Author: Arindam Banerjee
Publication: Sify News
Date: January 28, 2004
URL: http://sify.com/news/columns/fullstory.php?id=13372216
Thumbing through the pages on the
Deccan Chronicle site, I happened to scan an article on 'PM vs Sonia'.
The article itself was not worth writing home about - it was just the 316th
such analysis of why Vajpayee's BJP succeeded and Sonia's team failed at
the recently concluded Assembly elections. | From The Archives: State Polls
2003 |
Nevertheless, two words of one sentence
in the whole article kicked me painfully in the shins. I had just run into
a phrase that I'd hoped I would never have to see in an Indian newspaper.
The author proclaimed: "He consults all for a feedback, makes up his own
mind, and then acts with the Brahminical deviousness for which he is renowned."
The funny thing is - I'm sure that
the lady has never met my father - but, yet she feels free to call him
devious - a trait, I've never seen in him. OK, OK - I can get over the
fact that the lady writer let slip her latent bigotry by stereotyping all
Brahmins as devious, including people I personally know very well. I can
even handle the rather troublesome issue that in most cases, had any insane
Indian journalist dared to color an entire group of people, say Sunni Muslims
or Catholics, with such verbiage, a competent editor would promptly have
snipped out the phrase. But, there's a much bigger issue here?
Question is - for us journalists,
columnists and various forms of media participants, where is the line?
Where is the 'Lakshman Rekha' that we must not cross? Equally important
- if such a hypothetical line is crossed, as was done in this fetid piece
of writing, how should the system of editors, newspapers and the journalist
community react? Remember, the writer and the writing was never criticised
or apologised for, in this case. | Discuss: Lakshman rekha for journalists?
|
Now, before the peanut gallery lapses
into 'arre yaar - this is a free country only - bolne do usko - freedom
of press hai na?'. Sure, the writer is welcome to spew expletives in private,
or even do so in public, using her own resources. But, what she should
not automatically have is free access to a mass media forum, such as a
widely distributed newspaper, to spew her venom. Free speech and a free
press are mandatory for our democracy but free access to a mass media forum
to spew out bigotry is NOT.
Let me explain what I mean. Two
Sundays ago, a well-known TV presenter in the UK, Robert Kilroy-Silk wrote
an article in the Sunday-Express. In it, not only did he put his foot in
his mouth, but he pretty much swallowed it whole - essentially, labeling
all Arabs in derogatory terms. Here's a report on what he said: Titled,
'We Owe Arabs Nothing,' the article stated, "Apart from oil - which was
discovered, is produced and is paid for by the west - what do they contribute?
Can you think of anything? Anything really useful? Anything really valuable?
Something we really need, could not do without? No, nor can I. What do
they think we feel about them? That we adore them for the way they murdered
more than 3,000 civilians on September 11 and then danced in the hot, dusty
streets to celebrate the murders? That we admire them for being suicide
bombers, limb amputators, women repressors?" Sure, the bigotry flowed out
of Kilroy - but the reaction in the UK, is interesting to note.
Various media outlets and the Muslim
council of Britain criticised it, while BBC immediately took Kilroy-Silk's
show off the air "pending an investigation of his comments." The Commission
for Racial Equality (CRE) has even brought in the police to consider whether
the article might constitute an offence under the Public Order Act.
No, No, No - I'm not suggesting
that the writer from the Deccan Chronicle be thrown in jail. Far from it,
in an openly free country, she has the right to say whatever she wants
to say, however disgusting it may be. But, where are the checks and balances
in our system to prevent or at least mitigate the effects of such writing?
In Kilroy-Silk's case, more than half a dozen journalists and columnists
wrote articles and short pieces, openly criticising this race baiting.
The public mockery that Kilroy-Silk is living through is well deserved
and exactly what should happen in any open society. In India, however,
the writer at Deccan Chronicle, has had herself declared 'secular' and
obtained a carte blanche for any kind of open bigotry - no criticism applies.
The typical pat response from media community seems to be 'I agree with
you 100 percent saar, but, we cannot criticise a fellow journalist!'
So, where is this mythical line
for us, in India? Most people will agree that religious bigotry, such as
labeling or stereotyping a whole group of people, is not cool. But, is
it OK, to praise the perpetrators of genocide?
Well, oddly enough, a few weeks
ago, we found an Assistant Editor of a national newspaper writing in the
Daily Times of Lahore, doing exactly that. She tries to credit the 'bravery'
of the perpetrators of one of the worst genocide in the past 50 years -
a genocide that killed quite probably 2-3 million civilians in less than
nine months; far surpassing the kill rate the Nazis achieved in six years
of systematic gassing. She writes about the much vaunted Pakistani army
of 1971: "The fighting men seem to have performed remarkably well against
overwhelming odds. It is shocking, therefore, to discover that they were
not received with honour by their nation on their return...the answers
don't lie in unthinking vilification of the fighting men who performed
so well in the war."
