Friday, November 15, 2024
Home Blog Page 6944

#AdarshLiberal trends in India. Find out what goes into making of an ideal “liberal”

OpIndia Staff
-
0
#AdarshLiberal trends in India. Find out what goes into making of an ideal “liberal”

How did it start:  It was first noticed on Reddit and RT’d by Reddit India by tagging @AdarshLiberal


The Aadarsh Liberal poster tweeted by @AdarshLiberal
The Adarsh Liberal poster tweeted by @AdarshLiberal

Just after a few hours, #AdarshLiberal started trending on Twitter. Here are some of the interesting tweets that we spotted:


 


 


 


People are still tweeting at the time of filing this report. Please put your favourite tweets in the comments section if we have missed those.

Stand-Up Comedy and the art of Political Propaganda – A true story

Guest Author
-
0
Stand-Up Comedy and the art of Political Propaganda – A true story

Editor’s note: The following is a submission from one of our readers who attended a comedy show. He/She doesn’t want to reveal his name for personal reasons. 

What was supposed to be an outing with my college friends helped me figure out the true nature of our Stand-Up comics. I along with my College friends attended a Comedy event where Vikram Poddar, Varun Grover, Karunesh Talwar and another new comic (whose name I can’t remember) performed.

Vikram Poddar was playing the role of a host cum standup comic. He warmed up the crowd, introduced the comics, took over when they left and he did all this very well. He joked on himself, some observations, and some jokes on the audience. But in his entire set, he made no political jokes. In fact when he was picking on some Gujarati members of the audience, I expected some jokes on Modi but he steered clear of any reference.

Next up was Varun Grover. I follow Varun Grover on Twitter and I am aware of his Political Stance. And as expected, he devoted 50% of his time to jokes on Narendra Modi. Of course there were no jokes on Rahul Gandhi or Kejriwal. To be fair, his jokes were on very valid topics, like Modi’s monogrammed suit and how it was a fashion disaster and how ridiculous the stories in the Bal Narendra comics were. But what irked me were the blatant lies he put through his jokes.

Grover attempted to suggest that Modi himself had got his suit stitched, and the resultant story of “gift” from some businessman was all a cover up. I was shocked to see him lie like this, because I read the truth on OpIndia.com itself. I remember the reactions of some of my friends who are not very politically aware. They naturally ridiculed Modi for narcissism. Grover also ridiculed the suit auction idea, asking whether it was an artifact like a Shivaji sword etc, which deserved auction. Personally, I wouldn’t mind auctioning Grover’s underwear, if it raised money for worthy causes, but it’s a different matter that it’s worthless, just like Grover’s twisted argument.

Karunesh Talwar came up next. I do not follow him on Twitter so I had no idea what were his leanings, but he made them clear from the first sentence. “I did not vote for Modi, nobody should have. I don’t support someone responsible for genocide” was Talwar’s opening statement. This deliberate ignorance of rulings of multiple courts shows a deep hatred for Modi which has now reached a boiling point, because he became the PM. When someone laughed at a Modi joke, Talwar reprimanded him by saying “People are watching, Aaj raat teri gaand mein Trishul ghusega”.

To be fair to Talwar, unlike Grover, he made 2 jokes on Rahul Gandhi. But the only Kejriwal reference of the entire show was a positive one, calling him a “different” politician. Talwar ended his set by again directly indicting Modi for the Godhra riots with a parody song which depicted Modi singing how he crushed Muslims in Godhra and destroyed all the evidence. This is subliminal messaging at its peak, the last thought which the audience goes out with is Modi is mass-murderer.

And of course, the entire show was peppered with the choicest abuses. Chutiya, Chutiyapa, Chutiya kata, Gaandu, Gaand, were just some of the words used in reference to Modi and his actions. It was an AIB roast all over again. Of course for the roast, the argument for using abusive words was “we took consent, we are all friends”. I wonder if Modi or anybody else gave their consent to get abused on this show.

In summary, my problems with this show are:

1. Blatant lies being propagated by likes of Grover to further their political agenda.

2. Disregard for India’s judicial system by likes of Talwar, where even though courts have pronounced someone as innocent, self-appointed paragons of justice continue to sully names of people they hate

3. Fear mongering by the likes of Talwar that Modi’s goons will “stick Trishuls up the asses” of people who mock them

4. Profuse use of abusive language, which as the law stands, is an offence ( although I am personally ok with this stuff)

5. The façade of being “neutral” by such stand-up artists when it’s clear where their political affiliations lie

6. AND MOST IMPORTANTLY: The hypocrisy of such Stand-Ups who one hand cry that Freedom of Expression is being throttled in Modi’s India, and on the other hand proceed to spread lies and hatred for Modi, day in and day out via their “comedy shows”

To be clear, I am a Modi supporter. I voted for him because I felt he was the best option. This doesn’t mean I can’t take Modi jokes. I laughed at the factual Modi jokes, or the ones which didn’t emanate from hatred. But I couldn’t laugh at lies. Even my apolitical friends felt both Grover and Talwar went overboard with their hatred for Modi. And we also found the only Non-political comic, Vikram Poddar, way better than both Grover and Talwar.

 

P.S. I wish to remain anonymous because I fear I might be tracked down from the ticket I purchased for this show. I am not important enough to have a hash tag trended in my support.

Questions keep piling up about the people and processes behind India’s Daughter

OpIndia Staff
-
0
Questions keep piling up about the people and processes behind India’s Daughter

Even as India’s Daughter is being seen all over the world, back in India, numerous questions are being raised of the people behind the documentary, the processes followed, the intent and the legal poisition. We found no reason to ban the documentary based on its content, but had some issues regarding the legality of the release. Now more questions are being asked:

1. Intent

Although the documentary doesn’t directly indulge in stereotyping Indians as a whole as “pro-rape”, some people found its messaging subtle. Leslee Udwin’s own remarks give away her intent. In an interview to Reuters, Udwin said the following:

Q: What do you think about the portrayal of women in Bollywood?

A: I think Bollywood movies are pornography. I think that women are objectified. It’s all part of this disease, this culture.

Even on the show on NDTV, Udwin remarked that the Rapist’s defence that he raped her to “teach her a lesson” for roaming out at night, “is what most people think in the society“.

2. Processes

In this piece, Lawyer Amba Salelkar raise very important questions regarding the procedures followed by Udwin. She says she “is struggling to find the appropriate provisions under which such a procedure is authorised”. She also wonders if this interview of the rapist was shot in the presence of jail officials, because then it could change the legal nature of confession, and could affect the case in progress in the Supreme Court. She also questions whether “the accused given to understand the nature of the interview and the repercussions it could have on his case?”

Coming to the rapist and his interview, it has now come to light that he was paid Rs 40000 by Udwin for his statements. It has been reported that he initially asked for Rs 2 lacs, but eventually settled for Rs 40000. Given that he was paid for this, is it possible he was “told” what to say and what not to say? The rapist’s repeated usage of the word “juvenile” has already raised doubts on his being tutored, and this cash paid to him, has compounded the doubt.

Even the guidelines of BBC themselves are against such payments to criminals: “The BBC does not normally make payments to criminals, or to former criminals, who are simply talking about their crimes“. If so, was BBC aware that Udwin had paid the Rapist? All this needs to be checked and investigated.

Lawyer Manoj Ladwa has also asked a series of important questions to NDTV regarding the broadcast of the documentary. Ladwa claims there was UK legal advice to not show the documentary before Indian Supreme Court verdict. He also raises valid points whether by selling the rights to BBC and NDTV, had Udwin violated the condition agreed by her that the documentary was only for social, non-commercial purposes.

Not only this, Udwin’s Indian collaborator on the project, Anjali Bhushan has reportedly written a stinging open letter making her stand clear. Bhushan says the project was ” overshadowed by the self-promoting agenda of” Udwin by “her attempt to exploit the subject matter of the documentary in a self-advancing attempt to sensationalize the content”. Bhushan also says that “Ms. Udwin knowingly and cynically breached the conditions and undertakings under which the permissions were granted.”

And why did Udwin have an Indian collaborator? Because as per this report, government rules state that a foreign filmmaker is not allowed entry inside an Indian prison. Udwin chose Bhushan as a partner to circumvent this rule and later dumped Bhushan when she raised various objections. The same report also mentions Udwin created a series of “shell” firms to “hide hide something on the UK joint venture”. ‘Apricot Sky Entertainment’ owned by Bhushan, which was originally mentioned in the papers is now missing from the official credit list and replaced by ‘Tathagat Films’. The Ministry of Corporate Affairs has no records of ‘Tathagat Films’ but there are 3 production houses running by that name in Mumbai and Delhi.

 

Yogendra Yadav Sting – What does it say about the media?

OpIndia Staff
-
0
Yogendra Yadav Sting – What does it say about the media?

Recently it was uncovered that an AAP worker, secretly recorded a conversation with Chandra Suta Dogra, a journalist and used it to malign/expose Yogendra Yadav. This news has been reported as either a bad intra-party squabble, or the breach of the journalist’s trust by an AAP worker by taping their conversation. While these are both valid points, this piece by SP Singh, a senior journalist, on the issue raises some very pertinent questions of the ethics in journalism.

First a backdrop of what happened. Yogendra Yadav, met a bunch of journalists at the house of a local AAP leader in Chandigarh on 15 August 2014 over breakfast. Dogra then claims that, Yadav spoke about politics in “the backdrop of the AAP’s performance in the Lok Sabha elections, and the party’s decision not to contest the (then forthcoming) Haryana assembly polls”. She continues saying She continued, “Since this was not a formal press conference, we were told not to attribute the information to Yadav in our writings, but we could use it in other ways.”

Dogra, who was then employed with The Hindu, then published this story, in which she quoted “sources” to make the following assertions:

The State executive committee also gave a unanimous opinion in favour of contesting. The Hindu has learnt that when the matter went to the 22-member National Executive Committee of the AAP, 15 of the 17 members who voted did so in favour of contesting. Mr. Kejriwal and five others who are close to him did not vote

On the very day this article got published, Dogra was called by a Bibhav Kumar (now serving as PS to Arvind Kejriwal). Bibhav told her that the information she had published was false, to which Dogra told him that this was told to her by Yogendra Yadav. This conversation was recorded by Bibhav and was recently spread to malign/expose Yogendra Yadav.

This of course is Dogra’s version. Senior journalist SP Singh, who wrote the earlier mentioned piece differs with her. Singh claims that he was present at the same meeting with Yogendra Yadav on 15th August. Using colourful language, Singh clearly states that whatever information Dogra claims was given by Yogendra Yadav, was in fact never given by him. He states “if Yadav did indeed give out the juicy tidbits mentioned in Ms Dogra’s story, that plate did not make it to the breakfast table where we were seated. Intriguingly, there was only one table.”

Once this recording leaked out, Yogendra Yadav made an online post re-iterating that he had never given such information to Dogra. He also refers to mail testimonies from two other journalists present in that breakfast meeting. who are on record saying that the sensitive information about Haryana disclosed in the article was never discussed at the breakfast meeting. Lastly, he questions Dogra saying “Why did she report on a breakfast conversation that was clearly understood to be not for reporting? Why did she reveal her sources to an interested party?”

To this, Dogra replied by saying “Considering that nine people were present at the breakfast meeting, there was no element of confidentiality. Since he was the chief spokesperson of AAP, one assumed that the party was aware of the breakfast meeting”

This entire episode points out quite a few things:

1. Dogra had no qualms about giving up her source to an interested party, even though it meant endangering the source (Yogendra Yadav in this case). Non-Disclosure of “Sources” is considered to be the hallmark of standard reporting, but Dogra failed on this test

2. When questioned by Yadav as to why she did so, Dogra non-nonchalantly says “nine people were present at the breakfast meeting, there was no element of confidentiality”. This is hypocrisy. SP Singh rightly points out that if indeed there was no element of confidentiality, why didn’t she reveal Yadav’s name in the story itself? Why reveal it only when prodded by an AAP worker?

3. SP Singh who attended the meeting, and Yogendra Yadav, are in agreement on one issue: The information reported by Dogra was never discussed by Yogendra Yadav. The question then arises, did Dogra make up this information? Or does she have some other source who she is protecting?

In all this, some things are clear. Journalists have become less trustworthy than they used to be. A journalist can reveal sources, at the same time claim that a source isn’t confidential, and can even cook up some details if need be. To end, we tend to agree with what Saikat Datta, Editor on National Security at Hindustan Times, and Sachin Kalbag, Editor of Mid-Day had to say on this issue

India’s Daughter – the takeaways and the concerns

Guest Author
-
0
India’s Daughter – the takeaways and the concerns

Like many, I watched the BBC 4 documentary ‘India’s Daughter.’ In this day and age, attempting to keep content out of public purview is self defeating and even foolish. While there may be valid legal objections to the film maker’s methods, it might be prudent for the Indian government to de-escalate the eminently avoidable row over a “ban,” which has taken away from the fundamental issues which surround the matter.

