Singer-composer Vishal Dadlani has extended his support to the CISF constable accused of slapping actor-turned-politician Kangana Ranaut at the Chandigarh airport on June 6. Vishal expressed his support in an Instagram story, offering to assist the female CISF officer.
The incident occurred when Kangana Ranaut was slapped by CISF constable Kulwinder Kaur at the frisking area while proceeding to the boarding point after a security check. In response, Vishal Dadlani said he would help ensure the constable gets a job if any disciplinary action is taken against her.
“I do not ever support violence, but I understand the need for this @official_cisf personnel’s anger. If any action is taken against her by the CISF, I will ensure that she has a job waiting for her should she choose to accept it. Jai Hind. Jai Jawaan. Jai Kisaan (sic),” he wrote in an Instagram story.
In another post, Dadlani tried to justify and contextualise the assault. “To those on Dungana’s side, if she had said your mother is ‘available in 100 rupees’, what would you do?” Dadlani asked while sharing an Instagram post that sought to rationalise the CISF constable’s unconscionable conduct with a passenger whom she despised for personal reasons.
Dadlani, in yet another Instagram story, reiterated that if Ms Kaur is sacked from her job, he will ensure she is gainfully employed.
CISF constable Kulwinder Kaur was reportedly detained following the incident. According to reports, she was later suspended after Kangana Ranaut filed a complaint with CISF officials upon her arrival at Indira Gandhi Airport.
Kangana Ranaut had won the Lok Sabha elections from Himachal Pradesh’s Mandi constituency. On the film front, she will be making her directorial debut with ‘Emergency’, produced by her home banner Manikarnika Films.
Dadlani’s job offer to the CISF constable will set a dangerous precedent, embolden and reward using violence to address personal grievances
Dadlani’s zealous support for a CISF constable who went against her duty and assaulted a passenger for her grievance is a classic case of encouraging and rewarding violence just because he doesn’t share the same social and political outlook as espoused by Kangana.
What Kangana said years ago is irrelevant. Kangana exercised her Freedom of Speech that is enshrined in the constitution of India. Contextualising her comments to justify the turn of events we witnessed on Thursday at the Chandigarh airport is a crude attempt at rationalising the assault, a discourse that would not only shrink the space for dissent in the country but also set a dangerous precedent to follow.
In fact, what Kangana said might even be true as we have seen in political rallies across the country where crowds are bought by giving them money. It is, therefore, not outside the realms of possibility that the women Kangana referred to who had participated in the farmer protests had taken part in the demonstrations for money. But surely, such a statement can’t be used to contextualise and rationalise the attack on Kangana Ranaut.
If we are to consider resorting to violence over grievances harboured by every individual for what they felt as mistreatment or insult meted out to their relatives as justified, it will lead to a total breakdown of law and order as everyone who’d felt hurt would consider it a fair game to assault and ‘avenge’’ the perceived insult. Terrorists might kill people in the name of grievances and then line up outside Mr Dadlani’s house for being ‘gainfully employed’. And more importantly, providing employment and rationalising such acts will encourage more people to take this route.
While Dadlani is in a position to provide a job to Ms Kaur, will he be able to employ several hundred thousand people who might be emboldened to take up violence knowing that a prospective employer is waiting to employ them? If yes, then India’s ‘jobs problem’, as the INDI leaders claim, is sorted. The government should depute the work of employing jobless people to Mr Dadlani. If he can employ a security official who went against her protocol and resorted to violence, there are far more deserving and hardworking people who are in genuine need of employment and would conscientiously dispense their duty.
If Mr Dadlani still does not realise how such job offers and rationalisation encourage and embolden perpetrators, will he be similarly ‘benevolent’ towards moviegoers who would want to slap him for a song composed by him that they didn’t like? Will he employ them as well?
Today, Dadlani is supporting someone who slapped a popular public figure and an MP-elect. How different is this from fatwas issued by Maulvis and financial rewards announced by Islamists against a person accused of blasphemy? Where will this stop?
