No One Killed Jessica – a review

Rani Mukherji could order somebody to ‘fly alone’ only in a film scene after arousing his desires just because the script did not allow him to go rightfully mad. Not everybody would disappear from the scene after simply asking Rani as to what he was supposed to do when he was being left unattended by her. If you keep on playing with flares it is bound to burn you sometimes. The pub-culture that is glamorized and sold on the page3 of the media and that wants all other components of the society to bend and shed their sensibilities to allow some insensitive individuals to live their life according to their wishes, in fact help in promoting an attitude that sparked the Jessica-incident. Talking of a limit in a world where you want to break all limits is hypocrisy. Expecting a drunk to behave sensibly defies all logics. Ironically the pub-culture that advocates enjoyment shorn of all responsibilities was never the target of attack in any media discussion.
To me, justice to Jessica should not end only after punishing the drunken shooter who weighed a life less than his desire to showcase his political connections but should continue with finding, devising and implementing ways and strategies to restrict the explosion of pub-culture. As a matter of fact, the media activism in this case was meant merely to exhibit the supremacy of media over the political class before the general public. I would have acknowledged their ‘noble intentions’ had the media taken the responsibility of dissuading youth from falling into the trap of pub-culture instead of glamorizing it. Jessica’s murder was lapped up by the media primarily because the victim represented the page3 class with which the Indian media identifies itself. Media felt victimized because the incident established supremacy of political class over the page3 class. After all they never thought of fighting it out for the general public that has remained at the mercy of the political class right from the day India became independent.
The Jessica-case was used by media not only to dethrone the political class from their position of absolute strength but also to stake the claim for the same simultaneously. The media activism that peaked with the ‘Tehelka expose’ and felt triumphant after succeeding in turning around the decision in the ‘Jessica-case’ eventually fall deflated with the ‘Radiagate expose’ only because the media never intended to change the power structure but only wanted to replace the political class with itself in order to form a new power equation.
The movie is a true portrait of the incident just from the media point of view. If you were following media reports earlier – you will find nothing new here.

Why Precautions?

I have often wondered why - those who willingly accept suggestions for taking any number of precautions in order to avoid theft of car; those who are open to any discussion to find ways to prevent stealing of valuables from house; those who never ignore any suggestion for how to keep all information of cash transactions secret from others; those who also take pains in ensuring safety of their child while commuting to and fro from school; relentlessly keeps on reminding their spouse how can they avoid accident while driving, suddenly turn non-receptive to any suggestion for observing precautions in order to avoid becoming a victim of a rape incident. All the cases mentioned above are crimes and undoubtedly neither the offender should be left unpunished nor the police can be spared for any laxity on their part, but does this mean that we should not be told how to take prohibitive measures. Can we become complacent merely by putting all blames on the government and the police? We know that no amount of precaution can be considered as adequate enough to make anyone feel relaxed in this regard. Yes, we alone will never be sufficient but then, don’t we know that even efficient policing will have its own limitations. Since losing a car can never be compared to that of losing one’s dignity and peace of mind, is it not fair to expect a matching level of effort from those who are vulnerable to these crimes?
To me, it appears that any suggestion for observing precautions in these cases generally offends the potential victims not only because it, in a way, helps in justifying the crime but more because it is considered as an advice directly emanating from an offender’s mind-set. These advices are also considered as originating from another outright offending assumption that the victims were not serious about their own safety. And it hurts them more when these suggestions come from those who have the responsibility to ensure their safety. With this view, it is often argued that instead of subjecting the potential victims to pass through these sessions of preaching there is an urgent need to change the mind-set of those who preach. However I feel that sometimes even genuine suggestions go waste in this regard due to the light in which these suggestions are generally scanned.
Any suggestion to the potential victims for observing precautions and that too just after a Dhaula-Kuan-rape kind of crime is indeed blatantly insensitive but I find even the reactions to this absurdity equally insensitive when it is made to appear as if they do not want to share any responsibility of their own safety.

