“The child actor in Bicycle Thieves, Enzo Staiola, grew up to be an ordinary mathematics teacher in Italy. He retired very recently. He has no link with cinema. The child actor in ET grew up to be a guitarist. Jeet Bose, who played the role of Captain Spark in Joy Baba Felunath, is now a big shot in the hotel industry of Bengaluru. He too acted in one film. Nobody remembers them. The child actor in The Kid has also got lost. You are not the only one uncle.”

So speaks Arko in the film Apur Panchali (2014) as he tries to coax Subir Banerjee to accept an invitation to Germany. The character of Subir Banerjee is none other than that of the iconic child actor who played the role of Apu in Pather Panchali (1955) directed by Satyajit Ray. Apur Panchali narrates the mediocre adulthood of child actor Apu, who worked as a simple clerk and could never face the camera again.

The scene about former child actors is relevant at a time when the involvement of 23-year-old actress Shweta Prasad in a sex-work racket has come to light. Prasad was sent to a rehabilitation facility after the police busted a sex-work racket in a five-star hotel in Hyderabad.

Prasad had won the National Award as a child actor for her role in Makdee (2002). She is also remembered for her brilliant role as the young sister of an aspiring cricketer in Iqbal (2005).

However, Prasad has claimed that after her initial success it was a struggle to get roles, which is what led her to sex work. Thus, Prasad too found it difficult to make a career in cinema like Staiola, Bose, Banerjee and many other talented child actors. However, Prasad had to undertake sex work to sustain herself and her family unlike the male child actors referred to in Apur Panchali.

Though this gender aspect should have been kept in mind while reporting, reading and responding to such a story, as expected, reportage on the matter bordered on the salacious, without much effort to delve deeper. “Bollywood”, “actress”, “prostitution” and “pimp” were some of the words that were peppered across news reports. How the police got a tip-off, how they conducted the raid, what amount Prasad charged for sex work, how much she paid to her pimp and other such aspects of the case have all been reported at length. Yet, more important points have been left out. These omissions were addressed by two significant articles in Firstpost and Scroll. The first asked why the prominent businessmen from Mumbai, who were apprehended during the raid, are not being named. The second stated that sex work is Prasad’s private affair and is nobody’s business.

The article in Firstpost, written by Deepanjana Pal, notes: “Prasad is allegedly part of a high-profile prostitution ring that included in its list of clients ‘well-known businessmen’. While Prasad’s name is in the headlines, the names of the men who paid for sex have been protected. The details of what happened to Prasad, from being arrested to now living in a rescue home, have been shared by ‘police sources’. However, there’s nothing to be gleaned from any of the news reports about the men who were Prasad’s customers.”

The article raises the issue of how money can regulate content in news media. However, it is worth a thought why Firstpost stopped at the suggestion that the rich have managed to keep their names off the news media. Firstpost, too, is a news organisation owned by Network 18. It has a battery of journalists not only in the organisation, but across Network 18. It could have reported on the case and spilled the beans on who these “well-known businessmen” buying sex work are. The lack of it is a clear indication of the invisible control on such criticism. Also, Firstpost does no service to the issue at hand by listing the article under “Entertainment”.

The article in Scroll written by Vrinda Gopinath notes: “… the actress admitted she sold sexual favors as she was broke and in dire need of money for herself. Clearly, the actress was a sex worker, who was performing her services voluntarily. She had not been coerced, kidnapped or tricked into staying in the business … The actress said she was earning up to Rs 1 lakh per client, and gave 15% to her accomplice, so she clearly enjoyed having the good things of life.”

The overall emphasis of the article is on the fact that the involvement of Prasad in sex work has drawn more than necessary attention. But the logic of volition on the basis of which the writer makes such an argument is rather problematic.

How can sex work or any other work that invites direct invasion of the body (organ sale, for example) be voluntary when it is undertaken under conditions of penury? Is coercion only of the physical type and without relation to that which is economic or social?

Liberty cannot be exercised without equality. Indeed “equality” follows “liberty” in the French Revolution slogan. Vouching for the first without reference to the second is an invitation to disaster.

World history is replete with such examples. But to take one from India; it was never enough to make laws that abolished caste and allowed everybody the freedom to choose occupation. Reservation was implemented to put the historically oppressed on equal grounds so that they could make use of that liberty. The liberty of choosing to be a sex worker is a personal matter as long as it is not forced owing to dire financial condition.

But if it is forced by indigence, as in the case of Prasad, it is not a simple matter of personal choice as Scroll makes it out to be.

To conclude, the reportage and discussion on the case of Shweta Prasad does not address two major issues. First, does stardom at a young age allow child actors to pursue a normal course of education that can equip them to pursue an alternate career? Second, what role should the family and then society have in making the child actor aware that the future may not necessarily be all that silvery?

The case of Shweta Prasad has allowed an opportunity to think about these issues. Neither raunchy reportage nor ultra-libertarian advocacy can do justice to these pressing matters.