Hanging objectivity
What was striking was how judgment day was used to virtually endorse mob justice by repeatedly airing the views of "the people" who wanted Kasab to be hanged immediately.
KALPANA SHARMA on the coverage of the judgement on Kasab.
With "honour" killings and Jairam Ramesh's antics, the events of earlier this month have almost receded from public memory. But for media watchers, May 3, when the year long trial of Mohammed Ajmal Amir Kasab ended in a special court in Mumbai with the judge, Justice M. L. Tahaliyani pronouncing him guilty and a couple of days later, when he was sentenced to death, stand out for the over-the-top, hysterical tone adopted by much of the electronic media.
By now, blanket coverage of one issue to the exclusion of all else on our news channels has become so much the norm that it is not even worth a comment. And admittedly, this particular trial into the 26/11 terror attack was of national and international interest.
But what was striking was how judgment day was used to ratchet up anti-Pakistani feelings, propagate pro-death penalty views (with only a few channels allowing those against it to state their case) and virtually endorse mob justice by repeatedly airing the views of "the people" who wanted Kasab to be hanged immediately.
On May 3, the day the judgment was delivered, all news channels were on over-drive from the morning. Times Now for instance, had a continuous discussion with talking heads including Gerson D'Cunha, Suhel Seth, G. Parthasarthy, Majid Memon, Bachi Karkaria, Dilip Padgaonkar, Tariq Azim from Pakistan and Alyque Padamsee.
The discussion began with endless speculation about the judgment -- about which few could have had any doubt -- and then non-stop analysis of what it meant once it was delivered. But the overwhelming tone of much of it was a focus on Pakistan and its culpability and repeated references to the Afzal Guru case and the fact that the death sentence would mean endless delays unless an exception was made in this case.
Here are a few statements that I managed to catch, although they are not verbatim as I have not recorded the programme: Suhel Seth: All those goddam NGOs need to shut up and smell the coffee. We are not a banana republic... We don't want a repetition of Amar Singh and Batla House. It's about the scum of the world. India doesn't have the capacity to create a Guantanamo Bay. They must die, they have no place on the surface of the earth.
G. Parthasarthy: You cannot repeat the Afzal Guru precedent here. The appeal procedure should be completed quickly. Let's hope the government doesn't procrastinate.
Gerson D'Cunha: Afzal Guru's case is not so open and shut as this one. Suhel Seth: The time to talk is over. Time to take action.
Arnab Goswami: This is not about Kasab alone. Look at the non-existent coverage in the Pakistani media. (Plays a clip from Express TV without letting it run its course. Not at all clear how this illustrates "non-existent" coverage)
(At this point a "guest" from Pakistan joins in, Tariq Azim). Goswami asks him why Pakistan has done nothing about the people behind the 26/11 attack.
Tariq Azim: We've asked you to provide us with strong evidence. We've arrested Hafeez Saeed twice and he gets away with it. Almost everyone in Pakistan will accept the verdict of an independent Indian court. You must also accept the verdict of a Pakistani court.
Arnab Goswami: There's no comparison with what's going on in Mumbai and in Rawalpindi.
G. Parthasarthy: Your Pakistan's credibility is zero... Your PM can do nothing about the military. Look at the contempt with which your politicians are treated by the military. It's a waste of time speaking to Mr. Gilani. It's time our government woke up. You are in denial. We have our extremists but they don't go to a foreign soil and kill your people.
Azim keeps opening his mouth to say something while the anchor and the other Indian panelists continue to rant about Pakistan's inaction. "Please provide us with credible evidence that can be used in a court of law," Azim keeps repeating but no one is listening.
NDTV, to its credit, made an effort over those two days to give some other sides of the story. For instance, it had a story on "The men who nailed Kasab". This included interviews with little known police officers and their work and was presented with a more balanced tone.
Perhaps TV channels cannot be blamed for the antics of the public prosecutor, Ujwal Nikam, who was in full flow in Hindi, English and Marathi in front of the courthouse after the judgment. He held up graphics -- including one of a noose -- when he argued for the death penalty for Kasab.
And as if on cue, crowds of people assembled and conducted mock hangings that were aired on TV. Everyone seemed to be saying the same thing -- hang him, now. Hardly anyone was given a chance to question the death penalty, or to point out that even a death sentence cannot be executed the next day. If this trial was a chance to educate the public on these issues, the media failed miserably.
It is also noteworthy, that hardly anyone pursued the real reason the two other men who were also accused -- Ansari and Sabahuddin Ahmed -- were let off by the judge citing lack of convincing evidence. Natasha Jog, NDTV's anchor, asked lawyer Mahesh Jethmalani whether he thought their acquittal was "a set-back". To which Jethmalani replied that he did not see how this could be a set-back if the court acquitted two innocents. On the contrary, justice had prevailed.
