Aamir Khan's TV Journalism Is Nothing But Misinformation And Propaganda: Take #2

The Free Press is a "para-parliament" - and, just as the ideal of parliamentary debate is the "thrust-and-parry" of opposing views, so too must there be clashes of opinion in this para-parliament; and for the same reason, that "better sense prevails."

This is particularly important when a "reel life hero" comes on TV and discusses weighty issues with "authority" that he really does not possess - and naturally gets very high viewership. If he is in deadly wrong - he must be trenchantly opposed.

It takes decades of dedicated work to gain "credibility" as a journalist - and many fail, like Barkha Dutt and Vir Sanghvi. Many journalists are known to be "party hacks" - like Swapan Dasgupta. So, let us not assume that Aamir Khan can survive in this field just because he happens to be a very big Bollywood "star." 

Aamir Khan simply has NO locus standi in journalism. Films involve a highly complex division of labour - and it is usually the unsung scriptwriter who is the "smartest" of them all. The "idea" behind 3 Idiots did not come from Aamir Khan's own head. 

I have written two posts on Aamir Khan in his new avatar as a TV journalist earlier - on his espousal of the socialist-welfarist cause of universal State-provided healthcare: first, and second.

Today, I shall discuss his ridiculous TV programme on "domestic violence."

Aamir's programme began by rattling off "statistics" - and I wonder how these statistics can even be collected, since they concern what occurs within "private places," which is what the word "domestic" means. Only in case the concerned couple go "public" with their problems, do statistics appear - and in India we all know that the State Police never easily "register an FIR" and officially lodge complaints. Statistics, indeed!

So, instead of domestic violence, let us begin to look sensibly at the real issue that lies at its root - and that is "domestic discord." Usually, in almost all such instances, the concerned people sort it out among themselves.

This is what we call the "private settlement of disputes."

If this does not work, and the problem seems intractable, there is "arbitration" - and in domestic matters people seek all kinds of professional counsel, very easily available in the good ol' market.

But Aamir Khan MISSED all this - and, instead, focused solely on POLICE and LEGISLATION.

This is PRO-STATE. And all his programmes are thus.

Legislation is but a means of "social engineering": they find some "problem" or the other in "free society" and pretend to solve it by - what else? - creating and empowering a BUREAUCRACY.

The "police hierarchy" is another such bureaucracy - and, I do believe, most firmly, that too, unauthorised "public violence" by policemen on innocent citizens ought to be The Topic of "public discussion" on prime-time TV, and not the private, domestic hassles of individuals.

I myself have suffered such unauthorised use of force - misuse of force - many, many times; and even the Karnataka Lokayukta refused to entertain my complaint! This is the Lokayukta that Justice Hegde headed. When I went to their offices to lodge my complaint against the police, I was shocked to see that it was staffed entirely by those donning these "uniforms of brutality," which is surely why Kiran Bedi and Co. are so keen on a Lok Ayukta at the Centre.

   

In any case, as a result of domestic violence, if there are physical injuries, or property damage, these ought to be settled under Torts - which is "civil law," but Aamir does not know Law. His pro-police propaganda wants to actually "criminalise" domestic violence.

Now, even under the Indian Penal Code, there is "simple hurt," which is a "non-cognisable offence," and which the police can do nothing about. No case can be registered.

Then, there is "grievous hurt," which the cops can take cognisance of, and register a case. If the criminal court is convinced, after a long-drawn out trial, the perpetrator goes to jail - at the taxpayer's expense. The victim gets nothing. Indeed, to obtain this "retribution" in lieu of Justice, the victim pays lawyers, court fees, and all that! So, there is not much "deterrent power" in this.

With Torts, because the VICTIM receives financial compensation from the perpetrator, this serves as the most effective deterrent. And the civil process is much, much faster than a criminal trial. Further, the lawyer does not have to be paid anything; he can just be contracted a percentage of the compensation granted.

This is Justice - for the Victim, for nothing. 

And it is Quick Justice at that.

No burdens on the taxpayer, either.

Lastly, Aamir spent a lot of time discussing what are called "sex stereotypes." Such stereotypes rarely exist in real life - as with the statistical "average." Or the psychological "normal." The discussions on male and female stereotypes was with some women who headed NGOs - and their views were so jaded and outdated that I wonder which century before Christ was under discussion.

There are modern men, and modern, liberated women - and they were not discussed. Of course, they can have domestic discord, too - like throwing things at each other and all that. And they might just "kiss and make up" - which is the "private settlement of disputes." 

Like the DH Lawrences. They fought liked mad. And loved each other like mad, too.

The biggest error in Law is to assume that without The State and its monopolistic courts and police, legal disputes cannot be settled.

They can - and they must.

Which is why I champion a "private law society." 


PS:This post is continued here.