Monday, December 11, 2006

Love her, hate her, but you can't ignore Arundhati

Arundhati Roy has created a storm, once again. In a 16-page article 'And his life should become extinct', she revealed the shoddiness of our investigating agencies and the unscrupulousness of our media. During the course of the long narrative, she tries to prove that Afzal Guru is merely a scapegoat for the law enforcing agencies to prove that justice has been done and a lesson taught to 'Kashmiri terrorists'. During the course of the write-up, she even says "Killing people and falsely identifying them as foreign terrorists is not uncommon among security forces" and targets the media for looking at the Parliament attack from the angle of sensationalizing the issue rather than putting forth rationale debates.
Of course, there are huge criticisms that are coming ranging from comparisons being made between Arundhati and Emile Zola in l'affaire Dreyfus, accusations being labeled regarding her personal interests like this being another shot at the Pullitzer, fame or money. Arundhati's seriousness and sincerity cannot be questioned. If fame or money is what she wants, then she clearly has lots of it. Moreover, which journalist doesn't want his name to come as byline on a good story or a hefty cheque to follow the write-up? If a correspondent of a certain TV channel can utilize the fame gained by merely reporting the story of attack on Parliament to take Assembly ticket, contest for the elections and flaunt the armed security that they got as an aftermath, why can't Arundhati not do so by presenting the humane angle to the entire story?
In her article Arundhati has also referred to the rumour regarding five persons who came to attack Parliament. It's sad that this story was denied later, without ordering an enquiry. Question is where did this rumour originate? If a senior officer, posted with the security around Parliament House is to be believed, the first information that the police control room received after the attack, over wireless, was that five persons had got inside the Parliament House. Later, however, this count was reduced to four. The fact that this officer refused to say so on record reveals the threat that people felt they had, if they aired their opinion.
You may say what threat could be there in a democratic country. Just remember the case of the doctor who went public regarding the cold-blooded murder of 'two militants' inside the Ansal Plaza in Delhi. What did the police do? Instead of taking his accusation seriously, and ordering a probe into the whole matter, the police zeroed in on his premises, his patients were harassed, he was labeled as a cheat and our respected media continued to air or print the statements of police officers showing him as a thug, a crook or whatever. Mind or wisdom, on which Lord Krishna devoted several chapters in Gita, is something that is mostly found missing regarding cases that can be looked from another angle - that of sensationalism.
Why is it that media-houses have not tried to show close-ups of those killed in encounters, trace their roots and tried to unearth their antecedents? Why is it that when Bajrang Dal workers died in Maharashtra, while making bombs, there's been no investigation? Why were explosions within Uma Bharati's house not given same kind of coverage? And when a few Mumbaiites got together to find truth behind false killings, senior police officers, instead of giving them a helping hand, refused to give them time and rather started questioning the objectives of such an investigating committee.
Arundhati is being praised and Arundhati is being criticized. However, unless more media houses and right-thinking individuals start looking at these incidents from a more humane angle, utilizing fully their intellectual and rational faculties, people like Arundhati would continue to remain stray individuals airing their personal views - loved or hated depending on your personal tastes and likings.

No comments: