Tag: sushant singh rajput movies

Aaj Tak ‘Regrets’, ABP News Denies, Zee News Mum on NHRC Rap Over Coverage of Actor’s Death

As it happens, there is no overarching framework of rules to prevent news channels from airing untruths and indulging in sensationalism even over sensitive subjects.

Note: This article contains mentions of suicide.

On June 18, the National Human Rights Commission, after hearing my complaint alleging sensationalisation in the coverage of Bollywood star Sushant Singh Rajput’s death, ordered the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting to take ‘appropriate action’ within eight weeks on the matter.

The complaint alleged that deaths of famous people, like that of Rajput’s, are “dramatised and glamourised” in an “abhorrent, shameful and insensitive” manner. It specifically pointed out some examples of news coverage by prominent Hindi news channels Aaj Tak, Zee News and ABP News that were clearly objectionable to many.

“Aise kaise hit wicket hogaye Sushant?” (Aaj Tak), and “Patna ka Sushant, Mumbai me fail kyu?” (Zee News) were some of the examples that were highlighted in the complaint.

While alleging that no guidelines, whether of the World Health Organization or of the Press Council of India to cover such sensitive cases were followed, the complaint specifically prayed that such guidelines be issued by the Commission for all media houses to stick to.

Also watch | Sushant Singh Rajput’s Death on India’s TV Channels

“This will ensure dignity to the dead, safeguard the victim’s family members and ensure such sensationalisation does not happen in future,” it argued.

However, the NHRC fell short of passing any such guidelines and shifted the responsibility to the government.

Ministry asks NBSA to act within 4 weeks

In a letter marked “Most Immediate” on June 26, the ministry wrote to the Secretary General of News Broadcasting Standards Authority (NBSA), Annie Joseph, informing her of the complaint and the order of the NHRC and instructed her to take “further necessary action” on the complaint within four weeks “under intimation to this Ministry”.

For those who do not know about the NBSA, it is an independent nine-member body set up by the News Broadcasters Association (NBA) for the regulation of the 24×7 news channels that are part of the NBA. It functions both as a watchdog and grievance redressal body.

NBSA’s primary job is to consider and adjudicate upon complaints about broadcasts on member news channels. The body also issues guidelines for covering sensitive news from time to time. The NBSA is currently headed by former Supreme Court Justice A.K. Sikri.

Any person who finds any content on any of the member channels objectionable under the code of ethics and broadcasting standards can complain to the representatives of the news channels within seven days from the airing of the objectionable content.

There are fixed time frames within which member channels have to reply to complaints. In case of unsatisfactory response or no response, complainants can then complain to the NBSA after which suitable action could be taken against those channels.

After receiving this letter, NBSA wrote to Aaj Tak, Zee News and ABP News asking them for their response on the complaint within seven days.

Regrets and denials

Replying to the complaint, Aaj Tak’s compliance officer for NBSA Nasser Kabir wrote, “We deeply regret that any act of ours or our news channel has caused any concern to you.”

He still defended the channel’s coverage. On the use of the viral “hit wicket” banner, Aaj Tak said:

“…[T]he expression ‘hit wicket’ ordinarily is a cricketing term but has attained a colloquial meaning. It means a situation when a well-placed person commits a blunder and falters in his pursuit. Moreover, [l]ate Sushant Singh Rajput was very well regarded for his lead role in the [m]ovie named and styled as ‘M.S.Dhoni: The Untold Story’. Therefore, employing of terms, which has connection with cricket, is natural and obvious. We believe that the said term aptly justified the position we were in”.

The banner garnered widespread criticism on social media users and #ShameOnAajTak became the number one trend on Twitter that day.


On the charge of hounding Rajput’s family for a comment, Aaj Tak said its reporting was only to inform the public about the incident. “We have treated him with dignity and respect,” the reply read.

The channel however did not comment on another graphic it ran that gave details of the noose which was allegedly used by Rajput to hang himself. Giving such details specifically goes against WHO guidelines and guidelines adopted by the PCI.

