Why I blame The Quint for taking a soldier's life in the name of journalism-MAJ GEN HARSH KAKKAR

Harsha Kakar Harsha Kakar @kakar_harsha --- Total Shares The Supreme Court on Monday (April 24), sought responses from the government on a plea seeking guidelines to prevent abuse of the Official Secrets Act (OSA). It also called for a reply from the Army on alleged misuse of the "buddy" system. Both were based on a desperate plea filed by associate editor, Poonam Agarwal of The Quint, seeking to defend herself from being booked under the OSA and abetment to suicide of an Army jawan, despite having committed grave errors, which she and the media house are aiming to sweep under the carpet. The Quint had conducted a sting operation on an unsuspecting soldier in Devlali on the existing buddy system, in late February and within days of its release, the individual on whom it was conducted, Lance Naik Roy Mathews, committed suicide. Immediately thereafter, The Quint removed the story from its website. Since then, it has released articles seeking to defend itself by firstly claiming that the case was not suicide, but murder and secondly, by raising questions against the Army. However, neither the local police nor Army authorities took any cognisance of her attempts at covering up, and she and a veteran Naik, who was her local contact and had assisted her, were booked. Her attempts at obtaining anticipatory bail in a local court failed and hence they directly approached the Supreme Court, aiming to deviate the case in a different direction by questioning the OSA and seeking to abolish the "buddy" system. sc-_042617034747.jpg The Supreme Court has sought responses from the government on a plea seeking guidelines to prevent abuse of the Official Secrets Act. The issue which was not raised in the last hearing was that of abetment to suicide, which would be a follow up too be handled subsequently. In March-end, once she was likely to be booked, post a police inquiry, The Quint published an article entitled, “Gunner Roy Mathew’s death: The Quint asks the unanswered questions”. The next day, the Network of Women in Media, India (NWMI) issued letters to government officials seeking dropping of cases against Poonam Agarwal. The media house had omitted many facts, while twisting the remaining ones, seeking to transpose responsibility from them to the Army. The first essential ingredient for a news portal is true and accurate reporting, especially when the author is an associate editor, an aspect missed by The Quint. The NWMI possibly based its support on the published article, but certain aspects were misleading and the questions raised were aimed solely at exonerating the writer from levied charges. There are issues not divulged truthfully by the portal and hence its views remain one-sided, as being projected in the court case. The Quint claims it was invited on Twitter, by a veteran colonel, to Devlali, to witness the real scenario with the "buddies" there. This is a grossly erroneous statement. The truth was that the conversation on telephone, post a message on Twitter, solely focussed on similarity of problems faced by Army personnel as stated by the BSF and CRPF jawans (in their online video’s, then viral on social media), on food and welfare issues. The buddy system was never discussed with the officer. She wanted to interview serving soldiers and officers, which was turned down. The interaction with the officer ended when he gave her details of the veteran Naik, who has been booked along with her. However, to safeguard herself, she named the officer in an openly published article, thus maligning his image, whereas media probity dictates that sources are not divulged. The jawan in question was a victim of a so-called system and not the perpetrator of the crime. He trusted the reporter on face value and shared some thoughts, complete details of which have never been published. The reporter broke the trust of a victim, not a perpetrator. Can truth ever flow by conducting a sting on a victim? If you further dehumanise a victim, he is likely to resort to extreme face-saving measures, including saving his reputation, even by suicide, which he has done. Hence, logically the blame of abetment should remain on Poonam. The jawan only realised that he was made a scapegoat once the video was released. The reporter entered a restricted area and filmed. While only a part of the film was released in public domain, there is no confirmation of other clips, still in possession with them. If no action is taken, then any trespasser would always quote this example as a precedent. Hence, charge under the OSA should remain, until all aspects are fully verified. The Quint had approached the PRO of the Army to answer questions on the buddy system immediately after conducting the sting, but prior to its release. It received a reply on February 28, while its sting was published a couple of days earlier. Logically, it should have awaited the reply prior to publishing the article, which it did not. Further it never published the reply, till the charges were placed on Poonam in March-end. Why did they hide the reply? Was it only because the reply stated that the buddy system was being abolished and hence would have lowered the impact of the sting? The Quint blames a serving colonel and the Army, only on hearsay, based on a so-called call from the victim’s relatives to Poonam for the death of the soldier. This was disputed by an online magazine when it published its own finding of the incident. The Quint was aware that the Army does not respond to accusations in the public domain. The Army would have done its preliminary investigation, which is logical, as interaction with the media and trespassing are both illegal. However, suicide cannot result simply due to a preliminary inquiry. Stress on the individual would most likely have been caused by the breaking of faith and trust by the journalist and the hurt of letting his organisation down. This, like her accusations of others, is solely my conjecture. Hence, charges for abetment should remain. The Quint had broken norms of factual journalism. It is presently seeking to twist the case by questioning the OSA and the Army on the buddy system, thus avoiding being arrested on the levied charges. The government should ensure that charges are pressed to set an example to over-enthusiastic journalists with no scruples on treating simple soldiers as cannon fodder for cheap publicity. Further, it would convey the message that cantonments and soldiers should not become a playground for the media