|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
13 Dec—A Reader:
The Strange Case of the Attack on the Indian Parliament
Fifteen essays, beginning with Arundhati Roy’s introductory essay Introduction: Breaking the News, contend this momentous issue through various viewpoints. Given her anti-establishment persona, she questions various law enforcing agencies of the state and the media. She minces no words in indicting them of violating the fundamental principles of a democracy. More importantly, this book unleashes the subversive tendencies of the state. It notes that without any adequate legal representation, Afzal was tried under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA), which distinguishes between committing a terrorist act (punishable by death) and conspiracy in the act (penalty, life imprisonment). The Supreme Court itself in its judgment has noted that there was no evidence that Afzal belonged to any terrorist group or was the perpetrator of the crime. It was only circumstantial evidence that established him as the collaborator with the slain terrorists. Even then he was surprisingly sentenced to death under Section 302, 121 & 121A 120A&B of the Indian Penal Code. Shubdhubrata Sengupta, Syed Bismillah Geelani and Arundhati Roy, in their essays, have been highly critical about the role of the media in this case. Instead of pursuing the truth with all its fairness and objectivity, the media, in this case, willingly obliged the state by building public opinion against the accused. They allege that the Delhi Police roped in media to plug the gaping loopholes in the investigation and lend a fa`E7ade of credibility to the whole affair. Further, it says that almost all the leading newspapers and TV channels enthusiastically participated in this ‘thrilling’ and hyper-nationalistic trial with their judgments served out well in advance. To vindicate their stand, writers have quoted newspaper reports verbatim, clearly holding the newspapers and their reporters guilty. The appendix provides the details of cross-examination in the court along with the merits of Afzal’s case in his clemency petition to the President. One-sided it may be, still it presents a factual account of the court proceedings and substantiates the arguments made in the book. In hindsight, as one reads the book, all the claims and investigations of media analysts in the past fall apart at seam. The writers in the book have called for self-introspection in the media fraternity and urged their colleagues to desist from constructing stereotypes and images of hyperactive terrorism and counter-terrorism.
|
Will