My first reaction to the documentary, which was marketed loosely along the lines of a rapist ‘speaking for the first time on TV’ was ‘should a convicted rapist be given a megaphone on national television?’ On watching the film, my objection ceded way to a sense of ‘it seems to have served a greater cause.’ NDTV and the film maker, Leslee Udwin may have erred in their marketing approach. I will concede that we live in a world of compromises, and television studios too confront business and commercial compulsions every day. But, they may have crossed a line with their attention-grabbing gimmick, which served to fuel pre-conceived distrust about their intent. There was really no need (even from a crass business-like promotional standpoint) to promote a rapist when the message clearly is about ‘India’s daughter.’

Untitled

Speaking of which, the film seems to have been titled rather unfortunately. Rape is a global problem. There is plenty of data and anecdotal evidence that suggests that the problem of rape, by no means, is isolated to India or other developing countries. By titling it, ‘India’s Daughter,’ (which I’m sure was done with the best of intentions) the filmmaker has (perhaps unwittingly) fueled a stereotype around India and rape. Make no mistake. India does undeniably have a serious problem with containing crimes against women. So does the rest of the world. Creating the perception that India somehow is more troubled than other countries in this matter has taken away from the core issues of the problem. It perpetuates the commonly held impression of a condescending Westerner with a sense of misplaced ‘duty’ trying to right the wrongs of a former colony. Leslee Udwin may, for all we know, be an Indophile and she may have the best interests at heart for India. But she hasn’t served her cause well with the theatrics and messaging.

Reactions to the video and the consequent ban have been global. Nicholas Kristoff, an influential New York Times columnist, tweeted expressing hope that the Indian government will spend more time addressing the rape problem than on enforcing the ban. Google took down the video one day after it surfaced on Youtube. Twitter has been abuzz with combative postures. I don’t watch Indian or any other television for news any more. So I can’t comment meaningfully on their coverage. But I did watch Sonia Singh’s interview of a motley crew, which included Ms Udwin, none of whom was a qualified social scientist with credentials to add to a topic with as much gravitas as this.

A mainstream columnist portrayed the negativity towards the video as largely (99.9%, no less!) male chauvinistic and from men ‘unwilling to look in the mirror.’ The same person went on describe the film as ‘crap’ and ‘patronizing.’ Such sweeping statements only helped accelerate the discourse off topic into a tug of war between feminists and ‘monstrous men,’ between India and the West, and added no perceptible value to discussion.

In parallel, there was commentary about ‘a western conspiracy to defame India,’ a theory onto which the government of India has unfortunately latched. Perhaps, we should be grateful to the West for their gracious efforts in solving India’s rape problem, even as they continue to be unmindful of their serious own deficiencies in this area. Case in point: A girl from Steubenville, Ohio was raped by a gang of athletes around the same time the horrific event in Delhi in 2012. And yet it never received the mainstream media’s attention that it deserved.

The US continues to lead the world in crimes against women. Rapes on US campuses have reached epidemic proportions. A third of all college women are sexually assaulted on campus every year. The rest of the Western hemisphere does not fare significantly better. And yet, India continues to be treated as the only problem child by the West. However, I’m grateful for that attention because India can use all the help it can get, on this very serious matter. I prefer to take the commentary in a spirit of constructive problem solving, even if some of it may be questionable in intent.

Are all Indian men misogynists and potential rapists? Do they need a mirror held up to them by a convicted, unrepentant rapist? Is this a conspiracy to defame India? Or, is it merely an attempt to drive higher ratings, win awards and accrue personal fame and fortune? Are these the right questions to expend valuable time on? Do these questions make for valuable discourse? Answers to a few of the questions are self-evident. In other cases, they are worthless. Answers are worthless if the questions are worthless.

What did I take away from the documentary? Does it serve the ‘purpose of overall good,’ all things considered? I believe it did. Clearly, this is a matter of opinion. The film moved me. Jyoti Singh’s words haunt me. “There is no one above a doctor.” Here was a young woman, so filled with promise and who had traveled such a great distance in the pursuit of her dreams, who was snuffed out mercilessly even as she stood at the gates to her heaven. I do not know if we can ever forgive ourselves. We certainly cannot forget. This is a scar that will never heal. Jyoti Singh is not alone. Girls and women before her have suffered enormous pain.

