tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6541136381262666757.post2210135647337525086..comments2023-10-25T05:05:00.272-07:00Comments on Reflections: The Conversation - IIIAnupam Patrahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00179237569294043987noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6541136381262666757.post-8278574916293323392012-06-07T21:56:34.383-07:002012-06-07T21:56:34.383-07:00Thank You Sudha for reading my post. Your comments...Thank You Sudha for reading my post. Your comments open up an whole new arena for discussion.<br /><br />Anyways, I'd only say that the worst kind of contempt that the media can commit is to prejudice the mind of the mankind against one person who is standing his trial in Court. <br /><br />As far as the case of M.F. Hussain is concerned you must know this.<br /><br />Nothing is absolute in a democracy, not even artistic expression, though without the requisite freedom, artistic expression is meaningless. But for every man who supports M.F. Hussain's expressions on canvas, there's a man who'll denounce it. Now the latter need not necessarily be a fanatic. Goddesses are worshiped. So to the worshipers, it was a matter of great outrage. Now I'm by no means supporting or objecting against either side. But the law is that anybody / anything which tends to excite tension among a certain community is to be avoided at all costs, unless it serves any greater public / national interest or tends to achieve the constitutional goals. <br /><br />Hussain failed to appear in Court even after summonses were issued against him. Now that's illegal per se. So non bailable warrant was issued against him, which by the way is the law. <br />So far as certain persons filing criminal cases against him is concerned, they are legally free to do so. But you see the crux of the matter is that when you know that your actions are likely to induce anger and outrage among members of the society why do it. And even if you still do it, why publicly showcase and hail it ? I'm a great lover of arts, and I think you know that. I want to write about so many things, critical, enthralling and depict certain people in a certain way, which may be artistically satiating for me. But can that be allowed in a democracy, when that depiction is outrageous to that person, howsoever artistic genuineness it may display. So I write with a self imposed restraint, which may not mean free air for the artiste in me, but it certainly satisfies the conscience of a responsible citizen. I understand arts is divine, but that divinity cannot be sustained if it tends to hurt others.<br /><br />A lot of people called it unsecular to prosecute M.F. Hussain. They do not understand that secularism has nothing to do in this case. Secularism is the absence of favour or support to any particular religion. Now by reason of corollary responsibility, that can by no means allow any Govt. to ignore the sentiments of any particular community. But anyhow the Govt. wasn't prosecuting, it were people of the community, who claimed to have been offended by his paintings, that were prosecuting him. <br /><br />I agree that its a sad thing when an artiste does not have the requisite freedom to express himself. But that curtailment happens only when he is supposed to venture into such expressions which are likely to hurt well founded sentiments of any person. Like it or not that's the law of our land. If you ask me I'm all for the law, despite the fact that I'm tempted to have all kinds of freedom in expressing myself. Lest anybody can express obscenity, label it "aesthetic / liberal" and get away with it.Anupam Patrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00179237569294043987noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6541136381262666757.post-25049656130998458392012-06-07T15:18:24.868-07:002012-06-07T15:18:24.868-07:00Insightful observations, and even the comments and...Insightful observations, and even the comments and your take on those comments r pretty insightful. I ws reminded of one chapter in our social psychology textbook called 'social psychology in the courtroom'. Research in this area by the behaviour scientists amply supports that prejudice sort of affecting the verdict. I'll quote one classic study in this area to make things clearer:<br />We are better at relative thinking than absolute thinking. We tend to base estimates and decisions on known ‘anchors’ or familiar positions, with an adjustment relative to this start point. This is called the anchoring and adjustment heuristic. Englich and colleagues found that even judges can be influenced by this. Some judges had to imagine a sentence being greater or less than one year, whilst others were asked whether the sentence would be more or less than three years. In later imaginary sentencing, the judges were clearly influenced by the earlier anchoring. Obviously, judicial sentencing decisions should be guided by facts, not by chance. The present research however demonstrates that the sentencing decisions of experienced legal professionals are influenced by irrelevant sentencing demands even if they are blatantly determined at random. Participating legal experts anchored their sentencing decisions on a given sentencing demand and assimilated toward it even if this demand came from an irrelevant source (Study 1), they were informed that this<br />demand was randomly determined (Study 2), or they randomly determined this demand themselves by throwing dice (Study 3). Expertise and experience did not reduce this effect(Englich, Mussweiler, Strack, 2006).<br /><br />This post reminds me of M.F Hussain and his freedom of artistic expression. Would love to hear ur take on the issue. See if u could 'converse' on it someday with ur friend.sudha...a touch of madnesshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14324768680294918537noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6541136381262666757.post-42356390361060134162012-05-24T22:21:08.164-07:002012-05-24T22:21:08.164-07:00Very true jaish.
