Approximately, 70-72 days after the death of
an actor [allegedly committed suicide], pieces of evidence and chat transcripts
start raining like the Mumbai showers. How legit or admissible they are before the
court of law is yet to decide, but then, an alternative narrative sprung.
‘Media trials…”, ‘character
vilification…”, ‘innocent till proven guilty…’.
Individual media houses
and one [de]famed journalist whose memory does not go beyond 2002 Gujarat or
Ram Janmabhoomi rushed to offer a platform. Was media trial or character eulogising
does not holds then? (I am only asking.) Often, it is said, one should listen
to the other side of the story, right, one should, but if the other side does
not corroborate their stories with facts, should he/she should be heard?
Three months ago, an
actor was found dead. He got a ligature mark on his neck. The photograph was
widely circulated over social media. The present-government and the certain
authorities come to a conclusion, ‘it is a suicide.’ The narrative is set, and
all are happy. Then, it all starts crumbling.
First, the state
police start goofing-up, which make people suspicious. Then, two of
eye-witnesses contradicted their statements when quizzed, and behave abnormally.
The suspicion gets solidified. The final nail on the coffin is when the
prime-accused dressed in plain white salwar-suit released a video pleading ‘Satyamev
Jayate’ (Truth should prevail) with folded hands. Now, the suspicion gets
cemented.
If people in-house were
not having different versions or a close associate, (one who shared a person’s
bed) claims not knowing the reason, it becomes a matter of investigation. And, the
closet is opened, and surprisingly, skeletons start tumbling out.
There’s an old
saying: the dead will have their revenge. Well, it is not me, but the greatest
bard and his famous play, ‘Macbeth’ quotes. Cartels of transcripts discussing the
procurement, administering, and payment for drugs comes to foray. Financial
irregularities and suspicious banking transactions, shady PR agency, the addition
of more agents gradually start thickening the plot. A straightforward narrative
(suicide) now gradually gets a sinister look.
Truth is uni-dimensional—not
two-dimensional or cubic in nature. As the sleeper cells and campaign for prime
accused get activated, in recent days, the neurons of common sense also get agile.
Suddenly, there were discussions
on media trial, character vilification…often, I am unable to understand, what
for? There is more than what meets the eye. Does discussion and procurement of
drugs is a part of a normal character? Do administering of the drug is a classic
character? Does hobnob with drug and sex racket is an example of an ideal human
character?
In earlier times, a
certain long-haired actor who was earlier into drugs was found guilty [by the court]
for procuring and destroying AK-47s from a gang who were involved in Bombay
blast. Was he an ideal character? If not, how come a biopic be made to him eulogise
his character?
Another actor who has
the habit of rubbing his nose-lobe with thumb [a signature gesture that often
immitated] gains 200-crores for every ‘irrational’ movie he makes. He was accused
of a driverless car that rammed and kills six people sleeping on the pavement
go scot-free. Again, he was found [alllegedly] abusing women or hunting an endangered
animal turns into a philanthropist get to sell his expensive clothing wears
under the brand name ‘Being Human’. Was his character not whitewashed?
How come a terrorist is
labelled as ‘son of a poor schoolmaster’ while another ‘a lovelorn’? How come a
politician whose credit is to run ‘forcible sterilisation’ turned into a visionary?
How come a dynast [allegedly] found with the stashes and more than prescribe
moolah in a foreign airport be seen a future Prime Minister? How come the wife
of a minister be found smuggling gold and the aunt-Chief Minister sends her
police force to escort her safely? Were all these not character whitewash by
the media?
I would not be
surprised, if tomorrow, the prime accused, get bail from the court or go
scot-free because a tattered democratic courtroom often passes indiscriminately
judgment or found agencies not submitting relevant documents.
We live in a
decomposed society. Calling ‘Gandhi’l Anything apart of ‘Mahatma’ is slander.
No matter shreds of evidence prove him an appeaser or a mere opportunist. A Mary
Gonxhe Bojaxhiu with her white and blue bordered saree is nothing but ‘Mother
Teresa’. Pieces of evidence, however, shows her an epitome of medieval
corruption of the church, evades taxes, confines poor, indulges in sex-trafficking,
and openly promote Catholicism and conversion.
