Murder, she said -- Sheena Bora vs. Indrani Mukherjea

When a murder case is described as a circus, an edge-of-seat drama, you know that nobody is interested in the dead. It is the killing that counts, especially if it takes us through a maze.

India is riveted by the daily assault of media stories on Indrani Mukherjea, the woman who killed her daughter (who she publicly referred to as a sister) back in 2012. It has been brought to light three years later; the reason for it is confined to footnotes when it ought to be the real news.

DNA

Briefly: Indrani married Peter Mukherjea, whose son Rahul from a previous marriage was in a live-in relationship with Sheena, daughter of Indrani, who also has a son Mikhail (introduced publicly as her brother).

An informant told the police that Sheena had been murdered. This led to the driver, who confessed and accused his boss Indrani and her ex-husband Sanjeev Khanna of the murder. Sanjeev and Indrani have a daughter Vidhie, who Peter legally adopted. The father of Sheena and Mikhail is a Siddharth Das whose mother says she can only vouch for one grandchild, i.e. Sheena, and not Mikhail. (Who named him Mikhail? Clearly somebody must like Gorbachev.)

There is bound to be confusion, what with all the players contradicting one another and themselves.

However, due to the sensational nature of the disclosures and the surge of pop psychology doing the rounds, the fact that the police in the forested area where the remains were buried did not pursue it should be alarming. Nobody seemed to know or care about her disappearance in all this time, including her fiancé, her brother and her grandparents.

But, it is also about how society does not care. The manner in which people are reacting too reveals little concern for the victim. And if there is, it is to judge the non-existence of moral values.

I have a vague recollection of Indrani as a Page 3 denizen. She and Peter, who was the CEO of Star India, were obviously party animals. Later, they started another channel. Now Vir Sanghvi, senior journalist, has given an interview about his ex-bosses. I don't understand this. If he does not have any clues about the murder, why should he be allowed to barf about what are essentially his peeves against them?

In the initial stages, I watched a high-society punk on two TV channels. It was amazing how he altered his tone to suit each channel's story, and the channels are playing favourites here too.

I fail to understand how these ‘friends’ who say they can't believe such a thing could happen are called upon to judge precisely that. Far more important than the motive, it is for the police to establish that a murder did indeed take place, and the identity of the victim. Right now, they have exhumed the grave and collected a bagful of bones and a skull.

We read this and write about it as though these are things we encounter regularly. The reason we are becoming desensitised is because of the inhumane nature of reportage. The emphasis is on the uber lifestyle. For the middle class, it is a story close enough but certainly not about them. They can, therefore, judge, be it the money angle, the lust angle or the power angle.

Let us pause here. We do judge all crimes and criminals, so why not a woman who has from all evidence produced thus far killed her daughter, a planned murder, wiped out all visible clues, and lived with this and other lies?

The feminist trope has become mandatory when discussing any public event or cases these days. So, some commentators tell us that it is wrong to diss Indrani by referring to her as ambitious or a femme fatale. There is nothing wrong in being either. I do see that such slotting might convey that a woman with drive is bound to clear whatever comes in the way through any means. It so happens that Indrani did indeed do all of these. Her gender is immaterial.

I read a piece where the writer was angry about this and went on to list quotes not only about this case, but two other publicly visible women, thereby drawing attention to what she was herself dismissive about. While it is a fact that a woman with more than one husband draws attention and sniggers, here these gentlemen were very much a part of the crime, either directly or as evidence.

Some part of her lifestyle will be highlighted for the same reason as some are now talking about how the dynamics might change after the revelation about her being abused by her father as a teenager. Are we going to justify her crime because of it? If we think he is a beast, then should we trust him to shed light on the case?

The driver was an important part of the crime; there is little attention being paid to him. Why? Because we do not have pictures of him holding a cocktail glass? I am curious as to why he had preserved Sheena’s photograph (supposedly to identity her just in case the killing was outsourced) years after the murder? Wouldn’t he have wanted to get rid of it?

What prompted the informer, who woke up after three years?

What intrigues me most is Peter, who appears to be given the benefit of amnesia. He does not seem to know about anything and has portrayed himself as a lovelorn man who only trusted his wife, and did not seem to know about anything, including her being the mother of these two children she called her siblings. He says he has never met her parents, either.

Since we do not know how well she knew his family, is it possible that they functioned as a supra nuclear family? They weren’t very young, and had experienced previous marriages. The term “delusions of grandeur” has been used for Indrani. It is possible that this was a delusional compact world they chose to lead, where ‘others’ were not admitted as more than passersby. He probably believed her because he couldn’t care less about another version, just as she probably trusted him for other things.

I am surprised that people are shocked not so much by the murder as by the relationship. These are the same people who are quite okay with discussing minutiae of their own ‘happy lives’ in private messages to strangers on the internet. Therefore, nobody is in a position to discuss the dysfunctional.

As regards the crime, usually we say there should be justice for the family. Isn't that redundant here?

Communalising a Rape: Meerut

Rape should be treated as a crime not only against women but society, only then will it be seen as more than a ‘zenana’ issue cloistered in a female-restricted enclave.

However, can we trust society if it uses such a crime to further create fissures? Take the example of what happened in Meerut, Uttar Pradesh, on Sunday:

A 20-year-old BA student, a former part-time teacher at a madrasa in Meerut’s Sarawa village, has alleged that she was abducted from her residence, forcibly converted to Islam, and gangraped in another madrasa in Hapur. She has also alleged that she was held captive in a madrasa in Mustafa colony, Muzaffarnagar, for over three days, where she was again reportedly raped, abused and forced to eat fish. The woman claimed she managed to escape on August 3 and reached Meerut, after which she reported the matter to the police. The woman also claimed that she met other women at the madrasa in Muzaffarnagar, who were being held captive before being sent to Dubai.

What ought to be the most condemnable crime here? Rape. Is this how society will see it? Unlikely. It is a delicate matter not because of who the criminal is, but how the main crime is sidelined. The police registered a case of kidnapping, gangrape, outraging religious feelings of any class and criminal intimidation against the accused.

The Indian Express has referred to her as an “alleged victim”. Their reporter has met her father. Following the Muzaffarnagar riots where it was established that both the Samajwadi Party and the BJP were not beyond using any means to gain political mileage, any news coming from UP is seen as at least partly a political ploy. This is worrying because a victim would be doubted when it is the leadership that must be.

Also of concern is the demand that mainstream media has given it little attention. A crime is not rendered important enough unless it is on TV, it would seem. The media will have to shoulder the blame, for it has laid the foundation for prime-time bombast and letting demons hover over studios. Therefore, if it chooses to ignore a story of this nature it does draw attention. Unfortunately, while blaming the ‘secular media’, the accused targets are those the media is seen to protect. In this case, it would be deemed as kid-glove treatment for Muslims. That a community is berated for what some criminals do and is expected to speak out is itself an example of how rape and assault will be viewed. Muslim groups have not asked the media to go slow on the criminals who follow their faith; the media uses and abuses them just when it suits their agenda at a given time.

