The line between ‘outspoken’ and ‘insensitive’ is quite fine. I should know, because I tread it every other week. Being an armchair analyst is hard work and I’m sure most newspaper columnists will agree that the key to a good piece is knowing your audience. Which is probably why most respectable journalists and columnists – who write for both the English and the Urdu press – engineer their columns in such as way that they do not antagonise their respective audiences. Therefore, a Talat Hussain column in the Urdu press will not be as Left-leaning as his English pieces may be. Mind you, the man is an established journalist who is, at this time, working for a channel no one watches. Therefore, he may be said to be flying ‘under the radar’.
The esteemed Javed Chaudhry, on the other hand, is not under the radar. His primetime show on the second-highest rated news channel in the country is widely watched and people from all socio-economic backgrounds await his columns with a sense of longing. And why shouldn’t they? Mr Chaudhry provides his readers with something that others do not: he tells them a story. His monologues at the beginning of each show are legendary for their wit and the invaluable history lesson contained within. As far as the rest of his show is concerned, I cannot vouch for the veracity of content that flies out at random from the mouth of a political mouthpiece. What I do know is that Mr Chaudhry is somewhat respected figure in the world of TV news and has some credibility when it comes to mainstream journalism.
So imagine my surprise when, one fine day, I wake up to find that said journalist has written an ‘outrageous’ article in the vernacular press; one that tries to sympathise with acid-attackers as well as their victims. Now, while one may find the very thought of doing so vile and disgusting, think about it from Javed Chaudhry’s perspective. In his mind, he has written something that hitherto no one, not even the most testicularly fortified of columnists has written. He has, in fact, tried to empathise with the attacker to try to get into the mind of a sick, twisted and deranged individual. Only, he did so from the comfort of his highly syndicated newspaper column, which is a far cry from the mental institutions where such empathy is usually employed. But the dilemma this incident poses is quite a maelstrom: on one hand, you have the moral imperative of siding with the victim; while on the other hand you have the journalistic duty to report both sides of the story, no matter how gruesome. There is difference between trying to tell a story and trying to become the story. In this case, no matter how noble his intentions, Mr Chaudhry seems to have fallen into the latter trap. And this is where it all went wrong.
For those of you who are old enough to remember, even the most vicious and vile of individuals have had their day in court. The Nuremberg Nazis, Milosevic, Karadic, Saddam, Timothy McVeigh and even our very own Javed Iqbal, were all accorded trials (whether fair or not is a question that I do not wish to answer). What matters here is that the due process of the law was carried out and justice took its course. That there was insufficient evidence to try these individuals was never a stumbling block: each trial had a foregone conclusion. While there is something to be said about the swift and summary style of justice practiced in certain countries and certain parts of the world, the fact of the matter is that what makes us ‘civilised’ is the presence of a process for redressal of grievances, be they civil or criminal.
In the pursuit of ‘justice’, the state is compelled to hear out even the most despicable of criminals. Saddam got his spiel, as did all the others. Similarly, as journalists, we are required to present at least two sides of each story to avoid the impression of prejudice. However, when you apply the same principle to a case which has sparked widespread moral outrage and an outpouring of grief previously unheard of, something strange happens. Rather than being acknowledged as a thorough reporter, one is sticked and stoned into submission by the very people who would otherwise champion the cause of a free press. This applies across the board to all persons: be they activists, political workers or your average Jamil the Plumber.
I cannot offer a defence for Javed Chaudhry, because I too question deeply his approach to the balanced reporting that I talk about above. What I do wish to communicate, in black and white, is that our society has a very bad habit of sweeping things under the rug. We always aim for retributive justice rather than rehabilitative systems. It is this preoccupation with ‘revenge’ that has brought our society to this point where vigilante justice is the norm and moral outrage equals a media trial which then leads to summary executions and that the people will not accept anything less.
I say we must hear out even the most psychotic ones. We must do this because we need to understand what goes on in the mind of the man (or woman) who abandons all notions of civilised behaviour and pursues a homicidal agenda. Our society obviously offers a fertile breeding ground for all types of deviant behaviour. Rather than simply relying on death and defamation as a deterrent, it’s time we learn to face our demons. Cliched as it is, I do sincerely believe that it is better to know the demon that haunts you than to continue to live in the fear of the unknown. I just hope you can understand that too.
No comments:
Post a Comment