So, I am not surprised
when a media platform comes to foray and give their platform to the prime
accuse to tell her-story or accuse others of ‘media trials’, character
vilification’ and likewise. Anyways, my [unsolicited] advice to the accused is that
people’s memory is short-lived so, chill-out. And, my [again unsolicited]
advice to the people who claim there are other important tasks and the death of an
actor happens in a country of 1.3 billion juntas, good-luck! You won’t
understand the veracity of the case unless you have a mysterious death in the
family, a ramming car, a drugged child, raped or acid-attack on your daughters,
a murder that ignored and hushed as suicide.
Only, then would one realise how the dungeon works?
‘Media trials…”, ‘character vilification…”, ‘innocent till proven guilty…’.
Individual media houses and one [de]famed journalist whose memory does not go beyond 2002 Gujarat or Ram Janmabhoomi rushed to offer a platform. Was media trial or character eulogising does not holds then? (I am only asking.) Often, it is said, one should listen to the other side of the story, right, one should, but if the other side does not corroborate their stories with facts, should he/she should be heard?
Three months ago, an actor was found dead. He got a ligature mark on his neck. The photograph was widely circulated over social media. The present-government and the certain authorities come to a conclusion, ‘it is a suicide.’ The narrative is set, and all are happy. Then, it all starts crumbling.
First, the state police start goofing-up, which make people suspicious. Then, two of eye-witnesses contradicted their statements when quizzed, and behave abnormally. The suspicion gets solidified. The final nail on the coffin is when the prime-accused dressed in plain white salwar-suit released a video pleading ‘Satyamev Jayate’ (Truth should prevail) with folded hands. Now, the suspicion gets cemented.
If people in-house were not having different versions or a close associate, (one who shared a person’s bed) claims not knowing the reason, it becomes a matter of investigation. And, the closet is opened, and surprisingly, skeletons start tumbling out.
There’s an old saying: the dead will have their revenge. Well, it is not me, but the greatest bard and his famous play, ‘Macbeth’ quotes. Cartels of transcripts discussing the procurement, administering, and payment for drugs comes to foray. Financial irregularities and suspicious banking transactions, shady PR agency, the addition of more agents gradually start thickening the plot. A straightforward narrative (suicide) now gradually gets a sinister look.
Truth is uni-dimensional—not two-dimensional or cubic in nature. As the sleeper cells and campaign for prime accused get activated, in recent days, the neurons of common sense also get agile.
Suddenly, there were discussions on media trial, character vilification…often, I am unable to understand, what for? There is more than what meets the eye. Does discussion and procurement of drugs is a part of a normal character? Do administering of the drug is a classic character? Does hobnob with drug and sex racket is an example of an ideal human character?
In earlier times, a certain long-haired actor who was earlier into drugs was found guilty [by the court] for procuring and destroying AK-47s from a gang who were involved in Bombay blast. Was he an ideal character? If not, how come a biopic be made to him eulogise his character?
Another actor who has the habit of rubbing his nose-lobe with thumb [a signature gesture that often immitated] gains 200-crores for every ‘irrational’ movie he makes. He was accused of a driverless car that rammed and kills six people sleeping on the pavement go scot-free. Again, he was found [alllegedly] abusing women or hunting an endangered animal turns into a philanthropist get to sell his expensive clothing wears under the brand name ‘Being Human’. Was his character not whitewashed?
How come a terrorist is labelled as ‘son of a poor schoolmaster’ while another ‘a lovelorn’? How come a politician whose credit is to run ‘forcible sterilisation’ turned into a visionary? How come a dynast [allegedly] found with the stashes and more than prescribe moolah in a foreign airport be seen a future Prime Minister? How come the wife of a minister be found smuggling gold and the aunt-Chief Minister sends her police force to escort her safely? Were all these not character whitewash by the media?
I would not be surprised, if tomorrow, the prime accused, get bail from the court or go scot-free because a tattered democratic courtroom often passes indiscriminately judgment or found agencies not submitting relevant documents.
So, I am not surprised when a media platform comes to foray and give their platform to the prime accuse to tell her-story or accuse others of ‘media trials’, character vilification’ and likewise. Anyways, my [unsolicited] advice to the accused is that people’s memory is short-lived so, chill-out. And, my [again unsolicited] advice to the people who claim there are other important tasks and the death of an actor happens in a country of 1.3 billion juntas, good-luck! You won’t understand the veracity of the case unless you have a mysterious death in the family, a ramming car, a drugged child, raped or acid-attack on your daughters, a murder that ignored and hushed as suicide.
Only, then would one realise how the dungeon works?
