The Ferrari Fuss - Much Ado About Nothing
Shiv Sena's trademark method of fund collection is nothing more than a good old-fashioned Brooklyn Shakedown
Sham Samaroo
August 17, 2003
Let me see if I understand this correctly. A man is gifted a Ferrari for his accomplishments in service to his country. He requests, from the government, a waiver on the import duty, which is subsequently granted. Where is the impropriety? How is he above the law? Should the fact that the man is Sachin Tendulkar make a difference? When did Tendulkar forfeit his right under the Indian constitution? Does his celebrity status – a result of his honest accomplishments – make him less equal under the law? Tendulkar is not seeking any special privileges. The law states that a waiver can be granted under “exceptional circumstance”, and leaves it entirely up to the government’s discretion to determine what is an “exceptional circumstance.” The government, for its part, rightly contends that granting the waiver is a small gesture of appreciation for a sporting legend who has brought joy to millions of people.
Secondly, to pay import duty of an estimated US$250,000, more than the cost of the car, to receive it as a gift is damn well unfair. And the contention that Tendulkar should pay because he can afford it is equally preposterous. If one were to follow that line of logic, then the next time we go grocery shopping, and the person ahead of us pays less than we do for the same item because we earn more than they do and, therefore, can afford it, we should not protest, right?
Then, of course, there is that devious appeal to the masses, by one Pramod Navalkar, that was craftily designed to incite public resentment against Tendulkar. Navalkar cites the millions of Indians who are struggling daily to make ends meet. We do sympathize with those less fortunate than us, but is Tendulkar responsible for India’s financial woes? Tendulkar has always honoured his obligations. In fact, only a few months ago, the Income Tax department honoured Tendulkar as one of the country’s highest tax payers. This criticism from Pramod Navalkar of the Shiv Sena – the self appointed moral authority of the Maharashtrians – appears quite disingenuous, at best. Pardon me, but is this the same Shiv Sena whose trademark method of fund collection was aptly described by the former Minister of Trade, Diwankar Raote, in 1988? The transcript, secretly taped, and published in the Telegraph (October 12 and 13, 1988) stated: "You tell me what your capacity is, just as it is your right to live as per your capacity, it is my right to take from you as per your capacity. You tell me what you are going to give me. Have you come here to fool me? You should have been mortally scared to talk to me like this, of giving only Rs.5,000. Merrily you take your money back. Not a single boy of mine will come to your house to question you why you did not pay. When you're raided don't come to me on your knees. Catch hold of politicians from other parties... ". Oh dear me, here in Uncle Sam, this is would be nothing more than a good old-fashioned shakedown.
Further, in his memoirs Bullet for Bullet: My Life as a Police Officer, Julio Ribeiro tells how he was constantly pressed, when he was Commissioner of Police, Mumbai, to go soft on Thackeray and the Sena. “Police bias and the courts' leniency have contributed to making the Sena Establishment a state within a state".
The moral high ground Mr. Navalkar?
I don’t think so. Today, you tried to tarnish the impeccable character of a man whose shoe strings you are not fit to lace. AESOP was right: “We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office”.
This article first appeared on cricketnext.com