Of the most recent murder cases that were sensationalized by media (both print and electronic media), the case popularly known as Aarushi murder case was one. Owing to the special efforts made by some of the 24 hours news repeating channels, the detailed facts of the case (as interpreted by the media) are in the public knowledge. It is now known to almost everyone that a 14-year-old school going girl was killed inside her room in the residential house by some (no) one. But it is not known to many that it was in fact a double murder case and one Mr. Hemraj – the unfortunate servant (domestic help) of the family to which Aarushi belonged to was also brutally murdered at the same time.
Many candlelight marches were held, with wide media coverage, seeking justice for Aarushi. No one remembered Hemraj. It was only recently (i.e., on January 5, 2011) that a group of students under the banner of NGO Noida Nirman took out a procession seeking justice for Hemraj displaying placard that read ‘Apna Khoon doosron ka paani, Hemraj ki yahee Kahani’ and ‘… Aarushi aur Jessica ki pukar hai, Baki sab bekar hai’. Even this expression of anguish by the students did not receive as much media coverage as that of the candlelight marches seeking justice for Aarushi or for Jassica. Little did the media understand that it was the protest mainly against itself?
Media has brought to light Aarushi’s parents and other relatives. Their faces are very familiar to every one now. Their voices have been heard and conveyed to all. But no one knows Hemraj’s family members, his near and dear ones. No one cared to meet them. No one knows their pain and suffering. Was the life of Hemraj so insignificant that his death does not matter?
“Natural lottery and arbitrariness of birth denies every one to have equal start in life.” An unjust society/system, on the other hand, continues to deny equal treatment throughout the life to those who are discriminated against by the arbitrariness of birth. It is unfortunate to note that the media, which enjoys constitutional protection in India, does not share the vision of the founding fathers of our Constitution i.e., to procure equality of status and of opportunity for all. Instead of promoting this constitutional value, it is contributing for perpetuation of inequality in the society. It denies access to the have-nots. The victimization of have-nots is considered as less important and such news are rarely carried. It is often been talked about but never taken seriously.
Even public response also largely depends on the importance media gives to particular news. If the candlelights have not glittered seeking justice for Hemraj, media is largely responsible for it. It does not, however, mean that there is no fault on the part of the candlelight activists. Perhaps one need to understand that the candlelight march is a method devised and mainly adopted by the elite in the society to protest against what is not acceptable to them and that explains why candlelight never glittered for Hemraj!
There is need to tell all that he too deserves justice!
There a lot of truth in the assertion that Arushi case arrested the 24x7 hyper globalized media consciousness as Arushi herself was a good looking DPS girl! The selective and eclectic agency that media provides raises that fundamental issue that media 'represents' but represents whom? The truly 'wretched of the earth' can scarcely figure in media attention.
ReplyDeletePerhaps, the fact remains unnoticed and would never be enough to evoke popular attention. Does the Human Rights candle light activism concedes that 'No One Killed Hemraj' as the 'sms-justice' might not come handy to the peripheral sections of Indian Humanity?
Why do we have to criticize media for what they have not done. Why can't we have a positive approach and welcome the media activities for some people. This is finding fault with everyone who is trying to do something! Even Arushi's case would have gone off if media were not active enough to publish it.
ReplyDeletemedia is a reflection of the society my friend.... media shows what people want to see all the media houses are owned by the rich industrialist. take for exampe the 26/11 mumbai, no body cared about so many people who died in the CST station but all the media attention was only on the oberoi and the taj because that is where the rich and the famous were isn't it...... justice has been always for the rich otherwise how do u think that in the Nithari matter the house owner where all the brutal killing used to take place went Scot free just because the owner was an an ex-Doon school product and the poor servant kohli was put behind the bar.
ReplyDeleteOf course media does succeed in bringing light to the stories of unjustice by invoking, otherwise difficult, mass response (rebellion). But what is sad is changing facet and gardual commodification of news. What is saleable is more important than what is just, that is why it is only 'justice for aarushi' that attracted more attention. Even the parents (who are the suspects of crime) got every channel to (mis)cite their side of the story and the unarmed relatives and friends (the other house helps who were suspected) of Hemraj were suspected, humilitated, arrested, released and forgotten in the whole trail of 'Justice for Aarushi'....I am sure it will be appreciated someday that (as Hemraj's Kin stated) just because they are poor, that does not mean that the loss is any less.....
ReplyDeleteWhat caught my attraction was the long-desired need for the voice for the voiceless (in this case, that of Hemraj).