In her selective perfidy, she blithely
skipped mentioning what the Pakistani army actually did do, such as: "The
number of dead in Bangladesh in 1971 was almost certainly well into seven
figures. It was one of the worst genocides of the World War II era, outstripping
Rwanda (800,000 killed) and probably surpassing even Indonesia (one million
to 1.5 million killed in 1965-66)."
As R J Rummel writes: "The human
death toll over only 267 days was incredible. Just to give for five out
of the 18 districts some incomplete statistics published in Bangladesh
newspapers or by an Inquiry Committee, the Pakistani army killed 100,000
Bengalis in Dacca, 150,000 in Khulna, 75,000 in Jessore, 95,000 in Comilla,
and 100,000 in Chittagong. For 18 districts the total is 1,247,000 killed.
This was an incomplete toll, and to this day no one really knows the final
toll. Some estimates of the democide [Rummel's "death by government"] are
much lower -- one is of 300,000 dead -- but most range from one million
to three million. ... The Pakistani army and allied paramilitary groups
killed about one out of every 61 people in Pakistan overall; one out of
every 25 Bengalis, Hindus, and others in East Pakistan. If the rate of
killing for all of Pakistan is annualised over the years the Yahya martial
law regime was in power (March 1969 to December 1971), then this one regime
was more lethal than that of the Soviet Union, China under the communists,
or Japan under the military (even through World War II)." (Rummel, Death
By Government, p. 331.)
OK, here's a suggestion folks -
try writing the same article, except switch out the phrases about the Pakistani
army with references to the Nazi SS. The reaction in most western countries
is not hard to predict - if the article ever manages to see the light of
day, the editors and owners of the publication would be pilloried in public,
and the writer will pretty much have to kiss his/her career goodbye. Unfortunately,
in this case, neither happened. We find that the writer got subsequently
published in a reputed Indian business magazine - no points taken off,
it would seem, for praising the bravery of the perpetrators of genocide.
Strangely enough - both the scenarios, so far are softball issues - most
people will fume and cuss at such putrid writing. So, let's make the case
a little harder.
Lately, the editor of the leading
English daily in India has developed a fetish for promoting the secession
of Kashmir from India, under the guise of loosening Indian sovereignty
on Kashmir. We get the first hint of this, in an article called 'Zurich
on the Jhelum' in the August 22, 2003 edition of the daily. Next we see
a very similar proposal being pushed in a lead article (January 20, 2004)
titled 'Make Kashmir a neutral space'. Of course, another writer in the
same daily was a little more direct and openly asks the leading question
"India has to realise that it cannot settle with the Valley Kashmiris on
the basis of the situation that prevailed before 1990... Will India be
willing to forgo or even dilute its sovereignty in the Valley?"
Note, that this is the editor of
a newspaper that claims a daily distribution of six million or so. No follow-ups
countering this point of view and no presentation of such mundane facts
like - "what rewarding terrorism with territory, may do to our terrorist
neighbour's next-step ambitions" or "what would allowing Pakistan close
to our river headwaters likely result in." | Discuss: How long will the
Indo-Pak ceasefire last? |
Who cares about such mundane things
about securing the water supply for hundreds of millions of Indians? Of
course, it is quite possible that the editor fully understands that once
such editorials are published in his newspaper, they'll automatically be
picked up Pakistani and US newspapers as proof of an "Indian desire to
settle Kashmir, even if it means loosening Indian sovereignty over it."
Sure, the editor of the rag in question
has the freedom of press behind him. But, so do the editors of the other
mainstream media houses. They were happy to lash out at Jaya's minions
for their recent peccadilloes with the press as in this HT invective: "The
Tamil Nadu Speaker's directive to arrest the publisher, editor, executive
editor and senior journalists of The Hindu is a matter of concern as much
for the public as it is for the press." Would they consider directing their
corporate wrath, against some of their colleagues, who actively promote
secession?
Another incident - another scenario
- but, the same question. Here's what I'm talking about - a respected member
of the Parliament, on a jaunt to Islamabad, took time out to laud the advances
of the Pakistani economy. He writes "Shaukat Aziz... announces that the
Pakistan economy in the current financial year, July 2002-June 2003, has
recorded the fastest growth in South Asia. He does not say so but the sad
fact is that they have overtaken India as we slide downwards and they slither
up. Per capita income in the current fiscal year," he adds, "has risen
by a double-digit figure..."; In the article, the author made three somewhat
fraudulent claims:
1. Per capita income has gone up
by a double digit figure
2. Pakistan recorded the fastest
growth in S Asia.
