Morality’s smile

Amit Sengupta Delhi

So why is Navjot Singh Sidhu smiling? So why is the family of Gurnam Singh, then 65, who died in an ‘unintentional’ brawl with Sidhu in 1988, not smiling? And on what moral high ground is the BJP pumping its muscles with Sidhu thumping his chest as if they have saved Planet Earth from apocalypse now?

The Supreme Court (SC) has praised Sidhu for choosing “a moral path” to “set high standards in public life by resigning from his seat…” Witness two letters published in The Times of India (January 26, 2007). Wrote Muralidhar Rao, “The SC’s reprieve for Sidhu is most shocking, to say the least… Sidhu, however, is so far not known to have expressed even one word of remorse for his act that led to the death of an elderly person… In fact, he has been going to town flaunting the high court verdict of ‘culpable homicide, not amounting to murder’ as some kind of an award…”

Wrote Richard D’ Souza from Mumbai: “The comments of the SC showering praise on Navjot Sidhu at the stage of admitting his petition against his conviction by the Delhi High Court, are, in my opinion, shocking and unprecedented… The fact of the matter is that whatever be Sidhu’s role, a man has lost his life through an act of violence in which he played a part. To praise Sidhu for having resigned… is perverse…”

For instance, what will be Sidhu’s ‘moral path’ on the organised massacre of Sikhs in Delhi and elsewhere on November 1984? Can he ever join or absolve the Congress, to which his father belonged? What is his ‘moral path’ when he celebrates a party in ‘public life’ which is a front of the RSS/VHP/Bajrang Dal, implicated by official enquiry commissions in several riots, and whose latest claim to fame is the Gujarat genocide, 2002, which was State-sponsored, led by Narendra Modi? Will Sidhu campaign on the ‘moral path’ with Modi, called the “modern day Nero” by the SC?

The fact is that an old man died in violence unleashed by Sidhu, even if unintentionally. Did Sidhu apologise? Did he ever try to help the shattered family? No, as far as reports go. And pray, what moral path remains now for the old man’s family in the Indian scheme of justice as Sidhu pumps and thumps his huge ego and his relentless big mouth as a grand public spectacle? And what is the message to the common Indian citizen -- who is not a celebrity or MP, not even laughing gas on the idiot box?

Indeed, how many criminals of communal violence in this country have ever been punished? The Srikrishna Commission convicted the Shiv Sena for the Mumbai pogrom of 1992-93, they just trashed the report – not one politician or cop was punished. The Liberhan Commission is still on, while the criminals behind the Babri Masjid demolition on December 6, 1992, are still aspiring for power. So what about political crime or mob injustice or gangrapes as spectacles as in Gujarat, 2002, led by VHP/Bajrang Dal gangs with direct, evident, proved, police and government complicity? Who smiles and who cries? Who flaunts and who withdraws? What’s that line which divides the moral path with immorality?

In a society where genocides are not punished, where human life has no value, where Sidhu and his party can flaunt their muscles, what do you expect from routine criminals, rapists, murderers and gangsters? So what ‘moral path’ should that majority India choose, which is silent, invisible, concealed in the margins by the oppressive pomposity of an affluent India which is selling and buying its bloated self image like a crass reality show of third rate actors?

Indeed, if immorality is commonplace, then we must all be smiling, like Sidhu. Forget Gurnam Singh or Ehsan Jaffrey. They are dead anyway – beyond good and evil. It’s we, the survivors of the golden city, who have to cope with the fascinating journey of the ‘moral path’, with Sidhu showing us the way.