To return to the case, why is Hindustan Times that was the first to break the news using terms like “alleged forced conversion” and “as claimed” even in its follow-up report? Because some details have not been confirmed – she did not record her statement, she says she was wearing a veil so could not name the hospital where she was taken for surgery following bleeding, her medical tests are incomplete, she could not identify the rapists, and in a raid on a madrasa where she said others were confined the police did not find any girls.

It is impossible to jump the gun only to satiate the blood lust of a few, and I do believe that such issues get sensationalised, whoever is at the firing line.

What should be done in rape cases is for the victim to be provided with trauma care, and not be pushed into a communal cauldron. The cops were given the name of the madrasa, the cleric, and a few important details. It is their job to follow up. They have arrested three of the four persons.

Meanwhile, the Rapid Action Force has been called in. Would this have happened were it a rape case? It is to deal with the situation about the conversion angle. There was stone pelting. Some BJP leaders have issued threats. Is this not unusual? When it is a police case, who are they threatening and why? I would understand if they use pugnacious language against clerics, but the general threatening tone seems to suggest that they can thrive only in an atmosphere of strife. And what makes the party assume it is the spokesperson for Hindus? Is this its only plank to topple the state government and govern?

If there were a human trafficking racket, then would it escape the eyes of the authorities? Some clerics trying to convert people is very much possible, though. Let there be an inquiry and arrest them. Chances are this will be used as a ruse to shut down madrasas. If anything, the fact that this young woman taught Hindi and English at one at least proves that these are also general schools.

I would like to add that there are a few secularists who capitalise on religion as much as the fundamentalists. There is no need to state after every crime a Muslim commits things like, “This is against Islam.” It serves to feed those who wish to communalise crimes. They get away with the halo that comes with being seen to be non-partisan, but it is other kinds of partisanship that gets them this far.

With everybody trying to be better, the victim is the loser. In order of priority, her rapists should be first tried. The conversion and trafficking angle probe should continue, for according to the complaint it is not confined to her.

It would help if onlookers did not fall for every communal bait politicians throw their way.

--

Update:

Reports continue to bring in other aspects to the case. I would rather not comment because a young woman is involved. Read for yourself here.

--

© Farzana Versey

--
Image: The house of the girl's relatives in Meerut, Indian Express

Rape, murder, and a demeaning verdict

What exactly are some Indian judges smoking? In a 141-page judgment that sentences a watchman to life imprisonment for the rape and murder of a young lawyer residing in the building he guarded, the language used by the bench is disgusting.

I am against capital punishment, and while the parents of Pallavi Purkayastha naturally wanted the criminal Sajjad Pathan to suffer for the cruelty and their loss it is not a personal battle.

However, should the judge not display some amount of sensitivity? She was attacked 16 times, and the prosecution thought this was extreme cruelty. The judge Vrushali Joshi said:

"It caused her a painful death. This can be termed as cruelty, but not extreme cruelty."

I am aware that these terms are in the rule-book and a judgment cannot rely on emotions, but what are the yardsticks to gauge extreme cruelty?

There is more:

Refuting the prosecution's case that it was a pre-planned murder, the court said when Pathan first answered Pallavi's plea for help after the power went off, he took another watchman to the 16th floor where she lived but did not enter the flat. "At 1am again, when the victim called him, he went with Khalid (electrician) when he could go alone," the judge said. The court added that from the records it appeared that when he saw Pallavi in scanty clothes, "he was excited and it was the point when he thought of ravishing her".

What is this? Where are those who keep talking about 'victim shaming' when it involves celebrities? The judge is casting aspersions on a woman who is not even around to defend herself. I am surprised Sajjad was not let off, given the tone of the verdict. The implication here is that he was a good guy who was in fact not comfortable going to the apartment of a young woman. Why? She was a resident like any other. Worse, the judge says that it was her clothes that "excited" him and "he thought of ravishing her". Rape is ravishment?

It is back again to what women wear, how they live, and the effect it has on the hormonal male mind. That he gets a character certificate for until that moment when he could not control himself should tell us just the kind of society we live in. To take a broader view, an example of this comes from the statement of Pallavi's live-in partner Avik Sengupta (who died due to a brain ailment later). While recording his statement during the trial he had mentioned that she used to complain about Sajjad staring at her. His response was: "You are a pretty woman."

Back to the judgment, some of it is absolutely shocking:

The prosecution had claimed that the most aggravating circumstance against Pathan was that he had boasted about the crime and even laughed about it. But the court observed that he must have laughed as he was frightened after committing the crime and said that Pallavi being a strong girl had resisted him. "One cannot come to the conclusion that he must have enjoyed killing her," the judge said.

So the judge is psychoanalysing it as nervous laughter and covertly blaming the victim for being "a strong girl". The fact that she resisted till the very end — there were blood trails till her neighbour's flat indicating she was seeking help — draws attention to the rapist-murderer's intent and not become reason to highlight his laughing at her strength.

He is young and I agree with the tenure of the sentence. Life imprisonment should set him right. I do not agree with those who think the death sentence works as a lesson. If anything, the judgments should be worded with care and send out a signal to people. Women should be made to feel safe and empowered and men should be made to realise that they have no right to infringe on a woman's body or space irrespective of how she is dressed or how she chooses to live.

The person committing the crime is not the only criminal.

Another point:

Earlier reports that quoted Sajjad Pathan's security agency head as saying that he has brought shame to Kashmiris. Some newspapers played this up. How often do you hear about a whole region responsible for the acts of an individual? Immigrants have been blamed, but it does not become a cause for the state they come from to feel chastised. Sajjad Pathan could be from anywhere.

© Farzana Versey

The hate that prompts a Nikhil to turn into a Nihal - Beyond The Pune Murder

A young man is killed by a group of people. They ought to be arrested and questioned for the motive of the crime by the police. The courts would then pronounce a sentence, one hopes keeping justice in mind for there are signs that the man was brutally attacked.

This short paragraph will not make the cut, not as a news story, not for readers, not for TV viewers. So, let us fill in the details.

The man was a 28-year-old IT professional from Solapur, working in Pune. He had gone for his evening prayers and was returning home on Monday night. A group of men armed with hockey sticks started beating him up and continued to do so till he bled and the wounds were visible, and until he died.

Is this para enough? What is the motive?

The man's name is Mohsin Shaikh. The cops have arrested members of the Hindu Rashtra Sena. A senior police official said:

“On Monday evening, there were rumours circulated through the social media that stones were pelted at a Shivaji statue. This led a group of youths from the Hindu Rashtra Sena to take to the streets. They targeted Muslim settlements. Motorcycles that were found at the place where Mohsin was beaten up led to the suspects."

Prior to that, somebody had posted morphed photographs of Shivaji and Bal Thackeray on Facebook. That had led the HRS to vandalise 200 vehicles and create mayhem in Osmanabad District, where it was believed the post originated from.

Why was Mohsin Shaikh, who was in Pune, targeted? Reports say that a 'Nihal Khan' posted those pictures. It turns out that it was a Nikhil Tikone who did so. This is not new. Recall how the Sri Ram Sene members had hoisted a Pakistani flag on the secretariat building in Bangalore to create tension between the two communities.

In such a situation, one group sees the other as an opponent and it does not matter who actually is behind the mischief. Tikone chose to post as Nihal Khan, but why did he do so? Was he alone or was it a group backing him?