ABP News, on the other hand, denied all allegations made in the complaint and said that they have not violated any principles of human dignity, human rights and guidelines of the PCI or WHO. “In fact, this being a celebrity suicide we had taken extra caution to report this in a careful manner,” the reply by Kishan Singh Rawat of the ABP News Network read.

Also read: Sushant Singh Rajput’s Five Memorable Roles

Zee News has not yet replied to the complaint, despite repeated e-mails, thus violating the seven-day mandatory time-frame set for a response. The story will be updated if and when they reply.

But these three channels are not the only ones whose reportage was found insensitive and unethical. For example, TV9 Telugu went a step ahead and ran an uncensored photo of Rajput’s body that went viral on social media the same day he died, specifically pointing out marks on his neck. Some newspapers also were similarly insensitive. Gujarat Samachar, one of Gujarat’s oldest, published the same photo of Rajput’s dead body on its front page the very next day.

Notably, according to the Recommendations for Reporting on Suicide, a collaborative international organisation developed by leading experts in suicide prevention:

“More than 50 research studies worldwide have found that certain types of news coverage can increase the likelihood of suicide in vulnerable individuals. This phenomenon is referred to as suicide contagion and the magnitude of the increase is related to the amount, duration and prominence of coverage”.

Channels keep violating ethical boundaries

This is not the first time that the Indian media has been criticised for lack of sensitivity and professionalism while covering high-profile sensitive cases. All ethics had gone for a toss during Bollywood actor Sridevi’s death. After it was found that the actress had allegedly died in a bathtub, Aaj Tak, while covering the story, ran a headline declaring “Maut ka bathtub” (‘Bathtub of death’) with a photo of a bathtub in the background.


TimesNow aired three possible theories on how the actor may have died, which included consumption of alcohol, loss of balance and drowning. Channels, notably, are explicitly told to resist from spreading conspiracy theories.  

How effective is the NBSA? 

If we go by the present case, Zee News has still not responded to the complaint, which shows its scant regard for authority. And this is not the first time that the NBSA has been undermined.

On November 9, 2019, the self-regulatory authority had ordered English news channel Republic TV to air an unconditional apology for previously undermining NBSA’s authority in a different ethical violations case. Not only did it not comply, but an alternate “self-regulatory” body named News Broadcasters Federation was formed with Republic editor Arnab Goswami as its head. The NBF has no website till date, where one can access the rules it follows for self-regulation.

Also read: What Happens When You Complain to a Broadcast Standards Authority about Republic TV?

While several topics are censored, regulation remains elusive. Due to the completely lawless manner in which most TV news channels run, ethical violations, privacy breaches, sensational spectacle of deaths, fake news and doctored videos have become rampant. And mostly they go unchecked and unpunished.

The NBSA’s usefulness in this regard is compromised due to four main reasons:

  1. NBSA’s code of ethics and broadcasting standards is limited to member news channels. This effectively means that out of the nearly 400 permitted satellite news channels in the country, NBSA can only adjudicate on matters relating to its 27 member broadcasters and their 77 channels.
  2. NBSA’s inability to attain a statutory status from the government for its code and redressal regulations, to be applicable on all TV news channels, has further slowed this fight against what would otherwise qualify as examples of yellow journalism. The Advertising Standards Council of India, a self-regulatory ad industry watchdog was able to get its code applicable on all advertisements in 2006 and since then it has helped contain misleading advertisements in the country.
  3. Unawareness seems to be another big reason why TV news channels get away with what they do. Many are unaware of the NBSA and its complaint redressal mechanism. An encouraging system like that devised by the Indian Broadcasting Foundation, a self-regulatory body for non-news TV channels, which mandates all its member broadcasters to run a scroll making viewers aware of the complaint filing mechanism, should be put in place for news channels too.

Implementing these reforms in the existing self-regulatory regime would strengthen the system, ensure fair coverage of news stories, ethical conformity, higher standards and less yellow journalism, while also keeping the need for government interference at bay.

Saurav Das is an RTI activist and freelance journalist.

If you know someone – friend or family member – at risk of suicide, please reach out to them. The Suicide Prevention India Foundation maintains a list of telephone numbers they can call to speak in confidence. You could also accompany them to the nearest hospital.

