How about disclaimers about dubious media panelists?

by Abhay Vaidya Does a politician who stands accused of instigating vandalism have the moral authority and credibility to comment on social aberrations till such time her name is cleared? And why does the media invite such a politician to TV debates on  controversies of the day without reminding viewers that the politician is embroiled in a serious case of vandalism and rioting? Shiv Sena spokesperson Neelam Gorhe, MLC, is among the most vocal politicians from Maharashtra. Her credentials are that of a women’s rights activist who runs an NGO which is effective at the grassroots. As Sena spokesperson, she is frequently quoted by newspapers and is a guest on various TV debates. [caption id=“attachment_270528” align=“alignleft” width=“380” caption=“Neelam Gorhe. Image from IBN Lokmat”]  [/caption] Gorhe’s views are sought not just on political developments but also on social issues, especially those involving women and children. In the recent past, Gorhe, like other Opposition leaders, has commented on “corruption in the Congress” in the context of the Vilasrao Deshmukh-Subhash Ghai case. Previously, she had spoken of how Maharashtra has been “shamed” by senior Congressmen such as Suresh Kalmadi and Kripashankar Singh with their alleged involvement in mega corruption deals. While Gorhe is entitled to her views as an individual and a party spokesperson, the problem arises when news organisations air these views without reminding viewers and readers that Gorhe herself is involved in a case of vandalism that occurred in Pune in December 2010. This frequent reference is important, even at the risk of repetition, because only then will the public feel fully informed about Gorhe and weigh her statements accordingly. Last week, the Bombay High Court rejected an appeal filed by Gorhe and Sena executive president Uddhav Thackeray’s personal secretary Milind Narvekar against a Pune court order directing the Pune police to collect their voice samples. These samples are required by the police as a part of their investigations into a case of rioting and vandalism that occurred in Pune in December 2010. The provocation for this “planned unrest” was the overnight shifting of the statue of Chhatrapati Shivaji’s mentor, Dadoji Konddev, by the Pune Municipal Corporation. According to the police, the rioting was allegedly instigated by Narvekar and Gorhe. The high court, while upholding the right of the police to collect the voice samples, granted a six-week stay to give the two accused adequate time to approach the Supreme Court. For more than a year now, Gorhe and Narvekar have been resisting attempts by the Pune Police to collect their voice samples. Both were booked by the police after their conversation on the mobile phone was intercepted by the police on 27 December 2010. According to the FIR filed by Pune’s Bund Garden police, Gorhe was instructed by Narvekar to ensure that at least 200-300 activists took to the streets on the morning of 28 December to create commotion by setting ablaze some ST buses at prominent depots in Pune. Gorhe was allegedly instructed to ensure that a similar disruption was organised on the Mumbai-Pune Expressway to disrupt traffic coming towards Pune. She was to ensure that TV crews were informed in good time so that they could record and air the visuals for maximum impact on the public. According to the police, at least 30 buses were damaged and one was set ablaze by protestors, causing an estimated damage of over Rs 5 lakhs. Rather than face the charges squarely and prove their innocence, Gorhe and Narvekar have repeatedly frustrated attempts by the Pune police to get their voice samples. Previously, in March 2011, the two had challenged the order of a magisterial court allowing their voice samples to be collected by stating that telephone intercepts violated the fundamental rights of citizens. After this plea was dismissed by a district court, they filed an appeal in the high court. Since this case is already more than a year old, there is every chance that its significance will fade out of public memory by the time it is decided. The media too would be unwittingly assisting in this process by not mentioning it every time it reports about Gorhe. Given a choice, a politician would prefer that an embarrassing case lingers in the courts as long as possible till it is rendered irrelevant. However, this case has high public interest in view of the serious charges against politicians in engineering riots. It is important that it is not lost in technicalities and is decided one way or the other. Till such time, it is only fair to expect that every important reference to Gorhe is accompanied with a reference to this case, which is pending in the courts.