Anand Jon getting 59 years is the talk of the moment. Over the years, I have heard of many such cases of celebrities being accused of sexual crimes, most notably (for me), the late and lamented MJ. And every such story throws me in a quandary. The accused plead 'not guilty', their families support them unconditionally, the press bays for their blood, the public in general, enjoys the salacious bit of news, and I am left wondering wat shud my opinion be.
The problem is, I have to have an opinion about everything. If I could just ignore the entire thing like many do, and all my dear ones recommend, I would have such an easy life. Its not like I am being paid to express my views! But alas.
So back to this case, and the ones before, and many others that would follow, I am confused. Who do I believe? Anand?(Did he really do it, or are they just trumped up charges - after all, he is a celebrity) His sister, who claims a 'spiritual' man like him just cant do it?(Come on girl, were you born yesterday???) The victims? ( Anything for the fame, or is it?) The media? (Its a race for the latest scoop, or is it an effort in public awareness?) Everybody's got something to say - good or villianous. But who does one believe ?
My husband the other day, was saying how it is dangerous to even be friendly with girls, dont know who will accuse you of molestation the next day. Although it is the most powerful tool that we females have in our hands today, there are any number of members of the fairer sex, who do (or may) definitely use it for very dark deeds indeed.
Come to think of it, "innocent unless proved guilty" itself has me disturbed. Who decides, and how do they decide. Be it judge or jury, the verdict is based on the so called "testimony" in court. Who decides how true it is? Once in a while people are caught fabricating evidence, but wat of the score of other small cases, where certain influential sections are having their way just by being lighter in the pocket by a few coins. And the biggest joke of all, for me, is "circumstantial evidence'. An oft touted term, its probably the flimsiest grounds for a judgement, and yet entire loads of cases are based on them.
I am not saying the judges, or jury, is dishonest. But how do you know you arent being manipulated to think in a certain way ? I think real power is with the attorneys who can make a case go in a particular direction with their persuasive words and emminently believable witnesses. But in the end, I believe noone can be the judge of someone else coz no two are alike, but we can all have our opinions. how far we let those opinions shape the destiny of another person, depends on that person, and that person alone.
So if Anand Jon is really guilty, no amount of pleading, or a harsher conviction, can atone for what he has done, and what his conscience will, always, upbraid him for.
And if he is not guilty, nothing can dent his faith and pride in himself.
