Ishrat Jahan and three others were shot dead by the Gujarat police on June 15, 2004. The Gujarat police prided to have gunned them down in an ‘encounter’ to foil an assassination bid on Chief Minister Narendra Modi. A suo motu notice of the incident was taken by the NHRC within three days and directed the government of Gujarat to comply with the NHRC 2003 Guidelines on Encounter Deaths.
According to Nitya Ramakrishnan, supreme court advocate writing in the Hindu (see The Hindu dated Septembet 12, 2009) "Encounter killings are surely homicide. Whether culpable or justified as self-defence is a matter for the judge". If encounter killings are homicide, then what would be a fake encounter killings? To me it is nothing else than a cold blooded murder.
Fake encounter is surely an attempt to murder cold bloodily. To reduce it anything less than cold blooded murder is to do injustice to the victims of such heinous crimes. Ishrat Jahan's case should set a deterrent to the perpetrators of such 'fake encounter'. If these accused police officers of Gujarat Police who were behind this 'fake encounter' are seen in the same manner as cold blooded criminals, only then will the society have trust in the justice system.
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Making a mockery of Journalism in Live Television
In the News hour in Times Now, Arnab Goswami asks the questions “Would you pay more when they strike?” The whole question itself is lopsided. The question has a pre conceived angle. (For that matter any debate conducted in the channel is lopsided). The question clearly puts the blame on the employees without even going to the root of the problem. The whole issue started with the management violating the constitution of India which protects the employees to get unionised. The management stand is completely unjustified in not allowing the employees to get unionised.
Further Arnab puts forth his view that “Can Pilots who earn 1 lac or 3 lac to 7 lac per month be called as workers”. Now what kind of question is this? Remuneration does not decide who a worker is. How does remuneration stop one from being a part of the union?
Then he brings the president of passenger association into his show who says that “Customer is king... and we in India believe that customer is God”. Why do we pass such a blanket statement? Why do we just need to assume that customer is King, which is an explanation given by the companies to strategise their own benefits.
Leading by example!
Arnab then goes to his next question for debate. “Should MPs travel by business class?” He was putting forth an idea that in these recessionary times MPs should show austerity. It seems that Arnab Goswami was making a big fool of himself!!! Arnab doesn’t even confirm the facts before starting a debate. He is holding a government dossier and questioning the MPs travelling on business class. He doesn’t even understand that government order does not imply to the MPs, but the MPs are answerable to the Speaker of the Parliament of India. He does not even understand the difference between government and parliament. Before hosing a show please brush up your basics.
Time and again he was repeating that MPs should lead by example. I think that everybody in their own profession should lead by example in their field of expertise. This also means that Arnab Goswami who claims to be a journalist must also lead by an example by not framing question with a one sided intent (of just increasing TRPs). Empathy with drought? Austerity?? It is not only for MPs but also for the media.
Further Arnab puts forth his view that “Can Pilots who earn 1 lac or 3 lac to 7 lac per month be called as workers”. Now what kind of question is this? Remuneration does not decide who a worker is. How does remuneration stop one from being a part of the union?
Then he brings the president of passenger association into his show who says that “Customer is king... and we in India believe that customer is God”. Why do we pass such a blanket statement? Why do we just need to assume that customer is King, which is an explanation given by the companies to strategise their own benefits.
Leading by example!
Arnab then goes to his next question for debate. “Should MPs travel by business class?” He was putting forth an idea that in these recessionary times MPs should show austerity. It seems that Arnab Goswami was making a big fool of himself!!! Arnab doesn’t even confirm the facts before starting a debate. He is holding a government dossier and questioning the MPs travelling on business class. He doesn’t even understand that government order does not imply to the MPs, but the MPs are answerable to the Speaker of the Parliament of India. He does not even understand the difference between government and parliament. Before hosing a show please brush up your basics.
Time and again he was repeating that MPs should lead by example. I think that everybody in their own profession should lead by example in their field of expertise. This also means that Arnab Goswami who claims to be a journalist must also lead by an example by not framing question with a one sided intent (of just increasing TRPs). Empathy with drought? Austerity?? It is not only for MPs but also for the media.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
In solidarity with the pilots
What a bizarre situation!!! Naresh Goyal, the CEO of Jet Airways in an interview to the Times of India says "...This airline has set a global standards and done India proud. For me, the country comes first, then the company and then individuals...". Such statements are considered normal and certainly unquestionable. However we tend to forget that in a welfare state(which India claims to be one), the state exists for the welfare of the people and not vice versa.
Instead of invoking the Essential Services Management Act (ESMA), the government needs to intervene for a just cause of pilots for formation of an Union. In the name of "discipline" the company is stopping the employees from exercising its basic right. It is a right of any employee to be a part of an union. Instead, the civil aviation ministry and the labour ministry are throwing the ball at each other. The ministry of labour must intervene and help the pilots to unionise.
Whenever such incidents happen the excuse that the company and the state gives is that it causes inconvenience to customers. However this is an easy way to get the public opinion against the right cause. The media too plays a partner in crime by only reporting the inconvenience caused to the customers, but the history of what led to the inconvenience is completely ignored. This gives a lopsided view of the issue. Finally the ones portrayed as villains are only the protesters, be it the pilots or the doctors or the teachers!!!
