reasonable questions

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.