And what happens to the man who lost his life for nothing? His friend Riyaz who was with him at the time of the attack said:

"I was saved because I don't have a beard, and wasn't wearing a skullcap. Mohsin was targetted because he looked like a Muslim.”

This will be explained away as a hate crime. The problem is the other layers get ignored. He was educated, had a job and a decent salary. He was also taking up social space with confidence, and not afraid to show an identity he was comfortable with. The hate here is for all of these factors, besides his religion. The resentment is against a person from a minority community who is not browbeaten by people who are seemingly uneducated, unemployed, and easily brainwashed.

[Those who talk about madrassa brainwashing need to look into their own backyard sometimes, if for nothing else then to at least save themselves from being destructive.]

The Nikhils have a vague idea about another faith, but they feel threatened by the fictitious Nihals who manage to lead a life of dignity without compromising on their choice of food, clothes, and faith.

There is a reason, idealistic as it may seem, that I started out by not mentioning any details, especially about religion. Will such hate crime reduce when people realise they are not getting any mileage for puffing their chests to prove they are in a majority or a position of power?

These are fringe outfits, yet they get mainstream space. Ironically, they object to posts but use the social media to promote a rift. That is their target audience, and it is no more about affording a computer, a smartphone and a wireless connection. These are cheap and accessible today. Anonymity can also make people whoever they want to be.

Mohsin lost his life because hate has takers. Already, the fence-sitters are specifying that it is a Congress-ruled state. Does it matter? Uttar Pradesh is a Samajwadi Party-ruled state, Kolkata a Trinamool Congress state.

The point is that the culprits have been burning public property for a few days and are not afraid to flash their motive. It is such pugnacity that not only kills innocents, but might also get away with it. One, two, twelve culprits may get sentenced for a murder that is real. Hate is an abstraction that uses other means, other reasons to hit back. Who will try it?

© Farzana Versey

When will we kill patriarchy for our honour?

I detest the term 'honour killing'. It assumes that somebody's honour is at stake and therefore the murder has social sanctity.

Farzana Parveen was attacked by her family for "marrying the man she loved". She was pregnant. This happened in a big city, Lahore, Pakistan. It was in the day, at a place where there is always a crowd — right outside the high court. People stood and watched as her family members, including father and brothers, hit her with bricks and batons.

She was appearing in a case filed against her husband Mohammad Iqbal for kidnapping her. Her family had come prepared with guns and first fired shots in the air. It would seem the intent was to take her away. When this did not work, they picked up bricks and started pelting her. Her husband managed to escape. I find this disturbing. While it would be impossible to shield her against 20 people, he could have stayed there.

What was the crowd doing? Even if they did not want to get involved, they could have called for help. This is sickening. A report says:

The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, a private group, said in a report last month that some 869 women were murdered in 'honour killings' in 2013.

These are cases that get reported. Most are not. According to Pakistani law, if the victim's family pardons the criminal, it is acceptable with a few conditions. Many of such families are poor and settle for monetary compensation. In this case, the family is also the criminal. Although technically her husband will have to take a call, her parents would be permitted to do so. With the lackadaisical attitude of the cops, it is likely that nothing will happen. They all escaped. The father who did not handed himself to the police. He is not one bit repentant:

"I killed my daughter as she had insulted all of our family by marrying a man without our consent, and I have no regret over it."

This qualifies as 'honour'? It is true that in many societies such relationship decisions are still taken by the family. It is often explained as the need to protect the woman (and men too). However, the scales are clearly tipped against the woman, as in this case. How did she bring disrepute to the family, and how does their blatant act of bludgeoning her not do so?

Some people have taken to replacing the word 'honour' with 'dishonour', which is much the same. The onus continues to be on the victim. She is supposed to bring dishonour. Terminology reveals a lot about how cultures evolve, or rather regress. There is a tacit acceptance that a reputation has been compromised, which is why it is so wrong.

Did those onlookers know what honour was involved here? Yet, they kept quiet. Partly because it is understood that something must be wrong about the woman's character or behaviour that prompted such rage. It looked as though they were participating in some ritual where they did not need to comprehend the language, yet believe in its significance. This is not about an unacceptable love story, for folklore has plenty of them. It is about how patriarchy sustains itself.

We hear about gang-rapes "to teach women a lesson". The message being that if a woman chooses to be with someone other than what is deemed right for her she has become the property of a 'rival' and is therefore territory to be reclaimed, or just claimed if the criminals are not known.

Added to cultural conditioning is the class structure. It is often the ones higher in the hierarchy who commit such acts against the poor or those belonging to a 'backward caste'. In india, the latter is common, and almost every other day we hear about women sexually abused or killed because they went against the norms. Their partners are not spared if they belong to a lower caste.

It means that patriarchy itself has its own hierarchy. A bit like racism.

In Houston, Aaron Aranza beat up his 15-year-old daughter with a belt for choosing a Black man as her dance partner. It was for a traditional 15th birthday celebration, and he discovered her choice during the rehearsals.

Here too, he might explain it as 'honour'. A young woman in a supposedly progressive western environment cannot make a choice that goes against stratified ideas of what is acceptable. She was quite obviously unencumbered by divisive colour palettes in her personal interactions. That is the reason she probably did not think of her partner in black or white terms.

Some reports have specifically highlighted that her father is Hispanic, which says a great deal about how the media adds to the pecking order, that is no order at all.

The father's rage is about assertion of not just the superiority of colour, but of himself as owner of his daughter.

The centuries' old attitude has never gone away. There can be no freedom if women are treated as property and crimes against them are deemed to be about protection of resources, and these resources are women themselves. They aren't allowed to own their minds or their bodies.

Those who do so are seen as a blot. Isn't it time for such 'blots' to expose the stains on the male mindset? When will we kill patriarchy for our honour?

Update, June 2, 12.30 am IST:

What do the new angles mean?

Farzana Parveen's husband admitted that he killed his first wife to marry her.

There was no honour involved in that.

The latest news is her sister insisting that when they came out of the court, she wanted to go to her waiting family but Iqbal and Iqbal's accomplices beat her up with bricks.

Whatever be the truth, a few points:

Why did the father admit to the murder, then?
Why did the family not stop the husband, if he was the one attacking?
Why did he not stop them, if they were attacking?
Why did the onlookers do nothing?
What about the cops?

Irrespective of who did what, she was brutally killed. We should stop pigeonholing such murders as 'honour killings' because, besides the points mentioned earlier, they impede justice.

© Farzana Versey

---

Also: Is this honour rape?

It takes a death...Nido and the North East

It takes a death to bring us alive to what we are, but choose to ignore. The question is: How long will this wake-up call last? Are we not ready with our hands already on the snooze button?

Nido Taniam from Arunachal Pradesh died on Thursday, Jan 30, after being beaten up the previous day by a shopkeeper and a few others when he asked for directions at Lajpat Nagar in Delhi, where he was a student. One version says that he broke a window glass in the altercation.

Why did a quarrel ensue? Some say that the assaulters started abusing him, making fun of his hair colour. This gives commentators like Madhu Kishwar the licence to suggest that it is not about racism, but a fight between two sides that can be attributed to lumpenisation.