Instead of invoking the Essential Services Management Act (ESMA), the government needs to intervene for a just cause of pilots for formation of an Union. In the name of "discipline" the company is stopping the employees from exercising its basic right. It is a right of any employee to be a part of an union. Instead, the civil aviation ministry and the labour ministry are throwing the ball at each other. The ministry of labour must intervene and help the pilots to unionise.
Whenever such incidents happen the excuse that the company and the state gives is that it causes inconvenience to customers. However this is an easy way to get the public opinion against the right cause. The media too plays a partner in crime by only reporting the inconvenience caused to the customers, but the history of what led to the inconvenience is completely ignored. This gives a lopsided view of the issue. Finally the ones portrayed as villains are only the protesters, be it the pilots or the doctors or the teachers!!!
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Truth: A Commodity
Recently in my class of Media Studies, my students were to discussing on the “reality” television. They discussed and debated on the case of “sach ka samna” a popular reality show which is telecasted on Star Plus. The contestant in the show exposes some “truths” of past life where dark secrets involving lust, sex and immorality are revealed to the public. The students were divided in their opinion about the show with only a few advocating for some kind of control over what is aired openly in television. Most of them were in the opinion that such shows need no regulation since most of us know to differentiate what is right and wrong and no one needs to define other person’s moral limits and moreover those who do not want the show are free not to view it and they should not interfere with others preferences. This is a popular argument which is echoed by the people having the so called liberal mindset.
Now let us examine this argument whether it stands the test. Firstly, any argument as this one needs to be extended and be universal. I asked the “liberal” students of my class whether they would extend their patronage from the reality TV shows as this one (where dirty linen is washed in the public) to pornography videos to be openly aired in the television using the same logic that people have the capacity to distinguish right and wrong and those who do not want to view are free not to view. However at this point the “liberal” students were quite uneasy citing that such a situation is not desirable since that would lead to social evils in the society. So the very people who said that no one should judge on what is right for one to watch are now themselves engaged in judging what limit of liberalism we need to fix!
The other argument is that it is Truth that is being aired and truth is a virtue and a value in itself. The problem with this show is that truth as a virtue is not been promoted and truth per se has no value in this show. Instead truth is equated with a monetary value. Hence Rajeev Khandelwal the host of the show, time and again reminds that as the money increases the questions that reveal the truth will become tougher. So the contestants decide at what amount of money which level of truth can be traded off. As far as the audience is concerned, no one is interested in truth as a value but truth as an entertainment. Everyone is interested in the mucky truths which are being revealed on the television screens.
Finally the truth is said to relieve one’s burden. As in the Bible it says “You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free” (John 8:32). However the tragic scenes of disappointment seen when one does not win a single penny after losing the game does not in any way convey that such kind of truth has eased the burden let alone freed the person. Instead think of what would be the next step of such a person. Of course each one of us has a dirty past but the difference is when other person knows that past. Is the world outside ready to accept such a person whose dirty past is already known? Will the viewers who enjoy being glued to their television sets watching the show themselves share a positive attitude with such people. The answer is sadly negative in the light of the recent incidents, one in Meerut where a man stabbed his wife to nearly killing her for the “truth” which he could not digest in his personal life but was convenient enough to enjoy in television.
It is a “reality” show not in the sense that the show is real but the consequences of the show are felt in real life. Finally we have a new product in the market called as truth. Who thought that “truth” can be neatly packaged as a commodity and traded off in the market of TRPs to generate “profit”?
Now let us examine this argument whether it stands the test. Firstly, any argument as this one needs to be extended and be universal. I asked the “liberal” students of my class whether they would extend their patronage from the reality TV shows as this one (where dirty linen is washed in the public) to pornography videos to be openly aired in the television using the same logic that people have the capacity to distinguish right and wrong and those who do not want to view are free not to view. However at this point the “liberal” students were quite uneasy citing that such a situation is not desirable since that would lead to social evils in the society. So the very people who said that no one should judge on what is right for one to watch are now themselves engaged in judging what limit of liberalism we need to fix!
The other argument is that it is Truth that is being aired and truth is a virtue and a value in itself. The problem with this show is that truth as a virtue is not been promoted and truth per se has no value in this show. Instead truth is equated with a monetary value. Hence Rajeev Khandelwal the host of the show, time and again reminds that as the money increases the questions that reveal the truth will become tougher. So the contestants decide at what amount of money which level of truth can be traded off. As far as the audience is concerned, no one is interested in truth as a value but truth as an entertainment. Everyone is interested in the mucky truths which are being revealed on the television screens.
Finally the truth is said to relieve one’s burden. As in the Bible it says “You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free” (John 8:32). However the tragic scenes of disappointment seen when one does not win a single penny after losing the game does not in any way convey that such kind of truth has eased the burden let alone freed the person. Instead think of what would be the next step of such a person. Of course each one of us has a dirty past but the difference is when other person knows that past. Is the world outside ready to accept such a person whose dirty past is already known? Will the viewers who enjoy being glued to their television sets watching the show themselves share a positive attitude with such people. The answer is sadly negative in the light of the recent incidents, one in Meerut where a man stabbed his wife to nearly killing her for the “truth” which he could not digest in his personal life but was convenient enough to enjoy in television.
It is a “reality” show not in the sense that the show is real but the consequences of the show are felt in real life. Finally we have a new product in the market called as truth. Who thought that “truth” can be neatly packaged as a commodity and traded off in the market of TRPs to generate “profit”?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)