Is It Very Lonely at the Top? A Psychological Enquiry Into the Solitude of Fame

How mentally demanding is it to handle fame and constant attention? Is being famous always an experience to be cherished?

Asked to comment on his lifelong camaraderie with Cuban leader Fidel Castro, the great Latin American author Gabriel Garcia Marquez once said that their friendship was a union between the solitude of power and the solitude of fame.

Why would a successful man, who had earned so much fame even before he reached 35, choose to end his life? It is the answer to this rather naïve question that the nation wants to know.

There are two problems here. A. It’s premature to try to answer it. And B. It’s somewhat undignified and even obscene to dig out personal and professional details of one’s life to make sense of one’s tragic death.

When the hurlyburly’s done, the question that we can ask, instead, is how celebrityhood and fame (often distinguished in terms of longevity; the former momentary, the latter long-lasting) affect a person psychologically. How mentally demanding is it to handle fame and constant attention? Is being famous always an experience to be cherished? The answer, my friend, is hidden in Garcia Marquez’s quip.

Human beings’ obsession with fame has been the subject of intense artistic and social scrutiny over the years. John Hinckley shot US President Ronald Reagan to be famous enough to impress actress Jodie Foster. How to handle fame, however, is a discourse that remains shrouded in opacity. This is primarily because the ones who attain fame naturally ceases to live a public life.

We only get a peek into their mental world when they open up about their ‘depression’. And that happens seldom, at least in India. In today’s world, the issue becomes more important than ever since anyone can attain fame in a matter of days, if not hours, thanks to reality shows and YouTube videos.

Handling fame is by no means an easy task. Donna Rockwell of the Michigan School of Professional Psychology, a well-known celebrity mental health expert, conducted a study speaking to 15 American celebrities in this regard, which she published in 2009 under the title Being a Celebrity: A Phenomenology of Fame.

Also read: Sushant Singh Rajput’s Five Memorable Roles

Rockwell calls sudden fame an irreversible existential alteration, much like death. ‘Once a person has transitioned into fame, as in death, there is no turning back’. She sought to look into questions like – What was it like to be famous? How do individuals cope with fame? Is the loss of privacy a cherished experience? Etc.

The study unequivocally concluded that most celebrities found ‘themselves ill-equipped for and struggling with the deluge of attention that comes with fame… The individual is left to find his or her way through an unfamiliar labyrinth-like world. From an initial desire to become successful, the celebrity experiences personal confusion and a loss of ownership of life…’ Rockwell comments that such persons find themselves alone on the ‘island of recognition’ where “there’s a loneliness that happens because you are separate.” This, Garcia Marquez’s calls, the solitude of fame.

The study further finds that the constant glare of spotlight adversely affects the person’s relationship with immediate family, endangers his or her sense of safety and gradually gives birth to mistrust of everyone who adores him or her. Such a person often takes recourse to what Rockwell calls character-splitting, that is, he or she creates a public self and a true or private self. But inevitably, the latter succumbs to the former.

Bangalore-based psychologist Dr Ananya Sinha, assistant professor at Christ University, told The Wire, “Being famous and leading the life of a celebrity attracts public fascination and fantasy. It involves a tightrope walk between a need to experience one’s authentic self and not disappointing others as that might lead to the risk of losing his fame and celebrityhood. This chronic stress may be a risk factor to depression (although not a causal factor) among celebrities as their lifestyle makes them vulnerable to self-doubt, self-criticality and sensitivity to criticism. Social support is an antidote to depression, in the absence of which the risk factor increases. Depression is a medical condition, and can be mild, moderate or severe. Severe depression is often accompanied by suicidal thoughts and is best treated with a combination of pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy.”

Satyajit Ray took up the issue of stardom, fame and its pitfalls in his 1966 masterpiece Nayak (The Hero).

