Anyone with even an iota of intelligence and an understanding of our dysfunctional legal ecosystem knows that there is something deeply problematic and rotten with the Aryan Khan case. The NCB’s ( Narcotics Control Bureau) 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 grams 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 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 and NRC; 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 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 firecrackers, 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 forever.
| The author retired from the IAS in December 2010. A keen environmentalist and trekker he has published a book on high altitude trekking in the Himachal Himalayas: THE TRAILS LESS TRAVELLED.
His second book- SPECTRE OF CHOOR DHAR is a collection of short stories based in Himachal and was published in July 2019. His third book was released in August 2020: POLYTICKS, DEMOCKRAZY AND MUMBO JUMBO is a compilation of satirical and humorous articles on the state of our nation. His fourth book was published on 6th July 2021. Titled INDIA: THE WASTED YEARS , the book is a chronicle of missed opportunities in the last nine years. Shukla’s fifth book – THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER’S DOG AND OTHER COLLEAGUES- was released on 12th September 2023. It portrays the lighter side of life in the IAS and in Himachal. He writes for various publications and websites on the environment, governance and social issues. He divides his time between Delhi and his cottage in a small village above Shimla. He blogs at http://avayshukla.blogspot.in/ |
Avay, 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.