Victims finally get their Voice in India: Can question judgments

Ruchika Girhotra must be really proud of her death. After sixteen years of her lonely suicide, and running away from life, finally she has made her death meaningful. If at all the dead could see around, she must be the one most satisfied and fulfilled on this last day of 2009.

Not just because her sinner is having his turn in this world. But because the government decided to make a remarkable amendment to the Victorian CrPC (Criminal Procedure Code) giving victims the right to fight back against an ‘unjust’ judgment.

Ruchika’s case has brought forth in the public domain that ‘victims cannot be further more victimized’ because the court did not have enough evidence. The amendment in the CrPC has given the victims the right to appeal against a court order ‘acquitting the accused or convicting the accused of a lesser offence’. Under the amended section 372 CrPC, the victim will not need the permission of any law enforcement or prosecuting agency to appeal a court order. Till about now an appeal could have been made only if the prosecution so decided and most cases the victims had to be contended with whatever punishment was conferred to the convicted by the court.

A further new amendment to be notified is in section 357A where victims will be entitled to compensation if the offender is not caught and tried. More so in the case of child rape the police has to complete investigation within three months of registering the case.

In Ruchika’s case the CBI had concluded that Rathore had indeed ‘molested Ruchika’. But the offence is punishable under Section 354 (i.e outraging the modesty of a woman) of the IPC, and the punishment for which is imprisonment up to two years. The limitation for filing such cases extends upto two years. The CBI had to move an application for condoning the delay as the case had been filed a good 10 years later. However, Section 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC) empowers the court to take cognisance after the expiry of the period of limitation if the court is satisfied that the delay has been properly explained or it is necessary to do so in the interest of justice.

In Ruchika’s case first of all it was justice delayed for nineteen years. ‘ Justice delayed is justice denied’. Justice was delayed, as the process for seeking justice was long and complicated. Ruchika’s case was not even registered until 1997 and investigations got concluded in 1999. But it took another ten years time for pronouncing judgment leading to a mere six months rigorous punishment and a thousand rupees fine. No wonder a laughing S P S Rathore came out of the court.

Rathore is convicted for outraging the modesty of a girl. The law says he could get a punishment for a maximum of two years and he got six months. That is fine. But, Ruchika has lost her life because of the trauma and the torture to her family. Her family suffered with hopes of justice for long nineteen years. And finally now Ruchika and her likes have the right to voice their opinion against the quantum of punishment conferred to their offender.

I really feel it is a great commendable change in our system. If justice is done it should also appear that justice has been done. Not with a judgment where the victim is abetted to suicide and the perpetrator walks off with a six months imprisonment.

In Rizwanur Rehman even after the hype and the media glare, the perpetrators are on bail walking freely even as his old mother silently cries in one corner of her small house. The same is the situation with the family of those been run down by the Bollywood hero Salman Khan. If we look around there would hundreds of cases where the high and the mighty have the power and the money to delay and influence justice.

With the victims right to appeal judgment, justice can still get delayed but will not be denied, that easily.

‘Rahul, it is not competency but opportunity that makes India’s Prime Minister’

India is a democratic nation. So when Rahul Gandhi addressing the group of students in Aligarh Muslim University was asked a very pertinent question by the students of the muslim community as to when can a ‘muslim become the Prime Minister of this country’, his reply really touched our hearts. We try to believe him for what he answered, ‘It is ones competency that makes a Prime Minister in India’ and ‘Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’ is the Prime minister not for which community he belongs to but for his competency and his high acclaimed Curriculum vitae’.

We wish it was true, for this should be the story of the biggest democracy of the world. But had competency that easy a factor, then Sonia Gandhi, the UPA chairperson and the President of the Congress party and of course Rahul’s mother would have had the opportunity to also lead the nation.

I raised the issue to one of my senior fellow journalist. And we discussed that had Rahul faced this question he would have replied in a la politician Rahul’s justification that it was not for competency that Sonia Gandhi did not lead the nation. It was certainly not the origin issue either. It was that ‘she abided by her much publicized inner voice’ that asked her to lead the Congress party of India, the biggest winning coalition ‘United Progressive alliance’ (UPA) but not the country.

Does it not sound far from true? And Rahul would have actually wanted all of us to believe this. But his discomfiture can be understandable when he conceded that there were other factors as well that were somewhat ‘secondary’.

It is true, that Manmohan Singh became the Prime Minister not because he came from the minority community but certainly not because he was the most competent person available then. He became the Prime minister in 2004 only because he suited the first choice of Ms. Sonia Gandhi then and till now. Until he signed the nuclear deal he was termed the weak Prime minister and there is no denial that with due respect to his competency he is still termed as a ‘caretaker PM', guarding the chair for a more deserving dynastic surname.

