We Indians love grabbing the high moral ground. Given a chance we'd love to sit pretty atop an ethical perch looking down on the mortals, some popular some commoners, and judge them till death. The Salman Khan hit-and-run episode that culminated in his convition nearly 13 years after the occurrence is a case in point. While most of us, the professedly non-partisan viewers, have chastisized him for runnning away from the scene, offering no remorse and blatantly lying on oath during trial, few have actually gone into the how and why "society" (sic) perceived the entire case and the individual in question.
By having the comfort of not being a party to this sad incident one can easily make an opinon and colour it with a sense of right and wrong. It does'nt need much to do that. Anyone with even a basic sense of what constitutes humane behaviour can say what SK ought to and ought not to have done at the scene and later during trial. But when the authorities comes knocking at your door how many of us can actually stand our ground and do the very things what we expect this "celebrity" should've done? The truth being: put yourself in his shoes and you would have done something similar, no matter how firecely you condemn SK now. How easy is it to find those who, after committing a crime, brave the odds and turn themselves in, face the judgement and bear the punishment. When push comes to shove we too would hire a 'black coat' and try twisting the law of the land without batting an eyelid. No one wants to bear the full brunt of the law, and this I dare say applies to almost any goody-two-shoes. In the courtroom, even a saint would do all he can to cushion the weight of the law before it falls on him. And this is all under oath. It's the fear of the gavel, milord!
We always tend to set and expect celebrities to consistently meet the unassailable benchmark of values. While the standard would usually not apply to our kith and kin we argue and demand the rich and the famous observe it without protest. Aren't these celebrities being human (pun not intended) afterall? Isn't it about time that we see them as fallible individuals just like most of us are? Why do we feel that they need to live their lives setting examples to one and all and always try to attain the highest moral pedestal, nothing less? There are no Mr/Ms Perfects and let us accept that. They too can, and have, faultered and had a brush against the laws of the land. Unfortunately an innocent life was lost but it could have actually happened to anyone. A boozer, a rash driver, a driving enthusiast, an adrenaline junkie... anyone. SK was perhaps all of this.. only he was caught in the act and killed a pavement dweller in his moment of madness.
Come to think of it, we've all tried and probably have "breaking/broken the law" either for fun or out of negligence but we have, albeit in smaller and less serious measure. We're no law abiding citizens ourselves and let's admit it. Among us there are employees who produce fake bills for reimbursements, those who bribe traffic policeman when caught without helmets or seat belts, and those who jump the occassional traffic signal when "no one's around, watching". We're as "sincere" as any celebrity. Again in SK's case, had it been a common man who was in his shoes, the arguments his lawyer would've made could have been as deceiving or worse. The man would've probably bribed one and all and got his name cleared. However, here, the media didn't take its foot off the pedestal in SK's trial and we all voyeuristically read on and judged SK after every proceeding, being true to our nature as 'armchair critics'. Were our values on leave since 2002 till now when we watched his movies and TV shows, raved over his performances (although I personally thought it impossible, given his acting or the apparent absence of it), and recommended his movies to our friends or family? Why didn't we boycott him back then? How did his movies prove such blockbusters had we innocent observers not patronized his films and shows? We're all selective Ghajinis. I also find it hypocritical that many of us came out with this "spare a though for the victim' family" supplement while damning Salman. Most of us, we know this, don't even acknowledge the presence of the numerous poor and homeless people we encounter daily, either at the bus stop, at the station or at the traffic signal. Do we really "spare a thought" for the poor? Honestly? Are we actually so socially caring or charitable that we defend the poor victim's family's rights only when they are violated by celebrities? Where's our voice on the issues our country faces everyday where lower sections are stamped upon? Unbelieveable! But then, everybody likes to be a spokesperson for the poor right? To his credit, SK did engage in a lot of charitable work and espoused many a cause even before the incident. We can doubt our own sincerity towards causes but not that fact.
