A media magnate
A social butterfly
A do-gooder?
From doom to gloom, Indrani’s image makeover?
Can an image makeover really save Indrani?

These were the headlines on Bhupendra Chaubey’s primetime news show on CNN News18 on June 27, accompanied by images of Indrani Mukerjea – accused of murdering her daughter – sipping wine, smiling into the camera and with grey hair in jail. What could have possibly happened? Had Mukerjea become a social reformer? Had she gone in for plastic surgery? What?

Well actually, it was none of the above.

On June 23, Manjula Shetye who was a 38-year-old convict in Byculla Jail in Mumbai along with Mukerjea, was allegedly beaten up by prison guards, one female guard held her down while three other female guards shoved a stick into her vagina till she collapsed and had to be taken to hospital with 13 contusions, only to die the same day. Shetye, who was in jail for murdering her sister-in-law in 1996, had recently been made a warden as many convicts are. What had she done to bring on the ire of the guards? She had complained that some of the prescribed food supplies for her ward were missing. So the guards beat her, sexually assaulted her and killed her. The next day, 200 prisoners rioted and the police filed an FIR against the rioters naming Indrani Mukerjea as rioter #1. Mukerjea filed a case against the police saying she was under threat and had been physically assaulted.

That after such a gruesome incident of sexual assault resulting in a custodial death in one of Mumbai’s most famous prisons, Chaubey’s only interest was whether or not Mukerjea was aiming for an image makeover simply means nothing changes. “From doom to gloom, Indrani’s image makeover?” – This is the question distressing a primetime news editor, as a result of this gruesome incident involving a convict? A convict who the state is supposed to reform under its protection.

The “focus” of Chaubey’s show, Viewpoint was whether Indrani has schemed and tried to present a prettier picture of herself – not about prison conditions in India or custodial treatment.

Would it not have been pertinent – but definitely less sensationalist – for Chaubey to have set aside say 15-minutes of his 53-minute show on discussing the state of women’s prisons? On the power dynamic which allows three women guards to pin down a female convict and shove a stick up her vagina, simply because she complained about the reduced food supplies for her co-prisoners?

Once again, this is not some random prison in small town India. This is Byculla Prison. In Mumbai.

But no, Chaubey was at his misogynist best. “Earlier she was a power hungry media tycoon. Now she seems to be playing the victim card.” Phrases such as “Shrewd business woman” and “social butterfly” kept being flashed on screen. Because what can be worse than a shrewd and gregarious woman?

Now don’t get me wrong. The irony that Mukerjea is standing up for a woman being strangled and murdered, when she is accused of murdering her own daughter, doesn’t escape me. But what surprises me is that a 53-minute show was conducted to discuss her playing Svengali to herself, instead of discussing the custodial death. It’s strange that Chaubey didn’t realise that Mukerjea isn’t the one who publicised her role in the rioting – that the cops did so by naming her as the prime accused in their FIR. And more importantly, that no one, other than Chaubey and his panelist Ira Trivedi, who seems to be from the same school of debate as Nasser Abdullah, seems to care about whether or not Mukerjea is putting up an act or not.

Chaubey’s guests on his debate were lawyer Mahesh Jethmalani, Additional Commissioner of Police AA Khan, author Ira Trivedi and image consultant Dilip Cherian who accurately stated that this was an “example of gross human rights violation to inmates”. Chaubey’s own panelists pointed out that an inmate had been sexually assaulted and murdered and that Chaubey should be focusing on that and not on whether Mukerjea is a “social butterfly” or trying to gain sympathy before her trial begins again.

What was worse was that Chaubey himself stated that Maharashtra had the highest number of custodial deaths in the country and that that certainly needs to discussed – but felt his TRPs dropping and immediately ran back to discussing whether or not Indrani has gone in for an image makeover. Almost as if he has multiple personality disorder, with only the most irritating personality ruling the roost.

Mahesh Jethmalani summed it up best when he asked Chaubey, “the question is why are you more interested in Indrani’s supposed image makeover than in bringing justice to that dead woman?”

Which is indeed the question. It is a matter of priorities. Is Indrani Mukerjea’s change of image really so important to Chaubey and much of the media?

What jarred more than the completely delusional and misguided editorial decision to run with this panel discussion was the language and morality judgment at play while the debate was going on. She’s “shrewd”, a “media magnate”, “from socialite to socially aware” (as if being a socialite is a crime), a “social butterfly”. I’ve never noticed the same language or terms used to describe Peter Mukerjea for some reason. Or any man being discussed on any news show. But it’s good to know that Chaubey hasn’t changed much in his attitude to women, since his infamous Sunny Leone interview.

And don’t get me wrong. It’s not just Chaubey who is the black sheep of the media fraternity. Newspapers, digital media and other news channels are as guilty of missing the custodial death for the glee of discussing Indrani Mukerjea. There is nary one media house, which has not devoted reams and minutes to discussing Mukerjea’s involvement in the rioting, but have glossed over discussing the brutality of Shetye’s death and the prevalence of sexual violence and brute force against prisoners by guards. It is the state’s duty to reform, rehabilitate and protect its prisoners. If the state is planning on standing by silently while a prisoner is murdered and sexually assaulted, one would expect a primetime news debate on it. But to give credit where due, Chaubey is the only one who dedicated an entire hour-long show to discussing Mukerjea’s machinations instead of Shetye’s murder and on whether Mukerjea has stopped dyeing her hair and started praying. One would think the newsworthiness of the incident would hit the media in their faces. But it’s so much more fun to discuss Mukerjea’s role than an unknown convict’s gruesome death in prison.

What Chaubey and the rest of the media who have carried similar reports have managed, is to help the police deflect attention from their brutality to whether or not Indrani Mukerjea has undergone an image makeover. In the eyes of journalists – and especially Bhupendra Chaubey – it seems some murder convicts are more equal than others. Especially if they can ensure you TRPs and make people read your newspaper and website.