The Blunt Truth

"Good evening and welcome once again to this week's Prime Time Debate; I'm Abhishek your host for this evening and tonight we'll discuss the case of the Sharma couple who are being tried for killing their daughter.

What has become of us? What evil has possessed this country’s men and women that they are killing their own children? Is this how we plan to build our nation? By killing in the name of honour? To discuss and debate these issues I have with me two very eminent personalities who in their own fields of work have earned great repute. To my right is seated Mr. Ashok Gupta, practising Advocate, and to my left is Mrs Anjali Priyadarshini, women right activist. 

So Mr Gupta, what do you have to say about this dastardly crime of the Sharmas? How on earth could the Sharmas kill their own child? And why are not we doing anything about it?

Gupta:  ‘I deem it to be my duty, before I say anything else, to humbly caution you and Ms Anjali. We must refrain from accusing the Sharma couple yet since it's slightly premature to declare the guilt of....'

Abhishek (almost yelling and cutting off Gupta) 'Nothing is premature here on the PTD. It's an open and shut case. The Sharmas murdered their daughter and they should be punished for their heinous act'

Gupta  (resuming carefully): 'We don't yet have facts supporting that, do we?'

Abhishek (leaning forward with bulging eyes): ' We don't have facts? Are you serious? I mean the girl was found stabbed to death in her bedroom, with no one but her parents at home that night, what more facts do you need?'

Gupta: 'That alone does not prove that her parents killed her. And by the way how are you sure that there was no one else there during the occurrence. There are Courts, there has to be evidence, there has to be proof of.........'

Abhishek : 'Oh so talking like a lawyer. You need proof, sure, a young innocent girl was killed  and you need proof.. Mrs Anjali, what say you Ma'm?'

Anjali : 'I am not surprised at all by Mr. Gupta's non chalance considering that every technical detail is always used as defence when it's a crime against a woman'

Gupta:  'What ?? When did I say that....'

Abhishek (again cutting Gupta off): 'I am in complete agreement with Mrs Anjali that we should be not be getting technical here.

Gupta : 'What do you mean 'technical'?....I'm only saying that there are Courts in which guilt of accused persons are proved, not on TV channels'

Abhishek (literally shrieking) : Let me tell our millions and millions of viewers that here at PTD we believe in being blunt and in being bluntly truthful. Perhaps Mr. Gupta here does not know that.

Gupta: 'What truth? We don't even know whose finger prints are there on the knife and who else were there in the house, the investigation is still going on,; why are you.....'

Anjali: 'Technical again'

Gupta to Anjali: 'What technical technical technical are you crying for? It is pure common sense that.....'

Abhisek (yelling again): 'It is an open and shut case Mr. Gupta. We at PTD believe in being blunt and in being bluntly truthful when it comes to crime against women'

Gupta: 'No one is denying it is a crime against a woman but the truth of the crime is yet to be.........'

Anjali: 'Technical technical'

Abhishek: 'PTD never supports crime against women'

Gupta: 'No one is supporting any.....'

Abhishek (interrupting again) :' At PTD we are blunt and we will find the truth...'

Gupta: 'But the truth is not...'

Abhishek: 'No no Mr. Gupta, we're not serving diplomacy tonight. We have only bluntness in our menu tonight’

Gupta: ‘What’s with you and bluntness anyway? Can’t you simply understand that that the truth will come out, but not here, it will come out in due process....’

Abhishek (completely rejecting Gupta's words): ‘No no Mr. Gupta...’

Anjali (sarcastic): ‘Ohhh..So Mr Gupta thinks this murder to be something simple. See ?! Didn’t I tell you? Men never take us seriously’

Gupta: ‘When did this become about how seriously men take women?’

Anjali: ‘Mr. Gupta is clearly discounting my intelligence to understand what he is trying to say here’

Abhishek: ‘Hats off to you Mrs. Anjali for being truly blunt here on national TV. We at PTD welcome it’

Gupta: All I’m saying is that Courts will find out the guilt of the Sharmas. We are not the ones who......’

Abhishek: ‘Come’on Mr. Gupta. You can do better than that. We ask you to be blunt and truthful’

Gupta: ‘What do you think I’m doing?’

