Vaat lag gayee, Bhai.
I can't decide if Sanjay Dutt deserved the six years or not. I think his face is testimony that his is a hellish life. A birth that's riddled with struggle on the inside. No matter what he has outside.
I realise I am seeing his sentence not in isolation. But I seriously take umbrage to the fact that this man has been given six years for something he did when he was a dumbass (I know it's not an excuse, but stil...). I am sure he knows better now (or at least I hope he does) and whether it's because he expected leniency or goodwill that he is involved in all the 'good causes' he is involved in, I can't say. And I don't care.
But when that ridiculous woman becomes the president of India with all that she's done, Sanjay Dutt's sentence is not fair.
When Salman Khan walks free after running pavement dwellers over, Sanjay Dutt's sentence is not fair.
When more than half the government seriously rapes the country for itself, when most of those toerags in the Parliament are criminals, Sanjay Dutt's six years is too much.
When the current Shankaracharya goes about being effing holy after killing a poor poor man, Sanjay Dutt's sentence is not fair.
Poor chap.
What do you think?
Labels: Sanjay Dutt
posted by Sandhya Menon @ 19:40
7 Comments:
Should the judge dealing out the sentence be taking our president, our morally bankrupt parliamentarians or any of the million things wrong with our country into consideration while delivering the judgment? Would he be dealing with the case justly if he was to do that?
Would we forgive him for doing that??
Sanjay Dutt may be genuinely remorseful but let's face it - he did something terribly wrong - abetted a terrorist act that if he was slightly less famous - would have had us in no doubt as to the ruling's justness. Condoning a crime or dealing with it leniently because there are other more grievous crimes happening is well...grievous.
How's that for a set position? :)
uh... i can't decide either. been wondering if he would have been given this sentence if he hadn't been of celebrity status
Just that this guy is very very unfortunate and the verdict very very unfair. we have criminals all over the country enjoying all the freedom, and this poor guy!!!
I heard the news. Thought he deserved it. A wrong is a wrong. Having read your article- n your Q -'what do u think?' - made me really think! I would say 'not fair' at all. Yeh galat vaat lagii hai bhai !
Galt: I realise I am not seeing Dutt's sentence in isolation. But to answer your first question. No.
But what crime are you talking about? He did NOT abet terrorism. He bought a gun illegally because he felt threatened. Do you have any clue how many other Bombayites did that during the riot years? And he stored guns for other people like a dumb ass. So what? I have a problem with him being made an example of. I have a problem with a lot of other worse people walking free.
Sav: I haven;t decided yet either. Hats of to the judge for standing up to all kinds of things - from emotion to celebrity.
Venus: I totaly agree with you!
Bindu: Glad it made you think :) Thank you for your comment!
So, I guess the right question to ask would be if the judgment fits the crime and not if it fits Sanjay Dutt?
Saying that he got the gun because he felt threatened is probably correct but is also simplifying the situation.
I believe he bought one and got one as a gift from recognized members of the underworld and then attempted to get rid of it. It's important I guess who he bought it from.
He also was associated in many other ways with the underworld but I guess that isn't what he got put away for (or did he?). I only bring it up to show that we are forgetting a lot if we just say that he bought it because he felt threatened.
So an honest question - is this a sentence somebody else would have got for this same crime?
I totally agree with you on this. But doesn't look like there is any respite for him. New to your blog and really liking it.
Post a Comment
<< Home