S R Ramanujan
Individual privacy is inviolable. That is what everyone believes, and law endorses this as well in our country or for that matter anywhere in the world. But how far does the Indian media respects this basic human right? That is the question. On November 20, some of the so-called national channels had a story in their prime time bulletins. The tip off or the inspiration for the television story came from a Mumbai tabloid which was no different from the paparazzi-based stories that are normally carried in London tabloids. The print story was that the late BJP leader Pramod Mahajan¿s son Rahul Mahajan¿s three month-old marriage with his childhood friend Shweta broke and they were separated. The reason was that Rahul was battering his wife and so she has gone back to her parents.
Shweta does not belong to a socially and economically weaker section not to understand the protection that she has under the law. Nor does she hail from a slum where domestic violence is taken for granted as part of life. In case the domestic violence inflicted by her husband Rahul is true, under the recently enacted Domestic Violence Act, she can go to the court and get permission to file a case against her harassing and violent husband in any police station. Alternatively, if the seriousness of violence is such that separation alone would have been the solution, there is a well-defined process for legal separation. She followed neither. The only supporting clue for the story the tabloid had was a photograph of Shweta showing a bruise on her hand. If she can pose for a picture for the media and expose her husband she would have as well followed one of the two relief measures that a battered wife has under the law or confirmed the story. For the print it was a clear case of sensationalism to boost circulation.
But the tamasha did not end here. Respectable and influential channels which have earned a reputation for stings, impacts and crusades also took the same route. The television channels picked up the story for their prime bulletins. There was a battery of cameramen in front of Shweta¿s father in New Delhi grilling the poor chap. Father was saying there was no truth in the report and that Shweta had come to her parents¿ home for a ?short break?. The woman herself was also interviewed and she also denied any such rift between her and her husband and she did not want the media to poke its nose into their personal affairs.
It is possible that there could have been some misunderstanding between husband and wife, as it happens in any home. The media has developed certain notions that Rahul is a spoilt child, fond of binge parties and was in the news for all wrong reasons. So, the conjecture was that he might have misbehaved with his newly married wife as well. The story flow began from this conjecture. What damage it could do to a just married couple, besides tarnishing their personal image, if there was scope for reconciliation. The very fact that all the involved parties, the girl, her parents and her husband denied the story made it a non-story deserving to be spiked/dumped. Is it a story of great public importance that despite denials it has to be carried? How irresponsible the media has been to a young couple?
The story will stand, if the media had followed a semblance of ethics. Had Shweta complained to the Police or filed a notice for legal separation there could have been some basis, granting that Rahul, by virtue of his pedigree, is a known person. Otherwise, the media has no business to intrude into the couple¿s private affairs. The problem is the Rahul story, when he was involved in a narcotic case, was a best seller. So, the media thought he would continue to be a best seller even if it involved his personal life. What a fall, my dear mediamen!
contact: s_ramanujan9@yahoo.co.in