बिना मिटाये लकीर को छोटा करो…, समाजिक व धार्मिक शिक्षा तो यही हैं…!
बिना मिटाये लकीर को छोटा करो…, समाजिक व धार्मिक शिक्षा तो यही हैं…!
कभी-कभी पहली बुझाई जाती है (एक प्रकार का ज्ञान का खेल, जो अब नहीं होता), कि ‘‘बिना लकीर को मिटाये, उसको छोटा कैसे करेंगे’’, कुछ लोग जवाब नहीं दे पाते, लेकिन अक़लमन्द जवाब देते है, कहते है ‘‘उसके सामने बड़ी लकीर खींचकर।’’ एस.एन.लाल
यही अपने बड़ों से समाजिक व धार्मिक शिक्षा भी मिलती है, कि बिना किसी को हानि पहुंचाये, उससे आगे निकलने के लिये अपने में उससे ज़्यादा क्षमता (शिक्षा-प्रशिक्षण दोनो की) प्राप्त करो। एस.एन.लाल
अब देखना यह है कि क्या !….ये आज देश में ऐसा हो रहा है… या लकीर को मिटाने की कोशिश हो रही है….!
काशी हिंदू विश्वविद्यालय में फिरोज खान की नियुक्ति पर भाजपा अध्यक्ष और केंद्रीय गृह मंत्री को हस्तक्षेप करना चाहिए।
उन्हें साफ करना चाहिए कि जो चयन सरकार लागू नहीं करा सकती, वैसे अव्यवहारिक चयन सलेक्शन कमेटी को नहीं करना चाहिए।
जैसा उन्होंने सबरीमाला मामले में सुप्रीम कोर्ट को सलाह दी थी।
संघी कहरहे हैं जेएनयू वाले आतंकवादी हैं. मतलब ये वित्तमंत्री निर्मला सीतारमण को भी आतंकवादी कह रहे हैं. इसके बहाने इन्हें वित्तमंत्री बनाने वाले मोदी को भी आतंकवादी कह रहे हैं. नारायण… नारायण… ये संघ- मोदी का अंदरूनी संघर्ष तो नहीं?
Ayodhya verdict : A conundrum of fact, fiction and faith
The Supreme Court relied on shlokas of Skanda Purana to establish the Hindu side’s claim that Babri Masjid stood on Lord Ram’s birthplace.
By Raman Kirp
Three bulbous domes, two smaller ones flanking a grander dome, accentuating it. A long queue of karsevaks outside the south dome.
This picture is vividly etched on my memory since the day I first set foot in Ayodhya on December 3, 1992. The domes were unmistakably that of a mosque, which overlooked a platform known as Ram Chabutra. The entire area, measuring 2.77 acres, was caged by a grill fence with two gates and a narrow passage to funnel people out into the disputed plot.
The domed structure was a 464-year-old mosque believed to have been constructed by or at the instruction of the Mughal emperor Babur. Babri Masjid, the lone structure of significance to Muslims in the area, stood surrounded by holy buildings built by Hindus later – Manas Bhawan, Sita Rasoi and Ram Katha Kunj Sagar. The mosque had existed for centuries and Muslims offered namaz there. Soon after independence, in December 1949, Hindus discreetly installed an idol of the deity Ram Lalla under the central dome, persisting with their claim that the plot on which Babri Masjid stood was the birthplace of the Hindu god Rama.
The conundrum had begun. Who should get the land title, Hindus or Muslims? The case travelled for years through the judicial labyrinth until finally, on November 9 this year, the Supreme Court gave away the title to Hindus.
It took the five judges who decided the case to travel back in time to 300 BC to explain why the land “probably” belonged to Hindus. The court categorically said towards the beginning of its 1,045-page judgement: “The court does not decide title on the basis of faith or belief but on the basis of evidence…The law must stand apart from political contestations over history, ideology and religion.’’ Yet, it ended up doing just that. It went on to rule that Hindus had a stronger claim to the title because of their belief.