This does not mean that Rahul’s leadership qualities are being questioned. He does deserve to be the Prime Minister for the kind of leadership and political grooming he is displaying. But certainly India has even more competent candidates waiting for opportunities.

Democracy is the number game. It cannot really be criticized for not abiding by the majority factor. But democracy is also about representation of all. An American democracy made history with ‘Barrack Obama’ representing the 14% minority population of the African Americans leading the nation although he is half white by birth.

Indian democracy has a sixty percent average representation in parliament. That still means that forty percent are neither being heard nor can they say anything. Moreso, no wonder this sixty percent has in places been represented by ‘majority community based cent percent representation’ while the others went on almost ‘cent percent non representation’. Gujrat after the 2002 riots are the best example in this regard where the ruling government was voted to power with the cent percent majority community votes while the rest went without a say. This is the side effect of democracy or better still we can say Indian democracy. Hence no wonder our leaders look for more ‘divisive number game’ by their ‘divide Indian community politics’ funda for their leadership goals.

So. Mr. Gandhi I would definitely want you to believe that it is not just mere competency but also ‘the opportunity and the avenue to be competent’ that paves way to lead India. And those getting the opportunity are far privileged to compete with the ‘competent’ in the nation. And not just competent muslim leader but any one opportune enough shall definitely lead India

“Are good films the ones that fetch good turn over?”

During a televised discussion at the ‘Taaza Khabar’ (a Kolkata based TV Channel) I got in the opportunity to discuss about ‘films of today and their relevance for the future’. It was a striking subject with the 15th Kolkata Film Festival being held in the city and at a time when there is a political upheaval with ongoing political violence in and around the state. The panel had Filmmaker Ashok Vishwanathan, quite a name in the city along with the documentary filmmaker Arvind Sinha of the Shaziya fame and journalist Vishambar Newar as the moderator. What struck me was the fact that the focus of the discussion meandered through how with limited resources film makers make films these days and how India suddenly has explored the great world of International viewership that is capable of bringing great turnovers for the films.

It is true and I fully agree that films are to be made for selective audience who can relate to the movies and in turn fetch good proceeds for the films as well. And if the International audience is the answer and our filmmakers are getting applauded and acknowledged for the piece of art they produce what is the harm in it. And as Ashok Vishwanathan said whether good or bad, filmmakers make a film on the subject they believe in and leave it to the audience to respond. So was conceded by Arvind Sinha as well but here lies the big questions.

My question here is whether our films really reaching to the right and the larger Indian audience. If so where is the forum? With multiplex culture, films seem to be so audience targeted that even contents do not represent the entire country. In the last, I don’t know how many years but most of the films I saw were either set for a multiplex audience only or for the film festivals. And hence the increase in numbers of ‘B’ and ‘C’ grade films believing ‘good films are meant only for the good audience’. To particularly mention here the latest ‘Slumdog Millionaire’ bringing Oscars to India showcasing the other India, found place in the elitist Indian cities whereas in the smaller towns public did not even get to know the film. It was not because of the English language in which the film was made but because it did not reach to India’s greater audience. Even films or documentaries made on Nandigram and the great naxalite movements have been set with a very urban mindset. I want to question here as to why the rest of India is left behind. Are filmmakers not finding a ‘returning proceeds’ from the rest of India that constitutes the greater India or else the urban rural divide is so big that the urban or the more ‘return fetching’ audience would not find the subjects so exiting.

It is true, film fairs and film festivals are great forum for filmmakers to showcase their art. But why are filmmakers hesitant in reaching out. If Buddhadeb Bhattacharya, the Chief Minister of the state while announcing the film festival in Kolkata says that ‘even hungry stomachs sing songs’ did he mean that his audience for whom the Kolkata film festival was being held did have people with empty stomachs.

I am personally not against the film festivals that give us as urbanites the opportunity to view good films and even multiplexes that bring in new films. But I want to actually believe that why has this divide between the rural and urban India deepened over the years that films of today don’t fit anywhere in between. As when Arvind Sinha said that films are not made for ‘everybody to watch’ did he not mean that it is for ‘selective audience’.

We have known that films have been a means of education. Films have been the measures to build bridges between communities, classes and countries irrespective of language, region or even ethic divide. If the content today is so focused and targeted and ‘turnover oriented’ are they not becoming the reason for the ‘great rural urban divide’. It is true a filmmaker needs lots of fund to make his film and to reach out to people. In this world of show business one also needs to make profits. So, if in the ‘film industry’ as it is called today and the ‘turnover market’ why should it then remain a piece of art and not just sheer sector of business.