Even if we agree that Nido did not stay quiet — why do we expect that victims should not fight back? — how can we ignore that there are elements of racism here? Many young people wear their hair in different ways. Delhi is a metro where people from all over come to work.

Will a person from Chandigarh or Mumbai with similar hair invite stares and more? The discriminatory attitude towards those from the North East regions has resulted in death and other crimes before.

Lok Sabha member from Arunachal Pradesh Takam Sanjoy said:

“This is not a new incident.... Several such incidents have been reported earlier where students of NE are victimised and we have taken adequate steps to sensitize the people...Even after 48-hours of the incident the police failed to arrest the culprits involved in the crime, which exposed the discriminatory attitude of the people from mainland India towards the people of North East."

It is sad that one part of the country is referred to as "mainland" that has to be "sensitized".

Madhu Kishwar has the gall to equate this with Brahmin, Sikh, bania jokes. Murder is not a joke. Would she say the same were somebody assaulted for his choti, or tilak, or turban? Indeed, there is an escape route in those cases to make them about religion, caste, communalism, and therefore more worthy of our empathy. The NE does not have that leeway. I do understand that we are overly sensitive to slurs, even when said in humour. But let us not reduce a brutal attack to this.

If Nido did indeed react aggressively, why did the police insist on a compromise? Why did those who suffered damages because of him not file a case? This is as usual becoming about the victim made answerable.

It is also taking a political turn. His father is a Congress politician. Arvind Kejriwal of Aam Aadmi Party got an opportunity to hit back at the Delhi cops, against whom he had started the dharna. Now, even Mr. Sanjoy says:

"If the government, police and administration thinks that the Indian Constitution is for a section of India, we will have to go out like Arvind Kejriwal to the streets for our rights."

People from the North East have taken out protest rallies often enough, so I wish he had desisted from mentioning the CM who has only recently been anointed.

The Congress will do its own "we are looking into it", and the BJP supporters are playing with semantics.

It would be better if we just accept that Indians are racist. We do discriminate based on how others look, what they eat and wear, how they speak. The problem for those from the North East is exacerbated because although they speak quite fluently in English and Hindi, they have Mongoloid features. So while we may treat the Chinese and Japanese with deference reserved for foreigners, those from the hills in our own country are given the "stray" treatment.

Partly, it is ignorance. Partly, it is isolation of the people from those areas, some of it self-chosen. The 'seven sisters' of the region do not make for the most amicable siblings, and have their own differences and cultural uniqueness. The same can be said about South India, but then the "mainland" has a blanket term "Madrasi" for all those from Tamil Nadu to Karnataka.

The point is how much can people be sensitised, and why is it even necessary? This sort of racist attitude is dumber than mere prejudice, for it lives in a dark hole from where nothing is visible except a fraction of light. There is no possibility of peripheral vision.

I do not like to talk about acceptance, as it is patronising, but should we not understand other looks, languages, cultures? Will these not enhance us?

© Farzana Versey

Is this 'honour rape'?

This should be treated on par with 'honour killing', that execrable term that props up the worst form of patriarchy.

A 20-year old tribal woman from West Bengal was in love with a man from another community. The panchayat, "salishi sabha", decided to punish her for it by asking the villagers to rape her.

Under a thatched roof — and according to later reports this was on a platform so that people could watch — she was brutalised by a gang of teenagers and men old enough to be her father.

This is not about one incident at Labhpur in Birbhum district. It is not even about the male mindset alone. These men volunteered to be part of a quasi legal verdict. It is easy to dismiss it as khap panchayat backwardness. But who gives them such power that they can empower the locals to assault one of their own?

Conquering armies have abused women to score points against an enemy. Who is the enemy here? A woman from their tribe. Besides the obvious heinousness of the crime, her family being ostracised for speaking to the police is extremely disturbing. People who watched the crime have come to believe in their stand. They think it was right, and the real crime is of moving out of the community-laid rules.

The cops arrested 13 of the rapists. They ought to arrest the members of the panchayat as well as the onlookers. There would probably be no evidence of the latter, but given that the village is against the family each one of them is a suspect as witness to a crime committed.

There has to be en masse justice in such cases, for the ones who raped followed orders. In this disgusting display, the villagers might end up considering them heroes who saved their honour.

What worries me is we will have one more reason to call out such panchayats and yet continue to watch the televised shows where each detail is painfully read out to the public, as happened recently in a sexual molestation case. The anchor khaps are a mimicked version. This really is not too different to what happens in areas not removed from the social mainstream.

As you can see, this protest group has talked about being "ashamed". Why convey obtuse messages of shame? It isn't we, but they. They should be ashamed that an adult woman cannot choose who to love. They should be ashamed that caste, tribal and communal affiliations still divide us to an extent that these transform people into unthinking criminals. They should be ashamed to be brainwashed into believing in false notions of honour. They should be ashamed that some among them will stand and watch a crime because they are told it is just.

What we should be ashamed of is that we will forget about it until the next case.

© Farzana Versey

No end to justice: The Aarushi-Hemraj murder verdict

The verdict is out. But this is only another beginning. Rajesh and Nupur Talwar, parents of 14-year-old Aarushi have been pronounced guilty of her murder and that of their domestic help, Hemraj, in the early hours of May 16, 2008. There is also the charge of destroying evidence and filing a false FIR.

They issued a statement saying they will fight for justice. For themselves. Aarushi, even in death, was treated with disdain. Every bit of her for public consumption. No one was concerned about her reputation. Dead people don't have reputations. No one was concerned about Hemraj. I include myself in this group of people who treated his death cursorily.

This is what the death of the poor mean. What is even more astonishing is that after the verdict, there is sadness. People have short memories. The media that enjoyed the spectacle of conjecture now talks about probity. The media that sensationalised the case now thinks in terms of giving respectful space and not judging. Who were they to judge, to begin with? But not only did they judge, they decided on the 'turn of events'. Reporters were posted in Noida and acted as detectives. The change was quite evident.

I have written quite a bit about the case and following are excerpts.

June 2, 2008

Her father Dr. Rajesh Talwar is under suspicion for having killed her and their servant because he found them in a compromising position; other reports suggest that the girl knew about her father’s extra-marital affair. Whatever it is, I do find it surprising that the mother, Nupur, is appearing on several television channels to save her husband. She should be in the lawyer’s offices, with the police. Not giving sound bytes to the cameras. I am afraid I feel no sympathy for her when I watch her. Besides, they say she was in the house when the murders took place.

[I mentioned today that she was on TV a day after the murder. There were cameras covering this, so I did think in terms of a soundbite. Now, it appears she gave an interview to NDTV a week later. Apparently, that is fine. Also, I am told to remember that she was "stoic". That is not the point. It is whether you want justice for your daughter or for your husband and yourself?]

Now comes the part about the media. Aaj Tak channel had a story in the initial days titled, “Papa yeh tu ne kya kiya?” (Papa, what have you done?) What is this? Some soap opera? And when the mother was mentioned they played the track of the song “Maa…tu sab jaanti hai…” from the film Taare Zameen Par.

July 13, 2008

Criticising the UP police once again for their alleged irresponsible handling of the Aarushi murder case, Union minister for women and child development Renuka Choudhary said that the family should sue the police. “The family should sue the state police and those responsible for bungling the case must be suspended,’’ she said.