In all, it took the authority of the Supreme Court, four shlokas from the sage Valmiki’s Ramayana, 87 shlokas from Skanda Purana, Hans Bakker’s Ayodhya, oral evidence of octogenarian Hindu sadhus, a chronicle of Guru Nanak’s visit to Ayodhya, Goswami Tulsidas’s Ramcharitmanas, Ain-i-Akbari, findings of the Archaeological Survey of India, accounts of scores of foreign travellers, and British gazettes to decide the case in favour of Hindus. Strangely, Baburnama was missing from this list of documentary evidence. No one thought of considering this epic treatise on Babur’s administration and his conquests as evidence. Babri Masjid might have found a mention in it perhaps. All evidence was mainly from the pre-1949 period, that is, from before the birth of the Indian constitution and the Supreme Court.
Four shlokas from the Ramayana, recorded sometime in 200-300 BC show that Ram, as an incarnation of Vishnu, was born to King Dasrath and Kaushalya at Ayodhya. But the Ramayana doesn’t indicate Ram’s exact place of birth, the court concedes.
It is Skanda Purana that provides the location. Eighty seven shlokas from chapter 10, Ayodhya Mahatmya, state that Ram Janmasthan is to the east of Vighnesvara, to the north of Vasistha and to the west of Laumasa. Puzzling, isn’t it? But it was simple for Hindu sadhus Jagadguru Ramanandacharya, Swami Rambhadracharya, and Swami Avimuktaswaranand Saraswati.
In their submissions, they claimed to have travelled to Ayodhya, following the directions given in Skanda Purana, and discovered that a British official named Edward had put up stone slabs to mark the places mentioned in Skanda Purana. Swami Saraswati had seen the stones at Bara Sthan, Ram Janmabhoomi, Pindarak, Lomash, Vighnesh and Vashishtkund. These stones existed until 2001-2002, he claimed. But they don’t exist now. It’s not clear if any pictures of the stones exist either.
A historian named Sushil Srivastav appeared on behalf of the Hindu side. He said, “I agree with what is mentioned in Ayodhya Mahatmya about the birthplace of Rama.’’ He too did not clearly identify the boundaries of Ram Janmabhoomi. But it sufficed for the narrative that he gave indications about legends situated on the eastern, western and northern sides of the town to provide directions for reaching Ram Janmabhoomi.
The final nail in the coffin was Dutch scholar Hans Bakker’s book Ayodhya, originally a thesis submitted to the University of Groningen in 1984. “The original location of the Janmasthana temple is comparatively certain since it seems to be attested by the location of the mosque built by Babur, in the building of which materials of a previous Hindu temple were used and are still visible. The mosque is believed by general consensus to occupy the site of the Janmasthana.’’
The list of witnesses that endorsed the Hindu belief of Ram Janmasthan was endless. It included Tulsidas’s Ramcharitmanas, which says: “When Brahma appealed to Vishnu to relieve the Devas, Sages, Gandharvas and earth from the terror of the demon Ravana, Lord Vishnu said I will take a human form and be born to Dasarath and Kausalya in Kosalapuri.” Kosalapuri is another name for Ayodhya.
Ain-a-Akbari, written by Emperor Akbar’s minister Abul Fazl, claims that Ayodhya “was the residence of Ramachandra who in the Treta age combined in his own person both the spiritual supremacy and the kingly office”.
Then there is Father Joseph Tieffenthaler, who visited India between 1766 and 1771. In his travelogues, he provides the popular version of the Ramayana. He writes that it is not clear if Emperor Aurengzeb demolished the temple or replaced it with a “Muslim temple, with triple domes, constructed at the same place. Others say it was constructed by Babor”.
Then there are British gazettes from 1858 onwards. They always describe the disputed structure as “Mosque Janma Sthan”. This corroborates the belief that the mosque was constructed on the Janmasthan of Ram, the Supreme Court argues.
A historical sketch of Faizabad prepared in 1870 by P Carnegy, a British settlement officer, states that Ayodhya is to Hindus what Mecca is to Muslims and Jerusalem to Jews.
The Supreme Court also cites a report published by the Archaeological Survey of India in 1889. It claims: “Babar’s Masjid at Ayodhya was built on the very spot where the old temple Janmasthan of Ramchandra was standing.” The court quotes a couple more ASI reports from the 19th century endorsing this opinion. Then, several gazettes are cited to show there was a dispute over the structure even in 1858.
