Editorial: A clean chit, but at what cost?

CHENNAI: The dropping of Aryan Khan’s name from the Narcotics Control Bureau’s chargesheet filed in the so-called Cordelia cruise ship case raises many questions. The first, and most immediate one is the most obvious: what was it doing there in the first place? As the NCB itself has now admitted, with regard to Aryan Khan – the son of Bollywood superstar Shah Rukh Khan – there was absolutely no evidence that the drugs recovered were intended for the former. Also, that a string of WhatsApp chats do not quite add up as prosecutable evidence.

The withdrawal of Aryan Khan’s name has, perhaps inevitably, spotlighted the controversial Sameer Wankhede who, as the NCB’s zonal director at Mumbai, was at the forefront of a string of highly-publicised celebrity cases. It was Wankhede who went after actor Rhea Chakraborty after the death of her boyfriend Sushant Singh Rajput. He has called major Bollywood celebrities in for questioning and in his previous stint as a Customs official, slapped duties on a number of them.

Wankhede’s record is a complex one. On the one hand, he has cracked down on drug trafficking with a determination not seen earlier, something evidenced by the serious action he has taken against major drug dealers. On the other, he has appeared much too obsessed with celebrity cases, which are the ones that have fetched him the most headlines. In doing so, Wankhede became caught up in political controversies, such as the one in which a leader of the National Congress Party (NCP), whose son-in-law was arrested in a drug bust, accused him of being a BJP stooge. With the Centre demanding that the NCB take action against Wankhede for “shoddy investigation”, it remains to be seen how seriously this directive will be implemented.

The Aryan Khan case highlights how a draconian legislation such as the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, can be misused against an individual. It should also serve as a reminder about the inexcusable manner in which a large section of the media conducted itself – carrying out smear campaigns against Aryan Khan, usually in the form of baseless anonymous leaks from NCB officials. But important though this is, it is vital to recognise that the significance of this case goes beyond the son of one of India’s most famous film stars.

The NCB should concentrate its efforts on the real villains of the drug trade – the smugglers and the dealers. Finding a bunch of youngsters at a rave might make a good headline, but it cannot be a substitute for tackling the drug menace. In this connection, it is important to remember that the privileged and gentrified class is only a small percentage of the people who consume drugs recreationally. The real problem in India lies among the more disadvantaged sections, whether in the north-east or in drug-blighted Punjab.

In parallel, it is important to distinguish a soft drug such as marijuana from its more powerful, addictive and destructive counterparts such as heroin. Neither the NDPS Act nor the officials of the NCB seem alive to the importance of making such a distinction. At a time, when marijuana has been legalised in some European countries and available off the shelf in a number of States in the US, the case for throwing the full weight of the bureaucracy, backed by a harsh legislation, is uncalled for. In short, fix the real problem and focus on the drugs that cause the real menace.