A British who ruined India’s Holi

BY RSN SINGH

This Holi season was ruined by a despicable intruder in the Indian mindscape. This villain came in the garb of a documentary film maker. The documentary based on ‘Nirbhaya’s rape’ was filmed under the pretext of artistic license by Leslee Udwin. She pretended that she wanted to carry out psychological profiling of the rapists for the benefit of India.

It is now clear that Udwin’s motive behind her so-called ‘intellectual journey’ was to assault the psychology and self-confidence of the Indians.

Udwin not only indulged in flagrant illegalities by duping the Indian authorities but perpetrated an ‘artistic, journalistic or academic’ fraud on Indians. Firstly she never interviewed the main rapists. The person Mukesh, she interviewed, was driving the bus when the rape was happening. He was an accomplice and not the physical perpetrator. His interview would have been justified, if he was the only person alive, but there are four others including the most brutal one, i.e. a ‘juvenile’. Secondly, the so-called intellectual and her platform BBC is raking money on Nirbhaya’s tragedy and psychologically India’s most calamitous occurrence.

It is now two years since the Nirbhaya incident occurred. Even an inadvertent visitation of the incident wrecks the soul of most Indians. India solidly stood behind its ‘daughter’. The wheels of justice were put in motion. Meanwhile, natural justice visited one of the main perpetrators ‘Ram Singh’, who died in prison under most mysterious circumstances. India had just begun to recover, when this British lady exacerbated the healing wounds of Indians just before Holi.

If Udwin’s purpose had been psychological profiling of rapist, the ‘juvenile’ would have made an excellent ‘case study’. None of her supporters in India, most of them pseudo-intellectuals, questioned as to how personality profiling of rapists can be done by leaving out the main perpetrators and hinging the entire story on an accomplice. It can be assumed that Udwin must have explored the possibility of interviewing the main perpetrators but was unable to ‘net’ any of them, she was however successful with ‘Mukesh’. In all probability, financial and other allurements must have been extended. Other allurements may have included a promise of traction on the international community so that he could escape death penalty. This explains why only Mukesh was on a song in the interview.

Incidentally, one of the persons associated with the production of the documentary, an Indian and a prominent television face, has been under controversy for indiscriminate indulgences. There are any numbers of stories being attributed for the loss of his long held job.

The supporters of Udwin in India seemed to raise their voices in perfect harmony and orchestration. They flogged the hackneyed imperative for ‘freedom of expression’. They ranted against mindset of Indian men and in favour of Indian democracy, both at the same time.

Does ‘freedom of expression’ have any quantitative, qualitative and legal boundaries? If not, then will this author be granted access to make a documentary on the same incident by carrying out a psychological profiling of the ‘juvenile’? Why cannot there be a documentary on ‘Nirbhaya’s case’ before every ‘Holi’ and every ‘Dushera’? Why these intellectuals do not clamour for revealing the name of the ‘juvenile’? Let the supporters of Udwin and ‘freedom of expression’ answer these.

Some voices with their strange logic and contrived anger were heard in the Parliament. One poet-cum-activist took this as an opportunity to vent his political anger. He thundered that the documentary must be seen by all, as it reflected the mindset of Indians. This poet should have realized that every daughter has a father, and if every father (Babul) carried the same mindset, there would have been no India and Indian civilization would have died long ago. Another politician threatened that given a chance, she would lynch the rapists. Well, her medieval wish was soon fulfilled by others at Dimapur.

This poet-cum-activist and Udwin must reflect on India’s history. It is the invaders, who were responsible for subjugation of women, and this includes Udwin’s country. The invaders invariably prized two things, i.e. wealth and women. The women had to be protected and indeed they were in great measure, and that is how Indian civilization survived. Indian men were enslaved and consequently, Indian women were circumscribed. No sooner did the enslavement begin to disappear, women in India, rather the Indian subcontinent made a massive surge, unparalleled, anywhere in the world in relative terms. If India had its Sarojni Naidu and later Indira Gandhi, the rest of the subcontinent i.e. Sri Lanka had Shrimavo Bhandarnayke, Bangladesh had Khaleda Zia and Sheikh Haseena, and Pakistan had Benazir Bhutto. It was all because of the larger, intangible India’s cultural influence.

