Retired Indian Army officer sharply criticizes 'rape for rape' statement in Indian-administered Kashmir

If you, like me, had stopped watching or listening to 'Prime and Super Prime Time' TV debates (although there is not much to listen to), you would probably have seen this extraordinary philosophy of a retired Indian Army officer. In Indian-administered Kashmir, the demand for justice can only be met by 'killing for Kashmir' of Kashmiri Pandits and 'rape for rape' of their women.

For the past three months, Kashmir and the Kashmiri people have been on the minds and hearts of some people. When the special powers of Indian-administered Kashmir were abolished, a leader affiliated with the ruling BJP said that the way was now paved for marrying 'white Kashmiri' girls, as if there had never been a ban on marrying Kashmiri girls. Have been The problem has always been that the girls the boys want to marry also find some strengths in the boys. If it weren't for that, I would have been married to Madhuri Dixit.

Participating in a debate on human rights in October, a junior officer in the paramilitary CRPF said he did not approve of rules that would tie the hands of soldiers. He asserted  his confession had been obtained through torture, The TV anchor said, "Khushboo Chauhan's whole country has gone crazy ... Millions of people have watched and shared this video on social sites. Listen to Khushboo's words and become his maniac"!

Sister, please, we won't

No rape for murder, no murder for murder, we don't have to marry a Kashmiri girl just because she is white and no officer has to go crazy because she is talking about destroying someone's womb.

So the question is, what should the anchor have done when a former military officer advocated rape instead of rape during a live debate?

Should they have been removed from the panel saying that their views are provocative and do not come under the purview of civilized debate or they were called because of their views because in today's environment some people I like this kind of provocation.

 It is a common practice to carefully review the profile of the proposed guests before inviting them to the debate. What are there thinking and how do they express it? Whether or not the language is controlled, especially in live debates, you can't risk inviting someone who can't control their emotions.

That's why the track record is very important, the legal responsibility for what a guest says on your channel is not limited to the guest, the channel is also responsible for it.

But there are a lot of things being said on TV channels in India that could or should have serious legal implications. But people don't worry much, perhaps because the justice mentioned by the retired military officer turns the wheel too slowly. If it weren't for that, guests would think a hundred times before saying something wrong and letting the TV channel say it without interruption!

The retired military officer is facing criticism on social media and may realize that the method of justice he is proposing has no place in a civilized society.

If not, it's up to the anchor to explain. He can politely say to such guests, thank you very much for visiting, we will finish the rest of the discussion without you, you go home and relax. But the question is, does the channel want Anchor to do that?

TV debates are both infamous and popular in India. Now some channels promote their debates by saying that if you are tired of noisy alcohol and 'To To Mein Mein' and want to listen to 'Informed Debate' on real shows, then turn to our channel.

But at the moment, his voice is not heard much. This is also a matter of demand and supply, you will hear or see on the channel what the channel thinks you want to hear or see.

The rest is up to you!