Girls and women after her continue to do so. We have all suffered enormous pain and heartbreak. While we feel righteous anger and despair, we cannot afford to let negativity drag us into a spiral of self-flagellation and self-destruction. We cannot afford to turn human tragedies into political theater and a circus orchestrated by self-serving propagandists. We must listen to our inner voices. We must put aside our misgivings, biases and fears. We must not shoot messengers who give us bad news. We must learn that, sometimes, the best of messages can come to us from those with even the most dubious of intentions.. We must learn to separate the wheat from the chaff, and the genuine problem solvers from charlatans. We must amplify the voices of those who genuinely care. We owe Jyoti Singh and all women decency in our discourse.

Can rape ever be “fixed”? Even a country with enormous resources such as the United States has failed spectacularly so far. Does India even have a prayer? Are women doomed and condemned to vagaries of fortune? The picture is a troubling one; one that should keep us awake at night. It is one that cannot be solved without the coming together of minds. I applaud LesleeUdwin for making the film. It has served the purpose of stirring an important debate. I hope the government will allow every one to see it. I hope it will make us all think about the world in which we find ourselves.

The film, to me, provided a subtle and critical insight. There is a battle that is going on, between the progressive and regressive parts of India. This is not a battle between men and women. It’s not a rich versus poor battle. It’s not really a class war. It’s a war between the challenger and the incumbent in India. Six men decided to punish a young woman on a fateful night because she didn’t conform to their view of India. She was punished for being progressive. She was punished for being a woman. She was punished for having a mind of her own. As we ponder solutions, it is worth keeping this in mind. We have to note that there are those among us, who will rape and murder in order to enforce their belief system; that women are more often than not at the receiving end of such retrograde, primal and punitive instincts. We must take our considered positions on this and act in concert to further a greater cause. There can be no greater cause than this. We must force our government to appreciatethe nuances and frame the debate appropriately, for it plays a critical role in how we move forward.

We must urgently put aside our personal affiliations and prejudices and unite to answer the most pressing question of our times: What are we going to do to make our women valued, respected and influential members of our families, societies and countries? No nation deserves greatness if it cannot answer this. And we the people certainly will not deserve forgiveness if we fail to answer this for ourselves.

–@waatho

Do I feel ashamed of my poor English? No I don’t

Rahul Raj
-
0
Do I feel ashamed of my poor English? No I don’t

When CBSE Tenth Board results for my school batch were declared, I was one of the worst performers in English. I couldn’t cross even 65 marks in English. Actually, I was never good at English.  I loved solving problems of Mathematics and Physics, reading Hindi poetries, playing basketball, but I was hardly inclined towards English.

One big reason for not feeling embarrassed about poor English was that none of my school friends ridiculed me for my poor English. I was probably lucky to study in a Sainik School where academics were just facets of life. Students were respected for their annual report card, but the heroes of our batch also had those students who created records in cross-country races, students who represented the school in English and Hindi debates, student who painted life on drawing sheets – irrespective of their academic background.

My teachers taught me that education liberates your soul and acts as a toolkit to shape your imaginations. The other reason why I was never ashamed of my deprived English was that my teachers elucidated me that like Hindi, English is another medium to express your thoughts.

My poor English was sufficient enough to act as an interface between me and my Physics books, my Mathematics books, my basketball discussions, my friends and my teachers. There were days when I struggled to understand English poems of Tagore or W. B. Yeats from books kept in the library, but then such disappointments were soon overtaken by the joy of new RMO (Regional Mathematical Olympiad) or INMO (Indian National Mathematical Olympiad) questions, basketball matches or random discussions. I deserved to get less than 65 marks in English and I hardly had any guilt or embarrassment for that.

When I started my graduation, I realized that I should explore realms beyond mechanics and algebra to understand how would I like to shape my future.  College had huge diversity and I made friends from all across the India – South Indians who didn’t understand Hindi, Mumbaikars who were more comfortable in English, Delhiites who read Agatha Christie instead of Premchand.

I worked on my English to understand them and they started using tooti-footi Hindi to gel with other batch mates. Together we represented our college in many national level theater competitions.

I learned issues, humor, crisis, frustrations and ideologies prevalent in non-Hindi society from them and I shared my experiences of Hindi society with them. English served as a medium and we, depending on our capacities, tried to understand and address society and human psychology through various forms of art. I got a chance to read Dostoevsky, Camus and Badal Sircar; to listen to songs of Floyd, Lennon and Morrison; to read about Picasso, Neruda and Gibran. I could manage this with my manageable English. I never felt embarrassed for my average English and they never felt ashamed of their tooti-footi Hindi.

