Anyone with even an iota of intelligence and an understanding of our dysfunctional legal eco-system knows that there is something deeply problematic and rotten with the Aryan Khan case. The NCB ( Narcotics Control Bureau)'s conduct is deeply suspect, even without the personal allegations now levelled against its Zonal Director Sameer Wankhade. The entire case, with its political and criminal "witnesses", blank "panchnamas", allegations of extortions and bribes by the NCB's own witnesses, deliberate leaks of irrelevant two year old Whatsapp chats, desperate attempts to fabricate a " conspiracy" where none exists, conjectures of an international cartel without any evidence, repeated refusal of lower courts to grant bail, has exposed the agency's own rot, along with that of the Union Home Ministry, the judiciary and the press. Its hounding of a 23 year old boy who had neither consumed, nor was in possession of, any drugs makes no legal sense. The seized drugs amount to about 1.50 grammes per accused, and yet the NCB is more interested in pursuing this case than the 3000 kgs seized at the Mundra port ! It is now clear that Shah Rukh Khan and his family have been targeted, probably framed; what is not yet clear are the reasons for this.
It could be, as Pratap Bhanu Mehta points out in a recent article, that Bollywood's largely secular character is not to the taste of the present regime, which has decided to make it fall in line by targeting its most iconic face. It could be that the emerging Hindu rashtra cannot countenance the fact that the three leading superstars of Indian cinema are all Muslims, and has therefore decided to take them down, one by one. It could be that Shah Rukh Khan is not sufficiently supportive of this government- unlike the Karan Johars, Ajay Devguns, Akshey Kumars and the omniscient Kangana Ranaut- and had to be delivered a message. It could be that the real target is the Maharashtra govt. and Aryan Khan is only the bait-click. It could be simple extortion, as the Maharashtra Minister Mr. Nawab Malick has claimed. It could even be an opening gambit for the U.P. elections, just as the Sushant Singh Rajput death was shamelessly used for the Bihar elections last year.
There are many lessons to be imbibed from this case, but the primary one is for Shah Rukh Khan and others like him who think that there is safety in remaining silent. This is a myth, it was a myth in the Third Reich and it is a myth in the New India. As a father of longer standing than the superstar, I can feel for him for the vicarious torture he is being subjected to, through his young son. But I am also compelled to point out to him that he has no right to expect any sympathy or public support for what he is going through, because he was found wanting when others were in the position he now finds himself in.
Shah Rukh Khan has chosen to remain silent these past few years in the face of this govt's ever increasing excesses, hesitant to take a stand, refusing to be counted, hoping that his amoral camouflage of an abject " neutrality" would make him invisible and allow him to continue to mint his millions undisturbed. He said nothing when his religion was being attacked, on the streets and through legislation; when people like Kafeel Khan were being locked up for providing oxygen to suffocating children; when students from his own alma mater were being lathi-charged for protesting against the CAA (Citizen Amendment Act) and NRC (National Register of Citizens); when his colleagues and peers were being harassed on the same baseless charges his son is now facing; when films of other stars were being banned and prevented from being screened. Other stars of much lesser stature- Deepika Padukone, Swara Bhaskar, Javed Akhtar, Naseeruddin Shah, even Aamir Khan, among others- spoke out, not once but repeatedly, and most paid the price in one way or the other. But they continue to speak out. Not, however, Shah Rukh Khan- not one word of sympathy, not one gesture of support for the victims, not one whisper of condemnation of the lumpen elements or an autocratic government on a majoritarian high.
But this has not saved him, or put him on our own Schindler's list. He is as much grist to the mill of a repressive govt. as was Akhlaq or that little girl in Kathua or Father Stan Swamy. His international contacts could not save him, nor his billions, nor his adoring fans, nor the imposing gates of Mannat. He might as well have spoken up when he could- then at least he would have been deserving of our support for occupying the moral high ground.