But once again, little of this was heard in the discussions. There was little analysis of what the police was doing literally making up evidence in these two cases. Nor did anyone look critically at the claim that Kasab's conviction was an "achievement" for the Mumbai police when they had to do practically nothing to gather any evidence to indict him. Essentially, the media celebrated the trial as a "victory" of good over evil, but did little by way of an analysis of the case, why the prosecution succeeded in indicting Kasab but failed to nail the alleged Indian collaborators.
If anyone wanted an answer to the real reason Ansari and Sabahuddin were let off, they would have found it in what in my view was one of the most revealing stories to appear after the judgment. It was carried on an inside page of The Times of India on May 5. It should have been on Page One.
Headlined "Rigid laws behind creative evidence?" Josy Joseph reported from New Delhi quoting anonymous police officials explaining why they had to be creative with evidence in terror cases. He wrote, "officials in the security establishment admit that rigid criminal laws are forcing investigators to be creative with evidences, especially while dealing with terrorism-related cases." He said that some officials admitted that the evidence of the hand-drawn map used in the Ansari case would fall into that category. "The Mumbai verdict, seasoned investigators suggest, must force the government to relook at the need for special terror laws. Under the present acts governing evidence and criminal cases, they are forced to cook up evidence, and falsify case narrations, officials say", writes Joseph.
Later in the story he quoted a former chief of intelligence, "In terror cases, if you tell the truth, it is not an evidence. You have to create evidence that is acceptable to the court. As a result, it is not the most honest of investigators who get a terrorist punished by court but one who was most efficient in creating evidence."
"Cook up evidence", "falsify case narrations", be "efficient in creating evidence"? These are extraordinary admissions. They explain why convictions take place in lower courts with regularity on the evidence of maps and letters and how the same cases are over-turned by higher courts. The most obvious example of this is the case of journalist Iftikar Gilani of the Kashmir Times who was implicated on the basis of a hand drawn map of Meerut cantonment that the police claimed he possessed, thereby proving that he was part of a terror plot.
It is amazing that no newspaper has thought it worth its while to investigate whether the police's "creativity" is leading to innocents being incarcerated in the name of terror. Instead, almost all media skirted around the acquittal of Ansari and Sabahuddin, and did not question the repeated assertions of the Maharashtra Home Minister and some police officers that they still had more "incontrovertible" evidence against the two men that would nail them.
In sum, any issue related to terror seems to bring out the dominant bias in the people who people our media. They almost always use it as a chance to "nail" Pakistan, they hardly ever question the police version of any story, and they continuously play up extreme sentiments, such as demands for Kasab's hanging in public. The real hanging that happens in such instances is that of objectivity.
By now, blanket coverage of one issue to the exclusion of all else on our news channels has become so much the norm that it is not even worth a comment. And admittedly, this particular trial into the 26/11 terror attack was of national and international interest.
But what was striking was how judgment day was used to ratchet up anti-Pakistani feelings, propagate pro-death penalty views (with only a few channels allowing those against it to state their case) and virtually endorse mob justice by repeatedly airing the views of "the people" who wanted Kasab to be hanged immediately.
On May 3, the day the judgment was delivered, all news channels were on over-drive from the morning. Times Now for instance, had a continuous discussion with talking heads including Gerson D'Cunha, Suhel Seth, G. Parthasarthy, Majid Memon, Bachi Karkaria, Dilip Padgaonkar, Tariq Azim from Pakistan and Alyque Padamsee.
The discussion began with endless speculation about the judgment -- about which few could have had any doubt -- and then non-stop analysis of what it meant once it was delivered. But the overwhelming tone of much of it was a focus on Pakistan and its culpability and repeated references to the Afzal Guru case and the fact that the death sentence would mean endless delays unless an exception was made in this case.
Here are a few statements that I managed to catch, although they are not verbatim as I have not recorded the programme: Suhel Seth: All those goddam NGOs need to shut up and smell the coffee. We are not a banana republic... We don't want a repetition of Amar Singh and Batla House. It's about the scum of the world. India doesn't have the capacity to create a Guantanamo Bay. They must die, they have no place on the surface of the earth.
G. Parthasarthy: You cannot repeat the Afzal Guru precedent here. The appeal procedure should be completed quickly. Let's hope the government doesn't procrastinate.
Gerson D'Cunha: Afzal Guru's case is not so open and shut as this one. Suhel Seth: The time to talk is over. Time to take action.
Arnab Goswami: This is not about Kasab alone. Look at the non-existent coverage in the Pakistani media. (Plays a clip from Express TV without letting it run its course. Not at all clear how this illustrates "non-existent" coverage)
(At this point a "guest" from Pakistan joins in, Tariq Azim). Goswami asks him why Pakistan has done nothing about the people behind the 26/11 attack.