Ashok Vishwanthan himself conceded that when ‘Pather Panchali’ was made it did not find very elite audience because people did not understand them. Yet, it is an extraordinary piece of work. What I meant to ask them, is whether there is a dearth of content or the rural urban divide is so deep that films cannot be made with the entire Indian viewers as audience.

Who would have the last laugh? Buddha or Mamata

On a day when Mamata Banerjee was addressing a public meeting in Nandigram first time after her much hyped Lok Sabha win in the state, her bete noir Buddhadeb Bhattacharya was holding a press conference to announce the schedule of the Kolkata film festival. When Mamata was saying Buddhadeb was a ‘Moaist’ and hands in gloves in killing people in the state’, Buddhadeb was philosophically justifying the timing of holding the Kolkata film festival. ‘Even hungry people sing songs and the film festival will bring in creative work in the state that would show them path in this time of crisis’. ( read a time when there is disturbance and discontentment all over the state.)

This was no Gandhigiri. Buddhadeb has pretended to overlook even grim situations many a times. From the uprising in Nandigram, to ration riots in Birbhum, Bankura, Murshidabad, Singur, to political riots all over the state, he has tried to play cool and hence been caught in fire in most of the cases. The state now in turbulence even as the ruling Left blames the opposition for lighting the flames along with the Maoists while the latter led by Mamata Banerjee trying hard to keep the flames lit so as to char the thirty year old Left rule in the state completely.

Here comes in the big question as to who will have the last laugh in this turbulence. Be it either, the state is in flames and the situation grim. There are political riots everywhere in the districts from Hoogly to Midnapur, to South 24 paraganas to Burdawan. Maoists are on a free run dictating terms, political activists unleashing a phase of terror, arson and killings, state agricultural productivity gone down and development static. Where is the state heading towards and what is being achieved?

Buddhadeb had not banned the Maoists despite their growing menace in the state since last couple of years. During Nandigram’s capturing and recapturing mode it was a state of war ie fight for ‘ Dakhal’ ie ‘the political dominance’ leading to political riots in that area. He looked the other way until his own supporters and followers fell prey directly. Finally his party lost the people’s support but rather than counting his own failures he concentrated blaming his opposition parties for conniving with the Maoists in unleashing violence.

On the other hand, Mamata has been spitting fire always. She knows populist slogans can set fire against Budhadeb particularly at a time when most in the state is disillusioned by Buddhadeb’s philosophical attitude. And all the violence in Trinamool dominated areas now are also as a result of that old war of ‘political dominance’. Had it not been so, Nishikant Mondal the Trinamool Congress panchayat pradhan of Nandigram whose killing Mamata was mourning in Nandigram yesterday would not have been a victim of brutal killing in the area he ruled and ensured the wipe out of the CPIM there. His killing has not come with the CPIM goons but the Maoists who have now returned as Frankestein’s Ghost in Nandigram and started to haunt Mamata. And it is for so that Mamata has had to approve for the first time in public that military action should be taken against the Maoists. Until now she had proclaimed that she wanted the joint operation to stop at Lalgarh and security forces to be withdrawn. Does this means she has changed her stand after realizing that the Maoists are back to bully her now. She seems to be particularly sure now after the ‘Rajdhani hijacking’ in Banstala last week where Maoists leader ‘Kishenji’ wanted to talk to her and do the bargain.

Moreso, be it the Maoists or no armed political activists. Clashes turning to rioting have become just another common part of everyday life in West Bengal now. That which had started with Budhhadeb’s ‘paying back people in their own coin’ to Mamata’s joining hands with the Maoists and capturing and recapturing Nandigram, has turned into a total era of anarchy and it will not be easy for ‘Budha babu’ or ‘Mamata didi’ to calm down Bengal now. And the one who would have the nerve to reinstate faith back in the democratic values will only have the last laugh. As for the present the chances for which is quite dim.

Media Savvy Maoists

The new media savvy Maoist 'Kishenji' and the media to his tunes



As the maoist leader went on and on the news channel and brought to life and entertainment the until now conceited world of Moaists, during the recent ‘abduction cum bargain drama’ of police officer Athindranath Dutta, again the role of the media is under glare of public eye. People listened to Kishenji as he is respectfully addressed by his comrades in the jungle the legitimacy of kidnapping a police officer and also killing two of his colleagues in cold blood on the fateful afternoon of 20th October’ from the Sankrail police station of West Midnapur district.

