Page 1 vs page 10

I was in two minds since morning, whether to debate this topic on the blog or not. But then what better place than a blog to debate it? :D. So here we go :)

Yesterday, The Hindu had a banner headline story:

I had two issues with the story. One was with the demand to not just ban the film, but the entire event too.

 “The content of the seminar, like the film, is anti-India, and against the Indian Army. We will not stand for anything that divides the country. Symbiosis has agreed to cancel the film screening, and we are giving them three days' time to think about the event, too,”

I find this language very disgusting. There are many modes of protesting and bringing this issue into prominence. Surely "we are giving them three days time to think" doesn't fall into any of that category.

Also, I have been alerted on twitter that this movie was rejected by the Censor board too. If true, how is it legal to screen it anywhere? I asked this question to the Editor of The Hindu too. Waiting for response...

Second was with the headline. "Fatwa" is something that issued by the muslim clergy, not groups like ABVP. It is improper for a newspaper to mix up things like this and impose them onto the reader. I asked the editor about it too, while condemning the demand by ABVP. Diktat would have been a right word to use, in my opinion.

But this was not why I was in two minds. There was another news item in today's paper.

Today, in page 10... please mark it - in page 10 and not on page 1 - The Hindu publishes this report - "Police too didn't want film screened"

The report very clearly mentions that it was not just "right wing" groups but also the police that advised the organisers of the seminar not to screen this movie. The report does not mention if they advised so acting on any complaint filed or not. So it is difficult to conclude from the report, why the police took this step of writing to the university. 

Assuming they acted on a complaint by ABVP, isn't it the police's job to counsel ABVP to protest peacefully but not threaten violence (if they did)? Assuming the police wrote to the university even before ABVP approached either of them - why did they do it?

So here's my question - Why is the ABVP "fatwa" front page news and why is the police "advise" page 10 news? 

Is there an agenda at play here? Or am I missing something? It would be great if anyone of you who think otherwise, can shed some light in the comments section too...

Here's one event that prompted me to write the blog. CNN-IBN's Senior Editor Sagarika Ghose tweets this morning: 

She actually thought that the film name is "Fatwa" !!! And upon correcting her, she goes on to decry the "thought police" action of ABVP. Quite obviously Sagarika Ghose hasn't read the second report, primarily because it is tucked away in the 10th page! There will be many mis-guided people like her - and that's primarily why I begin to suspect an agenda here! 

Update on Jan 2: The Hindu carried a last page report - "On police advise, Rushdie seminar cancelled". Police did not even want them to debate the whole Rushdie affair! And this is last page news!