Rewind to 1992, when I went to Ayodhya in my quest for the truth. I worked for the daily Patriot at the time and reported on events leading up to the demolition of Babri Masjid on December 6.
None of the octogenarians who deposed in the Supreme Court gave us any evidence of Ram Janambhoomi then. I remember meeting Paramahans Ramchandra, who was one of the key figures addressing press conferences every day in Ayodhya in December 1992. They only had one slogan then: “Matti nahi khiskayenge, Masjid ko girayenge.” We will not shift the soil, we will demolish the mosque.
In fact, they would not have had the time to discuss evidence because there was such a frenzy in Ayodhya. The city was painted saffron. Karsevaks had shaved the hair on their heads in the shape of a trishul, swastika, or an image of Ram. In their mania, they were hostile to the media. In my reporter’s diary titled Operation Demolition: Brick by Brick, published in a monthly magazine, Link, I wrote on December 5 that 1.60 lakh karsevaks had arrived in Ayodhya. Forty two trucks carrying flour and rice, 38 trucks of sugar, and 11 trucks of dal had also arrived the same day to feed the massive gathering.
The principal characters in the 1992 episode included Paramahans Ramchandra, Ashok Singhal, Vishnu Hari Dalmia, and Acharya Dharmendra of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad; BL Sharma “Prem” and Uma Bharati of the Bharatiya Janata Party; Sadhvi Rithambara of the Durga Vahini. The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh’s top leaders and BJP grandees such as LK Advani and Murli Manohar Joshi were also present, but they barely spoke with the press. Then there was an outfit called Kendriya Margdarshak Mandal, which would hold a press conference every day at 4 pm that Singhal unfailingly attended.
On December 5, Kendriya Margdarshak Mandal informed reporters that they would conduct a “symbolic” kar seva but not attempt to harm the Babri Masjid. I wrote in my diary: “The deception was rather complete. Not many who witnessed the unfolding of Ayodhya events until December 5 thought that there would indeed be a ‘real kar seva’ involving the demolition of the Babri Masjid.’’
I was atop Manas Bhawan when the masjid was demolished on December 6. I scurried down the stairs as karsevaks started pelting stones. Frantically, I entered the crowd in an attempt to move away from people chanting “Jai Sri Ram”. I exited Ayodhya and was walking towards Faizabad on foot when I saw an approaching convoy of the Rapid Action Force take a U-turn away from Ayodhya. The RAF is a specialised unit of the Central Reserve Police Force meant to deal with riots and crowd-control situations.
The RAF commanding officer, who was with Faizabad’s city magistrate, Sudhir Adeeb, intercepted me en route and offered me a lift in his Jeep. The conversations that ensued in the middle of the Faizabad-Ayodhya road went thus. “Why are you not moving to Ayodhya where the destruction of Babri Masjid is in progress,’’ I asked the two of them, with utmost curiosity. I believed the security forces could have salvaged the situation if they tried.
The officer quipped, “The RAF received orders from the state government to march to Ayodhya at 1 pm on December 6. Our convoy had reached Saket Degree College when we received another order from the government to go back to the barracks.”
Adeeb reacted defensively, “We don’t want a massacre of kar sevaks by sending the RAF troops, nor do we want that the RAF jawans get lynched by the frenzied mob.’’
The commanding officer asked Adeeb to give in writing that the RAF should return to Faizabad. Placing a blank piece of paper on the bonnet of the Jeep, Adeeb wrote: “The central forces could not move further beyond the Saket Degree college due to several roadblocks.’’
This was far from the truth. There were no roadblocks that would have kept them from reaching Ayodhya.
Dirty politics knows no religion. In 1992, while the BJP’s Kalyan Singh was the chief minister of Uttar Pradesh, PV Narasimha Rao of the Congress was prime minister of the country.
The entire operation of December 6 was a ruse. It was the doubletalk of politicians and leaders of the Ayodhya as well as the frenzy that kept us, the mediapersons, from telling the truth of what was happening. Overnight, Ram Chabutra was extended over the land where the three domes once stood. A makeshift canopy was erected and the idol of Ram Lalla was placed on the same site. History was first rewritten on December 6, 1992.