Anjali: ‘You are missing the fact that Sharmas have murdered their daughter.’

Gupta: ‘What?? Didn’t you hear anything I’ve spoken so far?’

Abhishek: ‘Excellent, Mrs Anjali, that’s more like it. So much bluntness and honesty. You truly know your facts right’

Anjali: 'This is a crime against a woman. And she must get justice'

Gupta: 'Clearly, that justice is not to be done in this debate...'

Abhishek (intervening again abruptly): 'The verdict is crystal already. The Sharmas are guilty as hell and they will be sent to the gallows'

Gupta: 'Are we to fix guilt of Sharmas here on TV?'

Anjali: 'Now Mr. Gupta has a doubt on your abilities too Abhishek. Why don't you go ahead and call us all wrong Mr. Gupta? Me, Abhishek and the rest of all, with the exception of you'

Abhishek: 'Oh so blunt that one, Mrs. Anjali. We'll take Mr. Gupta's response to that'

Gupta to Abhishek: What exactly are you anchoring? A news show?  A debate on the merits of a legal case or the guilt of Sharmas or my guilt? Surely you aren't hosting a circus, are you?'

Abhishek (nodding vigorously, interrupting) : 'No No No Mr. Gupta. I anchor only the quest for truth and a blunt one at that'

Gupta: 'Well the truth is that you are impatient, speculative and verging on absolute vanity....'

Anjali (jumping in): 'Are you saying that the Sharmas are innocent'

Gupta 'I'm not saying anything about innocence or guilt. I'm just saying that.......'

Abhishek: 'Yes say it bluntly'

Gupta : ' Do you ever let your guests speak?'

Abhishek: 'We like blunt people'

Gupta: 'Well you can go ahead and like whatever and whoever you want but I must get chance to speak whatever I want to. Ok?'

Anjali: 'Perhaps you want a ceremony of bugles and trumpets for proving that the Sharmas are guilty, Mr. Gupta'

Abhishek: Oh my God, that's as blunt as it can get. As we can see Mr. Gupta has no blunt truth to offer'

Then in a sudden inexplicable moment of frenzy and unrest which simultaneously gripped the host and the guests, beginning with Mr. Gupta losing his patience and banging the table hard with his hand, each of them began speaking and yelling at the same time. It was difficult to decipher what they spoke. The words all tossing over each other, blending in a manner so as to sometimes sound like Arabic, sometimes Hindi and partly like deafening war cries. The two gloriously suited men and the  bespectacled lady seemingly full of intellect spoke in such aggressively disregarding fashion that one grocer in a nearby ‘Hat’ who was watching the show at his shop reportedly remarked ‘Arre baba, they are shouting like they are in some ‘hat’. Abhishek, with some residual propriety of a decent host stayed quiet, but not for long. He soon resumed his race of words with the two. The picture was somewhat like this. Mrs. Anjali’s mouth had become so wide open in cut-throat oratory even the dumbest of brains could have assumed that she cawed only three words ‘Justice’, ‘Women’, ‘Technical’ . Atleast these were the words which could be faintly audible from layers and layers of thunderous eloquence from all three directions. Gupta kept banging the desk and pleaded for a couple of seconds so that for once he could speak fully. None heeded. He resumed his assault on Abhishek for being a poor host. And Abhishek kept his banner of bluntness flying high. His voice was the loudest and the others were no match for his roar. Ofcourse, the other two didn’t have his advantage of habit. Some respite was offered when Gupta furiously yanked out the microphone fitted to his shirt, slammed it on the table and walked off the show yelling ‘To hell with your blunt truth.'

Director of the show to Abhishek(on Abhishek's earpiece): 'I just got a call from Legal. They are saying we should not discuss about sub judice cases till Court has not decided the case. Now go and get Gupta back'

Abhishek: 'Ladies and gentlemen we'll break for commercials and return in a moment with other debates. Stay with us’

Abhishek jumps off his chair and runs after Gupta "Mr. Gupta please listen to me. Just for a moment, please listen....."

** 'The Blunt Truth' is a work of fiction and any resemblance of any part or whole of it with any person, people, organization or any event is coincidental.

