There’s something grossly wrong in the conscience of a nation if that conscience tries to turn an accused into a victim.

Sanjay Dutt, let’s face it, is not the victim. He is an accused, convicted years ago and that conviction upheld on Thursday. Not that the actor himself is attempting to see it that way, but his statement issued to the media yesterday after the apex court delivered its judgment — “I have already suffered for 20 years and been in jail for 18 months. If they want me to suffer more, I have to be strong” — and the reaction in many quarters, especially Bollywood, that reactionary (pick pun at own choice) club of sob-reaction howlers, is anything but howls of victimhood.

The problem with a media statement is you cannot say you were misquoted. Who is this “they” that wants Dutt to “suffer more”? A judgment in the court of law, dear Mr Dutt, is not the same as judgment in the court of ‘maa’. So whether or not you say, believe or hold as gospel truth judgment delivered by the mother figure in a Bollywood flick — recall Nirupa Roy, especially when she walks out on an anguished Amitabh Bachchan after Shashi Kapoor says “merey paas maa hai” for more clarity — does not really matter. A mother might or might not want you to suffer for a crime you did or did not do; a court delivers an impassive judgment.

So where did all that “suffering” come from? Dutt was convicted for a felony, which calls for a specific punishment, which was handed out to him. Period. No one is gunning for him to “suffer more” here. In fact, the reverse argument holds true: he did not suffer enough, having “been in jail for 18 months” — against six years that the specific crime under Arms Act for which he was convicted entails.

Who will serve the rest of that tenure? If the answer is ”no one”, it would mean no crime was committed, and no guns handed over to Sanjay Dutt 20 years ago. But since that is not the case, the argument from this howlers’ club returns to harp on the 20-year theorem: that he has been a victim for 20 years, and that is punishment enough.

While that same logic could be used to seek exoneration for the likes of Sajjan Kumar and Tytler — for they have “suffered” more nearly a decade more than Dutt — it is also pretty inane. That Indian legal system cannot run its course any swifter because of basic infrastructure problems — too many cases, too few judges etc etc — was a fact known even in 1993, when Dutt asked for those firearms, as it is known now, when some 27 million cases are pending in lower courts across the country, according to Nick Robinson of the Centre for Police Research, as quoted in the Wall Street Journal back in January.

Someone who can make that contention “suffer”, but is not, is Satya Rani Chaddha, as a report in Indian Express on Monday said. Thirty-four years after her daughter Kanchanbala, 20, died from 100 percent burn injuries, and 27 years after her case led to changes in the dowry law, the Delhi High Court this month upheld the conviction of Kanchanbala’s husband for abetment to suicide, the report said.

No two cases, like no two crimes, are the same but the husband — one Subhash Chandra, like Dutt, asked to surrender by the court — cannot claim to be the victim, or that he “suffered” for 34 years.

As for the other argument — that he has apologised and hasn’t done anything unlawful in these years — that’s just a farce best left to the likes of Markanday Katju to argue.

It is no one’s contention that anyone — either a victim or an accused/convict — should wait for justice but that’s the ground reality. We are not fair because we are not Caucasian, but that does not make us unfair. It only makes us, ahem, brown/yellow/mustard/take your pick; and that’s the reality. So if others can wait for years, there is no reason on earth why Sanjay Dutt cannot, should not, or in fact moan about it.

Sanjay Dutt has done well for himself in these 20 years. He could have spent the six year period from, say, 2000-2006 in jail, and he would have been a man free of all this tension right now. True, but we would have had the same set of sob-howlers howling out the same set of arguments even then.
 
Read another article by Tara Kaushal: Law catches up with Sanjay: Finally? Yes. Fast? No, where she argues that Sanjay Dutt’s influence, ironically, ended up doing injustice to him – apart from others