And that when Meadows warned not to take thugee lightly; that it’s not something to glorify because thugs at the time (mid-19th century and before) were mass murderers and audacious thieves, with garrote killer scarves to snuff lives on the trail, Khan climbed a donkey! “How many thousands must annually have perished by the hands of these remorseless assassins? Awful indeed is the contemplation,” Meadows wrote.

Aamir Khan’s ‘Thugs of Hindostan’ makes a mockery of Meadows' serious endeavour. The creative liberties taken border on the criminal. He seems to have no qualms of making heroes of murdering thugs, remorseless assassins, sex and child traffickers. “The confessions I have recorded are not published to gratify a morbid taste in anyone for tales of horror and of crime,” Meadows explained.

What/who according to Aamir Khan are the thugs of Hindostan? One of them is “Firangi Mallah” who is kinder than anyone on the planet. "Truth is my second name and loyalty drips from my work. I swear on my grandmother,” is his favourite punch line. To paint him a jovial wicked man, Aamir puts him on a donkey wearing a green jacket and a top hat. A big bottle of liquor hangs by his side and he has red glasses on his eyes.

Another thug is Khudabaksh, the “biggest thug of them all, wading through storms and battles, the commander of thugs.” Two other thugs who Aamir introduces are ‘Zafira’ and the sultry Surraiyya. Talking of the film, Aamir says, “Thugs of Hindostan is a big action-adventure film. There’s no message in that. I am playing a character who cannot be trusted at all… a very slippery character. He has no scruples at all – for money he can sell his mother out.”

Meadows will squirm in his grave. But wait, Firangi is “a very entertaining guy.” Then, of course, it’s just a movie, to be shown here and in China and the world over. Why the big hoo-ha, there are bigger ‘Thugs of Hindostan’ living in the here and now, and some of them had reason to cheer Tuesday, September 25 when the apex court refused to ban politicians with criminal records.

Instead, it left it to Parliament to enact a law to bar criminals from entering politics. “Such a law should be enacted as soon as possible. The sooner the better, before it becomes fatal to democracy,” the 5-judge bench headed by CJI Dipak Misra pointed out, obviously concerned but not as much as it was while taking up Triple Talaq or #377. “Society has the right to be governed by better people.”

Seems like the Supreme Court like God acts in mysterious ways! Word is that there are as many as 1,700 serving MPs and MLAs with criminal records in the country, nearly 35% of all elected representatives. Under the current law, convicted 'Thugs of Hindostan' are banned from contesting elections for six years. But they can join political parties and head them, too. Like friend Lalu Prasad Yadav, who now lives with a number on his chest but continues to be RJD chief.

For reasons unknown, Supreme Court justices, while not shying away from occasional judicial activism, are wary of judging politicians charged with criminal shenanigans, including rape, reprehensible behaviour not expected from lawmakers. Separation of powers could be one of the reasons. The government of the day opposed any court ruling to affect the composition of Parliament or assemblies and the top court agreed with little opposition except with the mild rebuke: “The question is what can be done to contain the rot?”

Nothing in the near future, definitely. The 'Thugs of Hindostan' will live on in Hindustan. (IPA Service)