The same lesson holds for our corporates and captains of industry. The voices here are even fewer- a Rajiv Bajaj here, a Parle there, an Anand Mahindra reluctantly tweeting in the background maybe. The others are content to smother the sound of the jackboots so long as they can keep salting away their billions in the British Virgin Islands or St. Kitts or Bermuda. But they are living in a fool's paradise too: when it suits the BJP's political purpose, or when they become inconvenient to the party, they too shall be subjected to New India's version of the Inquisition, as the Tatas found out some time back when they were castigated publicly by the Union Commerce Minister for opposing the E- Commerce rules. The charge? Lack of patriotism and nationalism, naturally !
No corporate is safe if the ruling party can extract political mileage by targeting them, regardless of how much they might contribute to the Electoral Bonds or the PM CARES fund. As proof of this we need only refer to the attacks on Tanishq for its inter faith ad, the CEAT ad by Aamir Khan on fire crackers, the Jashn-e-Rivaz ad by FabIndia, the ransacking of the sets of Prakash Jha's movie " Ashram". Even as I write this piece the long knives are out again against Cadbury's latest Divali ad featuring- who else ? - Shah Rukh Khan. The attacks follow a familiar script: social media trolling and hatred, visits and threats by assorted vigilante groups, a studied silence by the government. And the concerned companies buckle over like ninepins even before you can say " Jai Shri Ram", pull their ads, worried about their Diwali bottom lines, and go back to various " Conclaves" to sing the familiar hosannas to the presiding deities of our electoral autocracy.
But you can't buy peace from a position of cowardice, that way lies utter capitulation and surrender. Our superstars, industrialists and influencers should realise, after the recent events, that silence is no guarantee of immunity from persecution, that a leopard may change its grin but not its spots, that you cannot ride a tiger for ever- sooner or later you will end up as dinner. Time is fast running out. Speak up, or be silent for ever.
They won't ever speak up...Its amply clear by now. **They are happy to ride the gravy train**. The silence of middle class like us is the actual problem who either don't seem to care / are unaware/ or are blind supporters of this regime like my parents.
ReplyDeleteShubham Jha, entirely agree with you.
DeleteBull's eye. समर शेष है, नहीं पाप का भागी केवल व्याघ्र,
Deleteजो तटस्थ हैं, समय लिखेगा उनका भी अपराध
Entire Europe and the world paid a huge price due to silence educated large middle class in Germany during the times of second world war. Such silence is self destructive.
DeleteFully agreed.openly opposed.
ReplyDeleteOnce again I take a slightly angular view to Avay Shukla's assessment of the latest drug drama that bared itself.
ReplyDeleteI see two distinct possibilities for this bizarre but vicious unfolding of the event.
One reason could perhaps be that this government wanted to wriggle out of the pickle it found itself in when its prime state of Gujarat was saddled with 3000 kilos of heroine at its Mundhra port. There HAD to be a diversion created to deflect the sound and light show elsewhere. This regime has resorted to similar diversionary tactics in the past - Balakot being fresh in the memory - and achieved stupendous success, principally due to a listless opposition in the seemingly unshakable grip of relentless ennui. The NCB, another one of institutions that has capitulated to the Executive, was but the logical vehicle entrusted to redeem the government as well as its own self from nationwide censure. They stopped the first liner that caught their eye heading to the shores of Goa for fun and merriment. Perhaps Aryan Khan was a boy in the wrong place at the wrong time, something that suited the apprehenders perfectly. Or, it was intentional to stop the liner because the powers knew of Aryan Khan to be boarding it through their sources of intelligence. Either ways, it suited to sensationalise the catch and obfuscate the real issue of the 3000 kilos of illegal drugs retrieved from the "shining" state of Gujarat.
In this scenario, we need not delve into the deeper malaise of silence that Avay Shukla eloquently raises. It is yet another exhibition of ruthlessness that this regime so frequently unleashes to suit itself.
Coming to the second case - that of silence on our part in general and Shah Rukh Khan's in particular - I find it far more conmplicated and convoluted than assessesed.
