Just read about a journalist releasing
news sitting over shoulders of a flood-affected villager. He was dismissed from service by the media company as soon as the news broke out. Perhaps the quick action was to tackle public pressure or was to pre-empt competition from enhancing their own TRP by over-publicizing it.
While I am not justifying his 'misdeed', some other questions do remain unanswered in my mind. I tried to capture them in the form of a poem in the end.
Could the journalist have covered the news in the 'depth' that he wished to, by any other means? Perhaps yes as one might tend to think so from the
video.
But then were other means available to him there?
Video tells only part of the story. Under what circumstances and with what facilities was the journalist operating there in order to collect total news in 'depth'?
Anyway having done so, was he 'sitting over shoulders' with an intention of atrocity? And if at all it's a mistake, in retrospect one may find number off them at one's own personal level.
Let's look at it the other way round.
If there was an opportunity for the flood-affected villager to earn his bread for that day by helping carry the journalist over his shoulders, what right do others (be it public, a corporate house or government) get to snatch it from him? Have there not been Human-Rickshaws in Kolkatta earning their livelihood for so long on similar lines? It has been a socioeconomic need!
If at all one finds the journalist atrocious then there have been many more so far in not providing alternative job opportunities to needy forcing them to resort to inhuman jobs such as Human-Rickshaw pullers.
Likewise if we shift our attention to in-discipline in other disciplines and fields, one might find many such atrocities.
If someone dies in an
accident while negotiating a road full of pot-
holes that s/he couldn't spot due to non-functional street-lights, are the concerned authorities considered atrocious? Do the concerned authorities such as municipality or electricity-boards, etc. get sued and convicted for dirty-danger-difficult conditions on road?
If a city like Mumbai goes under water due to illegal constructions and hutments in and around nullahs blocking water-flow resulting in colossal loss to lives and properties, are the concerned authorities, goons and politicians supporting them considered as atrocious?
These are realities not 'ifs-and-buts' stories. If one deep-dives into crises or near-
miss cases or studies fatalities she
reads about each day, 'atrocities' might be found in abundance.
Who will decide then 'what's right' and 'what's wrong', 'what's an atrocity and what's not one'?
Who will decide 'who's right' and 'who's wrong' in cases such as above?
If the journalist's act was wrong and atrocious then the sense-of-urgency demonstrated by the concerned is commendable. In that case, can decision-makers in other disciplines and fields such as above demonstrate similar sense-of-urgency in awarding justice in case of bigger and criminal atrocities?
Hope to receive your comments on tips covered in here and on the poem titled:
Who's Just Who's Unjust (कोण न्यायी कोण अन्यायी)
कोण न्यायी कोण अन्यायी
अन्यायी जाहले बेलगाम मुक्त
न्यायी मात्र कडेकोटात बंदिस्त
कोण न्यायी कोण अन्यायी
सुस्त बेशिस्त अविचारी स्वधुंदीत स्व:त्वात जे मस्त
की जे विश्वात्मक शिस्तीचे वक्तशीर भक्त
कोण न्यायी कोण अन्यायी
ते, जयांचे शील जाहले स्वस्त
की जे विचारी-परोपकार-करी निवांत
कोण न्यायी कोण अन्यायी
जे अन्यायान्याय सही, परी ना करी व्यक्त
की जे अन्याया-वरी जात्या कृति-शील-शिस्तवान साधूसंत
कोण न्यायी कोण अन्यायी
अन्यायी जाहले बेलगाम मुक्त
न्यायी मात्र कडेकोटात बंदिस्त
Await English version of the poem soon.
