The week last saw the media whip up
a frenzy as almost all newspapers, TV channels and online news sites carried the
story about the molestation of a Malayalam actor, Bhavana, by her ex
driver. Kerala political heavyweights
took up the cudgel, the film fraternity stood in solidarity, activists kindled
and rekindled feminists flames, women all over the country quaked in new fears
of safety, news anchors screamed rhetoric, panellists basked in reflected
spotlights.
Yet the one thing that struck me
time and again, in all of the news articles and headlines was the word ‘ALLEGED’
that preceded the word molestation or rape.
Going back or scanning through numerous other such stories that surface
with increasing regularity in our ambit, I found that almost in all instances,
this 7 letter word almost unfailingly tagged in front of the words that
described the act.
The dictionary defines the word ‘allegedly’
as said,
without proof, to
have taken place or to have a specified illegal or undesirable quality.
‘Said without proof’- how is
someone supposed to bring to light the ‘proof’ while making a complaint of rape?
Maybe by saying, ‘Excuse me, but could we take a selfie first, please?’
Maybe it’s a legal prerequisite, I haven’t
checked the law. But why is it that journalism requires the words rape or
molestation to be couched in a safety net by preluding it with the word ‘alleged’?
What does that imply? That it would require investigative journalism before the
hearsay can be thumped down as truth and they can go forth and publish without
any contradictions that may surface later?
I know there is a question of
ethics of reporting and boundaries, especially when it comes to a topic as sensitive
as rape. It is essential for journalists
to "devote their resources and their skills to presenting the fullest
version of the truth [they] can deliver, placing the highest value on
information [they] have gathered and verified [themselves]. Yet, in
this context, how would it be possible for journalists to do that? But by
treading cautiously and couching behind diplomacy, doesn’t this vilify the
victim? Doesn’t the word ‘allegedly’ somehow purport that the victim is being
untruthful?
Bhavana is being lauded for
fearlessly bringing forth her ordeal. For stepping forth into the spotlight
while most in similar circumstances would hide in the shadows of fear and shame.
For taking a bold stance against her perpetrators. Yet, to me, every time the
word ’allegedly’ marches forth before the words that described her ordeal, it’s
not only a step back in her fight, but worse, it gives the benefit of doubt to
the ones that committed the act.
Against the onslaught of safety, molestation,
abuse – both verbal and physical, gender parity, and a whole gamut of insensitiveness,
wouldn’t this be another shackle that buckles her down. Can the media step
forth and give 'the woman' the verbal strength of allowing the words ‘rape or ‘molestation’
to stand trial without the crutch of being ‘alleged?’