Silence is thei medium the people take recourse to initially when they are stunned by the repressive actions of thei Executive. Or by the actions of their elected representatives that bring dismay and disbelief to the masses. It is the first expression of dissonance, disconnect between people and their rulers. This silence must not be taken for cowardice or timidity...it is the simmering of the cauldron as the dismay is foaming discontent. If all of us choose to forsake silence, it will result in a cacophony that will perhaps achieve little. Rather, it is desirable for the RIGHT sources to make the right sounds - as Mamata did at the right time and had the backing of the people. On that occassion, silence was broken by a resonance that achieved much.
I concur with Avay Shukla that the mandarins of the corporate world, notably Ratan Tata, of the film world, primarily Amitabh Bachchan, have shied from breaking their silence to take this suppressive regime head on. When disagreement emanates from such sources, the nation and its people take cognisance and listen. Dissonance from these influential quarters compel the rulers to course-correct because they realise that these sounds are not mere fragmented audios, but a strong, sonorous sound that cuts through the silence and wakes the masses from their slumber or confusion, channelises them to apply their mind, and has the potential to yaw the juggernaut.
A small FabIndia, an Aamir Khan, and even a Shah Rukh Khan are not "institutions" powerful sufficiently to take on the might of a ruthless dictatorial regime that is steeped in ideological hatred. But a Ratan Tata, an Amitabh Bachchan, a Bajaj, and similar individuals are powerful enough with their lineage, reputation, achievement and antecedants to cause ample discomfort to the most intolerant regime to alter its course. Or face the sound of disharmony that rises from a nation stirred.
While I agree with Avay Shukla that silence is not always golden, I feel that it is a composite of multiple functions that should determine who, when, and how that silence must be broken so as to achieve the desired.
Cowardice it is.Silence is no act of courage,here.By any other name,too.
DeleteThis drama is to cover the major drug racket of Adani. Sold out Media is playing it's part in befooling the voters. There is no news on any channel about the status of investigations in to Adani mundara port seizer of huge quantity of drugs. Which could be a serious national security issue of funding the terror cells in the country especially in Kashmir.
DeleteComes across as quite a biased write up.
Delete....more than the silence...numbness creeps over..I agree with Mr Patankar ...it's actually disbelief...shock ...that this is happening to us at this day and age....it's sad...frustrating..and that horrible feeling of helplessness....
ReplyDeleteAvay...hats off to you for using your platform as a voice for us too...God bless 🙏
Hats off to you for such a frank article. Let us hope that some at least will speak up.
ReplyDeletePerhaps judgment on Bollywood stars like Shah Rukh Khan and industrialists [like Ratan Tata and Narayan Murthy] for their loud silence on the excesses and assault on all democratic norms by the current regime should best be left to their own ilk who are placed in identically vulnerable situations.It is only they who know where the shoe pinches. But you have not spoken about our own breed of retired bureaucrats, with the notable exceptions of you yourself and Ravi Joshi of the R&AW who are individually taking the establishment head on(I am not including in this category the hundred odd retired bureaucrats from various services who dash off jointly signed letters on various issues to Narendra Modi now and then. It tantamounts to taking refuge in the safety of numbers, apart from having been rendered ineffective with the overuse of this mode). I think we are even more guilty of rank pusillanimity than the Shah Rukh Khans and Ratan Tatas. We have nothing to lose by speaking out. And yet we are guilty of copping out.
ReplyDeleteHonest and true.Bureau Rats !
DeleteGreat. I think the message is very clear, not only for the Shah Rukh Khans and others, but for serving bureaucrats as well. By not speaking up against injustice, anywhere and everywhere and everytime, we endanger our own future and freedom. This needs widest circulation.
ReplyDeleteServing civil servants cannot speak out against government's excesses because of their freedom of speech being legally restricted by the Conduct Rules. They can advise officially but will have to carry out orders - so long as the orders are legal - given by the powers that be in spite of such advice. At the same time they should not become willing tools in the hands of government and display excessive zeal in hounding critics and opponents under the veil of enforcing laws. Like Sameer Wankhede among many other officers has been doing.