After 27 years, the Supreme Court has settled the dispute once and for all. The court does find that the domes existed on the disputed plot for years and that they were illegally demolished. The court also admits that there was no abandonment of the mosque by Muslims.
Yet, Muslims couldn’t prove their exclusive possession of the three domes prior to 1857. Why weren’t Hindus asked to prove exclusive possession? Because the law requires only the prosecution – Muslims in this case – to prove their claim. They couldn’t prove their claim, so the land probably belonged to Hindus because of their belief, the court reasoned. The court, however, decided to compensate Muslims by giving them a five-acre plot to build a mosque somewhere else in Ayodhya.
The apex court could not confirm whether it was Babur who, through his minister Mohammad Mir Baqi, built the mosque in 1528 or whether it was Aurangzeb who demolished a temple and then erected the three domes of Babri Masjid. However, miraculously, the rest of the pieces of the jigsaw puzzle seemed to fit a narrative of “probable” which delivered the 2.77 acres of the disputed land to Hindus.
If age-old beliefs get preference over existing realities in this manner, I think history is ready to take a drubbing in the years to come.
Disclaimer : Newslaundry.com is determined to include views and opinions from all sides of the spectrum. This doesn’t mean we agree with everything we publish. But we do support their right to the freedom of speech. In case of columnists and non-Newslaundry staff articles, the information, ideas or opinions in the articles are of the author and do not reflect the views of Newslaundry.com. Newslaundry.com does not assume any responsibility or liability for the same.
demolition of #BabriMasjid was an unlawful activity, why they give judgment in favor of Mandir, just because of Faith???
Rohit Thayyil روہت تیل
On Saturday, #SC called the demolition of the #BabriMasjid illegal but chose to reward the same mob with permission to build a temple at the disputed site;…
The Babri Masjid demolition was the culmination of years of campaigns by Hindu fundamentalists to construct a Lord Rama temple on the mosque’s site.
On the question of the BJP and RSS’s role in the demolition of the Babri Masjid, Atif Rasheed, a member of the National Commission for Minorities, said, “There was no political party or organisation involved in the demolition. Hindus had conducted it.”
Baijayant Jay Panda
“Myth 1) Judgment based on Hindu beliefs
Myth 2) SC turned blind eye to Babri Masjid demolition sanctifying violence
Myth 3) Judgment based on archaeological findings
Myth 4) A secular State ordered to construct a religious temple”
Nitin Thakur Page
शिक्षा का निजीकरण भारतीय शिक्षा परंपरा के विरुद्ध है। गुरूकुलों को राजाओं से दान मिलता था। भूमि मिलती थी। आश्रय मिलता था। गुरूकुलों से टैक्स नहीं वसूला जाता था। ना देशभर से पढ़ने पहुंचे छात्रों को कहा जाता था कि वो महंगी फीस भरें। शिक्षा पूरी होने के बाद गुरू पर था कि वो विद्यार्थी से गुरूदक्षिणा में क्या ले। हमने जितना कुछ पढ़ा उसमें कभी पैसा नहीं मांगा गया। बहुत बार तो राजाओं के वो बेटे जो गुरूकुल में पढ़ने आते थे अपने गुरू के आदेश पर भिक्षा मांगने तक जाया करते थे। समाज उनका सम्मान करते हुए जो बन पड़े देता था क्योंकि ये आम समझ थी कि शिक्षा ग्रहण करना या देना पुनीत कार्य है। गुरूकुल चिंतक, वैज्ञानिक, लेखक बना रहा है और समाज को उनकी आवश्यकता है सो सहयोग किया जाए यही बात राजदरबार भी समझते थे।
विद्यार्जन करने की इच्छा रखनेवालों से पैसा वसूलकर राजकोष भरने का आइडिया भारतीय शिक्षा परंपरा के विपरीत है। ये ठेठ पूंजीवादी रवैया भी है जिसका समर्थन रामराज्य की परिकल्पना में खोजना मुमकिन नहीं। इसी तरह प्रत्येक विचार को सुना जाना और उसे माननेवाले को सम्मान देना भी इस देश की संस्कृति है। यहां चार्वाक सुने गए। परंपराओं को चुनौती देते बुद्ध और महावीर भी पूजनीय हुए। शास्त्रार्थ का स्थान विश्वविद्यालय परिसर की चर्चाओं ने ले लिया लेकिन अब भय है कि वो स्थान भी ना छिन जाए। हमारे समाज में सब कुछ बुरा नहीं था। बहुत कुछ अच्छा भी था। उस अच्छे को बचाया जाए और उसमें से एक था सबके लिए शिक्षा, मुफ्त ना सही मगर कम से कम खर्च में शिक्षा ताकि कृष्ण और सुदामा एक साथ पढ़ पाएं। आगे तो जो हो सो हो।
Criticism of a Judge on Facebook is Not Contempt, Says Supreme Court
The judgment was contradictory to the contempt notice issued by the court to former Supreme Court Justice Markandey Katju, prompting experts to suggest laying down of consistent principles.