It goes beyond saying that for that particular day, Kishenji occupied the best of prime time TV talking on why police officers should be kidnapped, killed and why should the government bargain for their lives? When the anchor on TV quizzed him about the health of Athindranath Dutta and what he was eating and how he was staying with the ‘most wanted’, Kishenji went on the extent of consoling the families, elaborating about how concern was he about the health of his father and that he was well taken care of as he had been declared the ‘Prisoner of war’. Even Kishenji the new face of Robin Hood directed the parents to bargain with the Buddhadeb Bhattacharya government and even inciting them to an extent as to why the government was not acting swiftly and bargaining with him in getting the abducted officer released.
It was no wonder Kishenji’s day as he went on and on from one TV channel to the other, his phone continuously busy that even negotiators wanting to get to him for the government had to queue up and wait for their turn to talk to him. At one point it went to the extent that Kishenji who supposedly was holed up in some place in around Lalgarh by the security forces had on TV roared and threatened that if the joint forces does not withdraw immediately and give free passage to him, the abducted officer would be dead. After the warning and then the helpless appeals by the parents, family and even news channels not to hurt the officer, the forces pulled out, stood as mute spectators in some far off place as the release show was being planned in front of the media.

Police could not trace or were not allowed to trace a person wanted for killing so many police personnel as well as CPIM supporters in Lalgarh. Media played the negotiator in the rescue game. Media personnels were asked to switch off their mobile phones before being taken to a remote school where the handover was to take place. After a good long lecture and the propagation of the Maoists ideology the ‘prisoner of war’ was handed to the media. All the shaking of hands and byes done on camera even as Athindranath’s life was saved and brought home safely. The fall out was that media brought forth the entire deal done by the government where twenty-two suspected Maoist were released in Midnapur court.

Kishenji’s phone went out of range after his newly attained Robinhood image. Media had the other humane stories of Athindranath meeting his family again, he going to the Dakshineshwar temple and then he understanding the plight of the people of Lalgarh and their Maoist influence. Athindranath now believes people of Lalgarh are dispossessed and development needs to be done there, which he did not realize even during his tenure as the police officer there.

What the media missed in all this is the fact that actually they danced to the tunes of Kishenji legitimizing the abduction and killing done by the Maoists. That the Maoists for now will not face the media as work is over. That it did bring forth the humane face of the Maoist leader as he released the officer in charge. Since no questions were posed to him on why did the gunmen kill two other sub inspector of police in the same police station for fear of antagonizing him and in turn he might hurt the abducted officer. That the Maoists killing spree was no less brutal than terrorist attacks and how can killings be justified ? Why should he not be punished and why should he not be called a killer?
In this case was it not playing into the hands and in turn becoming just a propaganda machine of the Maoists. Kishenji himself did concede to the media that they failed in Andra Pradesh because of developmental work done there, which means if development came in Lalgarh as well he would fail. That actually proves his point that definitely he would not let anyone work there for progress and development.
Why Athindranath Dutta who has by now a media celebrity not forced to answer as to what was he doing as a police officer when his colleagues were gunned infront of his eyes by female Maoists. The deceased police sub inspectors sitting in the police station in ‘lungis and T-shirt were killed by armed female wing of the Moaists. So was Athindranath in casual dress when he was kidnapped and taken away by two female armed cadre in motorcycle? How come a police officer is kidnapped in broad daylight from the police station which had a State Bank next door and why did no one protest?
Was it at all a baragin by the government? The ones who were released from the Midnapur court on that fateful day were actually booked on trivial grounds and the police had not even filed a chargesheet as against them. There were some very poor women who had been booked over ninety days and chargesheet was not filed. They were actually booked so as to create pressure on the families to divulge truth about suspected male Maoists cadres. Here the government did not want the media to pursue their cases, hence all the bargain game. And that Kishenji on live TV was bargaining the release of senior Maoists leaders and withdrawal of joint forces than just the release of these women.
Yet, the media danced to the flute of the Maoist Kishen and the later rather than forging a deal with the government succeeded in dealing with the Media and using it to its fullest. Kishenji is now not available to the media. His phone is switched off. He will call them up when he needs to.

Media Watch

It is the time of self- introspection.