3. "have overtaken India as we
slide downwards and they slither up"
Fine, I'll agree that these are
strictly not BIG lies, but subtle fudging of the truth, you know like:
* Indian per capita income has actually
left Pakistani incomes behind and poverty in Pakistan has doubled, while
in India it has almost halved in the past 15 years. An average Indian has
gained 50 percent over their income in 1990, while the Pakistani's income
has only grown only 13 percent in the same time.
* Pakistani growth without the $one
billion of free oil from Saudi Arabia and about $one billion of grants
and airbase rental from the US, would be about one percent, that is essentially
a stagnant economy. India, on the other hand, is fuelling the rise of Asia,
along with China.
* Even if he could not predict the
8.4 percent growth of the last quarter, the huge migration of jobs and
companies to India over the past few years, is almost unparalleled, except
in the case of China - no prizes for knowing this factoid.
The question - does this cross the
line of journalistic ethics, according to you?
Surprisingly, some BJP types, who
virulently oppose this same gentleman, find nothing wrong with the writer's
fanciful writing, since "everyone knows he's a politician, so he has some
freedom." OK, fine - I give up - so from now on, I'll handle articles by
politician writers, the same way I treat Arundhati's scribbles - by, first
calling a fact-checker! So, what is the solution to all this? First of
all, the solution does NOT lie in getting the Government involved or even
establishing new laws. That would surely defeat the purpose.
What, however, is necessary is to
create a level of comfort in criticising other media organisations and
personalities. This 'effective freedom' is a key part of why the Kilroy-
Silk issue was handled well in the UK, while conversely, the Deccan Chronicle
article was mishandled here. The prevailing mindset of "cannot criticise
our colleagues in the media, yaar" needs a quiet and painless death. The
change is happening in some circles, but has clearly left many a mainstream
media house by.
Next, editors must recognise that
what is good for the goose is good for the gander, too. For example, Bibhuti
Bhushan Nandy reports in HT, that: "A recent article by Sharmila Bose (Ananda
Bazaar Patrika, August 3) depicted Ram as an impotent wretch and Sita as
a nymphomaniac." The question is, would the same publication feel comfortable
publishing similar profanities about deities and prophets from other religions?
Somehow, I do not think so! But, by publishing such nonsense, the publication
forfeited any credibility that it had, in decrying the real fundoos. Nobody
wants a battle on religious idiosyncrasies to be fought out on in newspaper
articles and columns and editors should be the last people to start such
wars. Here is a case where the editors and owners must step up to the internal
policing required to maintain propriety.
A complete lack of balance on political
issues has been a pet peeve of quite a few people. Tavleen Singh writing
on the media fascination with Sonia states: "How much is Sonia Gandhi a
real figure and how much a myth created by the media? This is a question
that comes to my mind every time I see an interaction between her and Delhi's
political journalists. The most recent one was last week when a gathering
was arranged at the Parliament House annexe. It was clear that the country's
most hardened hacks fell over themselves trying to get close to 'Madame'
much as if she were a movie star. 'No questions, please, no questions,
no questions, no television cameras,' her flustered flunkeys yelled but
they need not have worried because when the questions did come they were
so mild that any child could have answered them." | Discuss: Does Sonia
Gandhi have leadership qualities? |
The ceaseless BJP bashing without
any similar spotlight on the Congress and its leaders (except after the
recent Assembly elections) has left the BJP hardened, and has allowed the
Congress to continue living in la-la land. Who looses - the Indian democracy
and the Indian voter, of course! In the end, they're left without an effective
opposition party. It is here that effective oversight committees formed
from within the media are critical to rectify this imbalance - once again,
no governmental oversight, please.
For example, media watchdog groups
in the US often track and highlight the number of positive/negative references
made by the various network news channels, about a Presidential candidate.
Similar groups in India could track the number of positive and negative
references about the BJP and Congress in the run-up to the Lok Sabha polls;
at least for the major media outlets.
In the end, I do recognise that,
not every media house will draw the line, where I have drawn them and I
do not expect them to, either. However, we all need to recognise that,
just as freedom of expression and a free press, are the very legs that
any true democracy stands on, the lack of propriety, unbalanced reporting
and blatantly slanted facts can cut off these very legs, at the knees.
(The writer can be contacted at
arindam_banerji@yahoo.com)