This isn’t mere concern about how the case was handled and the character assassination of Aarushi’s father Dr. Rajesh Talwar. It is about party politics.

This is a way to make the Mayawati government accountable.

It is true the police was most shabby in how they went about getting evidence, but why did the Talwars not mention their compounder Krishna’s name right then? Now he is the prime suspect. The question also remains as to where the parents were when the murder took place and how soon did they inform the police.

And just for the information of the minister, it wasn’t merely the cops who tarnished Aarushi’s name; the media went haywire. There was no need to report all that and no need to show all those teachers and students certifying the girl’s reputation. All this only draws attention to something that may be untrue but gives enough scope for rumours.

Dec 30, 2010

The CBI can’t solve a case. Aarushi... has left enough traces. But those traces do not seem to find their way to the source.

The Central Bureau of Investigation came into the picture soon after the Noida police made no headway. Perhaps, the entry of the CBI was the big mistake. Big people need big people to get mouths shut.

They found the weapon, they have a reasonable motive – “immediate provocation”, they know of missing files and the swapped vaginal swab, they know that someone was tampering with evidence. Then, why is it so difficult to find out who and why?

It is impossible that the findings reveal absolutely nothing. What did the DNA sample show? What did the brain-mapping reveal? Who cleared the room before the police came in? It need not be one person. These are people in different places doing different things. Who was calling the shots? And why?

Instead, the CBI has washed its hands of the case:

“The agency has filed a final report for the closure of the case on grounds of insufficient evidence in the competent court.”

It has been only two and a half years. There are cases that are pending for decades. I would like to see what Aarushi’s parents do next. It must surely be tough on them to have a daughter raped and murdered in the next room and the place cleaned up while they were around just a few metres away, isn’t it? They should file a case against the Noida police and the CBI and the hospital authorities for shirking their duty and making a mockery of justice.

They have the power, being educated and relatively better-off than many who do not have the means. Let this be a fight for the silent Aarushis and the silenced ones.

I don't know what to add except that there are silenced Hemrajs too.

There cannot be closure for facts change over a period of time because perceptions of them do.

Will Tarun Tejpal open a can of worms?

The manner in which the case of the editor who sexually exploited an intern is being played out one would imagine that people never had a low opinion of the media. From the looks of it, they expect the highest standards of propriety, chastity and morals from the news purveyors.

Tarun Tejpal, founder and editor of Tehelka, the investigative and sometimes controversial magazine, forced himself upon a young reporter from his office during the recent ThinkFest organised by the magazine. He wrote a letter to the managing editor; she, in turn, forwarded it to the rest of the staff with a short note.

Not noteworthy

The letter has been taken to the cleaners, and rightly so. But, let us pause and think. What could he have said? I am surprised he put anything on record at all. Why is nobody suggesting that perhaps he has been forced to by one or two of the many who are supposed to be sponsors or 'well-wishers' of Tehelka?

In the note, he does a promo for his mag. Let us look at it from the long-term perspective. He has to keep his best people around, and ensure that they are not affected by the scandal. It is part patriarch and mostly self-interest. The financial stakes are not to be sniffed at. His mention of a six-month leave is probably a face-saver. Or, perhaps, someone up there has provided some sort of guarantee?

Tejpal, of course, attempts to cover his tracks:

"It is tragic, therefore, that in a lapse of judgment I have hurt our own high principles. Because it involves Tehelka, and a sterling shared legacy, I feel atonement cannot be just words. I must do the penance that lacerates me."

This is all about him, and not a thought for the young woman, the daughter of his old colleague, his daughter's friend. However, the quibble over his use of terminology has revealed something: most have played right into it by getting moralistic themselves rather than treating his behaviour as a crime that needs to be tried legally.

Shoma Chaudhary in her letter to the Tehelka team has called it an "untoward incident". Again, much as this term is reductionist, did she have a choice if she had to forward a note? Could she go beyond the mandate, that too when she was to be in charge of the team?

On NDTV last night, she came across more strongly, and spoke about treating this case as sexual harassment at the workplace.

One needs to broadbase this, to include SH in other work-related environment too. Women journalists have to conduct interviews that are often not without the uncalled-for attention they receive. I am deliberately being euphemistic here, because adding to the sexual connotations just gives those looking for a high a talking point and little else.

Look, who's talking

This incident, like many others, has become about scoring over an opponent. Tehelka was supposedly a magazine with Congress leanings, so the opposition is quick to bring in references to Asaram Bapu and even the stalking by 'Sahib' in Gujarat, as though one evil cancels the other. Then there are competitors in the media, who have found a wonderful opportunity to pick holes at everything Tehelka has done, as though their own house is clean.

Should this incident be an example for exposing the media? Yes. But, if anybody thinks it is an isolated incident, then they are wrong. The assumption behind wanting such an exposé is that the public really did not believe such a thing was possible and the media was above-board. I doubt if it is naïveté. It seems more like the feigning of innocence so that they can now concentrate, rather lasciviously, on a case study.

However, can one entirely wipe out the work of many of its reporters only because of what their boss did, unknown to them? Now that they know, should they be punished for being part of the organisation?

The problem here has ceased to be about sexually abusive behaviour. Tejpal is the right candidate for pillorying. Brash, flashy, and sanctimonious. Even a letter written by an environmentalist made a mention of him and his red Pajero.

To be noted therefore: If a person in a position of power is not brash, flashy and does not have a red Pajero there is a better chance of his crime being less eyeball-grabbing. Tejpal had plans to start Prufrock, some sort of elite club. Where did he get the money, how can he do such elite things after claiming to stand up for investigative journalism...such questions are posed by those who seem clueless about the media, or think it better to go along with the flow.

The whole corporate structure works on barter, and as has happened often power is abused. It would not help to indulge in innuendo or even give random examples.

In some cases such abuse is passed off as consensual. This sort of consent is as forced as molestation. Besides media heads, there are the sponsors, the businessmen, traders, film stars, PR agents, and even colleagues that follow a pecking order. Women are used as bait, if not a straight honey trap. Go fly a kite if you did not know about this.

The Tehelka ThinkFest has been in the news regarding some of its sponsors. Again, I have an issue with all such fests because they only dumb down intellectual/literary exchange and compromise them at the altar of the highest bidder. For the critics to now use unconnected material from the past is sheer opportunism and will do nothing for the crime for which Tejpal must be tried.

Is anybody really interested in the victim or justice for her? Does it matter whether or not she covered cases of exploitation for the magazine? What if she wrote a gossip column or about fashion or sexy things — should we then judge her differently?

If anything, Tehelka was given a halo by the readers, mainly for its over-emphasis on sting operations that became trendy. Now, they are treating this as the story of the fallen hero.

Justice is not about self-righteous indignation.

