[Reader-list] Who needs Reality TV?

[Shivam Vij]

Who needs Reality TV?

By Arundhati Roy | December 22, 2006
http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1877253,00120005.htm

The Supreme Court of India has sentenced Mohammad Afzal, Accused No. 1
in the  Parliament Attack case, to death. It acknowledged that the
evidence against him  was not direct, only circumstantial, but in its
now famous statement it said:  "The incident, which resulted in heavy
casualties, has shaken the entire nation,  and the collective
conscience of the society will only be satisfied if capital
punishment is awarded to the offender."

Is the 'collective conscience' the same as majority opinion? Would it
be fair  to say that it is fashioned by the information we receive?
And, therefore, that  in this case, the mass media have played a
pivotal role in determining the final  court verdict? If so, has it
been accurate and truthful?

A small group of scholars, writers and lawyers has followed the case
over the  years and meticulously documented media reports. Some of
this work has recently  been published by Penguin Books as a reader
(13 December: The Strange Case  of The Parliament Attack). They have
found that in the early days of the  trial, Delhi Police's Special
Cell was spectacularly successful in getting both  the print and
electronic media (with a few honourable exceptions), to put out  its
entirely unsubstantiated claims as the 'truth', making it seem as
though the  impending judicial trial was just a formality. Now, five
years later, when  disturbing questions are being raised about the
Parliament Attack, is the  Special Cell, once again, cleverly
exploiting the frantic hunt for 'breaking  news'?

Suddenly, spurious 'exposés' are finding their way on to prime time
TV.  Unfortunately, some of India's best, most responsible news
channels have been  caught up in this game, in which carelessness and
incomprehension is as deadly  as malice. A few weeks ago, we had a
fiasco on CNN-IBN.

Last week (December 16), on a 90-minute prime time show, NDTV
showcased an  'exclusive' video of Mohammad Afzal's 'confession' made
in police custody, in  the days immediately following his arrest. At
no point was it clarified that the  'confession' was five years old.

Much has been said about the authenticity, reliability and legality of
 confessions taken in police custody, as well as the circumstances
under which  this particular 'confession' was extracted. Because of
the very real danger that  custodial torture will replace real
investigation, the Indian Penal Code does  not admit confessions made
in police custody as legal evidence in a criminal  trial. Pota
(Prevention of Terrorism Act) was considered an outrage on civil
rights and was eventually withdrawn, primarily because it made
confessions  obtained in police custody admissible as legal evidence.
In fact, in the case of  Afzal's 'confession', the Supreme Court said
the Special Cell had violated even  the tenuous safeguards provided
under Pota, and set it aside as being illegal  and unreliable. Even
before this, the High Court had already reprimanded the  Special Cell
sharply for forcing Afzal to incriminate himself publicly in a  'media
confession'.

So what made NDTV showcase this thoroughly discredited old
'confession' all  over again? Why now? How did the Special Cell video
find its way into their  hands?  Does it have something to do with the
fact that Afzal's clemency  petition is pending with the President and
a curative petition asking for a  retrial is pending in the Supreme
Court? In her column in this paper (Death  of the Middle ground,
December 17), Barkha Dutt, Managing Editor of NDTV,  said the channel
spent many hours debating what the 'fairest' way to show this  video
was. Clearly, it was a serious decision and demands to be discussed
seriously.

At the start of the show, for several minutes, the image of Afzal
'confessing' was inset in a text that said "Afzal ne court mein
gunaah qabool kiya tha" (Afzal had admitted his guilt in court). This
is  blatantly untrue. Then, for a full 15 minutes, the 'confession'
ran without  comment. After this, an anchor came on and said, "Sansad
par hamle ki  kahani, Afzal ki zubaani." (The story of the Parliament
Attack, in Afzal's  words.) This, too, is a travesty of the truth.
Well into the programme, a  reporter informed us that Afzal had since
withdrawn this 'confession' and had  claimed it had been extracted
under torture.

The smirking anchor then turned to one of the panelists, S.A.R.
Geelani, who  was also one of the accused in the case (and who knows a
thing or two about  torture and the Special Cell), and remarked that
if this confession was  "forced", then Afzal was a very good actor.
The anchor has clearly never  experienced torture, or even read the
wonderful Uruguayan writer, Eduardo  Galeano — "The electric cattle
prod turns anyone into a prolific storyteller."  Nor has he known what
it's like to be held in police custody in Delhi while his  family was
hostage (as Afzal's was) in the war zone that is Kashmir.

Later on, the 'confession' was juxtaposed with what the channel said
was  Afzal's statement to the court, but was actually the text of a
letter he wrote  to his High Court lawyer in which he implicates State
Task Force (STF) in  Kashmir and describes how in the months before
the Parliament Attack he was  illegally detained and tortured by the
STF. NDTV does not tell us that a Deputy  Superintendent of the STF
has since confirmed that he did illegally detain and  torture Afzal.
Instead, it uses Afzal's letter to discredit him further. The  bold
caption at the bottom of the frame read: "Afzal ka badalta hua
baiyan." (Afzal's changing statements.)

There is another serious ethical issue. In Afzal's confession to the
Special  Cell in December 2001 (as opposed to his 'media confession'),
he implicated SAR  Geelani and said he was the mastermind of the
conspiracy. While this was in line  with the Special Cell's
chargesheet, it turned out to be false, and Geelani was  acquitted by
the Supreme Court. Why was this portion of Afzal's confession left
out? So that the confession would seem less constructed, more
plausible? Who  made that decision to leave it out? NDTV or the
Special Cell?

All this makes the broadcast of this programme a seriously prejudicial
act.  It wasn't surprising to watch the 'collective conscience' of
society forming its  opinion as the show unfolded. The SMS messages on
the ticker tape said:  "Afzal ko boti boti mein kaat ke kutton ko
khila do. Afzal ke haath aur  taang kaat ke, road mein bheek mangvaney
chahiye." (Cut him into bits and  feed him to the dogs. Cut off his
arms and legs and make him beg.) "Hang him by  his balls in Lal
Chowk." "Hang him and hang those who are supporting him." "Even
without Sharia courts, we seem to be doing just fine."

For the record, the reporter credited several times on the programme
for  procuring the video from the Special Cell has been previously
exposed for  publishing falsehoods: on the 'encounter' in Ansal Plaza;
on the Iftikhar Gilani  case; on the S.A.R. Geelani, and now on this
one.

This kind of thing really makes you wonder whether media houses have
an  inside track on the police and intelligence agencies, or whether
it's the other  way around.

The quietest guest on the panel was M.K. Dhar, a former Joint Director
of the  Intelligence Bureau. He was pretty enigmatic. He certainly
didn't repeat what he  has said in his astonishingly frank book Open
Secrets: India's  Intelligence Unveiled. (Manas Publications, 2005):
"Some day or the other,  taking advantage of the weakening fabric of
our democracy, some unscrupulous  intelligence men may gang up with
ambitious Army Brass and change the political  texture of the nation…"

Weakening fabric of our democracy. I couldn't have put it better.

(Arundhati Roy is a Booker Prize-winning writer. She has written the
introduction to 13 December: The Strange Case of The Parliament
Attack)