Your eyes do not deceive you. An unelected all-male village council in India has ordered that 23-year-old Meenakshi Kumari and her 15-year-old sister are raped. The “sentence” was handed down as punishment after their brother eloped with a married woman. They also ordered for the sisters to be paraded naked with blackened faces. Nothing could justify this abhorrent punishment. It’s not fair. It’s not right. And it’s against the law. Demand that the local authorities intervene immediately.
Above is the text of Amnesty International’s main website story now going global for online signatures for its petition addressed to the “Principal Secretary of Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh”. The first “fact” itself is wrong. There is no such post or person as “Principal Secretary of Lucknow”, and so whom is this petition meant for? It is meant for the website viewer and with a purpose.
On the same page it loudly proclaims: “We are ordinary people from across the world standing up for humanity and human rights.” Then comes the hook. In a very user-friendly window it exhorts the viewer to “support us by agreeing to help today and donate.” Now the choice is yours. For just once or every month. It indicates starting level to be £5. Imagine the number of fingers that are punching the button? Even a sandwich costs more in the UK.
Foreign do-gooder NGOs used methods like this to tug at heartstrings and cadge money from the unsuspecting. I recall an advertisement in a leading British newspaper some decades ago Oxfam, soliciting funds more directly by showing a picture of a well-fed mouse and the caption stating something akin to: “This rat will eat better than millions of Indian children tonight.
Help Oxfam to help them.” I recall sending this clipping to then Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, and requesting him to correct this image of India being purveyed by such NGOs. To his credit, Rajiv Gandhi took up the matter with the British government, which in turn had Oxfam pull down this advertisement. This is Narendra Modi’s time to act.
I am not saying these NGOs don’t do good work. It’s the zealousness that bothers me. Often this is excessive and they are not above lying a bit to raise money. After all, money is the manna that feeds God’s work on earth. Take the case of another do-gooder NGO, Greenpeace.
In June 1995, Greenpeace organised a worldwide, high-profile media campaign against the plan of oil major Shell to sink in situ its obsolete North Sea drilling platform, Brent Spar. Greenpeace opposed it and said it would cause severe pollution as the rig’s tanks were filled with 5,500 tonne of possibly hazardous chemicals. Shell said that there was only 55 tonne and within acceptable levels. Subsequently, Greenpeace activists occupied the Brent Spar for more than three weeks.
In the face of public and political opposition in Europe, including a widespread boycott of Shell service stations, some physical and including arson attacks, Shell abandoned its plans to dispose off Brent Spar at sea — whilst continuing to stand by its claim that this was the safest option, from an environmental, industrial health and safety perspective.
Shell commissioned the independent and respected Norwegian consultancy Det Norske Veritas (DNV) to conduct an audit of Spar’s contents and investigate Greenpeace’s allegations. Greenpeace with great alacrity admitted that its claims that the Spar contained 5,500 tonne of oil were inaccurate and grossly overestimated and apologised to Shell on September 5, 1995.
This pre-empted the publication of DNV’s report, which endorsed Shell’s initial estimates. The overestimation of the contents of the Brent Spar damaged the credibility of Greenpeace in their wider campaigns. They were criticised in an editorial in the respected scientific journal Nature for their “lack of interest in facts”.
But the damage was done. Has Greenpeace learned anything from this? More importantly, have those in the media, in influencing and opinion-making positions, learnt anything? The Amnesty International story is derived from a story from some news agency called News18 which reported: “Her brother allegedly eloped with a married Jat woman after which the Khap panchayat ordered his sister should be raped and paraded naked. She then moved the Supreme Court to seek protection for her family and herself.”
This is in turn derived from a story in a national daily of August 19, where it was reported that Justice Jasti Chelameswar asked the state police to respond to Meena’s plea for a Central Bureau of Investigation probe into the incident. In this report, Meena’s advocate, Vivek Singh, apparently told the newspaper: “On July 30, the Jat community held a Khap panchayat and decided to avenge the dishonour. The petitioner has been condemned to be raped and paraded naked after blackening their faces only because her brother fell in love and eloped with her friend. The family can never return.”
One can see how the story got transformed in each retelling. The report quotes the petitioner’s advocate to narrate the story, and so you can expect a one-sided version. Then a TV channel picks it up and categorically states that a Jat Khap panchayat ordered the punishment. No attempt was made by any of the two news sources to verify this either from the village (Baghpat is less than 60 km from Delhi) or the local authorities or the local MP or the state government. Mr Singh’s is the last word on this.
We are taught that good and ethical journalism means facts have to be verified and all dimensions of the story be closely examined. Instead of compliance with good journalism norms, we witness classic disinformation technique at work. Here an unverified story keeps getting retold because of the other interests of the parties purveying it.
There are Khaps, and there have been bizarre and medieval rulings by them from time to time. Most of the time they go unheeded by communities who are moving ahead with the times. But first find out what is true and what is not. This clearly was not done. And then Amnesty goes international to flag this issue to show the good work they are doing and, hence, needs money to keep going. The respect for facts be damned.
The writer held senior positions in government and industry, and is a policy analyst studying economic and security issues. He also specialises in the Chinese economy.
