Tags:
Journalism of Courage
The trial of Anara Gupta appears to have little to do with the law and its preservation. Ever since the former Miss Jammu was apprehended in November for allegedly starring in a pornographic video, the police have displayed a shocking voyeurism while investigating the case. In the manner of inquiry, in the complete disregard for basic norms of privacy, and in the determination to frame her no matter how flimsy their leads may be, the Jammu and Kashmir police cannot escape the charge of prurient excesses. A month after a forensic laboratory in Hyderabad cast grave doubt whether it was actually Anara in the incriminating video, the alacrity shown by the cops in seeking another forensic report is mystifying. Surely the country8217;s forensic laboratories have more important backlogs to clear. And surely the J038;K police force has other work to attend to, rather than attempting to frame a woman whose innocence has already been proven in the first round.
The fact of the matter is this: Anara Gupta is the victim. She is the harassed party. Ironically, legislation that exists to protect women like her has been used to subject her to a show trial. The Cinematograph and Immoral Traffic Prevention acts are aimed in large part at preventing the exploitation of women. They are intended to nab the wider apparatus that places a woman at the centre of a lascivious gaze. Instead they have been in this case 8212; as in so many other instances 8212; been exploited to accentuate that very gaze. Even before proper processing of evidence could take place, the police outed Anara8217;s identity, in complete violation of her privacy. Interviews were organised with her while she was in custody. This is unacceptable, no matter what the status of proof against an accused. To utilise these snippets to craft a titillatingly crime story is an extremely disturbing comment on the investigators and the media. Anara8217;s case is in court. She cannot 8212; must not 8212; be subjected to a trial by innuendo.