John Keay in his book “India” says: “that Hindu society continued to challenge the austere morality of both Islam and Christendom well into the fifteenth century is clear from the account of a Russian merchant Athanasius Nikitin, a native of Tver (Kalinin) on the Volga, reached India in C1470, so barely thirty years ahead of Vasco da Gama”.

The poet-cum-activist must realize that it is India which has given so much of respectability to Sunny Leone. It cannot happen without a healthy mindset. He should also know that when idol of Kali is made during ‘Durga Puja’, the first fistful of soil to be used is extracted from the premises of ‘members of the oldest profession’.

Now here is some useful statistics with regards to ‘rape incidents’ reported round the world. Udwin would have found better pastures for documentaries in these countries apart from her own.

Source: http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Crime/Rape-rate#

This is not to deny that the problems in India, mindsets of men do need tectonic change, but there is a majority constituency in India, which is tormented by every such incident. Therefore, the British journalist has no raison d’être for an inaccurate and motivated documentary except for the reason that her purpose is to leverage and probably instigate rapes in India to foment ‘instability’. Rape for some international powers has become red herring. This author in an earlier article “Is rape being leveraged by external players?” had written:

“How and when they were facilitated in this act (allowed to rush towards Rashtrapati Bhawan), is a matter that must be investigated by this new government. Surprisingly, no such anger was demonstrated by the same so called angry-demonstrators, when the Courts declared the beast, who slaughtered the body and soul of Nirbhaya as ‘juvenile’. Was it in deference to his religious extraction?

It now emerges that the intention of these violent protestors had nothing to do with Nirbhaya but to sabotage Putin’s visit at the behest of Russia’s rival powers. This happened when Putin was on a ‘state visit’ to India. The prevailing security situation arising out of the protests was bandied as the reason for shift of venue for the meeting between Manmohan Singh and President Putin from Hyderabad House to 7, Race Course Road, the official residence of the prime minister. This was a diplomatic insult to any head of state.

Would such protests be allowed at the sensitive tri-junction (North Block, South Block and Rashtrapati Bhawan) a day before the US President Barack Obama’s visit to India?…

Readers may fast-forward events to two years later. Mr. Putin again visited India in the second week of December 2014. Coinciding this visit, there was another incident of alleged ‘rape’. Reportedly, the victim was in the forefront of the ‘Nirbhaya agitation’ in 2012. This unsuspecting and hapless girl would have hardly imagined that she could fall victim of the machinations of external powers even if it meant ‘rape’….”

The author would now like to draw the attention and concern of the readers to three critical developments with regard to Udwin’s documentary. It is now quite clear that Udwin was desperate to make the documentary even at the cost of legal and journalistic proprietary. Her creativity is steeped in fraud. She is not alone in this entire game-plan. Even as the controversy of this documentary surfaced, there were several articles in the Washington Post in favour of the ‘juvenile’, in which he was portrayed as a ‘dove’ and an ‘amiable’ being, even as several accounts of his beastly behaviour during that fateful night make it an unbearable rather abominable experience. The Washington Post and the BBC seem to have acted in complete coordination.

Also in coordination have been some Church organizations in Nagaland have stranglehold over educational institutions. The incident of alleged rape in Dimapur had occurred in third week of February 2015. The alleged rapist was taken into judicial custody in Central Jail Dimapur, then where was the need of lynching him. The CCTV footage of the alleged rape is available on the internet and readers may draw their own conclusions. But school girls in uniform as part of the mob could not have happened without indulgence of some externally sponsored groups/organizations. Remember only a few years back, a Chief Minister in Arunachal Pradesh was toppled at the behest of Vatican through Naga MLAs from the Tirap sector of the state, his fault being that he was not facilitating religious conversions.

Rapes and murders in their multitude forms and interpretations are bane to human society. The measure of a country’s civilizational standards is, to what margins it has been able to confine these dark forces.

Do the supporters of Udwin approve the lynching of the alleged rapist in Dimapur? Remember if you do, the only colour on Holi will be that of blood.

(RSN Singh is a former military intelligence officer who later served in the Research & Analysis Wing. The author of two books: Asian Strategic and Military Perspective and Military Factor in Pakistan, he is also a Guest Blogger with Canary Trap. The opinions expressed by the author and those providing comments are theirs alone, and do not reflect the opinions of Canary Trap or any employee thereof)