In closing: nobody's perfect, we're all nobodies. To borrow MJ's lyrics: "I'm starting with the man in the mirror; I'm asking him to change his ways".
P.S: This in no way is my attempt to criticize the judgement or condone Salman Khan. Accepting celebrities for the ability to err is what we can learn, given how frequently we err ourselves.
By having the comfort of not being a party to this sad incident one can easily make an opinon and colour it with a sense of right and wrong. It does'nt need much to do that. Anyone with even a basic sense of what constitutes humane behaviour can say what SK ought to and ought not to have done at the scene and later during trial. But when the authorities comes knocking at your door how many of us can actually stand our ground and do the very things what we expect this "celebrity" should've done? The truth being: put yourself in his shoes and you would have done something similar, no matter how firecely you condemn SK now. How easy is it to find those who, after committing a crime, brave the odds and turn themselves in, face the judgement and bear the punishment. When push comes to shove we too would hire a 'black coat' and try twisting the law of the land without batting an eyelid. No one wants to bear the full brunt of the law, and this I dare say applies to almost any goody-two-shoes. In the courtroom, even a saint would do all he can to cushion the weight of the law before it falls on him. And this is all under oath. It's the fear of the gavel, milord!
We always tend to set and expect celebrities to consistently meet the unassailable benchmark of values. While the standard would usually not apply to our kith and kin we argue and demand the rich and the famous observe it without protest. Aren't these celebrities being human (pun not intended) afterall? Isn't it about time that we see them as fallible individuals just like most of us are? Why do we feel that they need to live their lives setting examples to one and all and always try to attain the highest moral pedestal, nothing less? There are no Mr/Ms Perfects and let us accept that. They too can, and have, faultered and had a brush against the laws of the land. Unfortunately an innocent life was lost but it could have actually happened to anyone. A boozer, a rash driver, a driving enthusiast, an adrenaline junkie... anyone. SK was perhaps all of this.. only he was caught in the act and killed a pavement dweller in his moment of madness.
Come to think of it, we've all tried and probably have "breaking/broken the law" either for fun or out of negligence but we have, albeit in smaller and less serious measure. We're no law abiding citizens ourselves and let's admit it. Among us there are employees who produce fake bills for reimbursements, those who bribe traffic policeman when caught without helmets or seat belts, and those who jump the occassional traffic signal when "no one's around, watching". We're as "sincere" as any celebrity. Again in SK's case, had it been a common man who was in his shoes, the arguments his lawyer would've made could have been as deceiving or worse. The man would've probably bribed one and all and got his name cleared. However, here, the media didn't take its foot off the pedestal in SK's trial and we all voyeuristically read on and judged SK after every proceeding, being true to our nature as 'armchair critics'. Were our values on leave since 2002 till now when we watched his movies and TV shows, raved over his performances (although I personally thought it impossible, given his acting or the apparent absence of it), and recommended his movies to our friends or family? Why didn't we boycott him back then? How did his movies prove such blockbusters had we innocent observers not patronized his films and shows? We're all selective Ghajinis. I also find it hypocritical that many of us came out with this "spare a though for the victim' family" supplement while damning Salman. Most of us, we know this, don't even acknowledge the presence of the numerous poor and homeless people we encounter daily, either at the bus stop, at the station or at the traffic signal. Do we really "spare a thought" for the poor? Honestly? Are we actually so socially caring or charitable that we defend the poor victim's family's rights only when they are violated by celebrities? Where's our voice on the issues our country faces everyday where lower sections are stamped upon? Unbelieveable! But then, everybody likes to be a spokesperson for the poor right? To his credit, SK did engage in a lot of charitable work and espoused many a cause even before the incident. We can doubt our own sincerity towards causes but not that fact.
In closing: nobody's perfect, we're all nobodies. To borrow MJ's lyrics: "I'm starting with the man in the mirror; I'm asking him to change his ways".
P.S: This in no way is my attempt to criticize the judgement or condone Salman Khan. Accepting celebrities for the ability to err is what we can learn, given how frequently we err ourselves.