DeleteThere is something called the FILE on which all Govt runs and is recorded. When Babus bring out the injustice / ramifications of ministerial intent on file, only a stupid minister would dare to overule. We all agree that bureaucrats (save some) don't have the spine to even do that.
DeleteAvay, I fully agree with, and laud, the first part of your article. That is about the deep rot (plus cynicism and playing politics) of the NCB, other authorities, the judiciary who won't give bail, and a lot of the press. Where I disagree is in your condemnation of poor SRK (and in earlier articles, the Tatas, Amitabh Bacchan, and so on) for staying silent about the doings of the current regime. I fully understand and sympathize with their need to stay out of political commentary and not invite even more trouble and controversy by wading into this area. In any case if SRK was a Hindu, his speaking out may have moved the masses a bit more, but anything he says as a Muslim will just give more ammunition to the bigots (unfortunately, this is a huge section if not the majority of Hindus / Indians - just look at NaMo's electoral support and approval rating!) They will say (however unfairly) this shows every Muslim sides with his own community, is "Anti-India" and so forth. Don't you think his "aa bael mujhe maar" comments would have made SRK (or any other celebrity or businessman) an even bigger target? Their staying out of politics and controversy to me is wisdom, not cowardice. No one doubts the secular credentials of these folks, and their very success and any adulation they receive is some hedge against India's further slide into Hindu zealotry.
ReplyDeleteAgree with this point of view. It's become extremely difficult for moderate Muslims to speak up, leading to the entire community get alienated further. The harm done is colossal.
DeleteUnnecessary comments,let us not make a Muslim of SRK.
ReplyDeleteIn principle I agree with Avay Shukla's topic that cowardice will not be the right choice for a peaceful existence. However, the subject of Aryan Khan should be dealt separately from other cited instances of oppression. The heat of NCB was on,ever since the Sushant Singh Rajput incident. The boy was careless and got nabbed along with his group of friends. The matter is in court and to blame the government for the detention is undermining the credibility of courts and judicial procedures. The matter of targeting advertisements is a separate matter and should not be clubbed with the Aryan Khan episode. Regarding SRK's silence, he has never known to be very vocal. He has suffered in silence as any father in a similar situation would.
ReplyDelete👍
DeleteWhat if we shed the speculative reasons for Aryan Khan's detention and simply take it at face value?
ReplyDeleteOthers released but not him. That's a fact. The reasons or prejudice or bias are, at best, an exercise in prerogative and at worst, sinister, but unclear. So drop it for now.
Why three exits at the very beginning?
Who is Taras Bulba - he of triumphant leer and the selfie? Fact of presence and hence in need of explanation. Especially since it is so far 'beyond the pale'. Fact.
What was a BJP functionary doing there, busily climbing the stairs? Wrong place wrong time, what the heck? Fact.
Why was Taras Bulba getting young Mr Khan to talk to someone over the phone? Undue whatever it may be -undue privilege. Undue 'dada-giri'. Wrong place, wrong time. Fact.
Is there an authority to whom such explanations can be owed?
Is therefore, the Supreme Court, of sufficient authority to ask of the concerned Court for an explanation? Because a Court of justice is obliged to explain every one of its actions if such are seen to have an impact on freedom and fairness.
Can the League of Retired Civil Servant Gentlemen demand on behalf of the rest of us that the Supreme Court ascertain the facts and revert to the nation?
Can the Supreme Court at long last be seen again in its rightful role as guardian of justice and truth?
We expect too much from the SC because our elected Representatives are either complicit or irrelevant. But can the Q's raised by Kabir not be asked by the SC to the rest of the Judiciary? Who then get after the NCB, the cops etc.?
DeleteSRK is a glowing example of national integration. Having married a Hindu girl and never changed her name . The son too is Aryan . Shame on all those who are forcing him into a corner bullying him to speak out. Speak out what?
