archive: Media's whipping boy
Media's whipping boy
Jaya Jaitly
The Hindustan Times
June 21, 1999
Title: Media's whipping boy
Author: Jaya Jaitly
Publication: The Hindustan Times
Date: June 21, 1999
A newspaper columnist recently wrote that Defence Minister George
Fernandes claimed that he alone was privy to the knowledge that the
Pakistan army initiated the Kargil infiltration. He berated the
Minister for not sharing such information with his Cabinet colleagues.
There is not an iota of substance to this. First, a statement is
fabricated and on the basis of it the Minister is castigated. What is
the mindset behind such writing?
Over the past few weeks it seems that in the minds of a section of the
media, and of course, the opposition, George Fernandes is "Enemy No.
One"' and not those Mujahideen cum infiltrators cum Pakistan army men
who are firing on our jawans and even mutilating those whom they
capture before shooting them. Instead of a national anger which should
translate into anger at Pakistan's leadership, childish games are
being played almost as if Kargil and cricket are one and the same
thing. Azharuddin and Fernandes are termed as men whom people love to
hate. Is this the Press feeding emotions to the middle class or is it
a reflection of the level of responses to Kargil, particularly by the
main opposition party?
The jawans at Siachen and Kargil or in hospital beds in Srinagar,
Udhampur, Chandigarh and Delhi look up to their Army and civilian
chiefs at times like this. The mischievous barbs of the opposition and
their friends in the Press do not reach the icy heights of Ladakh, but
it is still necessary to question the motivation of those who distort
and concoct statements and others who find it necessary to quote
unnamed sources commenting on the factors behind Fernandes's marriage.
This is not from the rag journals but from nationalist dailies like
The Hindustan Times. People have repeated on TV, in reportage, in
editorials and in articles the same old untruth of China having been
termed Enemy No. 1 by Fernandes. Karan Thapar will vouch for what is
the truth but no one cares to check with him. Instead, even Natwar
Singh is accusing him of repeatedly calling China an enemy when in
fact he never said it at all.
That the Pakistan army hatched and initiated the plot to push
infiltrators and troops into our territory is now clear. Nawaz Sharif
was probably landed with a fait accompli which he now has to defend as
his own. In a democracy that believes in greater transparency the
people had a right to know this fact. Yet this continues to be
interpreted and extended to mean that the ISI and Nawaz Sharif have
been given a "clean chit" by the Defence Minister.
Another bone of contention is why did army officials brief a political
party. Well, the very same officials assisted the Defence Minister
earlier in an all-party briefing, and the Minister, on TV, offered
similar briefings to any party that wished it. In fact he took the
officials because he was requested to do so by the concerned party.
They merely explained the terrain and general features of the
situation. One paper says that the Army Chief went for the briefing.
Should the public in a democratic country not be allowed to reflect on
such matters on the basis of truth? Is this not better sharing of
information? Are not parties representing the concerns of the people?
Do they not share their acquired knowledge with the general public?
Why do parties accuse the Minister of impropriety when they could
instead avail themselves of the same offer? What makes them suspicious
of the nature of the briefing? Do they want to learn something
themselves rather than play party politics about such matters at a
time when our troops are defending our borders?
Safe passage was never unilaterally offered by the Minister. He was
asked if safe passage would be given if asked for by Pakistan Foreign
Minister. He replied that if there was such a proposal it could be
considered. Considering a proposal means it may be accepted or
rejected. However, the government made it amply clear that no such
offer had been made from our side. This is not a retraction, cover-up
or backtrack. It was necessary to put the record straight after the
matter had been blown out of proportion twice - once by putting a
different twist to a simple and moderate response to a hypothetical
question posed by a journalist and again when the Prime Minister
reiterated what Fernandes said , and that too, when he was asked.
"Enemy No. One", "Clean Chit for ISI", "Offers safe passage" are
labels in bold black letters sought to be imprinted in public minds.
Is this a new way to display nationalistic concern? If there is no
national unity or trust at this time, and every situation is an
opportunity for media controversy, it betrays a desire to score points
in political or academic debates, or to demonstrate a kind of cynical
superiority. What if this kind of message reaches the brave jawans?
Back
Top
|