“Ray was driven by a desire first to investigate the psychology of such a star, secondly the psychology of his adulators and detractors,” wrote Andrew Robinson in Satyajit Ray: The Inner Eye. By casting Bengali cinema’s peerless superstar Uttam Kumar in the lead role, Ray gave the film an air of hyperreality. The central narrative is built around Arindam’s (the protagonist) account of his own career and its ups and downs to a young interviewer (Aditi, played by Sharmila Tagore), while he is on his way to New Delhi to receive a prestigious award.

Watch | Sushant Singh Rajput’s Death on India’s TV Channels

Aditi asks, “In the midst of having so much, don’t you feel there’s something missing in your life? Some emptiness somewhere?” Hesitant at first, Arindam soon finds comfort in her company, as he can come out of his superstar image and open up to her. In a series of cathartic conversations, Arindam brings up myriad issues that haunt him, and issues that he has nobody to share with – his leaving theatre for films, his alcoholism, his refusal to stand by an old friend to keep intact his stardom, his pettiness in settling scores with an old hapless colleague, and his affair with a married woman which led to an ugly fistfight with her husband.

The crowning glory of the film is a dream sequence, one of the best cinematic moments in Ray’s entire oeuvre, in which Arindam sees himself as drowning in a heap of notes. There are clear hints in the film at Arindam’s suicidal thoughts and also the fact that having a non-judgmental listener in Aditi enables the helpless superstar tide over those thoughts and stagger back to life, caught in the movie through the metaphor of a train journey.

In one of his most haunting poems, A Day Eight Years Ago, the great Bengali poet Jibanananda Das talks about an act of suicide and the indefinable vulnerabilities in the inner recesses of the self, far beyond the public eye, that may drive one to the act. Incidentally, Jibanananda’s death in 1954 in Calcutta in a tram car accident is deemed by many as suicide. In a moving passage in the above poem he wrote:

“A woman’s heart—love—a child—a home—these are not everything,
Not wealth nor fame nor creature comforts—
There is some other perilous wonder
Which frolics
In our very blood.
It exhausts us—
Fatigues, exhausts us.
That exhaustion is not present
In the morgue.
And so
In that morgue
Flat out he lies upon a table. “

(Translated by Clinton B Seely)

Indradeep Bhattacharyya teaches literature and is a former journalist based in Kolkata.

If you know someone – friend or family member – at risk of suicide, please reach out to them. The Suicide Prevention India Foundation maintains a list of telephone numbers (www.spif.in/seek-help/) they can call to speak in confidence. You could also refer them to the nearest hospital.

Watch | Sushant Singh Rajput’s Death on India’s TV Channels

Mainstream news channels’ coverage of the tragedy was widely criticised.

On 14 June, actor Sushant Singh Rajput was found dead at his home, following which TV channels began a coverage of the incident in a manner which was was widely criticised on social media. Senior journalist Urmilesh breaks down the issue.

Sushant Singh Rajput’s Five Memorable Roles

Even with a short filmography, Rajput sparkled and at one point, was expected to be the next big star – a remarkable feat, given he was a complete outsider.

Sushant Singh Rajput would have turned 35 next year. In less than three years, he’d have finished a decade in Bollywood. With around a dozen films to his credit, Rajput was still figuring out his story, a young man who had just entered the second act of his life. But since Sunday afternoon, there will only be variations of “could have”, “would have”, “should have”. As if a story found the second and third acts meaningless and fast-forwarded to the climax. But even with a short filmography, Rajput sparkled; at one point, he was expected to be the next big thing, a star: a remarkable feat given he was a complete outsider. But we’re only left with possibilities now — and memories. So, let’s rewind and cherish five movies where he was most memorable, because we never got enough of him.

Sonchiriya

Rajput played Lakhna, a Bundelkhand baghi, in the best Bollywood film of 2019. A bandit wreaked by guilt, a bandit in search of solace. Rajput gave Lakhna a searing intensity and searching look, someone trapped in a prison of questions, often wondering: “What is a baghi’s dharma?” A philosopher lost among dacoits, beset by existentialism in a land where existence needs to be earned. Lakhna, of course, got no answers, but he persisted, looking for one gateway, some redemption, ultimately finding hope in rescuing a young girl, Sonchiriya.