Tariq Azim: We've asked you to provide us with strong evidence. We've arrested Hafeez Saeed twice and he gets away with it. Almost everyone in Pakistan will accept the verdict of an independent Indian court. You must also accept the verdict of a Pakistani court.
Arnab Goswami: There's no comparison with what's going on in Mumbai and in Rawalpindi.
G. Parthasarthy: Your Pakistan's credibility is zero... Your PM can do nothing about the military. Look at the contempt with which your politicians are treated by the military. It's a waste of time speaking to Mr. Gilani. It's time our government woke up. You are in denial. We have our extremists but they don't go to a foreign soil and kill your people.
Azim keeps opening his mouth to say something while the anchor and the other Indian panelists continue to rant about Pakistan's inaction. "Please provide us with credible evidence that can be used in a court of law," Azim keeps repeating but no one is listening.
NDTV, to its credit, made an effort over those two days to give some other sides of the story. For instance, it had a story on "The men who nailed Kasab". This included interviews with little known police officers and their work and was presented with a more balanced tone.
Perhaps TV channels cannot be blamed for the antics of the public prosecutor, Ujwal Nikam, who was in full flow in Hindi, English and Marathi in front of the courthouse after the judgment. He held up graphics -- including one of a noose -- when he argued for the death penalty for Kasab.
And as if on cue, crowds of people assembled and conducted mock hangings that were aired on TV. Everyone seemed to be saying the same thing -- hang him, now. Hardly anyone was given a chance to question the death penalty, or to point out that even a death sentence cannot be executed the next day. If this trial was a chance to educate the public on these issues, the media failed miserably.
It is also noteworthy, that hardly anyone pursued the real reason the two other men who were also accused -- Ansari and Sabahuddin Ahmed -- were let off by the judge citing lack of convincing evidence. Natasha Jog, NDTV's anchor, asked lawyer Mahesh Jethmalani whether he thought their acquittal was "a set-back". To which Jethmalani replied that he did not see how this could be a set-back if the court acquitted two innocents. On the contrary, justice had prevailed.
But once again, little of this was heard in the discussions. There was little analysis of what the police was doing literally making up evidence in these two cases. Nor did anyone look critically at the claim that Kasab's conviction was an "achievement" for the Mumbai police when they had to do practically nothing to gather any evidence to indict him. Essentially, the media celebrated the trial as a "victory" of good over evil, but did little by way of an analysis of the case, why the prosecution succeeded in indicting Kasab but failed to nail the alleged Indian collaborators.
If anyone wanted an answer to the real reason Ansari and Sabahuddin were let off, they would have found it in what in my view was one of the most revealing stories to appear after the judgment. It was carried on an inside page of The Times of India on May 5. It should have been on Page One.
Headlined "Rigid laws behind creative evidence?" Josy Joseph reported from New Delhi quoting anonymous police officials explaining why they had to be creative with evidence in terror cases. He wrote, "officials in the security establishment admit that rigid criminal laws are forcing investigators to be creative with evidences, especially while dealing with terrorism-related cases." He said that some officials admitted that the evidence of the hand-drawn map used in the Ansari case would fall into that category. "The Mumbai verdict, seasoned investigators suggest, must force the government to relook at the need for special terror laws. Under the present acts governing evidence and criminal cases, they are forced to cook up evidence, and falsify case narrations, officials say", writes Joseph.
Later in the story he quoted a former chief of intelligence, "In terror cases, if you tell the truth, it is not an evidence. You have to create evidence that is acceptable to the court. As a result, it is not the most honest of investigators who get a terrorist punished by court but one who was most efficient in creating evidence."
"Cook up evidence", "falsify case narrations", be "efficient in creating evidence"? These are extraordinary admissions. They explain why convictions take place in lower courts with regularity on the evidence of maps and letters and how the same cases are over-turned by higher courts. The most obvious example of this is the case of journalist Iftikar Gilani of the Kashmir Times who was implicated on the basis of a hand drawn map of Meerut cantonment that the police claimed he possessed, thereby proving that he was part of a terror plot.
It is amazing that no newspaper has thought it worth its while to investigate whether the police's "creativity" is leading to innocents being incarcerated in the name of terror. Instead, almost all media skirted around the acquittal of Ansari and Sabahuddin, and did not question the repeated assertions of the Maharashtra Home Minister and some police officers that they still had more "incontrovertible" evidence against the two men that would nail them.
In sum, any issue related to terror seems to bring out the dominant bias in the people who people our media. They almost always use it as a chance to "nail" Pakistan, they hardly ever question the police version of any story, and they continuously play up extreme sentiments, such as demands for Kasab's hanging in public. The real hanging that happens in such instances is that of objectivity.
Subscribe To The Newsletter