New Delhi: A Supreme Court bench, on Monday, set aside a Punjab and Haryana high court order issued on May 31, convicting and sentencing an advocate for one month’s simple imprisonment at Narnaul jail in Haryana for a Facebook post in which he was critical of a high court judge.
The details of the case are similar to the notice of contempt of court issued against former judge of the Supreme Court, Justice Markandey Katju, for his Facebook post criticising a judgment delivered by a bench presided by Justice Ranjan Gogoi, presently the CJI. Justice Katju opted to apologise to the bench for his remarks, leading to the closure of the case against him.
The details of the high court case
On May 31, a division bench of the Punjab and Haryana high court sentenced an advocate-cum-journalist, Maneesh Vashistha, to simple imprisonment for one month, after suo motu finding him guilty of contempt of court. His offence: he alleged in a Facebook post that the judgment passed against him by Justice Inderjit Singh of the high court was not a speaking order and that a better decision could have been written by a magistrate.
Vashistha is an advocate practicing at Narnaul district and is also a correspondent for Punjab Kesri (Hissar edition).
Vashistha also wrote that the judge had not uploaded the judgment as he might not have understood what was to be written. On learning about the Facebook post from the litigants who were arraigned against Vashistha in a case before him, Justice Inderjit Singh initiated contempt proceedings against him, but directed the registry to put up the case before some other bench, after taking appropriate orders from the chief justice of the high court.
The case was then heard by the division bench of justices M.S. Bedi and Hari Pal Verma.
“Such a derogatory remark is contemptuous on the face of it as such the contemnor is held guilty of having committed contempt of court,” the bench wrote in its judgment, while directing him to surrender to undergo imprisonment on July 31. The high court decided to sentence him as he did not furnish any apology or express remorse. However, Vashishth pleaded that he should be shown leniency on account of his being an advocate.
In its judgment, the division bench of the high court rejected Vashishth’s contention that the court could not be a prosecutor and a judge of its own cause. It held, citing the Supreme Court’s judgment in Delhi Judicial Service Association’s case that the Supreme Court and the high court, being the court of record, shall have the powers as well as the duty to protect the authority and dignity of courts.
Citing another case, R.L. Kapur v State of Madras (1972), the division bench of the high court held that under Article 215 of the Constitution, the high court as a court of record possesses inherent power and jurisdiction, which is a special one, not arising or derived from Contempt of Courts Act and the provisions of Section 3 of 1926 Act.
It was specifically held in that case that under Article 215 of the Constitution, no law made by a legislature could take away the jurisdiction conferred on the high court nor it could confer it afresh by virtue of its own authority. The high court, therefore, held that it has got wide inherent power to punish for contempt not only of subordinate courts, but of the high court itself.
“The objective of the contempt proceedings is not to punish a contemner for insult of a particular judge, but for saving the dignity of the judicial system. In case the punishment is not awarded to a person, who by his publication scandalises and lowers the authority of not only the Court but has lowered the authority of the judiciary in the eyes of general public…the faith of the general public in the judiciary will be shattered,” the high court had held in its order.
The dignity and authority of the court has to be maintained not only by the general public but also by the advocates who constitute an important part of the system of administration of justice and are considered as officers of the Court.
Supreme Court’s order
On Monday, November 12, a Supreme Court bench of justices A.K. Sikri and R. Subhash Reddy set aside the high court order, on an appeal from the contemner. The high court, which had taken suo motu action against the appellant, did not opt to be represented before the Supreme Court, despite issue of notice.