© Farzana Versey

---

Also read my 2003 essay (from an anthology on the media): When puppets hide behind pomposity

---

Update on November 23

Although most people are in the loop of who said what, just to put on record what the girl said:

In her complaint to Tehelka Managing Editor Shoma Choudhary, the victim says, "It is extremely painful for me to write this email to you – I have struggled with finding an easier way to say it, but there isn’t one. The editor in chief of Tehelka, Tarun Tejpal, sexually assaulted me at Think on two occasions last week. From the very first moment, I wanted to call you, or find you and tell you what he had done to me – but given how absorbed you were at Think; preparing for and conducting sessions, and the fact that it was impossible for the two of us to get even a minute alone together, I could not. To add to this, I had to process the fact that it was Tarun who molested me — my father’s ex colleague and my best friend’s dad, and someone I had so deeply respected and admired for so many years."


“I hope you will also understand how traumatic and terrifying it has been for me to report this to you — and yet how critical it is that Tehelka constitute an anti sexual harassment cell as per the Vishakha guidelines immediately, to investigate this matter. At the very least, I will need a written apology from Mr Tejpal and an acknowledgement of the same to be circulated through the organization. It cannot be considered acceptable for him to treat a female employee in this way.”

And here is Shoma Chaudhary's statement

The rape 'excuse'

Why has everything become about rape? The US ambassador to India, Nancy Powell, was asked why Americans did not come to India for studies. This was during her visit to an institute in Ranchi. She replied:

"The concern for personal security and perceived increased danger to women as a result of the rape cases was perhaps a factor in US students' decision regarding study in India."

First let us get this out of the way. How many Americans would want to study in India? The obvious answer is, few, if at all. And these few would opt for an off-beat course, not any mainstream field of study.

India is a good education option for young people from Africa and the Middle East. One does not see European, American or Australian students here, unless their parents belong to the diplomatic corps or have jobs in the many multinational companies that have set up offices. They have a choice in the American School or the more elite institutions run by business houses.

The latter are doing a good job, in fact, of preparing Indian students to qualify for further studies in the West. Many of them will probably stay on, unless they have big daddies at home who will keep the swivel chair ready for them.

Chances are that nobody will bother to ask them about the dangers of living in any of the countries overseas due to fear of racist attacks, of gun culture, of teen pregnancies, of date rape, or of any of the problems that the young citizens of those countries face.

Certainly, it is disturbing that women's security is treated with such disdain in India. There is relentless harassment of female western tourists at some places and there have been cases of sexual crimes against them.

But, Ms. Powell is being unfair in using rape as the reason for students staying away. Or she is just feeding on the relentless media blitz following the Delhi gangrape and the articles that have kept up the momentum?

I have stated this often that we are indulging in the worst possible form of reductionism by making rape into an exhibit and repeating every detail, thereby objectifying the victim.

Instead of grabbing every news item and airing it, giving the cops their 15 minutes of fame, the media could be more proactive. It is not only about how the world perceives us, but how this sort of coverage impacts on minds. I am repeating myself, but this is creating ghettos where women are told to be afraid at every step.

The implication here is as bad as 'she brought it upon herself'. Women are told that if they venture into certain places, they could be raped. What does this mean? Would it not make sense to ensure that those places are well-secured if we know about the danger there?

And it would really help if all those Indians writing stories for the western media would not try and replace the old exotica with this backward society narrative. For, it is only one part of the truth. Those who capitalise on it constitute the rest of the this truth. They are the progressive regressors who use rape as an adjective without even realising how demeaning that is.

© Farzana Versey

---

This post is not to ignore the problems faced by women from outside, as you will see in this earlier piece: Can Indian men handle foreign women?

---
Image (only for representation): Latitude News

Mass molestation? Nymphomania?

While newspapers have been falling over each other to report sexual crimes against women, the least they can do is not use senseless terms. What does "mass molestation" mean — is it being compared to a prelude to gangrape? Or is it a non-consensual orgy? Or is it an abusive version of a mass stampede? Instead of highlighting the negative, such words sound reductionist.

As I've been repeating here, rape and molestation are being sexualised rather than criminalised.

This is what DNA had to offer:

---

The latest in the Asaram Bapu case is that Ram Jethmalani, the defense lawyer, in his bail plea has presented a most curious argument to buffer the 'fabricated' theory:

Jethmalani mentioned that the girl was afflicted with a 'chronic disease' which draws a woman to a man and said this was subject to police investigation.

Asaram, like any accused, is entitled to legal recourse. However, is Mr. Jethmalani implying that the minor victim is a nymphomaniac? Although sex addiction is not a conventional malady, at 16 how can she suffer from such a 'chronic disease'? Are there other instances where she has been drawn to men in such a manner that it would result in her being abused? Let aside misogyny, this does not make technical sense.

Her parents have been devotees of the godman. Did she on any occasion express attraction, in word or deed? Why did Asaram Bapu not gauge all of this, if he is touted as an all-knowing guru?

I ask these questions not because I believe in this baloney — what works as legal charlatanism — but because it has been registered in the court files.

For a moment, let us go along with this fantasy. What happens to all the other arguments that were presented? Asaram Bapu is a canny man; there are cases against him. How far will his lawyers go to disprove them and put the reputation of others at stake?

What chronic disease does he suffer from?



© Farzana Versey

Sex can be 'unnatural'

In August last year Geetika Sharma ended her life. In her suicide note, she blamed former Haryana minister Gopal Goyal Kanda and his aide and employee in his MDLR company, Aruna Chaddha for “harassment".

Later, Geetika's mother too committed suicide and left behind a note blaming the two. It reveals the tragedy of even a progressive society where women work but can't open up about the crime, and most certainly not when a powerful person is involved. The cops did not mention the real crime in the chargesheet.

The Delhi court has finally charged Kanda, and Chaddha for abetment:

"Relying on Geetika’s autopsy report, the court concluded that there is prima facie evidence that Kanda raped her and had unnatural sex with her."

Unnatural sex sounds like something from another era to those of us who are exposed to various forms of infotainment, and are 'modern' in outlook. It also reminds us of the earlier legal criminalisation of homosexuality due to this very proviso.

However - and I emphasise this - in many cases it is important to mention 'unnatural sex' because rape, as we understand it, may not have taken place. The girl or woman might instead be forced to perform acts that are perfectly natural between consenting adults, but not under duress.

I am not interested if the Bench has moral issues and uses what we may publicly call antiquated terms. (I refuse to believe that most Indians are comfortable even in private with sexual experimentation, although some would like to appear cool about it as a sound bite.) It is way more important that 'unnatural sex' is factored in to protect the victims who might not get justice if it is proved that there had been no penetration or bodily harm.

It is sad that certain recent cases of brutal rape have numbed us to the many others that are committed using other forms of force. Even in Geetika's case, it was an autopsy report that revealed the details. Think about the hundreds who are just silenced. Think about the children, infants too, who have no voice to begin with. Think about the 'bad touch' and the many other ways in which kids and adults are exploited, in familiar surroundings, in places where they are supposed to be protected, like remand homes, in the street and at posh parties too where a woman with a glass of tipple gives men the licence to grope. These are violations and a crime, and the people committing them get away because they did not manage or even want to 'go all the way'.

We forget that rape itself is unnatural sex. And anything remotely sexual that is not agreed to or has been got by force or deceit is.

© Farzana Versey

The devil reporter wears emotions?

A rape apologist is somebody who condones rape, not one who reports on its verdict. The Steubenville trial has concentrated on making a devil of a reporter by comparing what she said with the terrible online comments. How concerned about rape are those who merely ‘followed’ the herd to outrage about the news?  All those who downloaded or watched the YouTube clips are as much rape apologists as Poppy Harlow. 

