Junaid case: No communal motive to the crime rules HC

Last year, national and international media was losing its mind ranting about the growing intolerance in India. They said the fascist Hindutva fringe was getting emboldened, that democracy was in danger. Junaid’s death was used to shame Hindu nationalists internationally, it was used to question Modi’s leadership. A beef-angle was brought in, because somehow a great grand Hindutva conspiracy had to be hatched. ‘Not In My Name’ campaigns were run by the anti-Modi brigade. India was branded ‘Lynchistan’. <sigh>

Now that the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled in the case, I wonder whether the truth will generate any buzz at all. Opposition media houses do not care about the truth, you see, because they have been tasked to manufacture one. Far from being the fourth pillar of democracy, these media houses work to corrupt public opinion and twist it according to their own subverted agendas. Until the lies that they keep regurgitating come to be accepted as the standard narrative. “Spit and run journalism” is what I call this phenomenon.

OpIndia has extensively quoted the original High Court ruling.
Their observations are included here.


The High Court in its order dated 28th March has confirmed that the fight started over seat dispute and there was no communal intention to the crime.

The following observation was made by the Punjab and Haryana High Court during a hearing granting bail to one of the accused, Rameshwar Dass.

The judgement makes it amply clear that the fight started over seats and “caste” slurs. The High Court observation too doesn’t mention beef or religious slurs to be a part of the reason for violence.

The trial court had last year dismissed Dass’s bail plea saying that he boarded the train and “was involved in the quarrel with the victims from the very beginning”. The High Court observed :

“I do not think, the distinction drawn by the trial court is apt. On the contrary, it is seen that the assault was never made in the beginning, but the same was made when the other boys entered the train.”

Justice Chaudhari observed :

“Except attributing him the abuses in the name of castes or giving slaps in the first round, it cannot be said that there was any allegation about the petitioner asking Naresh or any other boy to assault the other group, including the deceased. There is not even remote whisper that the petitioner had instigated or asked anybody to make assault.”

The High Court reiterates their observation in a later part.The High Court makes 3 interesting observations in the portion attached above :

  1. The incident seems to have taken place over the issue of seat sharing
  2. There is no evidence of preplanning
  3. There was no intention to create disharmony

The word ‘beef’ occurs neither in the HC order nor in the FIR. When such is the case, how did mainstream media get away with publishing white lies in the name of journalism? What prevents the government to take action against such journos?

I hope lengthy apologies are in order because there is no other way people of this country will forgive these media channels.

Comments

comments