Witch hunts need witches

What a week. Every Indian unfortunate enough to own a TV set has been exercised by the sensational details of the Susairaj case, and the electronic media has done all it could to milk the hysteria. A glorious TRP-fest it was with the nation's moral organ being given an hourly hand-job. The TV Channels shrewdly channeled popular sentiment, realizing that neutrality and skepticism would get them nowhere. This, after all, was a case involving people like us.

 

Every news item was spun so that it confirmed and reiterated the popular “gut-feeling” theory about the case. A media-generated confirmation-bias, if you like. Also, to sustain the popular narrative, the news anchors stood by as the talking heads hurled insults at the judge who delivered the verdict. “Perverse judgment,” said a talking head on one channel; "MURDER OF JUSTICE," read the news ticker on another.

 

As far as I can tell, the judge simply did his job. He went by the (largely circumstantial) evidence, completely disregarding the media hype. Planet Arnab, incidentally, took umbrage at the very suggestion that there had been some media hype!

 

The fact remains that the prosecution was not able to prove that there had been a conspiracy to murder Neeraj. And the available circumstantial evidence does support the theory that the killing took place in the heat of the moment. Just think about it: how foolish would Susairaj have to be, to plan a murder in her own flat - and thereby to create a mountain of evidence that would need urgent disposing of? And how scatter-brained would she have to be, to have to start shopping for the knives and the body bags after the event? All this when you're living in a city where telemarketers are constantly hustling you for Supari deals with attractive discounts. This seems more like a situation that went suddenly out of control, than something that was methodically planned by someone of even average intelligence. Obviously, I don't hold this theory as some sacred dogma; I'm willing to change my mind the moment there's evidence to the contrary.

 

Much of the popular outrage stems from the fact that Susairaj and Jerome "chopped the dead body into 300 pieces" and even had sex after the murder. The "300 pieces" claim has been questioned by Susairaj's blandly efficient lawyer - who waved a photo of Neeraj's mostly-intact remains in front of the press. Barkha Dutt went ballistic at the crassness of the lawyer's gesture, conveniently forgetting the three-hundred-fold crassness of her own fraternity which had been opportunistically flogging the sensational "300 pieces" story for the past three years. And if you were ever curious to know what an urban Khap Panchayat might look like, you'd be well advised to watch Dutt's We the People episode of July 03. You won't be disappointed, since this is an award winning show.

 

Even assuming that the duo did in fact "chop up the body into 300 pieces," how does that act imply a conspiracy to murder? Roughly, the argument seems to be: if you're cold-blooded enough to cut up a dead body, then you must be cold-blooded enough to plan the murder of a living, breathing person. Wait a minute. We need to compartmentalize these two, entirely different orders of human experience. The insouciance required to plan the killing of a human being is independent of the insouciance required to cut up a cadaver. The former is punishable by law, while the latter is a prerequisite for the award of an MBBS degree. There is no necessary relation between these two kinds of insouciance. And you have to remember that Susairaj & Jerome were doing everything they could to hide the body and evade the law. So it should come as no surprise that they would attempt to accomplish their aim with some measure of efficiency. Likewise, "sex in front of a dead body," however much it may offend our sensibilities, is, again, distinct from conspiracy to murder, and not covered under the IPC. Yet these forensic leaps are constantly being made on the TV channels. 

 

It seems evident (at least from the press conference fiasco) that Susairaj is concealing a few things - notably the facts about her relationship with Neeraj, which might furnish a motive and thereby give grist to the prosecution's case. Neeraj's mother has also pointed out that Susairaj's story has been constantly changing. Yes, it is plain that Jerome and Susairaj were involved in a massive cover-up operation, even though Susairaj audaciously protests her total innocence. On this count at least, justice has been done. Susairaj has been convicted for precisely the cover-up ("destruction of evidence") and she has served the maximum term of 3 years that is prescribed for it under Indian law.

 

It would be so much easier for people to make up their minds about a complex case like this if only the media dispassionately and painstakingly went over each known fact, instead of getting a bunch of ill-informed talking heads to throw live tantrums. Yes, it is perfectly possible that the verdict was wrong, or that the prosecution botched up the case. On the other hand, it is also possible that the verdict was right, and also, that the prosecution did the best it could.

 

The only way we can decide these things is by having a legal, fact-based analysis of the matter. It is sad that the best our electronic media can do is to get a hyperventilating Shobha De or Suhel Seth to frame the issue as a simplistic morality play in which people are either absolutely good or absolutely evil. Also, at a time when the judiciary itself is under a large noxious cloud, we need to be careful about ridiculing judgments that, on sober analysis, may turn out to have been absolutely sound. So kindly avoid the loose talk about judges if you have not followed the case or read the judgement.

If the past is any indicator, you can expect some deranged youth to try to assault Maria Susairaj. This will make some anchors feel a little guilty for having started the witch hunt ("media tamasha" is the coy euphemism) and then, in a friendly and well-controlled environment, those anchors will appear to put themselves in the dock. Some inconvenient truths will be blurted out, but then, exculpation will come in the form of the standard excuse: "we are Indians; we are an emotional people." But no lessons will be learnt.