The CNN site and others have got many hits. Yet, who has bothered to even mention that she called it a “serious crime”?  That is just so tame and obvious, isn’t it? So, this quote from her has made it:

"Incredibly difficult, even for an outsider like me, to watch what happened as these two young men that had such promising futures, star football players, very good students, literally watched as they believed their lives fell apart."

The screenshot reproduced by Mashable has the incessant query, “Not one word about the victim.” What do they want to know about the victim that has not been already reported? Is this a spectator sport? Trent Mays and Ma'Lik Richmond were sentenced for raping a 16-year-old by a juvenile court. Why are rapists punished? Because society needs to understand that they are committing a crime against women, against another human being. 

The idea is to make an example of them, and what better way than to mention that they were star football players and good students who had indeed lost it all for behaving in such an atrocious manner. Is this not the message that has to be sent across to other young men that, whoever you are, if you commit a crime, then this is what you get? 

One recalls other crimes, including mass murder and terrorism, where the convicts has been deemed insane. This results in covert sympathy, which is far worse.

You might ask: why was it difficult for a reporter or the news anchor to discuss emotions? Check out the comments. Anger is also an emotion. Pity is an emotion. Had the judge let them off, most people would have reacted emotionally. It was difficult to sit in the courtroom probably because both of the convicted got up and apologised to the family of the victim; one broke down. It is not about sympathy for their crime, but for their response to being punished. I would judge Harlow harshly had the verdict been innocent and she had said that this was an incredibly emotional moment watching as these two footballs stars and good students could return to a new life that awaited them. This was not the case.

A report further states:

(Candy) Crowley turned to legal expert Paul Callan who sounded almost apologetic when explaining how the rape conviction will mean that the Steubenville rapists will now be registered sex offenders and how that "will haunt them for the rest of their lives." None of these things said were untrue. But the tone was certainly a little off.

How does anyone decode that the tone was off? As I said, the report was about the trial, not on the rape. The emphasis ought to be on the rapists who will be tainted for the rest of their lives. This is as it should be, for the usual narrative is that it is the victim who is so tainted and who has to live with this all her life.  If, for the sake of argument, the tone sounded apologetic, it does not reverse the judgment. It brings to the fore that whatever anyone might feel those two young men will have to live with it, their futures have been mucked up. Justice has been done.  

Ohio attorney general Mike DeWine said after the verdict, "As I said already, any rape is a tragedy. But, it is even more of a tragedy when that victim is continually re-victimized in the social media."

This is what people should understand, instead of a typical knee-jerk reaction.

But, then, it is becoming increasingly impossible to do so.  Online abuses by anonymous blokes are being spread around by women, giving even more ammo to them.  How many of those reading these get sensitised? It just becomes part of the sickening term ‘rape culture’ that even well-known commentators use with impunity.

One report while rubbishing CNN – that I do not admire, anyway – talked about how the circus has just begun. Well, the moral high-standing falls flat on its face when you decide to ignore the crime and only watch the ensuing performance. How many referred to the victim while pulling up those who they think are rape apologists? Online warriors are primarily online voyeurs. This is being an apologist, too.

There is also a clear hierarchy regarding who to feel sympathy for. A few days ago in Mumbai, four men sodomised a eunuch, stubbed him with cigarettes, poured kerosene on him and threw him out of the moving car in which they committed the crime. Has there been any reaction to it except for a newspaper report? For all those who participate in the Gay Pride parade and offer lip sympathy to the LGBT community, this still remains an area of darkness. One of the reasons is that liberalism is all about accepting, but not questioning crimes towards the community as well as within it.

© Farzana Versey

Veerappan's Legacy and a Sleeping State

Veerappan

Veerappan was probably the last of the bandits. Shot dead in 2004 by the security forces that he eluded for a good few decades, he is back in the news. The Supreme Court has stayed the death sentence of his four associates.

It again raises the question about whether the mental agony and physical confinement due to delayed execution is humane. Besides this, the courts must ask themselves whether the severe punishment to deter further such acts of crime serves its purpose. The Veerappan gang survived in the jungles across three states – Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Kerala. It started with poaching, and went on to smuggling of ivory and sandalwood available in the forests.

How he and his band of dacoits survived for this long has spawned many stories, including the complicity of certain forces and the romantic notion of him being protected by the villagers.

I mention this in the context of how the legal pattern of the mercy petition on behalf of his aides is being dealt with. Gnanprakasam, Simon, Meesaikara Madhaian and Bilavendran will have to wait until tomorrow to know whether the amended version of their plea will alter the punishment.

It is frightening to think about the political games that might play themselves. Afzal Guru’s case has already showcased how fast-tracking is done with ulterior motives. There are other precedents, all waiting for the noose. Sandalwood smugglers do not matter as much as an attack on Parliament in the general scheme, but now that the government has displayed brawn it cannot turn wimpy. If it flexed muscles in Kashmir, will it be forced to do the same in Kanya Kumari?

What is particularly intriguing is the Attorney General G E Vahanvati’s reasoning about denying that mercy in this case:

He said Veerappan’s gang members had committed a crime against the state by triggering a landmine blast that killed 22 people— five policemen, 15 police informers and two forest guards. Opposing the petition, the AG said, “These are crimes against the state and must be distinguished from crimes against society.”

A chief minister is killed. Does he constitute the state? Does the state not include society? One understands the validity of symbols, but without wishing to sound insensitive how are policemen, aware of the dangers of their job, more important than others? Going by the AG’s statement, is it not the business of the state to protect society and, therefore, crimes against the latter could also make the state responsible for laxity?

Where was the state when Veerappan was committing the crimes? People might recall that the police went full force only when Kannada superstar Rajkumar was kidnapped and held captive for over three months. This gave the Centre enough ammo to get Karnataka and Tamil Nadu to fight it out. 

Elephants, sandalwood, ivory may be state property, but they are also about business. Whose business? How did the dacoit manage to have an army with him? Had he not been shot dead, he and his men would still be on the run, continuing with their activities.

It is important to understand Veerappan a bit. At the age of ten, he picked up a gun and killed his first elephant. Was it for a lark or were these the makings of a criminal? One suspects it was pathological, for there were instances where he did not just snuff out a life, but beheaded the victims and even choked a six-month old lest its cries alert the police. And he never expressed remorse for any of his actions.

Yet, he remained in touch with those in power. He offered to surrender on the condition that he got a presidential pardon, the right to continue to hold arms and a movie to be made on his life. Part of it could be attributed to his close observing of Phoolan Devi whose post-dacoit ‘mainstream’ life he was beginning to be inspired by.  His numerous video cassettes were less about communicating to the outside world than to project himself as an invincible man; it was the trailer of the film he hoped would one day be made by a director of international standing.

Veerappan decided he was a messiah of the whole region. When he sent his list of demands, there was nothing for himself. What he said sounded like a politician’s manifesto – a solution to the Cauvery dispute, Tamil as the administrative language of Karnataka, and an ensured daily wage for the Manjoloi estate workers in Tirunelvelli. He wanted to portray himself as the king of Tamil Nadu, a real-life version of the celluloid MGR.

