I’m
thinking that India needs more lawyers, trial lawyers, to report the news. They
know how to ask uncomfortable questions and insist on an answer.
Take
the episode of the Party in Power (PiP) politician who took physical umbrage at
the quality of the food he was getting at subsidized prices. In a shocking
display of the way he was raised, the gentleman (by statute) attempted to force
feed the protesting server tasked with the responsibility of dealing with
unhappy diners. This after having publicly, on camera, decried the food stuff
as being unfit for man or beast. A representative of the people, sworn to
uphold the rights and the dignity of his constituents, used physical force to
augment his opinion. Captured on tape, that example of the arrogance of power
ruled the news channels. Points of view were sought; spokespersons of every
political color voiced, shouted, their opinions, often simultaneously. The
political satrap was asked to explain his behavior. He claimed innocence and
purity of motive. Much valuable air time was spent exploring the communal –
read, racist – over and undertones of his motives and actions. Emotions ruled
the hour. Justifications, denials,
equivocations, spin, had the air-waves humming. Eventually, of course, everyone went home to
bed, strangely satisfied, ideological underpinnings undamaged, and the salient
point unexplored; do we or do we not believe that all men are equal with rights
and dignities on par with any in the land?
Me?
I’m still wondering how a democratically elected person thought that it
permissible to invade the personal space of a fellow, theoretically anyway,
citizen without that citizen’s approval and consent. As far as I know that is
the law, in any democratic system. As far as I know unwanted touch is actionable
and the perpetrator can be brought to book and reparation. I know for a fact
that in the US that unfortunate episode was, is, a fat payday for the target of
the Misuse of Power by an elected official with a dash of Threat and Physical
Intimidation as icing. Official arrogance can be quite expensive.
I
kept waiting for someone to… no, wait, there were voices, lawyer type voices
that did try to make that point, but were drowned about by the more emotive
issues. They, the lawyer type voices, poor souls, were probably more used to
the civilized methods of argument used in trial. Just as much invective, bile,
and emotional ugliness, but one that insists that a question be answered and
the holes in the response explained. Reason is sought, with emotion and motive
mere garnish.
A
trial lawyer reporter would have made that his/her first avenue of enquiry. The
whole roza, communal fandango would
have been recognized as the distraction that it is.