After graduation, I developed an inclination towards literature and social sciences. Hindi literature doesn’t address global circumstances in details. English, due to a good market force, has much better translators and publishers. I had to work a lot to upgrade my English so that I can interpret and interact better.

Medium is a path to decide your journey. I still struggle to express myself many times, but that struggle keeps me moving. I feel bad when I fail to construct my thoughts, I feel bad when my opinions are diluted due to poor grammar, but I don’t feel embarrassed.

When people ridicule me for my English, I don’t feel guilty, but I feel proud that I spent my childhood among friends who prioritized idea over the medium, struggle over shallowness, diversity over cultural biases, and appreciation over narcissism.

Petition to Sack Pahlaj Nihalani from Censor Board #SackNihalani

Editorial Desk
-
0
Petition to Sack Pahlaj Nihalani from Censor Board #SackNihalani

To know more about Pahlaj Nihalani, read this

Don’t ban “India’s Daughter” for its content, but do question it

Gaurav
-
0
Don’t ban “India’s Daughter” for its content, but do question it

“India’s Daughter”, the documentary on the girl we now know as Nirbhaya, has created a lot of controversy. Given what was out in the public domain about the documentary, we gave our view that based on those facts, it may not be advisable to ban it, but it may also be prudent not to air it on TV. There are numerous legal tangles that the documentary is facing, which we highlighted here.

The Documentary maker had declared on NDTV’s show that she believed “Most people in the society” think like the rapist. My objection was to this defamatory, unsubstantiated stereotyping, which I feared the documentary might propagate. And then I saw the damned video.

Firstly, let me come to how NDTV promoted this documentary:

B_I_VTfVEAAnVZa“World Premiere”. “The Face of Evil, The Rapist speaks on Camera”. This is what NDTV stated in its posters and advertisements. Fact? in an hour-long documentary, the Rapist’s interview is shown only for 10 minutes odd! Quite a few people were worried that the Documentary is a platform for the Rapist, but it actually covers the entire incident, right from the victim’s background, the incident, the protests, the defence lawyers, the government reaction and the court’s verdict. What was essentially an attempt to chronicle this entire episode, was reduced to “RAPIST SPEAKS ON CAMERA” by NDTV. Why? TRPs STUPID!

My major beef (pun intended) with this documentary was that it might echo the film-maker’s views that most Indian men agree with the justifications place by the Rapist. The justifications and his views, were reported here by BBC. Again an attempt was made to portray that this documentary was focussed on the rapist’s views and how Indian males are in sync with him. As a male, I was outraged at this. Thankfully, I didn’t find any major stereotyping of Indian men as a whole in the documentary.

But I do have some problems with it. Firstly, I felt, Nirbhaya’s parents are being used. Their emotions are being used to make this documentary popular. Some would validly argue that this is needed to wake up the conscience of the viewers. But I am not in favour of exploitation of human misery. There was no need to make her mother say things which would make her cry on air. This is my personal opinion though, and certainly no cause to ban the documentary.

Secondly, the video gives an insight into the background of the rapists. How they are from poor families, how they have been mistreated by luck and society. “This boy had suffered endless misery in life, he was a child in need of care and protection, and was a typical profile of a child, who had to be like this in a way“, these are the words of Mr Amod Kant, founder of the NGO Prayas, for the Juvenile Rapist. Is this some sort of twisted justification? When this is heard by millions of juveniles who are also facing “endless misery”, will it have a negative impact in their minds? Will it give them a “victim mentality”? This point may very well be needed to understand the psyche of Rapists, but beam it out to millions of uninformed viewers? I am not sure.

We are also shown the abject poverty in which the families of the Rapists are living, as if to re-inforce the above point. Then we also see the wife of one of the Rapists. She believes her husband is innocent, and also asks what will happen to her if he is killed. We are shown the 2 year old child of the rapist too. The wife then says if her husband is hanged, she will kill herself and her child. I don’t know what the intention behind this was but it could evoke sympathy in the minds of some, and may make some of the soft-hearted feel the Rapists deserve another chance.

