T HESE days the word `statutes` is being widely used in the media. It seems to be an attempt, a kind of permission granted to any aggressor, like India and Israel, to keep any area under occupation or blatantly refuse to accept and implement UN Security Council resolutions.
This word is used as if it is an attempt to sweep certain issues under the rug.
The word is used no matter if hundreds of innocent children, and young people are blinded by the Indian pallet guns or Israeli armour; no matter if the whole of India-occupied Jammu and Kashmir isconvertedinto an openprisonunder the occupation of 90,000 Indian army personnel; no matter if more and more people living with the fear of genocide suffer from a range of psychological problems; no matter if Israel is blocking even life-saving medicines and baby food to the Palestinians.
Leading stakeholders find the situation appropriate to be contextualised with this `statutes` or that, and the media is more than happy to report the matter with the repeated mention of `statutes`.
We, the consumers of media content, are fed up with the use of the word `statutes` as a means to cover up one`s hypocrisy.
