Mar 16, 2005 10:03 AM
6631 Views
(Updated Mar 20, 2005 07:45 AM)
The latest controversy over the India-TV Shakti Kapoor entrapment episode opens up a Pandora’s box regarding issues of privacy. As Shekhar Suman puts it, “Now they are planting cameras in people’s pants!!!”.
The episode
A Sting operation was carried out by the noted (notorious?) Suhaib Ilyasi of India TV in which a young reporter acting as an aspiring starlet started sending feelers to Shakti Kapoor, a supposedly influential character actor of Bollywood. After nearly six months of pestering, there was a rendevous at a hotel where the proceedings were secretly filmed. An apparently sozzled to the bone Shakti started bragging about his clout in Bollywood and speaking innuendoes about industry bigwigs. Finally he said what the stingers wanted to hear – “I want to sleep with you”.
The reactions
Casting couch claims are not new to Bollywood. Infact Bollywood victims have been the most vocal of all – be it Sabiha (Rajesh Khanna), Alisha Chinai (Annu Malik), Preeti Jain (Madhur Bhandarkar) etc. Eventually all these stories bite the dust as there is no evidence. In this case, not only was there concrete evidence with the culprit having been caught with his pants down, but he had committed sacrilege by hurling insinuations about the holy cows of Bollywood too. This led to an immediate boycott by the industry with top guns baying for his blood.
The political angle
I wouldn’t want to bring in politics here – but ah! Its too important to ignore this fact. The other day, India TV invited two guests to discuss this issue. One was actress Nagma – remember Nagma along with Shakti Kapoor had been commissioned by the Congress Party to counter the BJP Star power. Nagma found herself friendless after the link-up to the D-company a few days ago. Now it was the turn of Shakti Kapoor. It was pathetic to see Nagma defending the indefensible. She was all at sea.
The other guest was none other than Girija Vyas, a Congresswoman herself, but now in her capacity of the Chairperson of some Governmental Women’s Commission. Obviously her brief was to speak on the women’s issue angle in this entire drama. Instead Ms Vyas started castigating the channel about how unethical it was to carry out this operation and that the end does not justify the means, blah blah.
However, what is interesting was that in the Tehelka episode, when a similar sting operation was carried out against BJP leaders, some of the accused tried to put up a defence stating that this was contrived by the website and there wasn’t any real company which was being given any deal etc. At that time, it was the same Girija Vyas who shouted down such protests saying that these people had been caught red-handed and that was all that mattered. Of course it suited their political interests at that time. Now it harms them. Hence the difference in attitude.
The ethics
People talk all about the ethics involved. What about the ethics of the people doing the crime? Is that okay? For decades there have been claims of the casting couch – this is the first time that there has been some concrete evidence. Isn’t that valuable? Arent the Tehelka tapes valuable? If the Prime Minister is taking some bribe, wouldn’t you have been happy if the thing had been caught on tape? Or would you have said that I will disregard it because it is unethical?
If someone is unimpeachable then he should not fear the hidden camera!
Countering Maya
I read just one other review on this issue so far – that by fellow compatriot Maya. She goes on and on about Imran and Jemina. That is not investigative journalism – that is papparazi. I don’t support that. Taking Brad Pitt’s nude photos is not right.
But if Bill Clinton is doing something funny with an intern in his office, the media is certainly justified in exposing it.
The Ambani brothers conflict affects lakhs of investors – and anyways that is not a sting operation.
Tarun Tejpal’s effort was not the only sting operation in favour of national interest. There are many other issues where we would benefit immensely if such things are carried out!
Her last line says it all – ''who cares''! If this is the kind of lackadaisical attitude that one has, then no public issue ought to matter!
Finally,
Despite all such exposes, corruption will continue to flourish sadly. But atleast a few culprits will think twice. If such a fear can prevent even 10% of the crimes, this kind of operations would have solved their purpose.
As regards ethics, once again I repeat, if someone is unimpeachable, then he has nothing to fear from the hidden camera!
