Team Herald
Panjim: The case of an MLA from Goa (political party or affiliation not disclosed) filing a complaint of being sexually blackmailed by an Odisha man, who made a morphed sexually explicit video depicting a “morphed’ visual the MLA, throws up more questions than answers.
If an elected representative on the people can be blatantly blackmailed, doesn’t it show how easy is it to do this to gullible MLAs? More importantly, if the totally innocent MLA, who innocently spoke to an unknown man on video and then found a sexually morphed image of him in a sexual act, supposedly with a third party – a woman – then his identity needs to be disclosed so that the people of his constituency can rise up in his support.
However there are some aspects of the complaint that don’t quite make sense and need proper disclosure since this involves a respected public figure from Goa.
Why would the MLA be “under pressure” and pay either Rs 55,000 or Rs 5 lakhs (both these amounts have surfaced in various reports) if this was a blackmail hit from an unknown person? The MLA is a lawmaker and the might of the cybercrime machinery would be with him. He could have approached the crime branch and cybercrime as soon as the blackmail threat was received rather than transfer funds to the blackmailer.
This is the main question shocked Goans are asking.
More importantly, it doesn’t appear that this was a result of just a video call but a series of calls. Why would the MLA indulge in multiple calls with a man who released a morphed (doctored) video of his?
Next in the line of questions is who Kukesh Rauta, a resident of Ganjam, Odisha, is? And why would he have reason to blackmail and extort money from an MLA, with whom he has no connection? Moreover, the complaint with the Crime Branch mentions a woman, depicted in the morphed sexually explicit video, with the MLA. If the woman is a part of the sextortion racket, when will she be questioned and if needed, be arrested? Or, if she is a victim of this supposed blackmail, her statement is crucial to throw light on this, unless ‘she’ is an AI generated figure.
While the investigation is on, it is surprising that no MLA – either from the ruling dispensation or the Opposition – has said a word in defence of their “sextorted” colleague. After all, the dignity and prestige of a fellow MLA has been hurt! And they must stand up in support to ensure that no one else has to face this sorry plight.