A couple of weeks ago, we
published an article on the Guwahati molestation case, the moral of the story
being ‘soch badlo, kapde nahin’ (change the way you think, not the way they
dress). The other day I was watching ‘No One Killed Jessica’, the film based on
the Jessica Lal murder case, on TV again, and it got me a tad intrigued with
the whole concept of ‘trial by media’.
Wikipedia (yes, Wikipedia,
problem?) defines ‘trial by media’ as the following:
Trial by media is a
phrase popular in the late 20th century and early 21st century to describe the
impact of television and newspaper coverage on a person's reputation by
creating a widespread perception of guilt or innocence before, or after, a
verdict in a court of law.
There are too many pros and
cons of the concept for me to bother listing them out here, a small glimpse of
which is presented in the definition itself (are you telling me you can’t
detect the slight negative connotation associated with the phrases ‘widespread
perception’ and ‘impact on a person’s reputation’?). What I’m far more
interested in is trial by media in a country like India where the concept has
been significant in greater proportions than the rest of the world. The
judiciary is most definitely not untouchable; corruption is as present there as
it is at the next traffic light crossing where those two short policemen in
moustaches look the other way while their wallets grow just a little bit larger
now and then. And so of course, who better to police the police
judiciary than the media? As a history student at heart, I have had to accept
the importance of case studies unequivocally and therefore will proceed to
draw upon two such “trial by media” cases in the glorious motherland to examine
its effects, before going on to study the Guwahati case and why the hell the
media should or should not take pride in what they’ve done.
First up for trial (pun intended) we have the
Jessica Lal murder case,
for the sole reason that I know the story by heart thanks to the fantastic
Bollywood movie made on it.
Jessica Lal, a model, was
working as a barmaid at a party when she was shot dead for refusing to serve
drinks because the bar had run out of alcohol. Manu Sharma, the guy behind the
gun, shot her in the head. Manu Sharma, Amardeep Singh Gill, Vikas Yadav
(remember this guy’s name, it’ll crop up again) and Alok Khanna absconded for a
few days. But of course with every idiot stupid enough to shoot someone over a
drink comes a barrage of famous names:
-Manu Sharma’s
father is former state minister Venod Sharma. A powerful guy, apparently.
-Vikas Yadav’s daddy dearest was another state politician and thug extraordinaire, D. P. Yadav.
Okay maybe not barrage, but just about enough names to keep it 'exciting'..-Vikas Yadav’s daddy dearest was another state politician and thug extraordinaire, D. P. Yadav.
The judiciary progressed at a
pace infinitely slower than those “deep” movies that claim to have a very soul-touching
message but basically waste 2.5 hours of your life. If I said the judiciary
crawled towards justice, I’d be lying. They lay flat on their stomachs and once
in a while hoped a gust of wind would push them towards there.
12 accused, 9 acquited
(including, of course, Manu Sharma), 101 witnesses, 32 turned “hostile”, 7
years, case shut and there you have it- apparently no one killed
Jessica.
Media to the rescue, but of course. Rallies, marches, sting operations -no stone
was left unturned to find out why such an “open and shut” case had gone so
horribly wrong. A second trial was carried out,
and Sharma was given a life sentence. Now, go watch the movie.
For Case Study B, we have the Nitish Katara
murder case. I chose this one for a specific reason (yes, unexpected twists
ahead for those of you who haven’t read about this case).
Nitish Katara was a young executive in Delhi who
was murdered in 2002. He had fallen in love with his classmate Bharti Yadav,
and so apparently fell victim to an ‘honor killing’ (it’s the nice way of
saying he was brutally murdered because Bharati’s family didn’t approve of the
relationship).
Katara and Bharti had been dating for 4 years in
2002, but during the trial Bharti denied any relationship beyond friendship.
She claimed she was scared of how her family might react. I’d say her fears
were somewhat justified, considering Katara’s body had been battered by a
hammer and set to fire.
4 people saw Bharti’s brother take Katara into a
car, and the next morning his body was found beside a highway. The police
initially said that her brother confessed to kidnapping him but then they
retracted their statements. The U.P. police extracted a confession and taped
it, and NDTV managed to get their hands on this tape and broadcasted it in
2006. Who was the brother, you ask? Vikas Yadav. Ring a bell?
Obviously the nuances of these cases are too many
to fully explore but the overarching theme remains the same- the media
publicized these to such an extent that the courts were forced to remain extra
vigilant. Like anything else done well in India, this, too has sparked criticisms
that are based on the claim that the media has no say in swaying justice and
that they should stick to their own turf. While these claims may have some
foundation, they don’t hold up very strongly in a country like India’s due to
the rampant corruption present at every level that makes it necessary for the media to irritate the
right people once in a while. Instead of the politicians, it is the media that,
more often than not, fights for the people instead of fighting the people.
Let’s face it, nobody wants people like Vikas’s father D.P. Yadav (charged with
nine murder cases, three attempted murders and a number of kidnapping and
extortions) to represent us, but they still do. For those (mostly politicians)
who accuse the media of altering facts for sensation, they don’t realize that
for us, the people, it is a choice between those who alter the facts more and
those who alter the facts less. No prizes for guessing which is which.
But then we have the Guwahati case, where a media
journalist happened to be recording the molestation. He recorded about 20 minutes of footage, and that worries
me. It worries me because I don’t think anyone can stand watching the video for
20 seconds, let alone recording it live for 20 minutes. His claim was that his
video “helped convict the molesters” and while this may be true to an extent,
the concept of humanity is brought into the line of fire here. 20 minutes? Was
recording it for 20 minutes absolutely necessary? I’d have to agree when people
say that might have incited the mob even further. Where does the media draw its
line in the business of “delivering the truth”? In a sense, this, too, is ‘trial
by media’- the case’s criminals will be convicted at a faster pace,
fast-tracked through the swamp that is the Indian judiciary thanks to the media,
etc. etc. However, before our profession comes our humanity, and this wasn’t displayed
at all.
It is a constant battle between the media and our
political system. The former has gained so much power since the concept of ‘trial
by media’ came into play that it seems virtually untouchable, but in the midst
of becoming untouchable we need to remember that at the end of the day, they
too have their limits that they cannot cross. This is something our politicians
conveniently forget, and something our media needs to remember. The former is
expected, the latter is desired.
-Lassie
Source of cartoons:
http://cartoonistsatish.blogspot.sg/2010/12/cartoons-done-for-legal-era.html
No comments:
Post a Comment