Ever since the anti-Hindu Delhi riots erupted, the ecosystem has worked overtime to prove that the riots were actually a pogrom against Muslims by Hindus. The media has completely exonerated the Muslim community and almost developed selective amnesia. The ecosystem that acts as the backbone of the Islamists hardly recalls the violence that broke out and the Islamist mobs that ran rampage even before the Delhi riots way back in December. They forget about the Ankit Sharmas and Dilbar Negis in the riots and the conveniently dismiss all evidence against the Islamist mobs than indiscriminately targeted Hindus.
While the entire ecosystem works in tandem, this time, The Quint has stepped up to mount a shameless defence of a man named as the instigator of riots that led to the brutal murder of Ratan Lal by Islamist mobs.
Recently, in an Exclusive story, OpIndia had reported how in the charge sheet filed in connection with the murder of constable Ratan Lal, advocate DS Bindra was named as one of the instigators.
In the charge sheet, it was mentioned categorically that DS Bindra was one of the instigators of the riots that led to the murder of Ratan Lal. The charge sheet also categorically states that the conspirators “were fully aware that violence may ensue and had accordingly directed the protestors to arm themselves”.
Further, the charge sheet says, “On 23.02.2020 the above said accused persons along with other organizers, conspirators and rioters convened a meeting at Chand Bagh and asked the residents to equip themselves with iron rods, Dandas, Petrol Bombs etc for the next day. On 24.02.2020 at around 1 pm as per plan, the riots erupted and the protestors attacked the police personnel. Numbers of police personnel were injured and HC Ratan Lal was killed”.
After OpIndia reported, The Quint rushed to not only cast aspersions on the Delhi Crime Branch’s charge sheet, but also exclusively gave a platform to DS Bindra to peddle his victimhood without presenting the full facts.
The Quint article was headlined, “Is Langar A Crime?: DS Bindra on his name being linked to riots”. At the very outset, by the headline, the insinuation was clear – that in the charge sheet, Bindra has been named only because he set up a langar to feed the protestors and hence, he is being called an instigator.
In the entire article, The Quint is careful to quote only testimonies and statements by rioters that recorded the role of DS Bindra in setting up langar and organising the protest. It quotes the following statement by Najam Ul Hasan as mentioned in the charge sheet:
“DH Bindra requested locals to carry out a demonstration against CAA and he said that ‘I will put up a langar and medical camp. The entire Sikh community is with you. If you don’t come forward then your fate will be similar to that of Sikhs in 1984”.
In the entire article, The Quint is careful to quote only statements that point towards the role of Bindra in setting up the tent for protests, langar for meals etc. However, certain other aspects that are conspicuously missed by The Quint point towards the fact that the publication is trying its best to shield Bindra.
The charge sheet, for example, says that the organisers and instigators were fully aware that the protests may turn violent and hence, they had instructed the protestors to carry weapons. As mentioned above, in a meeting on the 23rd, it was specifically told to protestors to carry iron rods, acid pouches etc. Since Bindra is named as an instigator and every statement proves, even the ones quoted by The Quint, that Bindra was intricately linked with organising the protests and the meetings, Bindra cannot be exonerated.
Interestingly, The Quint has left out these details from its report. Though The Quint has quoted OpIndia, it is clear that The Quint itself has also acquired a copy of the charge sheet. How do we know this? Well, The Quint, just as OpIndia, quotes the testimony of two beat officers whose statements were recorded in the charge sheet specifically naming DS Bindra. However, while OpIndia had intentionally left out the names of the beat cops, The Quint has added their names in their report. This clearly means that The Quint too has a copy of the charge sheet and hence, them omitting the operative parts of the charge sheet which says that the organisers and instigators asked protestors to be armed a day before the riots broke out reeks of a sinister agenda.
It is also interesting to note that in their report, The Quint while citing OpIndia report blames OpIndia for focussing “only” on the parts that named DS Bindra.
One cannot really accuse The Quint of indulging in practices such as journalism, but lengthy charge sheets are generally broken into bits for the purpose of reportage. Mostly, a lengthy charge sheet that has several elements to it, will not be reported at once, in one article itself. It is broken into bits that are easy to consume.
Further, Quint carries DS Bindra’s comment blaming OpIndia for not reaching out to him for “his right to respond to allegations”. Firstly, the report only pertained to the charge sheet filed by the Delhi Crime Branch. If at all Bindra wishes to defend himself, it should be to the police and in the court of law. While reporting a charge sheet, there is no incumbent requirement to reach out to the accused to take their version.
While this drivel from The Quint is not surprising, what is pertinent to note here is that it would seem that the entire Left media ecosystem could have deliberately not reported that DS Bindra is indeed named in the charge sheet. Seeing how he was glorified by the media during the protests and that they have the copy of the charge sheet with them, it is reasonable to conclude that even though they were in the possession of the charge sheet, the entire ecosystem chose to not report material facts mentioned in the charge sheet.
With the concerted attempt to shield the rioters, instigators and conspirators, this omertà that the media seems to be observing don’t surprise anyone.