“What a piece of work is man,” William Shakespeare had written in his play Hamlet. Watching yesterday’s Newshour debate on Times Now, one could have well believed that Shakespeare had been writing in praise of actor, model and panellist par excellence, Nasser Abdullah. Because there he was, exhumed from the obscurity in which he’s buried before and after his Times Now appearances, sitting on a panel to discuss the mystery of Sheena Bora’s murder (which is as tragic and juicy a tale about murder, paranoid sons and dysfunctional families as Hamlet, if you think about it).   

It’s difficult to stand out in a Times Now debate, particularly now that Arnab Goswami has left the building. For one, the prerequisite to being in the channel’s studio seems to be readiness to lavish praise upon Times Now. Within the first five minutes, we were told last night that Peter Mukerjea being named as one of the accused in Sheena Bora’s mystery was essentially because of Times Now’s reportage from August 2016. Over the course of 45 minutes, anchors Tanvi Shukla and Tina Sharma Tiwari, along with their esteemed panel, congratulated Times Now exactly 12 times. Advocate Hitesh Jain had the temerity to suggest that perhaps the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had made a breakthrough or two, but this was brushed aside quickly. Instead, we were told that Times Now had cracked the case back in August and now the channel were here to inform us that Indrani and Peter Mukerjea are both guilty of Sheena Bora’s murder. All the courts need to do now is thump the gavel in agreement.

Author Manju Kak, who for reasons best known to Times Now was described as an “activist”, threw a conspiracy theory into the mix when she repeatedly claimed that there was more to the case, and that there was a “corporate entity” behind the Mukerjeas’ actions. She didn’t take at all kindly to Jain pointing out that Kak questioning the investigation at this juncture meant that she was suggesting someone else was guilty. The CBI has just filed their chargesheet. Consequently, to say there’s someone other than the Mukerjeas who should be investigated suggests the CBI didn’t do their job properly, Jain pointed out. That would put a question mark over the allegations levelled against the Mukerjeas, which in turn would mean benefit of doubt for them. (Imagine that. Benefit of doubt for two people who are accused of a crime and whose trial hasn’t started yet. What a ridiculous idea. #hairflip) A few minutes later, Kak, when asked if she thought Peter had framed Indrani, said, “I don’t think Peter tried to do this. I think Peter was forced to do this by powers beyond him.” It must have struck her as she spoke that she was proving Jain’s previous point. So she just threw in an accusation that Jain was probably speaking for the “element” that had arm-twisted Peter. In the words of Sun Tzu, “The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.”

To stand out in this swirl takes a fair amount of genius or whatever it is that inspired Abdullah last night to say of Peter’s initial claims of innocence, “Obviously now we know that he knew, but he can always claim that he didn’t.”

We’ll give you a moment to re-read that and fully absorb its tautological brilliance.

A few minutes later, Abdullah felt the need to defend his previous point that people sometimes exaggerate while speaking. So he explained with an anecdote: “A girlfriend of mine once happened to tell me, she was bored with me. She said, ‘I’ll just disappear’. And she didn’t die. She was ok.”

At this point, we can only gaze fondly at Abdullah and quote Shakespeare’s Hamlet again. “How noble in reason, how infinite in his faculty!” Further proving this infinite quality of his faculty, Abdullah suddenly had a moment when he channelled Sherlock Holmes. Folding his hands and holding them to his face, which was scrunched up to show he was thinking and had just had an epiphany, Abdullah made the following declaration:

“It’s just a possibility, it’s a possibility. I think there’s another aspect that nobody’s actually talked about. It might be worthwhile to look into the involvement of a tantric or a soothsayer and other people. These women are very strong, but they always operate with advice etcetera from these guys. Every actor, every lady I know, they all visit one baba or the other or astrologer. She may have her person. I’m suggesting it’s a possibility. Because I’m mostly unemployed, so I have these ideas in my head.”

It’s rare to find such a glorious package of misogyny, the occult, generalisation and sublime idiocy, tied together with an admission of being jobless.

All those who are feeling a tsunami of triumphant misandry swell in their hearts, restrain yourselves. There was someone else in the Times Now studio who could give Abdullah competition, and did. Simi Chandok, editor of Zoom, doesn’t even have the excuse of being unemployed as an explanation for her limited understanding. Not just that, she is a journalist, which implies she has some understanding of the world at large.

