I saw the India's Daughter documentary made by BBC4 through YouTube.
I found that the documentary does not pose anything wrong.
When I saw the debate conducted by Mr.Arnab Goswami in Times Now channel to stop the telecast of the documentary, I thought there might be something offensive in it; but when I saw it, I wondered why would they stop it.
Yes, the documentary poses India as it is, but our guys do not want India's name spoiled. Following are my hypothetical thoughts on this issue.
If India earns a bad name in the international arena, it will affect the businesses and corporate industry. An economic impact can be feared.
However, Mr.Goswami's argument was not based on the economic factor. Times Now called it voyeurism, which I couldn't witness in the documentary. I think, I am not sure although, there should have been a problem with the promotional video run by the channels before the telecast of the documentary. Maybe they highlighted wrong part of the documentary, giving importance to what the convict had said. This reminds me about a similar problem that erupted in Tamil Nadu couple of months back. The Tamil channel, Thanthi TV had interviewed the then President of Sri Lanka, Mr.Rajapakse, who is a convict according to the people of Tamil Nadu. When Thanthi TV telecast the promo, they presented it with the label 'Exclusive Interview', as though they had achieved something that is unachievable. This angered the people and politicians of the state and resulted in banning the telecast of the interview. Had they promoted it as a 'hearing' (as in court), the picture created in the minds of the people would have been different.
Mr.Goswami argued that the documentary will reinforce the negative ideologies in the minds of the common man. The documentary was shot by BBC Four, whose audience are a select elite. It was scheduled to be telecast in NDTV on March 8, 2015. Isn't it a wonder that 'common man' is audience to a full-time news channel! Doesn't the statistics report that most of the audience watch General Entertainment Channels (GEC) and the audience for news channels are a few people, who think, analyze, and interpret the information given to them before they could react. There are research reports that support this argument.
India's Daughter clearly underlines the mindset of Indian majority, with regards to the culture and tradition. It concludes with a note saying education can bring a change in the male chauvinism. Besides, you can see the irony in the documentary itself, where some educated men disprove that theory. However, on a positive note, going by 80-20 Pareto principle, I believe, yes, education can change the mindset.
Even though the 80-20 rule had been framed for some other purpose, adopting it for my interpretation, 80% of the educated population embraces liberality, gender equality etc., while the 20% will remain conservative. On the other hand, 80% of the poorly educated people stay conservative prohibiting women from going out in the night, limiting women to household chores etc., while the rest 20% of the oppressed take measures that their future generations must have the freedom. This is the reason why many educated came out to claim justice immediately after December 16, 2012 incident.
The documentary also highlights that sentencing somebody to death does not necessarily change their mindset or the people around. One of the culprits, Mukesh, does not exhibit any sign of remorse. Instead, his statement proves the theory, 'what goes in is what comes out'. He says something like this: 'If you choose to kill the rapist, he knows his destiny and hence, will kill the person whom he rapes.' Maybe, our ears, minds, and hearts are already closed from listening what a criminal has to say, but that does not change the fact. The fact is, thoughts are the base that define the purpose. Thoughts lead to words. Words get in to action. Actions form habits. Habits decide character. Character fixes the destiny. Go through the portion of the documentary, where the accused narrates the precursor to the mishap. Ultimately, attitudinal change cannot be triggered by imprinting the fear of death as a thought. It has to be the inculcation of the beauty of life.
Of course, the political and judiciary body must be worried of India's image on international platform, but they must know that in today's communicative world, forcing a ban on communication won't work. Forbidding data transfer or transfer of knowledge will lead to it's leakage and would bring more shame on the country for trying to cover-up instead of a willful action against the enemy. The enemy here is strong: male chauvinism.
