'Terror' convicts temed as 'servants': Is section of media soft on right-wing groups!

DNA newspaper news

I don’t consider myself an extra-intelligent person. I try to understand things and when I fail, I have no hesitation in discussing or asking others.

Recently, court held two Sanatan Sanstha members guilty of bomb blasts. While many cases involving Hindu and Muslim radicals are currently being tried in different courts, in this case the court gave a verdict and convicted them.

Still, newspapers didn’t give much importance to the news. What I found even more strange was that some newspapers reported the matter in a bizarre fashion. Particularly, Mumbai-based English newspaper DNA’s reports surprised me the most.

I am simply writing my observations here:

1. When police claim arresting a person for terror links, he is often pronounced terrorist even before trial. But on Monday, two Sanatan Sanstha members who were arrested by Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) were convicted by a court. Most newspapers didn’t term them terrorist even after conviction. I agree that for the arrest or conviction of some members, an entire organisation shouldn’t be branded but this is the first time journalistic propriety have reached such dizzy heights that those convicted of blasts have not been called terrorists.

2. When I read English daily DNA I was even more surprised. Its reports doesn’t call them militant, radical or extremist. The report terms them as ‘sevaks’, yes sevaks [that means servants] of Sanatan Sanstha. Whose servants! They were not even volunteers as in that case paper could have labelled them ‘swayamsevaks’ or even activist. But the daily seems to be so soft on the group.

Or to avoid showing affinity to RSS [that has swayamsevaks], it terms them as simply ‘servants’. I don’t say that you defame the Sanata Sanstha, an organisation which is quite candid and accepted that they were its members and said that the group had nothing to do with the handiwork of the duo. But paper, instead of writing activist, member or volunteer, uses the term ‘servant’. Can there be such a mistake or use of the word erroneously at the desk or it was done after thinking over it.

3. A day after conviction, the journalists would have tried to do story about these persons, their backgrounds or why some members of an organisation would go astray. But instead of that, DNA printed a long story that threw light on the group for its wonderful social work.
Hmm. Why should someone be negative all the time and hound everybody! This article was published when the conviction was made but  the next day the court had to deliver the quantum of judgment. One may appreciate that paper has no prejudices against any group.

It is a different matter though that the state government intended to ban Sanatan Sanstha for its alleged role in Goa and Thane-Panvel-Vashi blasts. Hope the paper will continue similar non-biased approach and also write positively about other groups after their members are convicted or jailed (and highlight the social concern of other organisations).

4. Now that the persons convicted of bomb blasts and sentenced to ten years of jail terms have not been called as terrorists,will the paper maintain the same standards of journalism in future. Or will it still call any Muslim or Hindu youth who is simply rounded up, not even jailed or convicted, terrorist!

5. This is the same multi-edition English newspaper that had published Subramanian Swamy’s article that put all Indian Muslims under suspicion and labelled the community as prone to extremism and terrorism and what not. The article had put onus on Indian Muslims to prove a whole lot of things. The particular piece has been widely discussed, criticised and even National Commission for Minorities took cognizance of complaints against it.

Just like the newspaper had liberty to publish it, which I support in principle, I too think I can take a little liberty and write about what’s going in my mind after reading these reports. I don’t know what is going through the minds of those who run this paper or decide the editorial policy.

The little an average reader and Indian citizen like me expects is that the paper should show decent standards of journalism. Either you should don’t turn suspects into terrorists or don’t term terrorists as ‘SERVANTS’. Will servants object to the usage? Perhaps, it’s a new style, which they will adhere to in future [for both Hindutva inspired groups as well as Islamist extremists]!

Sorry to say but even RSS mouthpieces Panchjanya and Organiser are [at least] consistent in their policy. On the otherhand DNA sells copies in lakhs [tens of thousands] and I wonder how many readers are mediocre and what percentage of readers are intelligent enough to figure out the unique journalism practices adopted by this great media institution. Pray for me so that my mind could become capable of understanding these issues.

Frankly, I always liked the paper and as a reader felt happy when the DNA made a space for itself in the crowded English market. In Mumbai, the paper has a large circulation now. However, such selective and biased reporting is really upsetting for a reader like me.

Do We Belong..?

Authored By Adisha WS:

What makes one belong to their country?

You see it all those patriotic movies. “I love India.” They shake you to your core at all that’s been sacrificed for our nation and have you beaming proud at being Indian. And yet in reality, we see the news, see the state of the country around us and shake our heads in despair.

I wonder what those great leaders of yesterday, who fought for the freedom and constitution of our nation would feel should they see the state of the country today.

A nation where people are fighting over culture, language, status and lifestyle.
A nation where progress is limited to a few cities.
A nation which is straining under the weight of the population that grows exponentially.
A nation where whole communities are trying to turn the country into a jig saw puzzle.
A nation where movie stars are prayed to as Gods.
A nation where any system works smoothly only when it is a well bribed machine.
A nation where being street smart is the ONLY strategy to survive.

And this is just within the country. Abroad we have the section of Indians who hold on tight to their beliefs as if it’s all a dying, ancient art, so as to nag the next generation about what it means to belong. The other section that’s being born and brought up abroad are only able to feel anything for their country on the few visits they make for their family and relatives. They are torn between the land where they grew up and the land where they truly belong. Both sections see the perspective from an outsider’s point of view and are left confounded, wondering what the future will hold.

And yet, with all the above we have people proud to be Indians. Is it not a conundrum?

I recently went back to India after 2 years. Apprehensive thanks to assorted stories from the media and friends. Oh! I had friends telling me that things have modernized in cities like Mumbai, Bangalore on par to countries abroad. Yet, I wasn’t going to one of the Big cities. This trip I’d be covering the smaller cities and villages. I stepped onto Indian soil not sure of what to expect, sure of a miserable time ahead.

