Before I begin talking about the Batla House encounter and my recent appearance on Times Now on The Newshour with Arnab Goswami, I would like to reiterate that had my friends and fellow colleagues not come out is support of me, my fight against the Big Giant of the television industry would have been very difficult.

For a journalist, the charge of being an Indian Mujahedeen sympathiser or a front or cover of a terrorist organisation cannot be taken lightly. A journalist’s professional responsibility and duty is to question the narratives propounded by the state machinery and not accept everything at face value. If one took the police’s version as the last word on a case, the there would hardly be any need for the judiciary or the media as the fourth pillar of democracy.

I am talking about all this in the context of the recent invitation I got from Times Now to participate in a debate hashtagged #BatlaManInISIS. Despite my initial reluctance, I decided to go there on repeated assurances from the Times Now’s desk coordinator that I would be given a fair chance to put across all my points in the debate. That promise, of course, meant nothing because I was cornered every time I was trying to make a point.

I felt helplessness in the face of the allegations thrown at me; it reminded me of Noam Chomsky’s Manufacturing Consent. Here I was sitting in the studio with people accusing me of being a terrorist sympathiser and I could do nothing to rebut it — this could very well pave way for lynch mobs to attack me once I am out of the studio.

However, I remained cool and calm and continued to try making my points concerning the authenticity of the Batla encounter, in light of several loopholes.

My reluctance to accept the Batla House encounter was genuine and is not based on some flimsy emotions, but rather on hard facts and in-depth investigation as a journalist. I have various reasons to doubt the authenticity of Batla encounter: If one goes to the exact building where the alleged encounter took place, one would notice the narrow lanes and question how one could easily escape through such narrow lanes with heavy police presence. Moreover, the government has refused to conduct any magisterial enquiry despite the NHRC guidelines. So far the argument of state agencies has been that a judicial enquiry will affect the morale of the police, but rationally speaking, if the government conducts the enquiry and the police forces are given a clean chit, it will only boost the morale of the police forces. Needless to say, it would be a slap on the face of journalists “like us”, who have been questioning the authenticity of that encounter.

The man in question right now, Bada Sajid, who featured in the ISIS video, has reportedly been killed at least twice according to stories in the media, once in Afghanistan, and then Syria. Moreover, the video is yet to go through any forensic test.

In conclusion, I agree that other journalists have the right to counter my work on Batla encounter and question me on the stance I have taken. But I am prepared for a debate not a media trial by someone who throws accusation at others based on his own prejudices and biases. However, I am glad that I went on Times Now, which got people talking again on the Batla House encounter. We must think why and how debates get framed in an “us-versus-them” narrative and why we are increasingly losing the ability to engage with each other without labelling each other. What we are losing is the ability to engage as journalists and as a nation.