Objects that can’t Object

‘Let the rule of law prevail’ – is this true only for teachers who reacted with only a seven-day strike in installments during a period beginning from 16th July to 30th October, in response to a barrage of letters hurled from the registrar’s office aimed at humiliating teachers who had engaged themselves in saving their dignity and also what they perceive as soul of the higher (non-professional) education. Are we required to shed our right to participate in a process that decides what and how to teach, under the threat of salary cuts? Are we being told that university rules are not that are written in the rule-book but it is the orders of those whom they consider to be the ‘authorities’?
The only mistake the teachers made was that they felt they are part of the education system itself and not mere external instruments for helping just another system, controlled by others, to function. Mr. Justice, teachers were the ones who wanted only the rule of law to prevail and not the University ‘officials’ (not defined as ‘authorities’ in our rule-book), who kept on issuing illegal orders. We are covinced that our University officials can think of destroying this temple of learning by using this as a ladder for achieving personal gains in their life outside the university but we would always like to preserve this and feel pride in considering this to be our sole duty.
We can never imagine of a teacher ‘Dronacharya’ advising Draupadi to have first abided by the orders of ‘Duryodhan’; to have cooperated with 'Duhshasan' in helping him execute the orders by allowing him to make her sit on Duryodhan’s lap after shedding her clothes, before filing a suit and waited for ‘Dhritrashtra’ to have termed the order eventually as illegal. Lots of lives lost in 'Mahabhrata Yuddha' could have been saved had she let the then rule of law to prevail. History has not forgiven Dronacharya for even being a mute witness to a blatant immoral and highly unpardonable act of his 'authorities'. Can our court suggest that a member of ‘Haryana Lawn Tennis Association’, Ruchitra Gehrotra, should have followed the orders of her authority, the founding president of the association, Mr. SPS Rathore? She should have cooperated in her molestation as she had no right to deprive India of many winning medals in the sport? She could have gone to the court afterwards to know whether SPS Rathore’s advances were legal or not as no one else has a right to know or interpret the law.
I am just hoping that these queries will be answered in the final verdict to be delivered on December 13. Only the final verdict will hint whether the teachers made a mistake of not approaching the courts or not. In this era of privatisation, are we supposed to behave as mere objects that cannot object?

Delhi University has lost its case

(An Unfortunate Order by one of the richest Judge of Delhi High Court
http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/uncategorized/justice-manmohan-one-of-the-richest-in-delhi-high-court_100315506.html )
.

On December 6, with the beginning of the first semester examinations, the demolition of Delhi University would commence after the court order today cleared the hurdles that the teachers tried to put to save the higher education from private "kar-sewaks" of education. The government has earlier succeeded in ruining DCE by detaching it from Delhi University, it has already destroyed the culture of studies in class X by scrapping the board exam, it has also finished the urge among the students for achieving excellence in class XII by introducing grade system, it also scripted dilution of excellence of IITs by doubling its number and trying to introduce medical courses in them and has been making all out efforts to push AIIMS into a state of oblivion by finding ways to hand it over to a private player. Ironically, instead of finding ways to improve other innumerable government educational institutes and to help them in catching up with these centres of academic excellence the government, it appears, has decided to make these at par with those countless failed institutions.
It is strange that in the name of releasing pressure of studies for students the HRD ministry argues in favour of getting rid of exams in Class X and XII but advocates on the other hand, doubling the number of exams for undergraduate courses.
The apathy of Amity’s, Ansal’s, IIPM’s, Lovely’s and Sharda's will soon be over when they will have no one to compete with. All degrees will lose their values as no brand will have any shine left in it. Instances of son of a rickshaw-puller cracking IIT to break into the world of glory will be a news of past as now these institutes will have to obey Ambanis, Mittals, Manmohans, Sonias and Sibals. The queues for getting admission to the Delhi University colleges will slowly and surely be getting shortened with each passing year as very soon our established centres of all round development of students while keeping social service as its prime objective will not be able to stick to this aspect of its glory.
MR. SIBAL, YOU MAY HAVE WON BUT DELHI UNIVERSITY HAS LOST ITS CASE.