What a difference eight days make.
Four images tell you everything about how the government has ‘mis’ handled the wrestlers’ protests against Wrestling Federation of India chief Brij Bhusan Sharan Singh, over the last two weeks.
28 May: The lasting image is of wrestlers like Sakshi Malik being hauled away like a sack of vegetables by the Delhi Police while the Prime Minister, solemnly, carried the sengol into the new Parliament building.
5 June: Photographs of the Olympic medalist, smiling, calmly as she posed at her Northern Railways office in New Delhi were splashed across TV news screens and next morning’s newspapers.
The broadcast media were immediately high: ‘Sakshi Malik withdraws’ (India Today), ‘Sakshi leaves stir’ (CNN News 18), ‘Bajrang withdraws, Vinesh Phogat Withdraws’, ‘#WrestlersProtestOver’ said Republic TV. Oh, but hold on a minute, here’s NDTV 24×7 telling us that this is ‘completely wrong’ after Malik tweeted that the protest was very much on. India TV settled the matter to its own satisfaction: ‘The protest is over but the satyagraha will continue’, it said.
‘Massive confusion’, admitted Republic TV.
That’s because a third picture from the night of 3 June — the link between these two drastically different scenes — is missing. Union Home Minister Amit Shah’s Saturday night ‘meeting’ with protesting Indian wrestlers was closed to the press.
Indeed, as far as the government is concerned, it never happened. At no stage has the Centre publicly acknowledged that Shah met Sakshi, et al. Accounts of the meeting in front line English newspapers like The Times of India, Hindustan Times, The Indian Express or The Hindu, are based on ‘sources’, ‘sources close to the wrestlers’. Hindustan Times had a quaint turn of phrase for its sourcing: ‘According to persons close to the wrestlers’ protest…’, it wrote, adding that the home ministry had not confirmed it.
Why were the government’s media managers coy about taking public credit for a meeting that had clearly taken place at the home minister’s initiative?
Well, by Wednesday, they had overcome their shyness with Union sports minister Anurag Thakur officially inviting the wrestlers to his official residence.
Also read: Will end probe into Brij Bhushan charges by 15 June, govt asks wrestlers to suspend protests
The other version
At the end of the day, all we wanted to know was why had the wrestlers gone back to work?
If wrestler Bajrang Punia is to be believed, they didn’t: he told NDTV 24×7 that they simply signed in and came out because their leave was over. On Tuesday, Times Of India reported that they had received a ‘showcause notice’ on 27 May from their employer, Northern Railways and so reported back. Hindustan Times presented another scenario: the newspaper had learnt from ‘an official in the know of things…’ that the khaps were now ‘designing’ the future of the protest and therefore, the wrestlers had resumed work. Times of India also said the khaps were dismayed by the wrestlers’ `back channel’ contact with the government.
Also read: TV coverage of Delhi murder shows why you want IPL to continue forever
The conflicting versions
The reporting, since Saturday, on the wrestlers’ agitation against Brij Bhushan has been confusing and contorted as a tangle in a wrestling bout. Between print and TV news, you’re not quite sure of anything.
Consider the complaint by a minor against Bhushan. The media had reported the first statement she made on 10 May, and the FIR with charges under the stringent POCSO Act. On 5 June, Times Now said the minor had ‘withdrawn’ her complaint — in the same breath as it said Malik had withdrawn from the protest. Next morning, The Indian Express confirmed that ‘the lone minor among the seven female wrestlers has withdrawn her allegations…Sources said the 17-year-old has recorded a fresh statement before a magistrate under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.’
Pretty clear, right? Wrong.
The Hindu chose to disagree: On the same day, it reported that father of the minor had ‘refuted such claims’. “It’s completely fake…,” he said, according to the newspaper. Like a tussle on mat, the story went this way and that: On Wednesday, Times Now said the minor had recorded a new statement before a magistrate in New Delhi. And India Today added that POCSO charges may be withdrawn against Brij Bhushan. But The Hindu maintained that her father denied it.
So that’s that: the minor had withdrawn the charges.
Er, wait on. Wrestler Bajrang Punia hass complicated the issue by saying that this is “fake news”, to NDTV 24×7. He wanted to know if we trust “sources” who had claimed the withdrawal of charges or the minor’s father?
The minor’s father, of course.
But that’s still not the last word: Hindustan Times wrote that the minor had withdrawn her charges before ‘a magistrate’ in Delhi, according to ‘a senior Delhi Police officer’. But the complaint filed by her father (emphasis mine) on her behalf, ‘has not been withdrawn’ so POSCO still applies to Brij Bhushan.
Got it? And if you haven’t, well, who can blame you?
Also read: Between ‘Boss’ Modi and G20 Kashmir, TV news had a tough time picking
Ex or not
Lastly, there’s the small matter of designations: on Wednesday 7 June in its Delhi edition, Times of India referred to Brij Bhushan as ‘ex-WFI chief’ and ‘former wrestling federation chief’. Other newspapers and TV news disagree: The Hindu on Wednesday and every other day, writes ‘Wrestling Federation chief’. In general, newspapers or TV channels shorten it to ‘WFI chief’ – even ThePrint. However, CNN News 18 told us that Bhushan has been ‘kept aside’ by the government pending fresh WFI elections.
So which is it – ex or current WFI chief?
Views are personal.
(Edited by Anurag Chaubey)