In another part of the documentary, the Rapist interviewed, repeatedly claims he is innocent. He firmly asserts that he was at the steering for the entire incident and had no role to play in the actual rape. There is no attempt in the video to counter this, since even the courts found strong DNA evidence against him. It is also alleged that there was attempt to mow down Nirbhaya after the incident, and if indeed he was the driver, he may be responsible for this too. By not highlighting this, I wonder if an uninformed viewer might get the impression that this poor boy, from weaker section of the society, who was only driving the bus (maybe under coercion) has been unjustly victimized.

This feeling maybe compounded by the one of the Defence lawyer’s statements where he alleges that cases of Rape, Robbery, Murder are pending against more than 250 MPs, but none of these cases are fast-tracked. Soon the rapist also sings a similar tune of what-aboutism by raising other gruesome rapes and asking “why me?”. While the point of this might have been to show the apathy towards sexual crimes around us, Can this again be a “morale booster” to those suffering “endless misery” that they are being unjustly victimized?

There is also a repeated attempt to criticize the death penalty. Amod Kant says “we are not that kind of country” which believes in Death Penalty and similar punishments. The Rapist’s wife also makes similar noises. The Rapist himself gives a logic that if indeed they are hanged, in future rapists will be motivated to kill their victims to silence them.

Of course there is a lot of good too in the documentary. It shows the entire incident, it generally doesn’t attempt to stereotype Indian men, It shows the twisted depraved statements of the Rapist and the Lawyers, shows the unprecedented protests, the rather swift (by Indian standards) judicial process.

To conclude, It is unfortunate how the Indian Media promoted the documentary, because it certainly caused a bit of misplaced outrage in quite a few, me included. At the same time there will be some who will still not like the documentary because it can be very chilling and disturbing at times.

And then there are the concerns which I have raised above, how it unintentionally might embolden potential rapists rather than equipping the society with ways of combating this menace. Does it deserve a Ban? Ideally no, But I also don’t know if it’s suitable for viewing on TV by anybody and everybody. This is of course provided it fulfils all the Legal conditions. Until then, it shouldn’t be aired, nobody is above the law, not rapists, not documentary makers.

The legal violations by the “India’s Daughter” documentary

OpIndia Staff
-
0
The legal violations by the “India’s Daughter” documentary

Yesterday we highlighted that although there is a lot of opposition to the “India’s Daughter”, the documentary, there is no pressing need to use the constitutional provisions to block the it’s release. There were however other concerns, which needed to be addressed and it was upto the channels to decide on the social impact of such a documentary. However, today some legal aspects have also come up.

According to the Home Minister’s statement, The Ministry of Home Affairs, in July 2013 had given an NOC to shoot the said documentary. Subsequently, Tihar Jail authorities also gave the required permissions, subject to fulfilment of the following conditions:

(i) Prior approval of jail authorities is to be taken for publishing the research paper or for releasing the documentary film which is being made for purely social purposes without any commercial interest as conveyed.

(ii)To interview only such convicted prisoners who give written consent.

(iii)The complete unedited footage of shoot in the Tihar Jail premises will be shown to the jail authorities to ensure there is no breach of Prison security.

On 7th April 2014, once the Jail Authorities realised that the conditions had been violated, a legal notice was sent to return the unedited footage within 15 days and also not to show the film as it violates the permission conditions. Subsequently, the documentary film was shown to the jail authorities where it was also noticed that the film shown was the edited version and not the unedited as per permission conditions. Hence, they were requested to provide full copy of the unedited film shoot for further review by the authorities and that they were asked not to release/screen the documentary till it is approved by the authorities.

As per this report, a notice was sent to BBC in November 2014. There was no reply to this notice from BBC. As of March 3rd, Tihar jail officials were drafting a second notice to BBC, highlighting the conditions that have not been met. There are questions whether the documentary is still being used only for “social” and “non-commercial” use, as per the initial conditions, agreed by the film-makers.

As things stand, The documentary makers haven’t shown the unedited version of the documentary to the Jail Authorities, as promised by them. Hence they don’t have the permission of the Jail authorities. As mentioned above, there is also doubt whether the documentary is being used only for “social” purposes. Yet, in gross violations of the conditions, BBC has already aired the documentary in United Kingdom and it is now available on YouTube.

Showing “India’s Daughter” documentary risks doing more harm than good to the society

OpIndia Staff
-
0
Showing “India’s Daughter” documentary risks doing more harm than good to the society

You can almost always be sure that Arnab Goswami will reduce a topic to binaries and dumb down a discussion, but you can also be sure that on many occasions Arnab touches the right notes.

