“There! There! Behind that tree… I saw someone moving an hour ago. There is probably a Naxalite hiding there! With an AK-56! This whole area is mined, and the security force, and special commandos, are… are advancing carefully.” Breathless. War reporting, at it best. “They are using the XYZ (some name) tactics, and are trying to establish superiority, before circling around!” Wow! Its back. You couldn’t do much in the last couple of wars. What with bombs falling from nowhere. And “human interest stories” can never compare against the thrill and adventure, of true reporting from battle front! Now we ultimately have a war. Indian forces are fighting the dreaded Naxalites. A war, in which young journos can learn about true war reporting… minus much danger, of course!
The motto of the hour seems to be shrillness. The space for nuanced, balanced understanding, seem to have gone out of the frame, with experienced anchors attempting to reduce complex socio-economic problems, to multiple choice questions, whose answer they know. The government, in a brilliant propaganda offensive, prints huge, on your face, grisly advertisements, in newspapers. In a brilliant Goebbelsian blitz, a continuum is broken up into binaries (In a statement reminiscent of Bush, the chief minister of Chattisgarh says that those in the camps are with us, and those in the forest, are with Maoists, and thus, presumably, ought to be killed.). Repeat this, enough times, and you might just convince an Arnab Goswami, that there is a Kobad Gandhi, under his arm chair! Simple moral questions are asked of one side. “Is it ever correct to kill people? Should the protest be democratic, in a democratic state?” The questions assume the answers. No one condones the killing of a four year old child!
However, should a balanced media not ask some other questions? You see, “democratic protest” is easy. It does not require much involvement. The other options are incomparably more difficult, and require a much greater degree of involvement, and commitment. If some people, a lot of people really, seem to favour other options, does it mean something? By the way, these people have never read Motorcycle diaries, never heard of the long march. Can the media dare to ask the question, that whether, in India, democracy has been the luxury of the well fed? “Thats not true! The poor are very politically aware! Everyone knows that.” Yes. They do. (Though the statement seeks to bundle 70% of India’s population in one word). And yes, at least some people who find it rather difficult to make ends meet, are politically aware. They know whom they are going to vote for. However, it’s always coupled with the understanding, and acceptance, that their condition is not going to change. Their fathers, will still die -of jaundice- on a bus to Calcutta. They know that the local party cadre will build a palatial house, on no known sources of income. Any “democratic” protest will be fruitless, since the house is a beneficiary of “democracy”. When they decide, as any normal person would, that the house should not be there, people in suits, are going to shake their heads, and say “but such things have no place in a democracy”. But no one ever asks, what prompted a certain Chatradhar Mahato, knowing that he would certainly be arrested, knowing the torture he was bound to face, knowing that he could not “hide behind fashionable ex film stars, children, or women”, to come forward. He had no hopes of going to China or any other place. He could not cast himself as the doctor, who carried a gun. Then? Was he “fooled by the Maoists”? Perhaps, perhaps not. However, the question, that more people should be asking, is why are they so easy to fool? I mean Maoists can’t promise much, right? Is it, that no else is promising anything? Well, things can only get better, if theres no way for them to get worse. Is that the condition of most of the people, who admittedly do not read the papers, or watch the television?
http://www.civilresistance.info/files/18-naxa.pdf
However, why is there such a dearth of balanced journalism? I do not know the answer. But perhaps, we can look at a few things. The “infotainment” media, has been perhaps one of the greatest beneficiaries of the post 1990 “liberalisation”. Also, in the last couple of decades, there has been a distinct shift, towards a more “liberalised” outlook, in the academia. Today, most of the young, urban, educated people, who form the chief clientele of the infotainment industry, look upon “successful” business gurus, as role models. The impression is that they have “lifted India up, from the quagmire, and set her, irrevocably, on the path to 10% growth”. So, let us examine how “liberalised” our free markets actually are. All of the major poster boys, of nouveau Indian industries, register growths which are in excess of their competitors across the globe. Common anchor wisdom says that it is because “better governance… Shows what we are capable of…”. Reality checks are not really in order when people are in a vicarious self congratulatory mode. However, a little examination shows that this growth rides not on free market principles, but on feudal, and colonial principles. Indian industries have enjoyed unprecedented amount of subsidy. The growth difference is an image of that subsidy. Large tax breaks, and credit on taxes paid abroad, is the known part of the story. These breaks are given not only to start ups, but to established companies as well. However, what is never commented upon, is the below par gift of large quantities of land, that virtually every company in India has enjoyed. In a free market, it would have been extremely difficult to acquire that amount of land. What would have happened in a free market, is that as soon as a large corporation started acquiring land, the land price would start increasing, and it would have been costlier to acquire more land. Government help essentially short circuits this process, in favour of corporations. In effect, government acts as the feudal landlord, with absolute right over the land, and its transfer. Almost every company of note has been a beneficiary of this, and so also the new urban elite. The infotainment industry, knows its clientele and is not likely to do much, other than a couple of features about the horrid condition of say, the Bastar region, between Lux commercials. Thus, a move to scuttle greater government power to accquire land, is called regressive, though the respect for private property happens to be a central dogma of capitalism. Our free market enthusiasts want a free market, when it suits them.
So it is left to the fringes, to point out the inconsistencies in the rhetoric of the state. Its left to the fringes, to say that in principle, a democracy should also have place, within itself, for those who doubt it. Its left to the fringes, to say that the iron rod and half a carrot policy would be extremely economical. You won’t even need that half a carrot. An iron rod will be enough in most places. There will be no one left, to enjoy carrots. W enjoy dissent, when it is expressed in a language we understand. We enjoy it, when it does not threaten us, but boosts our ego. (See, how great we are! We tolerate all kinds of dissent.) However, when anything starts challenging our status quo, we can’t allow that. It’s a moot point, whether Naxals have advanced weapons, whether they get it from LeT (The only evidence for this, seems to be the statement of a suspected LeT operative.), or whether they kill innocents. The point that should be addressed is whether a state has any right to fight the people who geographically belong to it, but culturally, socially, and economically have been excluded from it. We also have to ask, what drives so many, without any ideological moorings, to embrace a path, which is extremely difficult. If we can answer these questions, probably, we will be closer to finding a solution. Triumphalism, and crushing of dissent, is not going to be solve a problem created by them.
http://www.tehelka.com/story_main42.asp?filename=Ne031009coverstory.asp
http://www.livemint.com/2009/10/02211218/Why-the-Green-Hunt-rhetoric-ri.html?h=B
0 Responses to “War reporting, minus the war…”