I am not particularly interested in what lawyer and Congress spokesperson Abhishek Manu Singhvi does in his spare time, and especially not in his private moments. Apparently his driver shot his boss getting intimate with someone and circulated the CD.
I do not understand why the courts have to put a stay on news channels from airing it. The news channels should know that it is not important to air it. They did the same with the BJP MLAs watching porn on their mobile phones.
Whether the CD has morphed images or not ought to be probed legally. It is not the business of the media. If this did indeed happen, then the person invading such privacy ought to be pulled up, not Mr. Singhvi. Irrespective of the political side he belongs to, he is entitled to a private life. Was he caught taking bribes or giving money for a deal? Was he caught trying to buy off members from other parties?
What disturbs me is a report that quotes someone who happens to know the lady, a lawyer, and the comments made on a social networking site:
- Happened in his office. She is about 45-50yrs old. it has to be consensual or else he can much better/younger girls if he wants to exploit."
As I said, one is not judging what happened. I am questioning these know-it-alls. This person happens to be a woman. She assumes that only young women can get exploited, that men, however old they are or whatever they look like, always have the option. Looks like she does not read reports about how those in power – and it could be the power of physical strength or of being in an isolated spot or of revenge – can take advantage of women irrespective of their age or looks.
I find such an attitude disgusting. She further expounds:
- “I do not agree that they had sex just for judgeship. U think it's that simple to become a judge? NO!...see she too is v rich and v influential also has a great legal practice. So sex only for favour is unlikely.”
So, now being rich and influential makes a person above-board.
Such tittle-tattle is reported as news? There are legal procedures that can be followed, although I have no idea what it would be about – that he granted the woman some favour? Or that he used his office for the act as is being said?
Some old pictures of him wearing a kurta and shorts are being posted that have nothing to do with the present controversy.
As someone who has done a few of these ‘chill out zone’ type stories with prominent people, let me tell you that the magazine (and channels) want the subjects to let down their guard, to show their ‘human side’. It does not mean that the person ‘drops his pants’ at the drop of a quote.
An intrusive media should know the difference between an exposé and idle curiosity. Going by their ‘tauba tauba’ reaction one would think they are all celibate. It would be really interesting to watch some CDs that show our honourable members of the Fourth Estate in compromising positions. We have seen them in the missionary position, but that is only a stand they take when they are holding forth on topics of ‘national’ interest.
Seriously, will we ever have an tell-all about the hallowed newsrooms or the cabins of revered editors? (That they occasionally write memoirs in semi-retirement exposing members of their tribe surprisingly makes them look good to the ones who were saved from the hawk eyes.) Can we also ask the media if they get their scoops by being rather ‘kind’ or sending their special scribes/anchors? After all, during those sting operations they do lay the honey-trap. What do they do when they are not 'stinging'?
The least we expect is that they should not join in the chorus of anonymous 'opinionators'. This incessant caricaturing of others just makes them into caricatures if you look from the other side.
I think too much is made of sighvi tape to show how immoral he has become etc, when all the politicians exploit power, wealth or their own religion for mere political gains. If a party says it is a "party with a difference" I counter them and say " they are a "party without deference" we are fast become an intolerant and regressive society
ReplyDeleteFarzana, what if, as is being claimed, he was caught on that tape insinuating that the woman would be granted a judgeship in return for money & sexual favours.
ReplyDelete1. He is a Rajya Sabha MP from the ruling party
2. He is a practising lawyer.
I see two conflicts of interest already.
Doesn't it then fall on the media to air at least the audio from the relevant portions? Surely, it is in the public interest to expose the sale of judgeships by a serving MP and practising lawyer.
You suggest, that the CD ought to go through a legal probe to establish whether images were morphed or not. Keep that line of thought, but focus on the audio, not the video. Because the act is irrelevant in this case. The story that needs investigation - and mind you should concern you and all diligent citizens - is that a person in public office of authority, promised a place of high authority, a judge's chair, to his sleeping partner. I hope you will prioritise the matter before bending backwards over the propriety involved. In waxing eloquence over gossip, you are (in my opinion), completely missing the point.
ReplyDeleterizwanalam:
ReplyDeleteIt is not just about too much being made, but why and how it is. This is voyeurism and exploitation of another kind.
Agree that politicians use their power for different reasons, it does not exonerate them. Question is who should decide to put them in the box. Most certainly not the soap box.
Anon 1:
Who is making those claims? There are conflicts of interest if there is evidence, which has to be judged in a court of law.
Doesn't it then fall on the media to air at least the audio from the relevant portions? Surely, it is in the public interest to expose the sale of judgeships by a serving MP and practising lawyer.
You mean to say that this is their post-coital conversation? Let me be very blunt - even commercial sex workers conduct their financial dealing before the act.
Singhvi is not influential enough to get someone promoted. Why is he not a judge yet? And will we assume then that every woman in some position of professional power has possibly got in through the crooked route?
Anon 2:
And what is your point? Do you have access to the audio as opposed to the video?
Propriety is not a matter of bending backwards. Perhaps the media that you trust will expose this should also be questioned. Not a word about what goes in the backrooms of the news guys. So much for your focus.
Incidentally, you are the one who has fallen for gossip. I am saying, don't. But I guess you are missing the point.