A Strategic Partner Above Moral Grounds by Simi Sunny

After two long decades of a repressive military regime, Myanmar took the road to democracy with the November 7^th elections. The validity of the election results are already considered dubious with the junta-backed USDP declared the winners garnering 76.5% of the votes. Many were skeptical of the election process from the beginning itself because of the ban on many of the important parties like NLD (National league for Democracy) headed by Aung San Suu Kyi and parties representing ethnic minorities but still the formation of parliament after 22 years is being looked up by most of the world as a move towards reform. Even the release of Aung San Suu Kyi, who was under house arrest for more than fifteen years, on November 13^th was welcomed by the world especially the West. This isolated nation has been an interesting facet of south East Asian politics. Myanmar has had one of the most repressive and abusive regimes in the world and constantly faced scrutiny for gross human right violations since years. Despite so it has got a varied response in the international policy from the world nations.

The U.S has been one of the biggest critiques of the policies of the nation since the military coup of 1962. It has till recently followed a policy of complete non engagement and imposed sanctions on the country time and again. It was under the pressure of U.S and United Kingdom that the Myanmar issue was first taken up in the Security Council of the United Nations for the first time in 1995. Myanmar’s nuclear programme with the support of Russia has also been one the contentious issues between the two nations. Concerns were also raised about high prevalence of drug trafficking in the country. Thus U.S and Europe has had a history of strained relation with Myanmar and always urged a move towards Democracy and release of the political prisoners.

But the failure in this regard has been the full commercial engagement of two of the biggest nations in Asia- China and India. China has been an ally of the junta regime since 1988 due to its strategic significance. Myanmar not only provided China the much needed trading outlet to the Indian Ocean but also was large resource of oil and natural gas. It was of vital military importance safeguarding the trade routes and could also act as a check on India’s growing influence in the region. Around 1993 India in its effort to counter the growing alliance between the two countries revaluated its pro-democracy stance to enter into several bilateral trade agreements and state visits by heads of the state. Since then India has built major roads, highways, ports and pipelines in the region to increase its influence in Indo-China peninsula.

There have been many critics of the policies of both China and India for ignoring its moral responsibility for its trade profits, the most recent one being President Obama who condemned India for remaining silent in face of violent suppression of the democratic movements in Myanmar. China has come under immense pressure from both the ASEAN and the UN to encourage a democratic government in the country. But both the countries have continued to ignore them. Myanmar has been ravaged by mass killings and brutal economic policies of the junta recording the worst GDP rate. Sanctions have failed to make an impact and India and China’s crude economic and political cooperation makes it even more difficult for the people of Myanmar to see the light of a peaceful regime.

The Second Judiciary?? by Simi Sunny

Last summer when the Aarushi Talwar twin murders took place, the whole nation was glued to the news channels. As the drama unfolded, the media and the police transcended even the possible scope of imagination to guess the culprit and introduced their own conspiracy theories. They reported everything from the family’s life style, Aarushi’s habits, to her relationship with her friends. The channels went berserk with the coverage of the case. TRPs sky-rocketed, for it provided all the masala of a saas-bahu soap. The most interesting part was the conspiracy theories of each channel. The state of the marriages of Talwars and Durranis became ‘breaking news’. The media did not even spare the victim and spun stories of a relationship between Aarushi and the servant, Hemraj. The case became disturbing example of to what extent a sensation hungry media can go to cater to the people’s thirst for voyeurism and curiosity. The recent Ruchika Girhotra molestation case was another example of media’s growing obsession with revealing the truth. SP Rathore’s images flashed across channels portraying him as the dangerous devil.

The media has for years gloated over its role in the Jessica Lall and the Priyadarshini Mattoo case. Media activism was indeed the reason for the justice being delivered in these cases. It was the support of the media which turned the tide especially when the suspects belonged to influential families like the son of a former cabinet member and a police officer respectively. The media exposed the lapses in the prosecution and influenced the public to rise up against the court’s decision.

The trial by media has begun a tug of war between two conflicting principles –free press and the free trial. The phenomenon has created a gulf between the two leading public institutions-the media and the judiciary. According to the 17^th Law Commission there are certain restrictions placed on the Freedom of Press granted by Article 19(1)a. It states that material which has a prejudicial impact on the suspects, accused, witnesses and even judges and in general the administration of justice should not be allowed to be published. Such a report can tend to influence or pressurize the judge in delivering prejudiced judgment. It also tends to hurt the position of both the defense and the prosecution.

Implications of a media trial were most obvious in the Noida twin murder case. As Dr.Talwar walked out of the Dasna Jail media realized it had indeed gone overboard with allegations and ended up apologizing for character assassination and defamation. Media which hails judicial activism seeks exemption when it comes to them. It takes up the role of the prosecutor and passes the verdict with such a propaganda-like zeal that the confused nation which listens to every twist and turn accepts it as the ultimate truth. We don’t even try to question the position taken by the media just to be part of the righteous public. Television coverage today raises doubts about the right of an accused to dodge the stigma of conviction even before the trial. It serves what interests the public and not what is public interest.

The media has a responsibility towards the society and it needs to ensure that punishment is delivered to the culprits and the innocents acquitted. But in the rush for business profits and high TRPs, it has failed to rein in its frenzied and irresponsible reporting. It’s time the media accept accountability in its reporting and abide by the ethics of journalism.