Supreme Court Thrashes Media Coverage of 26/11 Incident

While we are hailing the prevalence of justice, in the Kasab episode, let us also take a moment's time to consider what the Hon'ble Supreme Court has said about the manner in which media covered the story and broadcast it over their channels. Now, there cannot be any double standard in accepting the verdict which the Apex Court has handed in Ajmal Kasab's case by upholding the death sentcence awarded to him by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court. One has to therefore also pay attention and weightage to other related observations made by Hon'ble Justice Aftab Alam and Hon'ble Justice C.K. Prasad while delivering their judgment. They came down heavily on the media and made a scathing criticism of the electronic media's "reckless coverage" of the 26/11 Mumbai attacks and observed that instead of serving the interests of the nation, T.V. channels made it difficult for the security forces to fight back. Live telecast of the operations could have even resulted in security personnel suffering casualties, they added.

Taking note of the tapped conversations between the attackers and their collaborators across the border, the court said "coverage helped the assailants counter security movements as their positions were being reported live."  " The operational movements were being watched by the collaborators across the border on TV screens and being communicated to the terrorists," the court added. On the other hand security forces had no means to know terrorists' exact position or even the kind of firearms and explosives they possessed. "Any attempt to justify the conduct of the TV channels by citing the right to freedom of speech and expression would be totally wrong and unacceptable in such a situation. The freedom of expression, like all other freedoms under Article 19, is subject to reasonable restrictions," the bench remarked.

Ripping into the minute-by-minute coverage of the “enemy action,” the bench held that “by covering live the terrorist attack on Mumbai in the way it was done, the Indian TV channels were not serving any national interest or social cause”. The channels, the judges said, “were acting in their own commercial interests putting the national security in jeopardy”. Backing the contention of security agencies and the evidence they had gathered, the court said that the live telecast gave the attackers an edge as their handlers in Pakistan watched the movement of security forces and alerted the terrorists by phone. It underlined that all channels were competing with each other in showing the latest developments, including the positions and movements of security forces.

These shots and visuals could have been telecast after all the terrorists were neutralised and the security operations were over, the court added. “But, in that case the TV programmes would not have had the same shrill, scintillating and chilling effect and would not have shot up the TRP ratings of the channels,” it said.   The coverage of the Mumbai terror attack by the mainstream electronic media has done much harm to the argument that any regulatory mechanism for the media must only come from within," the bench further observed.  It is in such extreme cases that the credibility of  an institution is tested." 

(Information Courtesy: Indian Express and Hindustan Times)

My Article "Anna Hazare ji Joining Politics. Whose test will it be ? His or Ours ? " @ Vivid Magazine

In yet another encouraging gesture, Vivid Online Magazine has showcased my article about Annaji and his team joining politics and its significance, on their website.

My dear readers can read this article here .        

Thanks for your support.     

Anna Hazare ji Joining Politics. Whose test will it be ? His or Ours ?

This article is now available at Vivid Online Magazine.


Kindly read the article here and feel free to share your valuable opinions regarding this significant turning point in Indian politics.

(Opinions expressed in this article are the author's views on his perceptions of the socio - political   
   state of our country and are not to be inferred or construed in any manner whatsoever, as his 
    affiliation to or disapproval of any political party or any organization or any particular class of  
    people.)
  

The Conversation VIII (On Jammu & Kashmir....)

Avinash: There's always this ongoing hue and cry surrounding the state of Jammu and Kashmir, so much so that the oft quoted 'heaven on earth' is no more remembered for lush green valleys, snow capped hills and mountains or its idyllic beauty, rather it has degraded into an issue hogging the newspapers, news channels or for that matter the politics of our country and those of our neighbour Pakistan.

Me: Yeah, I could not have agreed with you more. Its ironic that what's called the heaven on earth, is now the breeding ground for hatred and relentless violence in some form or another. But if you must know, its not just another state of our country. But a special state and its specialty originates from the pages of our history.

Avinash: I'll be glad to hear about it, if you tell me.

Me: Sure. Under Article 370 of the Indian Constitution, the state of Jammu & Kashmir enjoys as special status. Now to understand & properly appreciate the cause of that special status we have to go back in history.