Thanx for your encouragement.Very true jaish. <br /><br />Thanx for your encouragement.Anupam Patrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00179237569294043987noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6541136381262666757.post-85747153983289093392012-05-24T22:16:55.792-07:002012-05-24T22:16:55.792-07:00Thanx Rohini. I'm glad to know that your siste...Thanx Rohini. I'm glad to know that your sister is interested in pursuing law as her career. I hope she excels in whatever arena she chooses to work in. Any assistance you need, just mail me.Anupam Patrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00179237569294043987noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6541136381262666757.post-46112022790365842202012-05-24T12:41:35.893-07:002012-05-24T12:41:35.893-07:00:) I so love this work you have done.. its going t...:) I so love this work you have done.. its going to be mighty helpful to me.. even my sister, who is going to pursue law very soon was got all interested. Keep up the great work!Rohinihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16838146755237484411noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6541136381262666757.post-62995527191977384312012-05-24T08:45:18.342-07:002012-05-24T08:45:18.342-07:00My friend, nothing is absolute in any democracy. S...My friend, nothing is absolute in any democracy. So isn't freedom of speech, else you could publicly call me a ******** and get away with it, without consequence. I'm, a little shocked that you missed this vital catch. Like you missed, the fact that the lady journo, in the video was asking the same kind of questions again and again. She was sitting in judgment over the guilt / innocence of the yelling man's client, who by the way happened at that time to be an accused in a murder case, and broadcasting it on national TV. She also called him indefensible. She was attempting repeatedly to discuss the merits of the evidence of that Court case, which, legally speaking, is a statutory offence ( under The Contempt of Courts Act) besides simply being morally wrong. Manu Sharma was guilty, but that's to be decided by Courts not by any journalist. Any reasoned law knowing man would have lost his cool over her attempts at ignoring established legal principles against causing prejudice to an accused. <br /><br />Not every man might' ve yelled at her blatant disregard for and ignorance of the legal / journalistic ethics, But Ram Jethmalani did, in the same way he's been yelling about the stashed away black money abroad. <br /><br />The best that media can do in such cases is that speak up only to an extent which alarms the investigative agency in such a manner that they do not destroy the case. <br /><br />As far as judiciary's potency is concerned, any country's judiciary is as potent as its witnesses and investigative agencies. It'd have sufficed for you, if before calling judiciary impotent, you first found out, in how many cases, sensational or ordinary, witnesses have gone on and spoken the truth fearlessly before the Courts and Police have not crushed the cases during investigations, before it reached the Courts.<br /><br /><br />About the rest of what you've written, inlcuding your support for media activism, I humbly urge you to read Conversation - IV http://anupampatracontemplates.blogspot.in/2012/05/conversation-iv.html . May be you already know what I've stated, still give it a chance.. It sums up my replies to the opinion of few of my friends, now including yours, about my earlier post.<br /><br />Hope you read it.<br /><br />Regards, <br /><br />AnupamAnupam Patrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00179237569294043987noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6541136381262666757.post-91451227598173889252012-05-24T07:24:09.843-07:002012-05-24T07:24:09.843-07:00Freedom of speech is nothing if not absolute. I un...Freedom of speech is nothing if not absolute. I understand that press colors public opinion on <i>sub judice</i> matters, but with our impotent judiciary, one must admit, it's often the press that brings charges against powerful people. Muzzling them would lead to more injustice. The powers of government and rule of law often cater to people with influence–for the rest, the media might be the only recourse. Ram Jethmalani (in the youtube video) was yelling for no reason. I share his opinion–everyone deserves a defense–but the yelling was pointless.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6541136381262666757.post-2996287314987257482012-05-21T22:03:15.018-07:002012-05-21T22:03:15.018-07:00Hi Anupam