The high court had suspended the sentence till the reopening of the Supreme Court in July, to enable Vashistha to appeal. On July 30, Justice S. Abdul Nazeer of the Supreme Court allowed his application for exemption from surrendering before the chief judicial magistrate of Narnaul on July 31, to avoid being imprisoned in the meantime.
On August 27, a Supreme Court bench of justices A.K. Sikri and Ashok Bhushan stayed the high court order.
On Monday, allowing Vashistha’s appeal, the bench observed: “We have gone through the matter in detail and are of the view that it was not a case where the contempt action should have been taken against the appellant who is an Advocate.”
Similarity with Justice Katju’s case
Vashistha’s success in the Supreme Court offers an interesting contrast to Justice Katju’s own travails in the apex court for his Facebook post, which invited a contempt notice from a Justice Gogoi-led bench.
The order issuing the notice refers to Justice Katju’s blog, wherein he explains a “grave error” in the judgment delivered by a bench presided over by Justice Gogoi, and adds that “it is not expected of judges who had been in the legal world for decades”. The order reproduces another sentence from the blog as follows:
“Even a student of law in a law college knows this elementary principle that hearsay evidence is inadmissible.”
Justice Katju made this comment in the context of his criticism that the bench committed a serious error in admitting the hearsay evidence of a bystander. In the Soumya murder case, which was before the Supreme Court in the review proceedings, the bench acquitted the accused, Govindachamy, of murder charges, even though it found him guilty of assault and rape and sentenced him to life imprisonment.
Critics suggest that such conflicting decisions about the judiciary’s contempt powers indeed call for laying down consistent principles to protect free speech.
(The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author’s and do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of TEESRI JUNG HINDI.)
(लेख में व्यक्त विचार, लेखक के निजी विचार हैं. आलेख में दी गई किसी भी सूचना की तथ्यात्मकता, सटीकता, संपूर्णता अथवा सच्चाई के प्रति TEESRI JUNG HINDI उत्तरदायी नहीं है. आलेख में सभी सूचनाएं ज्यों की त्यों प्रस्तुत की गई हैं)
रस्सी का सांप और राई का पहाड़, दोनों जुमलों का इस्तेमाल प्रैक्टिकली हमारे यहाँ खूब होता है, मसलन,,,जब पुलिस थाने कोई आम आदमी पकड़ कर किसी जुर्म में पहुँचता है तो उसके साथ पुलिस की पूंछतांछ कैसे होती है,,,देखें,,,,
कौन है ये,,,,कहाँ से पकड़ा है””’,,,,एक आदमी को थाने में ज़मीन पर बैठा देख कर दारोग़ा ने हवलदार से पूंछा,,,
हवलदार,,,सलीम तेली है साब,,,मालगोदाम पे हाथ आया है,,,
दारोग़ा,,,अच्छा तो ये है वो ‘सलीम तेली’,,,तेरी तो बहुत दिनों से तलाश थी,,,आज हाथ आया है मादरचोद,,,गांड फट जाएगी अब तेरी, भोसड़ी के,,,
