In a recent incident in Bahraich, Uttar Pradesh, where a Hindu man, Ramgopal Mishra, was brutally murdered, OpIndia conducted extensive ground reporting, highlighting the plight of Hindu victims who were on the receiving end of the violence. In such cases, it is common for the families of the victims and eyewitnesses to share their versions of events with the media, as happened when we spoke to the witnesses and family members.
However, the Bahraich police have issued statements, which can only be described as a subtle threat to reporters, suggesting that the publication of the stories might “create tension” in the area and warned of legal action over the reports for showing eyewitness statements.
ऐसे भ्रामक तथ्य जिनके सम्बन्ध में अभी कोई साक्ष्य उपलब्ध नहीं हुआ है, उन्हें बिना जानकारी के प्रसारित न करें । इससे जनपद की कानून व्यवस्था बिगड़ने की प्रबल सम्भावना है जिस पर विधिक कार्यवाही अमल पर लायी जाएगी ।
— BAHRAICH POLICE (@bahraichpolice) October 19, 2024
In one of the videos shared by OpIndia, Bahraich Police wrote, “Do not propagate such misleading facts for which no evidence is available yet, without any information. There is a strong possibility of law and order in the district deteriorating due to this, on which legal action will be taken.” The video in question here was of Vinod Kumar Mishra’s statement. Mishra is one of the victims of violence. In his statement, he said that announcements were made from two mosques, instructing, “Whoever you find, kill them right there, cut them down.” It was a witness statement. In general, witness statements are considered evidence as per the law. However, in this case, the reporter and media house (OpIndia) received a warning from the police.
The reaction from the police was troubling because they dismissed eyewitness accounts under the pretext of avoiding unrest. This is clearly an obstruction of both justice and transparency. It becomes extremely difficult to document such incidents properly and narrate the story from the victims’ point of view when the media are consistently silenced. At this point, it is essential to discuss and examine the legal provisions regarding the rights of eyewitnesses, media, and victims while questioning the response given by the district police.
Victims’ right to be heard and the media’s duty to report
One of the fundamental rights provided by the Constitution of India is the right to freedom of speech and expression, laid down under Article 19(1)(a). The said article grants every citizen of India the right to freedom of speech and expression, and it inherently includes the right to convey one’s experiences and grievances, specifically in cases involving criminal offences and violence.
Victims must be provided with the opportunity to share their accounts with the public so that the process of justice remains transparent. The role of the media in such cases holds the utmost importance. The press is considered to be the fourth pillar of democracy, and the media have the responsibility to report incidents truthfully, without any fear of intimidation.
In addition, Article 21 of the Indian Constitution provides the right to life and liberty, which also includes the right to seek justice and redress for wrongs suffered. The dismissal of a victim’s plea under the pretext of “creating tension” undermines these fundamental rights and goes against the spirit of the law.
By bringing the first-hand accounts of the eyewitnesses and victims, the media and press ensure that justice is not limited to courtroom proceedings but also finds a voice among the masses. In the case of the Bahraich violence, the reaction given by the police suggested that reporting on such incidents would act as fuel for local tensions. However, it is the duty of the police not to silence such violence. They must ensure that law and order are maintained without compromising the truth. Silencing the voices of eyewitnesses is not going to help the process of justice. Unfortunately, dismissing witness accounts, as seen in this case, undermines the constitutional rights of both victims and the media.
Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) and the importance of eyewitness testimony
If we speak in legal terms, Chapter IV of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (Indian Evidence Act) clearly explains how oral evidence is used in court. It states that, except for the contents of documents, most facts in a case can be proved through what a witness says (oral evidence). Notably, the law requires that the testimony must be direct. This means that the person giving oral evidence should have seen the crime happen. Similarly, if the witness giving an oral statement has heard something important, they must have heard it themselves for it to be used as evidence.
In this case, Mishra categorically said that he heard announcements from the mosque calling for the murder of Hindus. This is a clear case of oral evidence, which is permissible in a court of law. In criminal proceedings, such testimonies are often crucial in establishing facts and determining the course of justice.
By dismissing these accounts, citing the possibility of “tension” in the region, the police effectively shut down key evidence that could have aided an impartial investigation. Such testimonies must be considered on their merits, and the dismissal of an eyewitness’s statement cannot become a norm for the sake of maintaining “calm” in the region. The law clearly stands in favour of the victims, ensuring that their stories are heard, documented, and judged fairly by the court of law.
Why the police cite ‘tension’ to dismiss reports
When it comes to communally sensitive areas, police authorities tend to cite the likelihood of “tanaav failne ki sambhavna” (the possibility of unrest) to avoid addressing incidents that could trigger wider reactions. Maintaining public order is a legitimate concern for law enforcement agencies. However, it should not come at the cost of silencing victims.
In such cases, the police sometimes use the threat of unrest as an excuse to prevent the documentation of uncomfortable truths, which is visible in the case of the Bahraich violence. OpIndia has previously reported how attacks on Hindus are often downplayed under the guise of avoiding communal tension, thereby ignoring the victims’ plight. In an article published by OpIndia, it was observed that “attacks on Hindus are frequently brushed aside, with authorities citing the need to maintain communal harmony while ignoring the actual violence that is taking place under their watch.”
The reaction from the Bahraich police cannot be considered an isolated event. There is a widespread pattern followed by law enforcement agencies to avoid the possibility of “communal tension” and downplay incidents that could spark debate around religious violence, especially when it is against Hindus. This leads to communal injustice, even against the majority population of the country.
The importance of recognising that Hindu lives matter
It is essential to acknowledge that in incidents like the one in Bahraich, where Hindus were specifically targeted, the narrative often fails to capture the gravity of the violence they endure. The notion that Hindu Lives Matter is not just about seeking justice for the community but also about recognising the broader failure of our systems to protect them. In many cases, attacks on Hindus are either underreported or dismissed as incidents that may “create tension,” pushing their suffering into the shadows.
When the justice system or media avoid giving due attention to these cases, it not only denies Hindus the right to seek justice but also marginalises their experiences. It is time to ask: why should one community’s plight be overlooked to avoid discomfort? The narrative must shift, and the recognition that Hindu lives matter needs to take centre stage.
OpIndia’s stance is clear and firm
In this case, and in every case where Hindus come under attack, OpIndia’s stance is firm and clear. As a media house, it is our responsibility to tell the stories of Hindu victims who were on the receiving end of violence. Threats to silence our voice, which echoes the ordeal of the victims, are not going to work.
In a democratic society, freedom of speech is not just a privilege but a necessity. If we silence one side of the story, particularly the Hindu side, which is often neglected in mainstream narratives, we are only allowing injustice to flourish unchecked. If we value the principles of justice and democracy, we must ensure that the truth is not sacrificed for the sake of avoiding “tension.”
OpIndia’s coverage of Bahraich violence can be checked here.
