20 October 2014
Petites Annonces Gratuite
FacebookTwitterGoogle PlusLinkedin
Facebook Like
Sunday, 17 February 2013 03:30

Dear Shakespeare – Licensed to lynch ?

Rate this item
(1 Vote)
My dear Billy,
It might interest you to know that the provisional injunction that was pronounced against two important press groups here has been lifted by another court order.
The injunction that was imposed by Judge Bhushan Domah in his wisdom, on the L’Express and Le Mauricien groups interdicted those two clusters from publishing any information concerning the private of life of one Nandanee Soornack.

This gagging order which was not one, according to some, has now been rescinded by Judge Eddy  Balancy who in his wisdom has found that there was no cause to continue maintaining the injunction. Consequently these two press groups have suddenly found themselves in a very formidable position, and the private life of Ms Soornack, as well as her reputation, is resting precariously in their mouths – they can lick it, they can suck it, they can bite it, they can chew it, they can regurgitate it, they can gargle with it.

It would seem that some of these groups’ publications have misinterpreted Judge Balancy’s learned verdict as a licence to lynch Soornack publicly. No Sunday passes by without Nandanee Soornack stealing a dubious limelight. Her former poor girl status, her marriage to a modest worker, her children, her encounter and subsequent liaison with a 5-star politician, her sudden wealth and rise in status, the colour of her eyes, her reported face-lift, her lingerie, in fact all details concerning her likes and dislikes, her doings and activities, her intimate life, everything is printed in length and breadth in certain columns, my dear Billy.

It all started on an innocent Monday in the month of December 2012, the 10th to be more precise. That day, Madame S had donned her political agent’s robe and was busy scrutinizing the counting operations in connection with the previous day’s Municipal elections. She was based in a classroom in a school in Vacoas, when suddenly a politician wielding a paparazzi camera started taking her pictures. This, according to her, was a very reprehensible act, and she reacted very vehemently because the politician-paparazzi had not applied for an authorisation to click her picture beforehand.

The matter was immediately brought before the police and subsequently to the National Assembly in the form of a perfect PNQ from the Leader of the Opposition. Ever since then Ms S has known no rest or respite. She has been continuously lodging in the columns of a handful of papers. At first, it was suspected that they were only reacting to the fact that the Lady had dared defy a member of the opposition. But by and by it became apparent that her role was that of a mere pawn and that she was only being used as a bait to catch a bigger fish. Through her they were trying to get to the skin of the hi-fi politician whose protégée she was purported to be. By stripping her they were in fact trying to disrobe her presumed protector.

All this apparently is quite permissible. Isn’t everything fair in love and in war? But for how long, my dear Billy? The first thing is that objectively a politician, or anybody else for that matter, is better judged by his achievements rather than by his bedding habits. So, what’s the point of ferociously attacking Madame S when it is Mr. X that they want to hurt?

And then, for how long? People are really fed up reading the same Soornack stories week after week, as if the destiny of all Mauritians were tied to these stories. There certainly is something like Christian charity that is supposed to stir some sympathetic chords in the hearts of all us. There is also the proverbial Hindu tolerance and pardon, isn’t there? What did Christ say about flinging the first stone?

By the way has there ever been a time when Mauritius was ruled a government  of saints and angels? The nearest we have reached was a Prime Minister who was bestowed the title of “A little lesser than God.” Will there ever be an epoch when the country will be ruled by divine hands? On the other hand, how is it that all the affairs and dealings of Nandanee Soornack are surfacing now, all of a sudden? Did some people have information on her doings and did they purposely keep quiet, thus being her accomplices and partners in crime?

Sure enough, the press has given itself the noble role of blowing the whistle whenever it discovers a wrongdoing, but even after murdering Julius Caesar Brutus had declared “Let us not be butchers.” And so, my humble submission, my dear Billy, is that “Enough is really enough.”

The more so as certain seemingly respectable socio-cultural and religious organizations have thrust their weights into the debate and given it a communal hue. Like the incriminated papers, they are using Lady S to defend the implicated politician. In the final analysis it will be found whether they are not doing him more harm than good. What we can’t understand is why they should be defending Soorank on the basis of her being a Hindu? Is she really one, considering her actions? Moreover, is she the only Hindu woman who is facing difficulties?




Last modified on Friday, 22 February 2013 12:34
Zero Tolerance

ZERO Tolérance

Les internautes qui voudraient commenter les articles qui sont publiés sur le site defimedia.info sont avisés qu'ils doivent éviter à tout prix d'utiliser des termes obscènes, racistes, communaux ou diffamatoires. La moindre utilisation d'un terme offensant entraînera le rejet automatique du commentaire soumis.

comments powered by Disqus

Blog Popular Articles