In the latest incident, Arnab has rightly termed the documentary India’s Daughter as “voyeurism” by TV news channels like NDTV and BBC, for it appears to serve no purpose other than that.

The Face of Evil
We will love to hate him. Some even may love to hear him. But will it serve any purpose?

The defenders of the documentary are primarily of two types – first type saying that this should be allowed for the sake of free speech, and the second type saying that it’s important to know how a rapist thinks so that the society can tackle them.

Both appear fair arguments and you can’t reject them summarily. However, here is where nuances come into play, which unfortunately are not allowed by Arnab Goswami when he rejects these arguments.

The first argument is totally fair. Yes, one may argue that the documentary can be disallowed as the constitution puts curbs on the free speech subjected to “decency and morality” (Article 19.2.IV) and “incitement to an offence” (Article 19.2.VII).

A rapist’s views are surely against “decency and morality” and also can cause “incitement to an offence” when criminally minded hear his justifications, but these should not be used to ban the documentary.

OpIndia.com believes that there is no pressing need to use the constitutional provisions to block the documentary – and there, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting and Arnab Goswami are wrong and overreacting.

Possibly some other technicalities are also being used to block the documentary, such as lack of clearances from authorities and objections of Tihar jail; still, a demand to block or ban the documentary is not right.

However, the second argument, that the documentary will help the society by analyzing a rapist’s mind is deeply flawed and reflects a lack of nuanced and detailed analysis.

Nikhil Mehra, a lawyer practicing in Supreme Court, explained in a series of tweets last night, why this exercise on a public forum was not only “tasteless” but “dangerous”.

He agreed that analyzing a rapist’s mind was an integral and necessary part of the entire process of combating the problem of rape. However, he cautioned that this was best done by experts like the law enforcement agencies and trained sociologists and psychiatrists.

Mr. Mehra argues that when a rapist’s deeply misogynist, regressive, and violent views are aired on a public platform, people who are similarly inclined in views find a support and validation for their criminal thought process.

Thus airing of the documentary could embolden potential rapists rather than equipping the society with ways on combating this menace i.e. it will give voyeuristic pleasures to many rather than sensitizing the general public.

Not only this, since a particular incident (the 16 December Delhi gangrape) is being highlighted, some have pointed out that this risks incorrect or partially correct portrayal of a rapist.

The documentary paints one of the rapists as “the face of evil”. But as twitter user @NishSwish points out, why look for one villain whom we can conveniently paint as evil? The other rapists are as much evil as him. In fact, the juvenile rapist was reported to be the most brutal and inhuman of them all.

And what about cops who don’t file FIRs in rape cases, or other authorities who suppress a rape victim from seeking justice. Are they not faces of evil, she rightly asks. She further cautions that this approach may reinforce class bias and incorrect perception in the society about rape incidents.

After all, most rapists are not random strangers like bus drivers who turn out to be cruel and brutal. The Delhi gangrape incident was a ‘sensational exception’. Perhaps the society needs to be sensitized more about ‘faces of evil’ that are living next door, or even are part of the family, than focussing on one incident to find a villain.

What about likes of Tarun Tejpal or Asaram Bapu? They are as much ‘the face of evil’ as this rapist interviewed for the documentary. By focussing only on this rapist, the society could as much think that only poor bus drivers hailing from north India are ‘faces of evil’.

Similarly, blogger and writer Purba Ray argues in her column that this documentary risks painting every Indian man as a rapist rather than sensitizing the society about rape issues. To many, like journalist Shekhar Gupta, who are claiming that Indian men are uncomfortable as the documentary shows “mirror” to them, Ms. Ray has a very valid argument to offer:

Approaching a convicted rapist for his views on women, using it to mirror Indian men’s attitude towards women, ends up stereotyping our men as the libidinous things who have nothing better to do than rape and subjugate women. It’s like approaching a hooligan English soccer fan for his views on Britain’s sporting culture or asking Bill Cosby or Rolf Harris for their views on sexual harassment.

To sum up, the documentary risks doing more harm than good to the society. And it will not be wrong to call it “voyeuristic”. We deserve better.

1...6,9436,9446,945...6,962Page 6,944 of 6,962

Contact: [email protected]

About us

News and opinion website that brings you reports and narrative from a perspective often ignored or suppressed by the mainstream media of India.

Follow us

© OpIndia.com