Sight & Sound
Trauma as Tamasha
Amita Malik

The media sensationalised the shattered lives of Mohd Arif and Gudiya

I have been writing radio and TV columns for almost 50 years. But nothing has so shocked and dismayed me as the sordid melodrama played out in the Zee studios over an unfortunate incident involving vulnerable, humble people.

Enough has already been said and written about it, some protests were from rival TV anchors pipped to the post. But I still wish to add my voice to the protests. Mainly because I am against exploitation of people unfamiliar with the media by those wishing to sensationalise human tragedy to boost their ratings.

What could be worse than offering the unsuspecting victims a cup of tea and then keeping them captive in a studio and then a guesthouse? What could be more ridiculous than transporting an entire village into a studio with bright lights and clever cameramen and follow up with panchayats, religious leaders and the parents and relatives of the victims?

And all this to create a soap opera out of the shattered lives of three good, simple people: Arif, who returned from a POW camp as a hero after having been mistaken for a deserter, Taufiq who had married Arif’s wife Gudiya when it was assumed that Arif had died and poor Gudiya with her soon-to-be born child by her second husband.

They formed an embarrassed trio, trying hard to cope with an impossible situation. That they belong to a minority community with its complicated Shariat laws only added spice to the TV tamasha. It was a gross invasion of privacy, a gloating over a real-life tragedy. Every decent Indian felt it was against Indian culture. But not our TV channels. To them it was the advent of reality TV.

I must revert to Mandira Bedi because I feel her style of dressing and comments have trivialised the serious game of cricket. The West Indian commentator Donna Simmons, who did an expert commentary on the semi-finals and finals of the ICC tournament, made us feel proud. She hardly came on screen but when she did, one saw her very elegantly dressed in dark colours, with a pair of stud earrings the only concession to femininity. Her male counterparts treated her like a respected colleague. And that is how it should be.

The coverage of the PM’s visit to New York was extensive and intelligent and the professorial style of Dr Manmohan Singh did not detract from either his amiability or clear communication of vital facts. He also seems to have got more extensive and admiring coverage in the US media, particularly its prestigious dailies and periodicals, than is usually the case. Also heart-warming was the coverage of the President’s visit to South Africa. It might yet open the eyes of young generations of South Africans to the Mahatma’s contribution to their fight against apartheid.

United Nations Children’s Day comes but once a year and the electronic media paid due tribute. Apart from routine programmes on underprivileged children, attention was also paid to the bizarre practice of infants wanting to join nursery schools being "interviewed" together with their parents by the school authorities.

It would be funny if it were not so serious. This is worse than interviews for the IAS and IFS by the Union Public Service Commission. It would be better if, instead of interfering with the affairs of the IIM’s and IIT’s, the Ministry of Education used its resources to put a stop to this farce.

After a long time I found an interesting debate – on a gender issue - in We the People, anchored by Barkha Dutt. A young woman from Haryana objected to a medical examination of women desirous of joining the Army by male gynaecologists from the Army. She insisted on woman gynaecologists.

In the defence services there is a severe paucity of women gynaecologists. But the women lawyer on the panel, activist Madhu Kishwar, the girl and a woman relative of hers, stuck to their guns. Barkha Dutt and others harangued the girl, saying that if she wanted to join the Army and wanted equality with men, then she should not be so squeamish. But she stuck to her stand.

I personally feel that a mature, married woman being examined by men as well as women gynaecologists, is one thing. Thousands of Army wives have their babies delivered by male doctors.

But I can understand the shyness and the reluctance of this young, unmarried girl from a middle class traditional family in being examined by a male doctor. I believe the Army has acceded to her request and I hope they will appoint more women gynaecologists.

Meanwhile, how about asking male Army officers how they would feel were they to be examined by women doctors?