Dear editors,
Forgive me for writing to all of you collectively and not individually. Also for approaching you publicly. On principle, I hate the idea of addressing a person publicly even on matters that may have consequences for people and public life beyond correspondents. However, there is a reason to choose this path with this letter.
First let me explain that I tried to correspond with you in private. Please check your mailboxes for the letter written by me on August 11, 2020. For your convenience, I reproduce the text of the letter below:
“Dear Sir,
Regarding your ‘exposé’ of August 10, 2020 (the source of which has been omitted), I wish to state the following: I have a lifetime of an open position on politics, democracy, dissent and peace. Whatever the source of your news report (and it’s journalistic ethics to mention the same thing in general), a one-sided story that makes very serious allegations, negatively affects my reputation, and also puts me and my family in danger. , it is not in the best traditions of journalism.
It is disappointing to see that no effort was made to even contact the person against whom such serious charges were being brought. I would agree that, when done in this way, it becomes propaganda against the person concerned, which has serious consequences for his life.
It would not be out of place to mention that I myself have made it public that I have interacted with the police after being called for questioning in connection with the investigation into the violence that struck Delhi in February 2020. Also that I, as a citizen responsible for this country, would cooperate with the police, as and when necessary.
You may recall recent directives from the Delhi High Court against the publication of police accounts against defendants on trial. These would apply most strongly to those who are not even charged.
I would appreciate a response from your side. “
This text was used in my letters to Zee News and Aaj Tak.
Twenty days have passed since I sent you this letter. Unfortunately, there was no response from him.
I would agree that it was not a trivial matter I was writing to you about. In his view, you had done a great service to the nation by putting on an ‘exhibition’ to reveal the faces of those who were part of a conspiracy that led to the violence in Delhi. But while doing that, he had made serious accusations against a person, who is a citizen of this country with all his rights guaranteed by the Indian constitution. Their report made sensational claims that the person in the story was “instructing young people to mobilize women to take part in the riots.”
It is bad enough that any citizen or person is described like that, but it is worse when the person in question is a teacher. That too a teacher who believes that the role of a teacher is to encourage critical thinking in students and help them think for themselves. The insinuations your story has made me are very hurtful and also have very dangerous implications. His viewers, including students, would be inclined to believe what he was saying and act accordingly with unpredictable consequences.
If I was under the impression that you were making a grand disclosure about myself in the public interest, was it not important that, precisely for this very reason, the facts of the case required careful and cautious examination? You can tell that your sources were very trustworthy and you trust them. You thought you had a story. But if my understanding of journalistic ethics is correct, I had a duty to cross-check the information with the people mentioned in your story.
He also hoped you knew that custody disclosures are not legally admissible. Perhaps they can give you some points for further investigation, but then wasn’t it necessary to check with someone with a legal background on the merits of the claims that were made?
In the absence of this simple background check, which even pup reporters are expected to know, their report was reduced to mere propaganda inspired by some unseen force. Does this have any credit to you and your media house?
It’s not like the person you were making the accusations against is unknown or unapproachable. Your office, your guest coordinators have contacted me on a few occasions to appear on their shows as a commentator. So, you have used my services in the past. Again it is another reason why he should have felt compelled to listen to my side of the story. Simple rules of courtesy required that you speak to everyone mentioned in your story.
Your responsibility is enormous, since your scope is wide. Images have great appeal and tremendous persuasive power. So the moment a story is broadcast, a “truth” is created. It can have dangerous consequences. Should I ask you to remember your programs on Professor Gauhar Raza? You had described it as part of an imaginary “Afzal premi gang”. They were very damaging to his reputation. He complained to the NBSA and the NBSA ruled that he should voice his regret and remove his program. He did not comply with the instructions of even this body, which he together with others created to supervise the conduct of electronic media.
The damage is already done. There must be people in his huge viewer base who sincerely believe that he was part of a ‘terrorist sympathizing group’ and would think it is their nationalist duty to teach him a lesson. The lesson can be anything, even assault or murder.
I witnessed with horror an attack on Umar Khalid, arising again from the type of journalism you practice. A loyal viewer of his shows took the trouble to travel from Haryana to teach Umar a lesson. It was pure chance that his pistol jammed and Umar escaped death or serious injury. But Umar and Kanhaiya Kumar now live under permanent threat and have suffered both small and large attacks.
Would it be useless to remind you that even after five years, the police have not been able to prove any of the charges against you?
I still believe that you consider yourself a journalistic company. Your job, with the kinds of resources you have, is to equip people with information that they can use to examine the claims made by different types of power. The state is a type of power. The business is another. The common citizen is the most vulnerable in this whole network of power relations.
The media of any society is expected to support this vulnerable citizen. To remember the words of Mahatma Gandhi, it is our duty to be with the last person in line.
When you broadcast the aforementioned show, did you have those thoughts in mind? Or was there something else that drove him?
I ask you to kindly review your program and think for yourself, how do you help us understand the violence that hit Delhi in February this year? He does not cite any sources and makes unfounded claims.
There have been hundreds of reports from the field by Indian and foreign media. Was there a balanced critical discussion of your observations on your channels?
It saddens me as a teacher to see that your environment does not create an informed citizenry, but rather prepares a mob of lynchings. An audience that cries out for the blood of those that the system would like to eliminate. Those who question power and fight for the rights of the people are not supported. On the contrary, they are presented as enemies of the people and they want it to end.
As I write these lines, I receive news that the Allahabad High Court has overturned the arrest of Dr. Kafeel Khan under the National Security Act by the UP government for speaking at an anti-CAA protest at AMU. The court said that it was speaking out for national integration, for unity and was not inciting people to commit acts of violence as the police wanted the court to believe. How are you going to report this news on your channels?
Closer to home, the Delhi High Court, which released Pinjra Tod member Devangana Kalita on bail, rejected the Delhi police’s claims. She argued that she was within her right to protest and that the S.164 statements on which the case diary relies to show any incitement to violence were obtained late. She is one of those you mentioned among the provocateurs who led the violence in Delhi in your report.
Please, introspection. Think about what you have done and what you are doing. Think about how you would like to go through the history of Indian journalism. Will you ever be part of the lineage of Makhanlal Chaturvdedi or Ganesh Shankar Vidyarthi? Are you helping to create individuals with their own minds or thoughtless mobs? Do you think that what you are doing is really serving the cause of the people of India, the truth or the welfare of our country?
Apoorvanand teaches at the University of Delhi.
.
