It is easy to see that singer Abhijeet’s crude comments in defence of Salman Khan flows out of an enormous and obnoxious sense of entitlement. It is also true that he isn’t alone.
There are many, not only among the rich, but even the middle-class who see nothing wrong in dehumanising the poor and downtrodden, treating them as deviants who deserve nothing but scorn. The expressions of this mindset aren’t always as vehement as that of this yesteryear’s singer - most genteel folk would think twice before comparing the destitute to stray dogs, but the deep-rooted bias is there, even if subconscious.
But why did Abhijeet react in this manner to a court’s ruling? Surely they are aware of the law of criminal contempt, and how liberally the judiciary uses it to silence any criticism and questioning of its actions, however legitimate, or measured in tone.
A probable reason could be the judiciary’s own prejudice. Time and again judges and magistrates have had no qualms in venting their disdain of those who are too poor to afford a roof over their heads, or unable to eke out an honorable living.
Here are some instances -
Beggars’ Hands are Not ‘Paws’
While the jury is out whether thousands of our fellow citizens resort to begging out of dishonesty or indolence, or out of compulsion, our Beggary Prevention Act (in force in Delhi, Bangalore and Mumbai) clearly criminalises it. Not just that, we have magistrates who blithely compare the calloused hands seeking alms with “paws”. In a 2006 ruling, Justice BD Ahmed sharply criticised a magistrate whose idea of a beggar was the same as a dog stretching out its front paws for a bone.
Slum Dwellers are Not ‘Leeches’
Then there was Justice BN Kirpal of the Supreme Court, hearing a PIL against the accumulation of garbage in Delhi in October 2000. He did haul up municipal authorities for inaction, but then launched into a tirade against slum dwellers, who, in his opinion, were nothing but leeches on public property and the state exchequer. Showing them any consideration would be akin to “rewarding pickpockets”, he observed.
Not much later, Justice Kirpal again showed where his sympathies lay, when he green-lit the Narmada dam, rubbishing the Narmada Bachao Andolan’s contentions about why the relief and rehabilitation package promised by the government of Gujarat was only a mirage.
Even though the necessity of mega dams was not the issue before the court, Kirpal chose to comment that while displaced tribals would lose their land and livelihood, they would benefit from being resettled in other areas, which included many perks, such as parks for children to play on.
So, the next time we rant against urban squalor, it might pay to introspect and examine the biases in our own minds.
(Saurav Datta teaches media law and jurisprudence in Mumbai and Pune. The views expressed in this article are the author’s own.)
(At The Quint, we are answerable only to our audience. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member. Because the truth is worth it.)