(दारोग़ा की बात सुन कर सलीम सोच में पड़ गया, मेरी तलाश क्यों थी, मैंने तो कभी कोई खता नहीं की)
हवलदार,,,साब,,,ये वो वाला सलीम नहीं है, वो सलीम लंगड़ा है,,,आयेगा हाथ वोभी, पकड़ा जायेगा, जायेगा कहाँ, पुलिस से कोई बचा है,,,
दारोग़ा,,,अच्छा,,,,ये,,,क्या कर रहा था ये,,,दीवानजी
दीवानजी,,,साब,,कंवरीगंज में झगड़ा हो रहा था, वहां से पकड़ा है,,,
दारोग़ा,,,हिन्दू मुस्लिम दंगा करवाना चाहता है,,,क्यों बे,,,क्या कर रहा था वहां,,,किस के कहने पर वहां गया था,,,दीवानजी इसे मेरे कमरे में लेके आओ,,,
दीवानजी,,,साब,,,ये बहुत ढीठ है,,,रास्ते में हेकड़ी कर रहा था,,,
दारोग़ा,,,क्यों रे,,,”तड़ाक, तड़ाक, तड़ाक” ( कई थप्पड़ मूँह पर जड़ दिए),,,पुलिस को खेल समझ रखा है,,,दंगा करवायेगा,,,मादरचोद तुम साले होते ही ऐसे हो,,,किसने पैसे दिए थे तुझे,,,दंगा करवाने वालों में और कौन कौन शामिल हैं,,,बता, सही सही बता,,,दीवानजी,,ये ऐसे नहीं बिलेगा,,,खम्बे से लगाओ साले को,,,
(दो पुलिस वालों ने उसके हाथ पकड़ कर वरांडे के खम्बे से लगा दिया)
दारोग़ा,,,हवलदार,,,लाठी लाना,,,ताड़ ताड़, ताड़,,आह,,,आह,,आ,,,,हा,,,, मर जाऊंगा,,,सर मै बेगुनाह हूँ,,,अरे अल्लाह बचा ले,,,अरी मेरी मईया,,,आह, आह,,सर छोड़ दो मुझे,,,मैने कुछ नहीं करा,,,मेँ अपनी माँ की कसम खा के कह रहा हूँ,,,दंगे की मुझे कोई खबर नहीं है,,आअह,,,अरे अल्लाह,,,अल्लाह बचा ले,,,सर मेँ अपनी बीवी बच्चों की कसम खा कर बता रहा हूँ,,,मुझे कुछ नहीं पता,,,सर छोड़ दो मुझे,,,सर माफ़ कर दो मुझे,,,सर,,,सर,,,मर जाऊंगा,,,आअह,,,
दारोग़ा,,,रामकिशन,,इसका हाथ पकड़ कर टहलालाओ,,,साला,,,हो गया सही,,हाँ अब बता, बतायेगा,,,या,,,
सलीम,,,,साहब मेँ कब से बता रहा हूँ मुझे कुछ नहीं पता,,,
दारोग़ा,,,सारे अपराधी ऐसे ही कहते हैं,,,हम तुझे बेवकूफ दीख रहे हैं,,,हमें सब मालूम है,,,अच्छा ये बता,,,वो,,,हाइवे वाली लूट में तुम कितने लोग शामिल थे,,,लम्बी लिस्ट है तेरे अपराधों की, जायेगा लम्बा नापेगा,,,तुझे जेल में सड़ा दुंगा,,,मादरचोद,,,
दीवानजी,,,वो, हरी सिंह के यहाँ जो डाका पड़ा पड़ा था,,,उसमे दो मुजरिम जेल गए हैं तीसरा फरार हो गया था,,,अरे वोही जिन पै गैंगस्टर लगाई थी,,,
दारोग़ा,,,,हवलदार,,,तुम बुढ़िया का नगला चले जाना,,,15 का एक सामान, लालाराम से ले आना,,,उसकी बाईक लूट का अभी कोई पता नहीं चला है,,,लग जायेगा,,,बच के जायेगा कहाँ,,,पुलिस के हाथ बहुत लम्बे हैं,,,
मुंशी,,दारोग़ा से,,साब,,,ये नमकीन बहुत अच्छी है, समोसा एक दम गरम है,,,साब,,,चटनी खट्टी डालूं या मीठी,,,सर,,,’सलीम तेली’ का ‘चालान बना दिया है,,,दंगा भड़काने, हाइवे की डकैती, लालाराम की बाईक लूट, एक तमाचा 315 बोर, चार ज़िंदा कारतूस, पुलिस मुढभेड़ में पकड़ा गया, इसके दो साथी अँधेरे का लाभ उठा कर फरार,,,दो हमराह के साथ कोर्ट भेज दूँ,,,
दारोग़ा,,,भेज दो,,,साले को,,,
सलीम तेली,,,जेल के अंदर,,,,एक अन्य बंदी से बात करते हुए बताता है,,,,भईया जी हम तो बे कसूर हैं, बाज़ार गए थे बहन के कपडे लेने और घर का सामान ख़रीदने, वहां पता नहीं किसी का किसी से झगड़ा हो रहा था, हम वहां से जा रहे थे,,पुलिस हमें पकड़ लायी,,,
(एक काल्पनिक कहानी)…prvez khan