Avinash: Go on

Me: The state of Jammu and Kashmir was created for the first time with the signing on March 16 of the second Treaty of Amritsar between the British East India company and Raja Gulab Singh of Jammu. It was an addendum to the Treaty of Lahore signed one week earlier on March 9, 1846 which gave the terms of surrender of the Sikh Durbar at Lahore to the British. The Sikhs couldn't pay part of the demand made by the British. Gulab Singh stepped in on their behalf to pay Rs.75,00,000, and in return received Kashmir Valley, part of the Sikh territories, to add to Jammu and Ladakh already under his rule. Gulab Singh accepted overall British sovereignty.

Like India the state of Jammu & Kashmir also became independent on August 15, 1947. The ruler of the state Maharaja Hari Singh did not quite approve of becoming part of either India or Pakistam and sought to preserve the state's independence. But due to numerous grievances harassing the people of the state there was widespread unrest. When people in India saw that independence has been won by the rest of the nation, they raised their voice in demand to end the autocratic rule of the Maharaja and asked for popular method of elections, wherein they would democratically choose their representatives. The Maharaja found himself in a tight spot amidst the chaos. To add to his woes, Pakistan interpreted the absence of any formal agreement between India and Kashmir, to mean that eventually the state would become a part of Pakistan rather than India. It even began pressurizing the Maharaja to join Pakistan. The people of the State were tired of the uncertainty and there occured the 'Poonch Revolution" against the authority of Maharaja. Realizing that he could no longer subjugate the Kashmiri people, Maharaja Hari Singh gave up his dream of independence.

Avinash: So did he accede to India ?

Me: As a matter of fact he did. But only as a means to survive the onslaught of thousands of tribesmen supported by the Pakistani army. His accession was provisionally confirmed by the then Governor of  General of India, Lord Mountbatten. after the Maharaja duly signed the Instrument of Accession on 26th October, 1947, until such time until as the will of the people can be ascertained by a plebiscite (a plebiscite is a direct vote in which an entire electorate is asked to either accept or reject a particular proposal), since Kashmir was recognized as a disputed territory. Thus the state of Jammu & Kashmir became a part of India. The accession was eventually confirmed by the people of the state through their Constituent Assembly on 17th  November, 1957. The Constitution of Jammu & Kashmir says that "the State of Jammu & Kashmir is and shall be the integral part of India".


Avinash: Are you saying that the state of Jammu & Kashmir has its own Constitution despite being a part of India ?

Me: Exactly. You see Article 370 of the Indian constitution, which is of a temporary nature, grants special status to Jammu and Kashmir. Under Part XXI of the Constitution of India, which deals with “Temporary, Transitional and Special provisions”, the State of Jammu and Kashmir has been accorded special status under Article 370. Even though included in 1st Schedule as the 15th state, all the provisions of the Constitution which are applicable to other states are not applicable to J&K. For example, till 1965, J&K had a Sadr-e-Riyasat for Governor and Prime Minister in place of Chief Minister.


Avinash: What else ?

Me: At the time of the commencement of the Constitution, the position of the state was different and therefore Article 370 was inserted, in the Indian Constitution. We all know the President of India is the head of the Executive, but under Article, he can issue orders, acting like a Legislature, to the state of Jammu & Kashmir. The Supreme Court has in a case (Puranlal lakhanpal Vs. President Of India & Mohd. Maqbool Damnoo vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir) held in the year 1972, that the President may by orders extend certain provisions of the Constitution of India to the state of Jammu 7 Kashmir, with such exceptions and modifications as he thinks necessary. Furthermore, as per Article 370 itself, the President can abolish Article 370's application to the state, but not without the recommendation of the Constituent Assembly of Jammu & Kahsmir.

Avinash: Can you tell me the major implications of Article 370.

Me: Well, to put it very succinctly, as per the Article 370 of our Constitution, except for Defence, Foreign Affairs, Finance and Communications,(matters specified in the instrument of accession) the Indian Parliament needs the State Government's concurrence for applying all other laws. Thus the state's residents have lived under a separate set of laws, including those related to citizenship, ownership of property, and fundamental rights, as compared to other Indians. You open any statute book, most of it will from the beginning declare that the law mentioned in the forthcoming pages shall apply to the whole of India, except the state of Jammu & Kashmir. This holds good for all crucial laws including our Indian Penal Code.