He even compared himself with Jayalalitha, saying that if she could be chief minister with cases pending against her, why could he not be set free? The fact is he would never get any credence as a free man. His appearance was geared to cause fear as a bandit. In the urban jungle, he would become a part of the history of thuggery. So he ensured he remained in the news every few months, and propped up his image as a folk hero.

He often said he respected women and hated the security forces who raped them under the ruse of trying to find him. It is true that women were arrested for helping him, for providing him information and food.  Then there were his aides.  It is possible that he captured them and they worked for him under duress.

The government and police forces that rely on informants ought to know how they use their powers to keep such people safe. It is barter. What applies to them would apply to the criminal too.

These people constitute society. They could well be victims, of the bandits/terrorists and the state, and one cannot with certainty tell anymore what comes first.

The killing of Veerappan was justified because it was a case of one force against another. But getting four aides executed now reeks of political opportunism.  For argument’s sake, if the state is convinced that capital punishment is the best way to deal with criminals (it is not and it will have to face the music by right-thinking citizens), then instead of looking back in anger, it ought to immediately address recent cases of terror against the state and announce the death sentence. Only then can it afford to take a high moral ground.

Justice seen to be done is not always justice. It is sometimes a coverup con job by those in charge of booking cons.

© Farzana Versey

Sunday ka Funda

"Where there's a carcass, there will be vultures"

- Malayan proverb

This truly disgusts me. You are being urged to watch the live mourning of the grief-stricken family of the nurse who committted suicide after a prank call she took regarding Kate Middleton's pregnancy.

What would anyone get from this? Is personal tragedy now all about downloading apps? Will they download tears, too?

Regarding Barack Obama, too, his condolence address on the school shootout in Connecticut has been telecast. This is just commercialising a crime and its tragic consequences.

At least vultures don't pretend to grieve.

PS: I've blanked out the SMS number and website url. Also, fused two ads that appeared separately.

Babri, Balasaheb and Rehman Malik

Overreactions are the new analyses. So it is that one comment by Pakistan's Interior Minister Rehman Malik has been described as a "blow to Indo-Pak relationship".

This reveals more about us - that for fake diplomacy we will reuse a comparison that we say should not have been made. How convenient it is. Here is what Mr. Malik said:

"We don't want any 9/11, we don't want any Mumbai bomb blast (attacks), we don't want any Samjhauta Express blast and we don't want Babri masjid issue."

We don't want Pakistan to meddle in our affairs, but why the rage? Don't we talk about minorities in Pakistan? Why, we even discuss Balochistan. The minister has subsequently clarified:
"When I spoke of Babri, I never compared it with terror acts. What I said is that we do not want ugly incidents..."

I don't agree with him. My problem is that anything coming from Pakistan about issues to do with Indian Muslims makes it difficult for the latter. We don't need Pakistan to solve our problems, but we don't lead isolated existences. The US rakes up 26/11 on its 'do India' time. Why does it interfere in what is our problem? It uses it for its 'war on terror' narrative.

I'd also like to state in clear terms that the post demolition riots were an act of terror. On what grounds, do we make a difference? Only because our own people did it, does it become a lesser crime?

- - -

Now that Bal Thackeray is no more, should his legacy be killed? I ask this with reference to drop cases against him in the post-Babri Masjid demolition riots, as well as the active participation of Shiv Sainiks in the kar seva and the act, something their leader was proud of on record.

An IPS officer quoted in TOI said: "The CBI has informally approached the Mumbai police for this purpose. We are expecting a written communication from the CBI in a day or two. We will certainly provide them with the relevant documents."

The relevant documents are the death certificate and not reports of incitement.
The others who participated in the crime are alive. Since the CBI has woken up, can it pursue those 20-year-old cases? It is rather impudent that it openly seeks closing of a case against one respondent who is dead, whereas families of several dead people await justice.

But then, when has justice been top priority, especially when we talk about holy cows?

- - -

If one 'legacy' is sought to be scotched, another is being forcibly kept alive.

"If they mind their business, the Indian Army will mind its own." This is what an officer said about preparations for Vijay Diwas at Shivaji Park.

Why does the army have to even talk to the Shiv Sena? The party is refusing to vacate the space and has put a couple of hundred workers on vigil. Newspapers report that there is concern about a midnight coup to dismantle what was meant to be a temporary funeral stage and not a memorial. This is illegal occupation of land. The state government does not need to use sly tactics. It can legally remove the structure.

The latest news is gratifying. The Shiv Sena has agreed to remove the makeshift structure. We are a nation that creates shrines everywhere. Bal Thackeray, whatever be one's political stance towards him, was a leader revered by many. However, a memorial to him is not a national concern. His party has every right to commemorate him, but it needs to do so with government sanction.

It is a bit surprising they wanted the place itself named after Balasaheb. Whatever happened to their fealty towards Chhatrapati Shivaji? Wasn't their leader a huge admirer who, in fact, mimicked the Maratha king?

Uddhav Thackeray, his son and leader of the Sena had better not fall into the trap of old tactics. The lure of demagogues only works until the rally ends. These days, such excitement cannot work as more than retail therapy.

Muslim Cops For Muslims?

Until such time that Muslims will get arrested even before they are proved guilty, that there will be a huge number of undertrials, that after years their innocence will be proved after they are socially tarnished, at least those who need to be protected should be. But is it easy?

The Committee, which was constituted on March 9, 2005, under the chairmanship of Justice Rajinder Sachar to prepare had suggested that it would be useful to have at least one Muslim police inspector or sub-inspector in police stations in areas having high concentration of Muslim population “not as a matter to eliminate discrimination but as an initiative to build confidence”.

My Hindutva contact sent a one-liner:

“Simultaneously, no Muslims should be posted in low minority populace areas? And then we will have peace on earth?”

It is amusing. If we check the statistics, how many Muslim police personnel are recruited? Have there been cases of Muslim cops deliberately rounding up people from the majority community or non-Muslims for no reason other than ‘suspicion’?

There won’t be peace on earth by such demarcation. Ideally, there should not be any. But we do not live in ideal times. Whether it is jobs or housing, there is discrimination.

Therefore, I find the Sachar Committee’s use of the phrase “not as a matter to eliminate discrimination but as an initiative to build confidence” curious. If there is a skirmish between communities, why can the Muslim officer not intervene and call the bluff of such discrimination? Do poor Muslims – and they are the ones who usually end up in ghettos – need pillow talk by the cops to instil confidence that no Gabbar Singh is around?

In fact, to give the flip side, the cop being an employee of the state would be far too cautious about being correct, and maybe even agree to cop out for getting his quota of ‘hits’.

Besides, in slums local gangs run the show and demand protection money. As with other groups, there are some shanties with a concentration of Muslims. There are Muslim gangsters, too. Yes, many. Everyone knows that. They are protected by cops and politicians irrespective of religion. However, if the Committee’s report is followed then the tussle would become mandatory. The Muslim cop will have to prove his allegiance with greater fervour and instead of protecting the common citizens, he will be pulled up for not capturing criminals, which other cops don’t anyway.

Invention is the mother of necessity, as the saying goes. And like many sayings, it just might end up being a truism.