Debates on TV
One is amazed listening to ihe irresolute debates on TV on both domestic and international issues. On the domestic issues on corruption, the sum of all statements from representatives of various parties is "You are more corrupt than us" and hence we are justified whichever party is peaking. We are disrupting the proceedings because you did it ten years back or at some point in history. They just fall short of saying that we shall ruin the country because you did it in past. Let us understand that democratization of corruption does not solve the problem, it only aggravates. The solution lies in its eradication. No single river, let alone Ganga, can wash the sins (malice) of all the sinners. Even taking every word of mythology, it was released for salvation of a few generation the forefathers of Bhagirath. When it kept flowing people thought it could as well cleanse their sins and malice. But it has been transformed into a container stream of most polluted waters.
The poor viewers of the debates on TV are at a loss as to where will all this lead us. Then suddenly they pick on the Indo-Pak relations and the proposed dialogue. It is very timely and current issue and then we lose our diplomatic cool. Very soon we start blaming Pakistan as a nation and they start the same referring to India. This hits the common citizens of the two countries and gives rise to ill feeling. Many of our TV anchors also tend to be too verbose and voluble in such debates. If politicians or army or the intelligence agencies are to be attributed their roles, let us carefully avoid provoke sentiments of the common citizen by saying Pakistan and Pakistanis are liars or India and Indians are likewise. Let there be a code of dialogue on public media such as the television so that common citizen on both sides sees the reason and resolves to launch a forward path full of love, piety, peace and progress. It is in the interest of the privileged few that the border remains tense and they keep their positions. May good sense prevail.
Pramod Yadava, JNU
One judge, Two Judgements
It refers to a verdict from Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan at Himachal Pradesh High Court wherein the learned judge has rightly held that "it is ultimately the woman herself who is the protector of her own body and therefore, her prime responsibility to ensure that in the relationship, protects her own dignity and modesty". The court opined that "Once the prosecutrix knew that the petitioner is a married man, it was for her to restrain herself and not indulge in intimate activities". It is noteworthy that the court also added "No doubt, it is the responsibility, moral and ethical both, on the part of man not to exploit any woman by compelling or inducing her for sexual relationship". But a woman is not expected to throw herself to a man and indulge him promiscuity thereby becoming a source of hilarity, the court said. Media-reporting of the case has by and large been like criticizing the judgment without giving real intent in the verdict.
It is noteworthy that the same judge in another case held "A murderer destroys the physical body of a victim, while a rapist degrades the very soul of the helpless female. Such an offence transgresses the right of privacy and sanctity of a female...". Learned judge while rejecting bail to four persons accused of gang-rape also observed "The rape victim develops a fractured personality and leaves physiological and physical harm in that process. Therefore, the entire controversy is to be looked into from that angle...".
Both the verdicts are perfectly justified giving a clear distinction between real rape and alleged rape. Media-reporting should be complete and fair rather than being TRP-based to provoke public-sentiments.
Subhash Chandra Agrawal, Delhi
Vol. 48, No. 10, Sep 13 - 19, 2015