ALLEGEDLY speaking

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?’