ReplyDeleteThere are a few additions, albeit in a different context, but additions nevertheless.
Media
http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/editorial/article1087735.ece. This editorial deals with the defense taken by The Hindu for ‘Hyping Up Science’. While the ‘opinion’ finds fault with the scientific institution(s) and its newsletters, the last few lines give a much desired insight into media s role in ‘hyping up’ (….science).
Medias’ role in creating hype is beyond debate. What is of obvious concern is no doubt the attention given to the ‘attention grabbers’. What is of importance here is ‘Was the life of Hemraj so insignificant that his death does not matter?’
A voice for the voiceless
Hemraj’s misery can be equated to, if not larger than, the unorganized segment of the work-force. The following Supreme Court judgment has acted as a balm to the workmen, after decades of denial of what was a matter of right.
Harjinder Singh versus Punjab State Warehouse Corp. Supreme Court. January 5th, 2010.
(see earlier comment first)
ReplyDeleteHarjinder Singh versus Punjab State Warehouseing Corp. Supreme Court. January 5th, 2010.
“19. The preamble and various Articles contained in Part IV of the Constitution promote social justice so that life of every individual becomes meaningful and he is able to live with human dignity. The concept of social justice engrafted in the Constitution consists of diverse principles essentially for the orderly growth and development of personality of every citizen. Social justice is thus an integral part of justice in the generic sense. Justice is the genus, of which social justice is one of its species. Social justice is a dynamic devise to mitigate the sufferings of the poor, weak, dalits, tribals and deprived sections of the society and to elevate them to the level of equality to live a life with dignity of person. In other words, the aim of social justice is to attain substantial degree of social, economic and political equality, which is the legitimate expectation of every section of the society. In a developing society like ours which is full of unbridgeable and ever widening gaps of inequality in status and of opportunity, law is a catalyst to reach the ladder of justice. The philosophy of welfare State and social justice is amply reflected in large number of judgments of this Court, various High Courts, National and State Industrial Tribunals involving interpretation of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, Indian Factories Act, Payment of Wages Act, Minimum Wages Act, Payment of Bonus Act, Workmen's Compensation Act, the Employees Insurance Act, the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act and the Shops and Commercial Establishments Act enacted by different States.”
The contention that the media does not share the vision of the founding fathers of our Constitution is no doubt well founded as well as true. Procuring equality of status and of opportunity for all is envisaged in the Constitution and should be upheld. "After all, for whose benefit was the Constitution enacted?"[Bidi Supply Co. vs. Union of India and others - AIR 1956 SC 479 at Para 23, pg. 487]. Justice Vivian Bose, after posing this question, answered in the following words: "I am clear that the Constitution is not for the exclusive benefit of Governments and States; it is not only for lawyers and politicians and officials and those highly placed. It also exists for the common man, for the poor and the humble, for those who have businesses at stake, for the "butcher, the baker and the candlestick maker". It lays down for this land a "rule lof law" as understood in the free democracies of the world. It constitutes India into a Sovereign Democratic Republic and guarantees in every page rights and freedom to the individual side by side and consistent with the overriding power of the State to act for the common good of all." (Harjinder Singh, per Justice Ashok Kumar Ganguly, para 4)
Also,
“6. The essence of our Constitution was also explained by the eminent jurist Palkhivala in the following words:
“Our Constitution is primarily shaped and moulded for the common man. It takes no account of “the portly presence of the potentates, goodly in girth”. It is a Constitution not meant for the ruler
“but the ranker, the tramp of the road,
The slave with the sack on his shoulders pricked on with the goad,
The man with too weighty a burden, too weary a load.”” (Harjinder Singh, per Justice Ashok Kumar Ganguly, para 6)
The judgment also briefly touches upon the ‘glitz and glamour’ of globalization.
@ Anusha,I would have certainly appreciated the media for their activism for 'some people', had there been no 'class bias' in thier approach. I understand that the media has its own limitations and we cannot expect it to give publicity to all those cases wherever injustice is done to innocents. But I find the 'class bias' so apparent in its approach. I am really not able to find reasons to appreciate the media in highlighting only AURUASHI'S DEATH while completely ignoring or quoting HEMRAJ'S DEATH only has a footnote to it. In the swirlwind created by the media around Auruashi's death, Hemraj disappeared as a dust. That is unfortunate. In my opinion, it is a gross violation of fundamental human right to equality by the media - the so called fourth pillar of our democracy.
ReplyDelete