Four-Year-Old Innocent Assaulted and Murdered — Exposing the Double Standards of the Media:-Dr. Riyaz Deshmukh A.C.P. (Rtd.)

Nasrapur Horror in Pune District: Four-Year-Old Innocent Assaulted and Murdered — Exposing the Double Standards of the Media.

In Nasrapur, Pune district, a four-year-old innocent girl was brutally assaulted and murdered. This incident is not merely a crime—it is a dagger thrust into the chest of humanity itself. The entire state of Maharashtra erupted in anger, people came out on the streets, and demands were raised for the harshest possible punishment for the accused. But amid this outrage, one troubling question kept echoing in the minds of the public—where was the name of the accused?

Many television channels, news portals, newspapers, and digital media platforms covered the incident extensively. But what were the headlines?

“65-year-old monster,” Elderly man assaults little girl.

Four-year-old murdered ,but no name. No identity. No background. As if the accused was not a real person, but merely a shadow.

People began searching. They looked on Google. They checked Marathi, Hindi, and English news sources. But nowhere could the accused’s name be found. Many even asked AI tools, but no clear answer emerged. Eventually, through social media discussions and local-level information, the accused was identified as Bhima Kamble.

This raises an important question—were mainstream media outlets unaware of this name? Or did they know it and deliberately choose to hide it?

What If the Accused Were Muslim?

This question must be asked. Because in many past incidents across the country, we have seen a clear pattern—if the accused is Muslim, the media often places the name in the very first line of the headline. Sometimes even the religion is prominently highlighted.

Names such as “so-and-so Khan,” “Sheikh,” or “Pathan” are flashed in headlines. Often, the name becomes bigger than the crime itself. The religion becomes the focus more than the victim or the act.

But when the accused belongs to another community, suddenly the media remembers restraint. It remembers morality. It remembers legal language.

Then phrases like:

“65-year-old accused,”

“a local man,”

“one person,”

“elderly villager”

begin to appear.

This difference is not a coincidence. It is selective vision. It is prejudice packaged as journalism. It is ideological business conducted in the name of reporting.

Criminals Have No Religion — But Does the Media?

A criminal has only one identity—criminal. A rapist is a rapist. His crime does not become lesser or greater depending on his religion. A murderer, a child abuser, someone who stains the conscience of society—regardless of religion—is a monster.

But unfortunately, for some media outlets, the religion of the accused seems very important. Because it brings TRP. It spreads hatred. It allows blame to be pinned selectively on one community. It enables emotional manipulation.

When the accused is Muslim, an entire community is questioned.

When the accused is Hindu, Dalit, Maratha, Brahmin, or anyone else, it is dismissed as an “individual crime.”

This is not journalism. This is a marketplace of double standards.

The Mirror Shown by the Pune Case

If the accused in the Nasrapur case is indeed Bhima Kamble, what exactly prevented the media from publishing that name?

Protecting the identity of the victim is both a legal and moral duty. But the identity of the accused, especially after arrest, is often part of public records. Then why the silence here?

Because had the name come out, a carefully manufactured narrative would have collapsed.

Society would have realized that crime is not the monopoly of any one religion. Depravity has no caste or creed. And that truth makes some people uncomfortable.

The Media Must Introspect

In a democracy, the media is called the fourth pillar. But if that pillar bends, the entire structure is endangered.

The duty of journalism is to present truth, question both power and society, and stand on the side of justice.

If you want to publish the name of the accused in one case, then publish it in all cases.

If you do not want to publish names, then do not publish anyone’s name.

There must be one rule—not one that changes according to religion.

The Public Must Remain Vigilant

Today, in the age of social media, digital platforms, and citizen journalism, hiding information has become difficult. People ask questions. They compare. They recognize hypocrisy.

The media must understand that the public is no longer blind.

The era of selective outrage, selective morality, selective secularism, and selective reporting is coming to an end.

That innocent little girl deserves justice.

The accused deserves the harshest punishment possible.

But alongside that, society is also demanding answers from the media:

If the accused is Muslim, the name appears in the first line. If he belongs to another community, the name disappears—what kind of journalistic ethics is this?