive Activities-Prevention Act) court in 2006. While delivering its verdict, the apex court also said that the conspiracy of 1993 blasts was hatched by Dawood Ibrahim and others in Pakistan. “The accused were trained in bomb making and to handle sophisticated weapons in Pakistan.” Considering that this charge does not apply to Dutt, it is surprising that the verdict on Dutt was not delivered separately.
Given that Dutt cannot be charged for being a terrorist or having played any disturbing role in 1993 Bombay blasts, his case needs to be viewed from a different angle. It needs to be linked with the riots that took place in the aftermath of Babri Masjid demolition. As mentioned earlier, Dutt acquired weapons as a means of self-defense and not for any offensive activity. The fact that he did not use the weapons in any disruptive or disturbing activity proves this further.
Against this backdrop, it is not surprising that several individuals have come forward seeking pardon for Dutt. Yet, it cannot be ignored that when pardon is being sought it is tantamount to tacitly accepting Dutt’s involvement in Bombay blasts. This perhaps adds credence to a stand taken by Sanjay that he has not applied for pardon and is not going for it. He has also claimed to be a “law-abiding citizen,” who loves his country and its citizens.
Let us also accept the fact that Indian police system has on numerous occasions failed to provide adequate security to citizens of this country. Demolition of Babri Masjid and accompanying riots are just two major examples of this weakness. Equally tragic is the fact that seldom have rioters been instantly taken into custody. Till date, numerous individuals responsible for demolition and nationwide riots have not been pronounced guilty. Certainly, committing series of murders is a more heinous crime than that of possessing weapons for protecting one’s own family.
Against this backdrop, rather than securing pardon for Dutt, a greater importance needs to be given to factors that forced him into acquiring illegal weapons.