Mamata Banerjee and her partymen’s high handedness in dealing with media personnel in Kolkata has definitely created enough ground of debate but before that it is adequate an opportunity for self introspection of the media themselves. Self-introspection about what has the media in a democratic nation as ours achieved in all this sixty two years of Independence and where are we heading. I personally as a journalist would like to generate opinion about our fate and would request all of my fraternity to opine on our future.
Mamata Banerjee is known for her whims and fancies. The channel where Mamata holds a live show taking call-in questions from general public almost every weekend says it overtly that it has got the greatest trps because of the exclusivity it enjoys with their accessibility to the railway minister’s sound bites and interviews. So claims the other channel 24 Ghanta of exclusivity about the left leaders who would otherwise not appear usually on any other tv or give interviews to any other channel. The rest of the organisations would then pressurize their reporters for being useless in forging alliances with the respective political bigwigs. Here the question comes in as to how free does one believe are these shows as a part of free and fair media and is the media some way or the other in the name of exclusivity not becoming a complete propaganda tool in the hands of these politicians. And here comes the big question as to why should the public not consider the media as mere propaganda medium rather than the free press.
It is not about just West Bengal. It needs to mention here during the time of the Singur crisis the same media house for speaking their free and balanced mind was targeted by the Trinamool Congress party workers for not speaking the language of Mamata Banerjee then. And on the other hand, was the target of Left activists in Nandigram for taking on the ruling left government. Field reporters were beaten up, cameras broken and none with a critical analysis of the situation was allowed to work freely. Now the same leaders are ok with getting in the open platform to speak their minds for hours altogether in their respective platform in the name of the media. In an open forum if questioned would belittle, humiliate or even physically manhandle journalists completely convinced that such demeaning behavior would never come out in public through our so-called free press.
The reason behind is that our media seems to be out of the track and dependent on these political propaganda for content. Hence we need the self introspection now….
We have a reached a situation where the role of the media has been criticized for the kind of coverage it gave during the 26/11 Mumbai terrorist siege. Although, all those working out there gave in their twenty four hours and hundred percent of their hard work and efforts on that one coverage. Yet, the purpose lost its way in the rat race of exclusivity. In a similar way media’s role was questioned when a women was stripped in a main road of Patna in broad day light and camera people took in their time to shoot the unfortunate incident rather than do sometime about it. The women later confessed in front of the Human Rights Commission that what traumatized her more, was that she was made to parade on TV the whole day rather than the single criminal act of occurrence. Incidents of mobs been incited by the media for mere proper footages are just but common these days. And, all in the name of exclusivity, special reports and good visuals. Media’s role is thus, being questioned by everyone as to how can it take the moral high ground and how seriously it should be considered.

It is high time that we have to self introspect as to why should we be called the fourth pillar of democracy. Are our efforts changing anything for the good or are we here to just pass on time.

Job Pressure

It does kill:
It was a Saturday when our local morning newspaper flashed the photo of a twenty two year old Howrah technie Abhijit Mukherjee committing suicide in the Infosys Mysore campus. A thin line of shiver crossed my backbone that was it the beginning or the end.
It was’nt long I have been hearing horrifying stories of co journalists losing their jobs with just a terse line forwarded to them by the HR department saying their services were not required further by the company. The other day a colleague of mine being asked by our office that he is being transferred to Bihar as his bureau was too insignificant for the company to carry on with the burden. Other colleagues are constantly being asked then and now to either submit their resignation or face consequences. And this does not seem to end here. Stories of people facing a cut in their salaries or being asked to bear with a cut in their allowances are everyday tell tales. The fear that we are the only ones facing the axe makes you still miserable. A colleague just got married and settled is now spending sleepless nights for fear of losing out in the making of a dignified and successful livelihood.
My brother, a banker in a prestigious bank in New Delhi has a similar story almost everyday that the marching orders can come in anytime. “May be, I 'll not be chucked out but for sure this would be the pretext to churn more out of we, professionals,” he says. Seniors would guide saying this is not the time to make a move. Just stick where you are as the market is lull and there is little scope of growth right now. “ It is better to just pass off these tough times and wait for the right opportunity”.
What worries me is the fact the likes of Abhijit must not have ended his life for losing his jobe but more out of the fear of losing out in the race in life. We heard Psychologists analysing it their way that probably he lost because of a loose nerve and in this era of competition it is the matter of ones nerve which can make you cope with the pressure peers. May be, all of us here are the ones who are in constant state of being in pressure and delivering in exigencies, take it as just our way of life. Where we are bound to believe that this is how it is the best for us and will be the best in the given circumstances and people are doing their best in these situations. " It is how you grow and it is always the survival of the fittest'. But what I really mind here is why do we agree to live this way. Is it really the way we have accepted to live or in the given circumstances made to accept. All of us out here ...can we just look within us and confess sincerely that do we feel achieved living this way. Achieving more luxury and fighting the constant pressure.....or sometimes is it really adding to our output....I dont know.. The uncertainty is killing everyone. Some fade out others have more duration but for sure it kills.