Author: Arvind Lavakare
Publication: Rediff on Net
Date: February 05, 2003
URL: http://inhome.rediff.com/news/2003/feb/05arvind.htm
Even the Central Bureau of Investigation's
testimony in court that the Bajrang Dal had no links with any of the 18
accused in the Graham Staines murder in January 1999 hasn't satisfied the
media secularists.
The Indian Express of January 29,
2003 (without a by-line) contained enough spice of suspicion about what
the CBI officer said on oath.
Thus, that report dubbed the concerned
CBI officer's testimony 'surprising as the accused named in the FIR had
been earlier described as members of the Bajrang Dal. Even several prosecution
witnesses had deposed before the trial judge that the accused were shouting
slogans like 'Bajrang Dal zindabad' before setting Staines and his sons
on fire.'
Note how the above paragraph makes
the reader believe that
i. all the 18 accused had been described
in CBI's FIR as Bajrang Dal members, and
ii. the CBI contradicted that description
with impunity before the trial judge.
The fact is totally different as
reported under the by-line of Jitendra Dash on the Hindustan Times web
site The latter recorded that what the CBI officer told the court was:
'Although the FIR lodged by the CBI had identified six persons, including
Dara Singh as members of the Bajrang Dal, we did not find evidence to corroborate
this claim.'
Clearly, only six of the accused,
and not all the 18, were given the Bajrang Dal tag in the CBI's FIR; clearly,
the CBI came to a different conclusion only after it did not get corroborative
evidence to justify that tag.
The 'secular' media's belligerent
attitude towards the Hindutva forces has been pronounced since the rape
of four missionary nuns in Jhabua in September 1998. The English press
screamed 'rapists' at the Bajrang Dal and the world echoed that scream.
It was later, much later, that the rape was revealed as being really an
intra-Christian mess.
In the X-mas week of that year came
the attacks on Christian prayer halls in Dangs and Surat districts of Gujarat.
Once again there were flaming outbursts in the English media against the
Hindutva votaries; once again, the world poured oil into those 'fires.'
It was later, much later, discovered that not a single Christian had been
killed in those clashes, and that the original sinners were not Hindu 'fanatics.'
Very soon thereafter was the episode
in Wyanad in northern Kerala when the 'secularists' reported that a priest
and four women were beaten up and a Bible was stolen by... 'fanatical'
Hindus, who else? An FIR on those lines was lodged with the police, Communist
processions against those 'atrocities' were held all over Kerala and the
press went berserk once again. Later, all this was found as untrue by an
Indian Express reporter.
Then came the Staines murder in
January 1999. Not only the press but also the President of India cried
'murder most foul.' The USA and the rest of the Christian world pounced
on Hindutva and, in the process, humiliated the entire nation.
Unknown to the public, the President
had taken keen interest in the affair. Thus, he granted an interview to
four Communist leaders headed by an MP who wanted to show him a charred
wrist watch that a team of MPs had found at the murder scene during their
visit there. After meeting them, the President thought it fit to write
on February 23, 1999 to Home Minister L K Advani, informing him that the
four Left leaders had met him and showed him the watch, and that he had
told one of them to hand the watch directly to the authorities investigating
the matter after contacting the home minister. (Source: Justice D P Wadhwa
Commission Report, June 21, 1999)
To give the benefit of doubt to
the then President, he probably did what he did because, close on the Staines
murder, there were newspaper headlines about the rape of one Sister Jacqueline
Mary in Gadadeuilia, Baripada district in Orissa by one of the persons
who had offered her a lift on February 4, 1999.
Just a few days later came reports
of a multiple crime: the murder of one boy aged 10, attempt to murder another
and rape and murder of a 19- year-old girl in Mandasaru village, Kandamal
district, Orissa. All the victims were Christians.
The newspapers had gone to town
over the above two incidents. On the Sister Mary episode, The Telegraph
of Calcutta had screamed 'Nun gangraped by men in sari in Orissa' and The
Indian Express had come up with 'Orissa's second stain: nun raped.' What's
more, The New India Express, Bhubaneswar, of February 6, 1999, reported
that a bipartisan group of 24 US influential lawmakers had written to Prime
Minister Vajpayee expressing grave concern over increase in the anti-Christian
violence in Gujarat and Orissa.
The Mamdasaru tragedy led to headlines
of 'Two Christians killed, one injured in Orissa,' '2 Tribals done to death
in Kandhamal' and 'Orissa hunts for Christian killers.'
Long after this media sensationalising
had done the damage to Hindutva and the nation's government, investigations
found that Sister Mary had filed a false FIR and that that she had not,
in fact, been raped. The crime in Kandamal was found to have been committed
by a Christian relative of the Christian victims.
It's because of the above kind of
sensationalism that the Wadhwa Commission Report, while coming to the conclusion
that 'There is no evidence that any authority or organisation was behind
the gruesome killings' of Graham Staines and his sons, recommended that
'There should be a Code of Conduct for the political parties' whereby 'Leaders
cannot make statements merely for gaining political mileage. Their statements
should be subdued and not to fan the fire when the atmosphere is communally
charged. Allow the police to make independent investigation of the crime
uninfluenced by politics or religion or caste.'
However, considering that politicians
are influenced almost entirely by newspaper headlines (which they often
hold up in Parliament), the Wadhwa Commission's plea to the media is more
critical than its advice to politicians. The Commission recommended, 'Media,
both print and electronic, has also to exercise restraint. Screaming headlines
should be avoided which have the effect of misleading the public and creating
more tension and suspicion among different communities. Reporting of communal
strife should not be done without proper verification or an ordinary crime
given a communal twist.'
But our media seemed to have been
upset by the Wadhwa Commission's refusal to associate the Bajrang Dal with
the Staines murder. One news channel even permitted a debate in which two
participants almost rebuked the Commission's finding. It was not surprising
therefore that the media world also bypassed the evidence of one Binod
Kishore Das, a doctor of medicine degree holder from the US, who was a
weekly visitor to Staines' leprosy home in Baripada.
Das told the Commission Staines
had a great hatred for other religions, that though he would be simply
dressed he lived a lavish lifestyle, that he had modern gadgets in his
home and that even for a minor disease he would go to either Jamshedpur
or Calcutta.
The Wadhwa Commission itself found
a report of January-February 1999 containing Staines' description of the
Sanatan Dharma as 'an animist sect.'
More importantly, our media completely
ignored the Commission's plea for restraint in reporting on communal strife.
Their reaction to the post- Godhra situation in Gujarat was ample proof
of that.
The issue here is the sheer irresponsibility
of the media. Whether it is Godhra, Tehelka, petrol pump allocations or
the Ansal Plaza killing of terrorists, our media seems to believe it will
attract its audience only if it dresses to kill, or, as some newspapers
have patented, it undresses models in colour. That it is not accountable
to anyone in the country except to its proprietors' profit and loss account
abets that belief. No wonder the ICE World section of Business Standard
dated January 29, 2003, says The Times of India charges fees to PR agencies
for publishing their releases. Are we then headed for editorials charged
at so many rupees per column centimetre?
Our media demands foolproof accountability
from every institution in our land, including the judiciary. Why then doesn't
it demand the same from itself?