That was a very interesting post. Media...Hi Anupam<br /><br />That was a very interesting post. Media sometimes does help in bringing about justice but in advicing others not to cross the Lakshman Rekhas they sometimes forget their own Lakshman Rekhas....Jayashree Srivatsanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07187741357853447742noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6541136381262666757.post-82238988048077400332012-05-21T06:51:43.878-07:002012-05-21T06:51:43.878-07:00Thanks so much Suresh ji for reading my post and g...Thanks so much Suresh ji for reading my post and giving you valuable opinions. I agree with your point that creating mass hysteria against an accused makes it difficult to support his innocence.Anupam Patrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00179237569294043987noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6541136381262666757.post-43235086860614709762012-05-21T06:37:37.961-07:002012-05-21T06:37:37.961-07:00Thank you so much Indu, for reading my post and fu...Thank you so much Indu, for reading my post and furnishing your thought provoking opinions about it. <br /><br />Just a small comparison. How many times we hear about corruption by judges vis - a -vis corruption by other officials in the country. May be there is corruption in judiciary, but undoubtedly its the least, because of very highly efficient checks and balances built into the system of functioning of Courts and judges. Let me assure you that I'm telling you this from first hand experience.<br /><br />As far as Manu Sharma's case is concerned, the judiciary had no motive to willfully disregard Jessica Lal's cause. It had nothing to gain by ignoring it. While the ordinary practice is that Courts do not look into matters until they are brought before it, still the Delhi High Court took suo motu (on its own) cognizance of Jessica Lal's case after Manu Sharma was acquitted by the Sessions Court. Nobody could have questioned the High Court if it would have decided not to do so, but still it did. I agree that media did play an important role in it, but one good act does not give one the license to commit two sins.. So you see, you can be somewhat sure of Judiciary's honesty, if not completely. Though I'm not personally aware of the ND Tiwari case. But let me tell you, it does not require so much hue and cry by the media. Hue and cry cannot induce a Judge to take up or not take up somebody's case. There's a very simple reason for it. Unlike MLAs / MPs, IAS officers etc, a Judge has nothing to gain by garnering mass support. For instance an MP can do a particular act in such circumstances since he'd be worried for votes, but a Judge isn't. His career is not determined by taking up popular causes. So you see, instead of raising commotion if one good journalist would have asked the lawyer of the other side to file a petition praying for DNA test of Tiwari, the Judge would have anyhow allowed it, on merits of his arguments in Court.Anupam Patrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00179237569294043987noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6541136381262666757.post-36264874687441088742012-05-21T05:44:47.516-07:002012-05-21T05:44:47.516-07:00A very interesting post once again ....i would hav...A very interesting post once again ....i would have agreed with ALL of it if we could be sure of the honesty of judiciary....many a times public outrage through media does manage to enforce justice,where it was not seen as coming initially--take the case of Manu Sharma & now N.D.Tiwari too is being ordered to give his blood sample....do you think it would have been possible without so much of exposure in the media?indu chhibberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17755152757229783585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6541136381262666757.post-58571415116253038342012-05-21T04:32:59.220-07:002012-05-21T04:32:59.220-07:00Good Anupam! One problem in India is that winning ...Good Anupam! One problem in India is that winning a slander or libel case against the media is near impossible cos the judicial system very seldom is helpful to an individual fighting a corporation.<br /><br />One additional point - Creating mass hysteria and prejudice against an accused may make it very difficult if not impossible for any individual who has evidence to offer in support of the accused person's innocence.C Sureshhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07447144019185253116noreply@blogger.com