The typical victim can sometimes be the stereotypical villain..

There are so many default victim categories entrenched in our minds-- the poor, the downtrodden, the worker, and of course the woman. In any given situation, we readily believe that the rich and mighty are the villain. No CBI inquiry is needed to establish their guilt, nor can it change our minds on the matter. The guilt is firmly established in our minds and that's where it stays for the rest of its life.
The only attenuating circumstance which can make us condone a wrongful act is if the perpetrator is a film actor. Sanjay Dutt not only gets special treatment in jail, he also gets hugged by the law-enforcers, never mind that he is convicted of possessing an illegal weapon that could kill several in a blink, and that he has barely escaped a stiffer conviction of being a terrorist. Saif Ali Khan and Salman Khan can kill people and maim them but when they step out of their homes, the world awaits their next step.

Typically though, the underdog is perceived to be the victim. So, if a tabloid newspaper in Mumbai, respected for its laidback, old Mumbai flavour, shuts down because of a dispute between its CEO and the owner, we can clearly see the CEO, who was playing journalist, is the victim. Especially since she wrote a moving account of the owner forced her hand.

All owners in the world are rogues, especially newspaper owners. This is our a priori understanding of the world. (For the benefit of those who shun philosophy, let me explain. Immanuel Kant, a German philosopher, divided all our knowledge into two groups: a priori and a posteriori. The first was what we are born with, is immutable and unchangeable while the second is derived from experiences.)

I am not saying here that it's the other way round. No. I am not privy to what's cooking at this tabloid. But I am sure the owner, rightly or wrongly, has a point of view which few care to hear out.

It is true that a journalist is an extremely powerful person and most powers quake at the thought of taking him on. But in this one instance, inevitably, he changes sides, and becomes the wronged --when his owner takes him on. History is unfortunately replete with instance of journalists being crucified by their paymasters.

It is therefore a given that everyone sides with the journalist, who is unequivocally seen as a crusader Ram against owner's Ravana. So, in this instance, the media's most enduring creation, Shobha De, expressed solidarity with the CEO; the media at large tut-tuts in sympathy and the owner never gets asked if he has a say.

Please be advised that I have used the example for illustrative purposes only. It's grave irony that the media, which places a premium on fair play. has decided to play such an unfair game. My point is a crib about how if it's journalist vs owner, the latter is always wrong. It doesn't have to stand to reason.

Regrettably, I have seen the other side of the coin. Yes, I have seen several corporates exploiting their woman employees, even high-ranking executives. I have seen women journalists facing sexual harassment at the hands of their male colleagues. I have also seen how the office suddenly becomes hostile to a woman who complains of sexual harassment. She not only faces finger-pointing, hostile stares and much shaking of head every day, she is persecuted even professionally and often forced to leave her job. Most men happily point to her smart dressing style as the culprit. The man's libido, it appears, is a God-given gift to be unleashed on anyone who remotely interests it.

At the same time, I know of at least one instance when the owner, always a symbol of rich/powerful and therefore the `sinner', is actually being exploited. I know of a sexual harassment ccomplaint by a woman against her boss only because he wouldn't show any interest in her and was, possibly, very tough on her. It's another matter that she had to quit her job and suffer ignominy as well. But the fact remains that the case was motivated.

Typically, the company has conducted no inquiry against either. And her boss today is one subdued man who walks with his head down and baulks at the prospect of speaking to a woman colleague. Justice, anyone?

The all-important domestic help, doubtless, falls in the Always Victim category too. I used to know this maid who cried on my shoulder about a family she was working for. She told me the man of the house had attempted to molest her once when his wife and mother were on a holiday and had told her to keep coming at the same time every day before his child came home from school.

I bought into her story promptly. I told her to simply stop working there and offered to find her another job. I not only found her another home to work in but also gave her a decent advance out of sympathy. Since she earned a piddly sum from that household anyway, I didn't see why she would want to stick to it. But she did, and whats more, I found she was visiting him the same time every day too. When I confronted her with it, she expressed shock, ``What?! I stopped going there after that day.'' Since I don't like being taken for a ride, I decided to get to the bottom of this.

I visited the household at the time she was supposed to be there and caught her there. The wife and mother were present too. And they told me they never left the house together because the man was handicapped! So much for the down-trodden.

There can be other ways of making you look like an ogre, as I personally experienced to some grief. My new domestic help, a shrimp of 19 years, decided to disappear just before Diwali after taking a month's salary in advance, leaving me high and dry. My Diwali cleaning therefore proved costlier with new bais coming in every day till I kept a new one permanently.

The shrimp surfaced 20 days later, to demand why I had kept another maid. When I told her I had no choice as she had not informed me, she began screaming her lungs out and demanded a month's pay. When I reminded her that she had already taken her month's pay, she screamed, ``But that was for the previous month!''

I was speechless and felt a wave of anger rising within me. I asked her again to shut up but she wouldn't, forcing me to yell back. Soon, she had tears in her eyes which drove me completely mad. I slammed the door shut even as she carried on with her victim act.

One look at her pitiable face and it would be easy to be convinced of my act of cruelty. The next thing I know, my new maid was imploring me to give her her pay! I tried to tell her that it was she who actually owed me money as she had taken advance pay. But my logical rants seemed too weak in the face of this compelling performer who had them eating out of her hands.

I didn't give in, of course, but managed to earn the tag of a tormentor for no fault of mine. I haven't since dared to indulge my neighbour in friendly chatter for fear of an inquisition that will eventually paint me all black. I already behave like the guilty party.

Now you know why I sometimes sympathise with the perpetrator. Sigh!

Moral of the story: Appearances are deceptive. The truth is not always out there...