Soroor Ahmed finds that Anjali Singh’s case has been blown out of proportion as another instance of discrimination against women while it could not be ascertained whether the car-driver hit Anjali or the latter crashed into the car, and criticises the media for remaining so obsessed with the news of the girl’s accident that they had no time to cover the death of a food delivery boy in a similar accident only 24 hours later.
When media persons were questioning as to why young men in an inebriated state were roaming about in theirspeeding vehicles on the streets of Delhi on the wee hours of January 1 causing Anjali Singh’s death, there was no dearth of anchors and columnists, especially women, who were of the view that girls haveevery right to go to late night parties, drink and ride their two-wheelers even on the chilly and foggynight. Before the court took up the matter, the media trial was complete.
Exactly 24-hours later,a 24-year-old food delivery boy, Kaushal Yadav, was killed in a similar roadmishap and his body was dragged for more than half a kilometre. This incident took place in NOIDASector 14, not very far away from the offices of premier television channels and newspapers in theNational Capital Region. It took more than three days for the media to made a brief mention of thisnews. The police could not even identify the driver of the vehicle which hit Kaushal’s bike. Whenthe media first reported this incident on January 5, many journalists questioned as to what was thepolice doing for more than three days. But the counter-question is: what were the mediapersons doing? If they cannot report such a tragic death so near to their offices then what moral righttheyhave totake the police to task.
DOUBLE STANDARDS
No champion of human rights, no loud-mouthed anchor and no columnist raised the issue and no politicalparty paid attention to the death of a man who died while returning after performing his duty. He wasearning his livelihood and was not creating a law-and-order problem for policemen by rash driving in oddhours. The media remained so obsessed with the news of the girl’s accident that they had no time forKaushal. This is our double standards.
When Anjali and her friend, Nidhi, met with an accident at about 1:45 AM on the eventful New YearNight, the entire media community rose up in her support. A very prominent lady electronic media face,while writing in her newspaper column, claimed as to what is wrong if a girl is spending late night inparties and drinking. She explained further that there are people who want to keep girls or womenwithin the home. She then took the readers back to the December 16, 2012 late night gang-rape of apara-medical student in a moving bus in Delhi – as if no such incident had taken place in India in thelast one decade.
Horrors like the above-mentioned ones are happening every day. But much depends on the way the issue istaken up and interpreted. These journalists are well aware that daily 87 rape cases are officiallyreported in India – five of them in Delhi alone. Do not talk about the unreported ones. But they arereminded only of the high-profile cases of metros and not the poor victims who are targeted daily.
NOT IN THE BEST STATE OF MIND
True, Anjali deserves full sympathy as her body was dragged for about 13 kilometres. The perpetratorsshould be brought to book. But it could not be ascertained as to who – the driver of the car or Anjali – was at fault. Whether the car-driver hit Anjali or the latter crashed into the car? The CCTV cameracould not catch this moment. But if those in car knowingly dragged her body for so long then theydeserve punishment. The media should have debated all these issues objectively before just passingthe judgement.
This is so because if those in car had indulged in the rash driving, Anjali and Nidhi too were not inthe normal state of mind. As per a viral video, both these friends had clashed in the hotel where theyhad spent hours before riding the two wheelers. According to the hotel employees, where they had gone,when the quarrel went out of hand, they asked Anjali and Nidhi to leave the place.
As per the media reports, the two girls still decided to return home on the same bike. Initially Nidhirode, then after sometime Anjali took up. The whole story suggests that the two girls too were not inthe best frame of mind.
A couple of days later, a premier television channel highlighted a video showing as to how Anjali hadmet with an accident while riding her scooty. It also reported that she was thendrunk and added that Nidhi too had drug connection. If these reportsare correct (I am writing sobecause often our channels highlight fantastic stories)then it is a serious matter.
As nothing could be said as to what actually happened on that fateful night and only an objectiveinquiry would reveal the truth, the need of the hour is not to unnecessarily sensationalise the issue forthe sake of TRP.
ABSURD AND IRRESPONSIBLE
But what is really absurd and highly irresponsible is the way our senior journalists are making it asanother instance of discrimination against women. If this is the case, what about Kaushal Yadav who toodied in a similar way and whose story the media totally underplayed.
Besides, the way a senior columnist wrote in an English daily is simply indefensible. Instead of askingeveryone – cutting across the gender line – to help the law enforcing agencies in implementing law and order, she argued as to what is wrong if the girls go to party late in the night and drink. Whatevernonsense these journalists express, the fact is that nobody is above law. The elders of the societyshould advise both boys and girls to behave responsibly and do not create hurdles for police. By makingit a gender issue, the said anchor-turned-columnist has given licence to all the girls to drink and ridescooty in the shivering night and thus create a law-and-order problem for the authorities.
The fact is that many of our reputed journalists, especially of television, lose balance and starttaking position without examining the issue in proper perspective. For example, Anjali’s case was ofhit and run and had nothing to do with gender. The car-driver might have sped away out of fear. At thatpoint of time, he might have not done so because the victim was a girl. He could have done so even if hehad hit a 20-year-old boy.
SECTION 144
Apart from the accident angle, one must take up the issue of New Year celebration in proper perspective.Banning it may not be fully appropriate in India or elsewhere but the manner in which things are goingout of hand may prompt authorities not only here but in many other countries to take some measures.
Perhaps in the years to come they may consider imposing Section 144 like order from 11:00 PM ofDecember 31 to 11:00 PM of January 1. What happened in New Delhi this year is not an isolated incident.Rowdyism and hooliganism on this occasion has become order of the night not only in India but in manyother countries. People may be asked to celebrate in whatever way they want only within the fourwallsof their homes.
The undeniable truth is that celebrating New Year on January 1 in parks, hotels, restaurants, seabeaches, streets, etc. are recent practices in most parts of the world, including India. In fact, calendars of different religions and civilizations have their own New Year and till a few decades backpeople in the Third World do not follow the western way. Not to speak of New Year, the OrthodoxChristians – they have substantial population in East Europe – even celebrate Christmas on January 7, andnot December 25.
It is after the advent of capitalism that New Year has become such a grand festival. In India too itbecame more popular after the adoption of Liberalisation, Privatisation and Globalisation. Thecorporate-driven media have exploited religion to achieve their goal. In the past, devoteeswould throng into the places of worship to offer special prayer on this occasion.
The tragedy is that it is not the so-called uneducated and de-classed sections of the society whobrazenly take law into their own hands on what they consider the most auspicious midnight. Is this the waywe start our year?
But the saddest aspect of the whole development is that nobody is realising as to what they are doing.