Millions of Indians across the world are glued to their television sets, gulping every word that is being reported on the sordid tale of businesswoman Indrani Mukerjea — currently in custody and being questioned in connection with the death of her daughter Sheena Bora. Many commentators are worried about this ‘trial by the media’ where Indrani has already been pronounced guilty by television studios and opinion pieces, which aren’t even bothering to use the word “alleged”.
Many term this as voyeurism of Indian society that is being played 24-hours on news networks, hungry for TRPs. It is true that the reportage on the story is no more about the murder of Sheena, a 24-year-old girl. It is all about Indrani Mukerjea — attractive, ambitious, now described by her former colleagues as ruthless, social climber, power hungry and manipulator of men, who married a rich and powerful corporate honcho and basically slept her way to the top, to be rich and powerful.
The demonising of a woman in a media trial has been often criticised by many who believe that it is the fragility of the average Indian male ego that is forcing the Indian media, mostly dominated by men, to bring her down. Certainly, being ambitious and hungry for success do not disqualify one as a human being or a woman. But her alleged act of filicide certainly does so.
What has flabbergasted many like me is that how could someone so meticulously plan the murder of her own flesh and blood? The focus on Indrani’s complicated love life, her multiple marriages, her celebrity status, her alleged financial misconduct in the media venture are no way pointers to the crime she stands accused of. She is guilty of gruesome gluttony against humanity, where a parent betrays the trust placed on him or her by society.
Whether she is really guilty or innocent is for the investigators and the judicial system to determine. My concern is only that how can a parent even fall under suspicion of such a thing where she exploits the vulnerability of her own children to lead a double life.
I should not be held guilty of trying to paint the maternal-foetal relationship as one without its normal share of mutual disdain. There is certainly no criminality in disliking one’s own children, to harbour the longing for the life one used to have before they were born, or even publicly dislike and being unforgiving of their shortcomings, or even simply being bored about their presence. It is completely normal for almost every parent-child relationship where they lash out at each other at some stage of their lives verbally, emotionally and even physically. But to connive to murder one’s child for the sake of personal or social standing or for financial gains is unthinkable.
Looking back, I would say I had the misfortune of knowing both Indrani and Peter Mukerjea professionally. My initial encounter with them was that of a journalist who was offered a position in their media venture few years back. It may look like a major breakthrough for anyone to be asked to join an organisation founded by one of the celebrated media honchos who was running one of the largest media brands in India. However, I found the structure too fluid and could not believe it as a risk worth taking. Later, we had met socially in various cities, but I never had the ignominy of working with them on any count.
Professionally, I found Indrani over-ambitious and crafty, as many have now described her. There are millions of professionals of similar hue, but such personal traits certainly cannot be indicators of a mother who would kill her daughter, keep her body in the boot of the car and burn her remains in the suburbs of Mumbai the following day.
Indrani’s case has shown the downfall of the much-coveted family structure of the Indian society. It is not about the family tree that many news channels have shown in gory details. It is about the life that she wanted to achieve for herself at the expense of just about anyone — even a family member.
The narrative of innocence and uxoriousness that Peter is trying to build for himself is difficult to believe, but if so proved, he will feel the most cheated. It is a case where not only the murderer is guilty but even some of those who had come across Sheena — including her octogenarian grandparents, who did not bother for three years to enquire about the girl they had brought up, or the lover that she had found in Peter’s son Rahul — are guilty of a crime against humanity.
For any outsider, it looks like everyone who came across Sheena wanted her out of their lives for reasons best known to them. Such behaviour was found during feudal times when children plotted to kill parents and vice-versa. But the coveted Indian middle class was somehow shielded from such discomfiture until now as the value system started crumbling. From the Aarushi double murder to the Indrani saga, the outbursts following extreme sexual repression, perversion and hypocrisy in Indian middle class have just begun. Expect many more explosions.