Avinash: What laws of our land apply to Jammu & Kashmir ?

Me: As I mentioned earlier, the President is empowered to extend certain laws, which he deems fit, to the state of Jammu & Kashmir. A few of them are

• The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court extends to the state with the exceptions of Articles 135 & 139
• Emergency can be declared in the state, as enshrined in Article 352 of our Constitution, but only with the concurrence of the state of J & K
• The directive principles of state do not apply to J & K
• provisions relating to freedom of trade, commerce & intercourse shall apply to the state

Avinash: Do all these still apply ?

Me: Yes they do. in fact I have heard that the Centre's interlocutors panel on Jammu and Kashmir has recommended setting up of a constitutional committee to review all central Acts and Articles of the Indian Constitution extended to Jammu and Kashmir. The purpose is to determine how the application of these laws has dented the special status of J&K and curtailed the state government's powers to cater to welfare of its people.

Avinash: Al right. So the state of Jammu & Kashmir is indeed unique for our country.

Me: Yes, it is and I think I 've told you why.


                                                                 **********

( The facts and matters mentioned in this post are confined to those aspects of history, politics and law which according to the author are relevant to the present discussion. The author does not claim that they depict the entire facts as they stand, concerning the topic, nor is it denied that there could be lapses in the depiction. The readers are sincerely advised to make a detailed study of the matter for holistic information).




 
                

             

A CAUTIONARY TALE

When I started reading the Indian Express this morning which ran an enormous front page headline regarding the developments of the Italian tourists' abduction episode in our state, I became aware of the active indulgence of the Italian representative in the situation. Its no news, in fact, that the Consul General of Italy based in Kolkata,  rushed to Bhubaneswar in minimal time after the abduction incident. Take for another example the recent case of shooting of innocent Indian fishermen off the Kerala coast by two Italian armed guards on the Italian ship Enrica Lexie. Italian Deputy Foreign Minister Staffan de Mistura arrived in India within days of the incident and personally met the two accused armed gurads. The Italians even went a step ahead and declared that they would hold a parallel probe into the incident. However there are certain events in this episode which require special mention. Firstly the arrogance of the Italian ship's crew which refused to even allow Indian policemen to board their ship for holding any investigation. Secondly, the accused Italian guards are seen happily smoking cigarettes in custody and they are being delivered pizza to satisfy their taste buds. In this backdrop, I cannot help myself comparing their condition with that of the helpless NRI couple in Norway. These two Indian parents there got a solid demonstration of the western style welfare state vigilance, when the Norwegian authorities literally "snatched away" their children under a claim that they were not being properly looked after. The merits of this claim though subject to an investigation, what cannot be overlooked is that the media and the Indian Govt. started to take this matter seriously only after the grandparents of the estranged children staged a protest in front of the Embassy of Norway. The Norwegian Govt. however does not seem to budge a bit from its strict stand while the hapless parents fight a losing battle for custody of their children. The latest development is that even the uncle of the children who was supposed to be given their custody has refused to accept their guardianship. It is needless to delve into the merits of the Norwegian example, to understand that every State in this world is well within its right to pursue legal action against citizens, foreign or local, in consonance with established  principles of their respective laws of the land. The captain of the Italian ship and the accused soldiers insist that their act of shooting the poor fishermen was not murder but an act of self defence. Of course that leaves many questions to be answered on their behalf. The  palpable arrogance and non chalance of the Italian soldiers calls for strict action on our part in proceeding with their case. They must be shown that neither India nor its sacred laws can be taken for granted. India would do well in taking a leaf from the book of the Norwegian Govt. and pursuing in similar tenor the case of the Italian armed guards accused of murdering Indian fishermen.  

Let us also not forget the regular assaults and attacks on Indians in Australia which refuse to recede from everyone's minds coupled with the lingering issue of Kashmir dispute and the haughtiness of China in claiming Arunanchal Pradesh as a part of its own and its overbearing intervention in the affairs of Tibet and its recent stand on Indian waters. We should be very careful in handling these matters lest a message may go to the rest of the world that India is one soft State which lacks the political will to vehemently pursue the interest of its people and which can be bullied and manipulated at will. Once this perception becomes strong, then God help our vision of becoming a 21st century superpower.