Rajput made Lakhna’s journey compelling, offsetting periods of gloom with moments of tomfoolery: delighting the young girl with a magic trick, making a candy disappear from one palm and making it appear in the other. Many Bollywood protagonists are so superficial that they make you tune out, but Lakhna — aided by a superlative Rajput — was a haunting outlier: a baghi in search of soul.

MS Dhoni

Rajput was always a great choice to play M.S. Dhoni. Like the celebrated Indian cricketer, the actor hailed from a small town. Like his onscreen hero, Rajput entered an ecosystem where connections and labels matter. Which is why the film’s initial portion — where Dhoni is struggling to find his foothold — burns with insatiable hunger, a hunger that has the desperation of revenge. It’s easily the most affecting portion in a long, unfocused film, which got sporadic shots of life, thanks to Rajput, a memorable example of an actor rising above the script. Maybe because Rajput followed his own script.

Early in the film, Dhoni’s mother says, “Humaara mann kehta hai ki yeh thode se me khush hone waala nahin hai [I feel he’s not going to be satisfied so easily].” That dissatisfaction — and the urge to go beyond the brief — showed in the movie, because Rajput knew, even then, that there could be more.

Detective Byomkesh Bakshy!

Dibakar Banerjee’s adaptation of a popular Bengali sleuth was a cheeky exercise in style: willfully anachronistic, subversive, atmospheric. Rajput internalised that logline, playing a detective with panache and wit. His Byomkesh was not a restrained know-it-all but a brash motormouth, indifferent to sophisticated conversations. Rajput brought urgency and restlessness to the role, a young man committing the follies of youth, yet sniffing the trails like a veteran bloodhound. Even during segments where the film failed to impress, Rajput, balancing the yin with yang, gave us a memorable young detective getting addicted to the labyrinth’s mystifying bylanes.

Shudh Desi Romance

In his second film, Rajput played Raghu, a young tourist guide in Jaipur, determined to blunt the stringent Indian morality. Restless, confused, not wanting to compromise, Rajput’s Raghu — filled with frequent indecisions and silly humour — depicted the conundrum of many young Indians seduced by, and terrified of, freedom. The role was all froth and pomp on the surface, but every now and then, Rajput took off the mask to reveal a wounded interior: of feeling lost and tired and trapped. Most Bollywood heroes are obligated to dignify love — and deify their partners — but Rajput’s performance asked a more layered question: of what use is finding the other if you can’t find yourself?

Kai Po Che!

Rajput played a failed cricketer, who later becomes a coach, in his debut. It was a sparkling performance, brimming with energy, confidence, and arrogance. A performance that hinted at what lay ahead. The three Khans were already old by then, so a natural question followed: Have we found a new star?

Even though Kai Po Che! was a multi-starrer, Rajput’s Ishaan was clearly the film’s centerpiece. A young man willing to defy his past by moulding a future: training a young boy to become India’s finest cricketer. Unlike his friend Govind (Rajkummar Rao), Ishaan isn’t interested in money and plans; he’s all moments and exuberance.

Early in the movie, the three friends trek to a rundown fort. A bare-chested, drunk Ishaan stands on the ledge of a wall. An endless stretch of water lies below, and an endless sky hangs above. The sun is dying slowly, and Ishaan stretches his arms and screams, “Ise kehte hain life, Govi. Tere noton ke khushboo se lakh guna behtar [this is what you call life, Govi, much better than the smell of money].”

A panting Govind replies, “Yahan tak aane ke liye bhi mere note hi lagte hain [you needed money to reach here].”

“Sshh, sshh, tere sikkon ki chhan chhan se mere hawa ki keemat kam ho rahi hai [your money is diluting the price of my air].”

A man on the edge, drunk on life, rejecting the conventional comfort of money. An evening that wants to hang on; water below, sky above: a world to win, only himself to lose.

If you know someone – friend or family member – at risk of suicide, please reach out to them. The Suicide Prevention India Foundation maintains a list of telephone numbers (www.spif.in/seek-help/) they can call to speak in confidence. You could also refer them to the nearest hospital.