November 03, 2006

His motives

The pity is that this was perceived as necessary. Still, Shivam explains his motives for posting a photograph of Priyanka Bhotmange, lynched in Kherlanji. (See my previous post, About the photographs).

I don't want to say more about this business of posting a photograph, because I think it is merely a distraction from the horror of the atrocity in Kherlanji. I will say, I am ashamed of myself for not writing about this till a month after the Bhotmange family was murdered.

10 comments:

The Beautiful MIDDLE Class said...

Mr. Dsouza,

We try hard to escape from our social responsibilities. So when people like Shivam show graphical testimonials to our ignorance and sedentary awareness, its like a slap across our face. Dont remind us of what big wussies we are.

I am happily living in America spending my dollars to buy donuts. Why do you write and encourage such stuff?

India is shining, write something like how we are becoming a super power OR how great our ancestors were. Yes people are dying, hungry and discriminated, but its all MAYA.

Read Times of India. Everything is happy. India is Shining.

-An Open minded Higher Caste Urbanite
"Oh did I unknowingly exploit you, sorry I am from the middle class."- Gurcharan Das

Anonymous said...

Dilip,

Havent seen the actual photos being discussed here and in the previous post.

1. The dignity issue did look valid to me.

2. Any offence felt at the use of the photos would NOT in any way diminish their outrage at the actual incident (it sure doesnt for me...)

3. I see this whole thing as a distraction from the main issue. You have a point if this is being attempted to sidetrack the investigation etc.

4. Request everybody concerned not to lean into their comfortable grooves about 'India shining' vs 'bleeding heart lefties' etc.

--> Confused & co. rode on from dignity to 'exploitation of tragedy' furthering agendas etc.

--> Counter charge on how India shiners want to suppress news of this kind and dont care for the victims etc.

Cant we avoid this? This is basically a HUMAN issue.

regards,
Jai

Anonymous said...

Anonymous -- the pictures are available elsewhere if you're interested. I've linked them (and Dilip's original post).

"Dignity" is exactly the point: these people did not die in dignity. Shouldn't the world see how they died?

Stories about US atrocities in Iraq jails had appeared for months in the international media, but it took the Abu Ghraib photos (ooh, what about the dignity of those naked prisoners?) to shake the US public. And even then, they punished the two or three soldiers in those photos, and everyone was happy that justice was done.

If the US media had published more honest pictures from Iraq, the war would have ended long ago.

A picture is indeed worth several thousand words.

Anonymous said...

Rahul,

I saw the pictures from the link on your site thanks. Not really as offensive as I imagined it could be.

I have to honestly state that they did not materially increase the outrage or horror I felt probably because from the descriptions I had imagined even worse.

---> ooh, what about the dignity of those naked prisoners? <---

For what it is worth I was concerned about that too.

We could agree to disagree on this but if labeling this shade of opinion 'prudish' (as on your post) and dismissing it helps you in your outrage, do go ahead.

regards,
Jai

confused said...

Jai,
While I wont go in the photograph business again, having made my position amply clear that for me that particular photograph violated the dignity of the dead. Folks are of course free to disagree.

However, I would appreciate if you don't use the word confused and co. I speak for myself. Period. All criticizm should be directed solely against me.

Thanks.

Anonymous said...

Jai and "confused" - I can understand "the dignity of the dead" in the case of natural deaths or accidents. This was neither. The woman was deprived of her dignity, not by those who posted the photographs, but by those who killed her.

I will also remark that the blog with the photos, that I linked to, seems to be started by genuinely interested people who seem to be in contact with Priyanka's father, the sole survivor of his family. I'd trust them to respect Priyanka's dignity more than some disinterested prudish bloggers (and sorry if the word "prudish" offends you, but it's the truth, and the day "naked" ceases to be associated with "dignity" will be the day that girls who have been molested start thinking of fighting back rather than committing suicide.)

confused said...

Rahul,

I don't question your trust. It just that I don't share it.

About the rest of your points, I have said more than enough. I have nothing to add.

Anonymous said...

@confused:

sorry abt the "&Co" though it did look like a 'regular team' of commenters backed you up and another 'team' went against.

@rahul:

sorry for any offense. didnt know where you were coming from with 'disinterested prude' but if you mean prude=disinterested I disagree.

I would be most happy with a system that allows rape/ molestation victim s to retain their dignity while securing justice, but I do see your point that obsession with dignity can lead to these issues getting buried.

General:

1. Dilip, only just noticed you seem to have a policy of not naming opposing opinion (eg. 'accomplished blogger', 'c.') while naming the ones you support (eg. shivam vij).

Pls respond with a comment. I have been naming ppl that seems IMO to get this useful 2-way interaction going but can align to your mode here.

2. Not really a card-carrying member of either group. Am happy there seems to be some dialog btwn groups. Am a real regular only @ this blog and so cant tell but suspect some of this brouhaha is coming from running feuds on other topics. Request everybody to rethink.

regards,
Jai

Dilip D'Souza said...

Jai, there's no policy. But I do name the people who use their names. I don't name the people who themselves want to rename nameless. Which applies in this case.

c pradeep said...

one fellow called confused says -- "I would appreciate if you don't use the word confused and co. I speak for myself. Period. All criticizm should be directed solely against me."

on his own blog, same confused tells to someone -- "your team got into action attributing all sorts of motives."

why? any answer, CONFUSED?