At one point during the debate, Chandok decided she needed to squash this theory that lurking under Sheena Bora’s murder were dangerous financial dealings and cover-ups. “If this was about other people’s money,” Chandok therefore observed, “they wouldn’t have been killing their own children. … They tried to kill [their] other children as well, they even threatened Rahul, so this is more about their personal money… They would not be doing this if there was one powerful entity’s money that was going down the drain.”

How can you argue with well-reasoned logic like that?  

It turned out that all these quotable quotes were just a build-up. The Newshour hit its high when Chandok and Abdullah got into a discussion about whether Indrani is smart.

Nasser Abdullah (NA): I don’t think Indrani is smart. It’s her lawyers who are smart. They have told her to do this because through this, they will find another source of good stuff. They will later use this, that she was framed etcetera etcetera blah blah, but it’s her lawyers who must have asked her to do this.

Simi Chandok (SC): Oh no, she is bright! She planned the murder, she managed to get her ex-husband to be party to the crime. She’s very smart. Have you seen her hair?

NA: No, no, no, no. What is this? She planned the murder so she’s smart? It’s not a big deal to plan a murder. You can do it any time. I’ve rehearsed 15 murders.

SC: I feel this is very planned, even appearance, the way she has chosen not to dye her hair, have the grey hair, the way she’s dressing up. She can choose to dress up better. This is a choice she’s making. The fact that she’s saying  she has been wronged by her husband, she wants a divorce… she’s chosen the correct time. … She’s also said that she wants to change her will and leave her money to charity. This is a mother who, you know, killed her own daughter and today she’s had a change of heart and wants to leave her money to charity? I mean, this is, I would probably think these are all tactics to delay justice and kind of buy time. … We’ve had Sanjay Dutt go to jail, we’ve had Salman go to jail. They never came out looking like this. They never cut such sorry figures.”

To which lawyer Abha Singh replied with, “That’s true.”  

So there you have it: Abdullah has “rehearsed” 15 murders, Chandok can tell guilt from your wardrobe choices, and the only thing that the jury is out on is whether Indrani is smart. Actually, that’s not fair. There’s a much bigger question that needs answering: on what basis does Times Now choose its panellists? The lawyers were encouraged not to talk about the legal aspects of the case, which makes you wonder why they were called in the first place. Also, what is it about Abdullah, Chandok and Kak that suggested expertise in murder investigations?

Primarily because of its stupidity, last night’s Newshour was one of the most entertaining editions Times Now has managed in its post-Goswami days. The program can easily be shifted to the Entertainment section, rather than News, which is great because we could all do with a laugh in these grim and difficult times.

If you do want to be serious, though, yesterday’s edition was also an example of just how thoughtless the channel has become. There was much to critique in the way Goswami approached the Sheena Bora murder last year, but at least he clung on to the pretence that there was an investigation that Times Now was conducting and that there were questions that needed to be raised. This time, Times Now didn’t bother. The anchors (and most of the panellists) carelessly pronounced the Mukerjeas guilty even though the trial hasn’t begun and the channel doesn’t know all the evidence that will be presented. There was no consideration of what the defence’s arguments might be or the complications of the case. Hitesh Jain’s attempts at looking at the case from a purely legal perspective were summarily dismissed. Times Now is so convinced of the Mukerjeas’ guilt that the anchors brushed aside a serious question – why was the driver, who has since turned an approver and is a critically important part of the prosecution’s case, first picked up for questioning? The answer to this question could potentially undermine the credibility of his testimony if it turns out that the evidence against him or offered by him was planted by someone else. As far as Tanvi Shukla was concerned, however, it was ridiculous to waste time on such fripperies.     

Especially since the channel is so fond of tooting its own horn, you’d think that it would be conscious of the fact that this programming could influence how the Sheena Bora case is perceived. It’s not as though there was nothing to discuss other than Indrani and Peter’s guilt. There was no discussion of what role was played by Sanjeev Khanna, the third accused in this case. The past few months have been eventful and traumatic for Indrani – there was an incident of drug overdose, reports of ill health, and both her parents passed away last year. None of this was mentioned in the debate, which focused upon making pronouncements and didn’t even bother with giving the viewers a timeline of events. Whether or not the Mukerjeas are guilty is for the court to decide, but Times Now – with its substantial viewership and self-alleged ability to make an impact – has already pronounced them guilty. Because Indrani hasn’t dyed her hair.

We can only hope Times Now will diligently follow up the soothsayer/ tantric lead that Abdullah has offered them.