Opinion Word’s Worth

From Malayalam/English to Latin/Greek. Latin,first: “actus non facit reum,nisi mens sit rea” (the intent and act must both concur to constitute the crime). This maxim was quoted by Abhishek Tripathi in an edit page commentary on the Bhopal judgment in this newspaper (‘Intent and act’,June 11). His point,a wholly logical one,is that whatever anyone’s response to the Bhopal verdict,we can’t forget this basic tenet of criminal law. Which is to say if you are going to shout from the rafters,or a place even higher and occasionally even more dangerous to be in,news TV studios,that those deemed guilty in the Bhopal case are not being treated like criminals,you should also ask yourself what,under rule of law,does criminality mean. This is not a coded message to Warren Anderson asking him for a dinner invite to his house,of which we saw ‘exclusive’ footage in three channels. It is just a boring old point: let’s have,on news TV,the big headlines,the expostulating anchors,and four different shots of Anderson’s front door,but let’s also have some logic. And all of this is to say that much of English language news TV coverage of the Bhopal verdict has been Greek to me.

So here are a few of the Greek bits,that is,bits that were apparently in English,but I simply couldn’t understand: Times Now using phrases like the ‘Butcher of Bhopal’. Anderson may have hightailed to home on the wings of Indo-American political influence,but can you be a journalist and call him a butcher? Times Now also said,during one of its high decibel talkathons,‘this criminal Anderson’. So that’s the verdict passed then. Also,a Times Now panelist said this country simply doesn’t have the capability to deal with large corporations in defending the interests of the poor. Times Now didn’t seem to disagree (you always know when they disagree). So that’s another verdict passed then — we are a pathetic little nation big corporations laughingly manipulate. You heard it on Times Now. And Times Now,it seems,is okay with this judgment.

CNN-IBN’s ‘exclusive’ chat with Abhishek Manu Singhvi,the issue being his giving a legal opinion on the question whether Dow carries Union Carbide India’s liability: The bottom line,CNN-IBN said,is that the advice was sent on Singhvi’s letterhead that mentioned his Congress affiliations. How’s that the bottom line? The bottom line is whether Singhvi has the right to offer legal opinion. He has. Can there be an absolute moral calamity in a lawyer taking on a client? I remembered news TV’s outrage when Ram Jethmalani agreed to represent the defence side in the Jessica Lall case. “How can you?”,CNN-IBN had shouted,“Why can’t I?”,Jethmalani had shouted back. Surreal TV. CNN-IBN also told Singhvi that the average Indian aam aadmi (as opposed to the select Indian aam aadmi,I suppose) is getting the impression that the Congress would rather bat for Dow than for him/her. If people are getting that impression,let CNN-IBN report it and put the Congress on the mat. But to hang that opinion on a peg that’s wobbly — a lawyer,let us remember again,can represent anyone he/she wishes — that’s strange. But hey,may be none of us is thinking right because the Congress/BJP have made India a toxic nation? That’s the summary of what a CNN-IBN panelist said. CNN-IBN stopped the panelist and said hang on,what do you mean,toxic nation. I am fantasising. It didn’t.

NDTV said at the conclusion of a report on Anderson,he lives a life of luxury. So,if Anderson was living a life of penury,the sufferings of Bhopal victims would have been less? Or justice would have been better served? Or what? As I said,it was all a bit Greek to me.

saubhik.chakrabarti@expressindia.com