Lo and behold – I did fall sick. The potholes on the roads had me almost to tears and the constant begging had me feeling despair at the state of children today. And yet, as the days flew by, I found myself being enveloped whole by the quirks of each city, that had me appreciating life in India once again.

The smell of the earth when it rains. The road side thelas and dhabas that will have you wolfing down goodies no matter what the condition of your stomach. Haggling over prices with business men who just want to make you their customer for life. Kites in the sky, rangoli on the ground and green lush fields along banks of endless rivers. Relatives surrounding you with gossip and laughter in times of joy and words of comfort when the chips are down. Only in India can one see the gradual integration of the old with the new where grandparents accept the modern ways of their young ones with grace and dignity. People on the roads who seem to be standing there with the sole purpose of giving you directions. Neighbors who are surprisingly always there whether you are going out or in. The long, exhausting journeys one takes only to be rejuvenated by the contrast of culture in the next city. Encouragement and patience of people to teach your their language, dances, recipes and way of life. You are left in awe at the rainbow of cultures. All the little things that have you thinking, ‘Man! It happens only in India … ‘

That’s when I realized that it’s not those other negative things that one concentrates on, but those little things that one holds on to when thinking of their country. I know what I enjoy are only a part of what makes India desirable, but that’s what keeps me wanting to go back, dreaming for a better tomorrow for it.

I figure, that is what those people fought for, all those years ago. An idea. An idea of what they dreamt their country would be like once free. The idea of a progressive, open minded, educated, hopeful country, with all the glories of today, minus all the nuisances of yesterday.

Truth is underneath the uncouth facade, most people today too have the same hopes. In their own way using whatever means available – be it providing for the needy or just creating awareness of a cause using the internet.
Now, when I think of India and it’s progress I imagine a Duck in a pond, looking calm and carefree, maybe careless even from above but one can see it’s legs paddling ferociously below the water. The distance it travels is another matter entirely.

The world is getting smaller, each a country’s capability – a sum of every citizen’s contribution. You can push it together or pull it apart. So being an Indian is not a matter of where you are anymore. It’s more a question of what one believes their country is capable of and how they contribute to the country’s progress. That is when one truly belongs.

 

Spokespersons at the Inquisitions, Cap in Hand

Saeed Naqvi
24 December 2010

The Burari session of the Congress, NDA rally, JPC-PAC sparring, onion and scams, are all building up to a lively election season beginning early next year – Tamilnadu, West Bengal, Kerala, Pondicherry, Assam, leading to UP elections in 2012 and the General Elections in 2014. And the media, not political parties, have snatched the initiative.

In no great democracy in the world have I seen two major political parties, ready with a battery of spokes persons, skating their way from channel to channel in mesmeric control of the anchor, whose job is to initiate a relentless tu-tu, main-main, a telegenic version of the traditional cockfight, described aptly by the poet:

“Udhar raqeeb, idhar hum byulaye jaate hain, Ki daana daal key murghey laraye jaate hain.”

(Rivals from both sides invited and made to fight over a bait.)

Who gains? The political parties?

The gainers from these painful inquisitions are never the political parties. The only gainers are the channels who operate on the principle that louder the din, higher the TRPs.

If this, indeed, is the state of affairs why do political parties feed programming which is counter productive?

Supposing the Congress (or BJP) were to decide that it would not send its spokespersons, cap in hand, to the Anchor’s parlour, what would the party stand to lose?

The Nation, I am afraid, does not sit around prime time news shows as around an altar or a God. Lutyens Delhi and Malabar Hill do. We know all about the latter: the most vociferous breast beaters after 26/11, showed no interest in the subsequent elections!

In fact not only does the Congress (or the BJP) not stand to lose anything by their non appearance in the humiliating arena, the channels would suffer enormously. Will they proceed with the show minus the Congress (or the BJP) point of view, and thereby risk their declining credibility plummet further?

Supposing the parties have teams of researchers working on the day’s or the week’s press briefing on any subject ranging from the Scams, urban crime, onions or Nerega. Do the channels dare ignore these? For the parties, subsequent TV discussion would have the following merit: they, not the channels, will have set the agenda.

For example, there has been no national debate on the political or economic resolutions adopted at Burari. Or, for that matter, on foreign policy.

Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao lamented in Karan Thapar’s excellent interview, that the Nation requires a more informed debate on China. The transcript of this interview appeared in the Hindu. What we have at the moment is a surfeit of uninformed, negative attitudes on China shaped by the anchors who do not know their elbow from their knee on the subject.

Anchors are careful on the US and Ratan Tata. In fact Ratan Tata, touched on the raw in the Radia Tapes, chose to grant an interview to a channel of his choice.

It was said of the great Egyptian singer Umme Kulsum’s performances on Radio Cairo that even news broadcasts were delayed indefinitely when she was singing.

In Indian history, when Mikhail Gorbachev as Secretary General of Communist Party of the Soviet Union, granted the first ever interview in the Kremlin, Doordarshan played the interview in full, lasting one hour and twenty minutes. Doordarshan was a government channel. What better could we expect?

But the Tata interview was on a channel which carries the free market on its shoulders. It beat the Gorbachev interview in sheer duration by a long shot.

All I am saying is that the political parties must ask, when they send their bleating lambs in, not who will slaughter them but who owns the slaughterhouse?

Pardon my memory tossing up couplets with nagging frequency:

Mir Taqi Mir, whom some consider a greater poet than Ghalib, says:

“Kitni daaman gir hai yaro uski maqtal gah-e-wafa, Us zalim ki tegh taley se ek gaya to do aaye!”

(How compelling the arena where she (or he) puts the faithful to the sword; just when one has been put away, two more queue up in the shadow of that sword)