ReplyDeleteI feel many commentators have completely misunderstood the thrust of this blog. It is not about Hindu- Muslim, or about King Khan's secular credentials, or even about this NCB raid. It is about the silence of the " good" against the tyranny of the "evil.' Citizens have a duty to speak out against atrocities, more so people who are the "influencers" of society, who are followed by millions. They are role models and must postulate a correct position for others to follow. In the developed world such celebrities do not hesitate to take positions on issues that vitally effect their countries. In India, sadly, their counterparts- sportsmen, film stars, industrialists- shy away from doing so, simply to protect their commercial interests. That is unacceptable. And the irony is that even such strategic silence does not guarantee that they will not be on the govt's hit list next time around.
ReplyDeleteOf course there's a price to be paid. But then, that is what is meant by having the courage of one's convictions. If people like the Khans, Tatas and Amitav Bacchans, with all their wealth, security.power and standing cannot stand up, how does one expect the average citizen, just above the poverty line, to do so?
Precisely the thrust of my last sentence in my rather lengthy comment to your blog. That it is perhaps desirable to recognise the depth one finds oneself in, in the social milieu before breaking silence. Ratan Tata, Sunil Gavaskar, Amitabh Bachchan, and others of like pedigree who have achieved handsomely to be respected across the entire spectrum of Indian demography, are behoven to stand up and speak out when the need arises. They are sound-converters of the masses who can but express their dissonance towards an oppressive regime with little else than deafening silence. It is for these individuals to amplify the discontent of the people, who will (and must) in turn lend heft to the sounds of the achievers, thus creating momentum sufficient to yaw the juggernaut from its oppressive course. We witnessed this in Bengal when the arrogant challenger who had lofty dreams of usurping the state was tasered by this momentum.
DeleteHere I respectfully have a slightly different perspective. Not everyone who does a lot of good (including prominent leaders or personalities) have to speak up, especially on politically charged topics or in matters outside of their realm of primary activity. The price paid can be too high, it still may not achieve much (especially when a few try to bell the cat in uncoordinated fashion) and make for a worse outcome overall. Mother Teresa never spoke out the way you want, and none of us fault her for it. Would Tata be able to take over Air India if Ratan Tata were to criticize Modi? To me it's enough if these folks are fair, secular, honest and gracious in their personal dealings and the way they run their companies. And in a vast majority of cases "they are not coming for you anyway" (then too, there's a matter of degree - they can do much worse if you piss them off more). Tata, Amitabh B., and others who (wisely?) choose to keep quiet are unscathed so far and can continue doing a lot of good in their own realm of expertise.
DeleteSo, that also is reason enough to explain why its not worthwhile for the IAS / bureaucracy to get the right things done (or at least fight for them), in the face of political fiat or nefarious intent?
DeleteWe understand your point very well.
Delete"For the triumph of evil it is only necessary that good men do nothing" - Edmund Burke
A bitter truth, courageously stated ..🙏🏼
ReplyDeleteNice analysis by Avay. Being slimy will take you to some distance but not the full distance. Yes agree with Avay that Sharukh should have shown some spunk when communal atrocities where being done on minorities.
ReplyDeleteTo those in the comments section who are defending our silent celebrities: please read Virat Kohli's bold and unambiguous defence of Mohammad Shami, and the unequivocal condemnation of the rabid communal trolling he has been subjected to. It's a standard set for the others, and a lesson that in matters of national interest one doesn't do a cost- benefit analysis before standing up for our core values. Enough is enough.
ReplyDeleteOops...that reads like an annoyed Shukla. I observe nobody has summoned the will or wit to comment. With trepidation, I ask if Avay Shukla is enough-ffing those who disagree with his blog to engulf themselves into silence, or is he enough-ffing Ratan Tata and the like to extricate themselves from the silence...? I am genuinely nebulous on his irascible re-rebuttal. Hope someone can explain to me, as I pray I am sufficiently under the radar for him to notice...
ReplyDeleteHahaha! Mr Patankar, rest easy. My irascibility is directed at the silent elite who find convenient excuses for ducking the ball, and those who justify it. There is no neutral ground in the battle between good and evil. In the infamous words of George Bush: " If you're not with us you're against us."
ReplyDeleteVery well said Sir...in your interview by Karan Thapar you have elucidated this in no uncertain terms.
Delete