Next Terror Strike: Endgame for India and Pakistan

By Mazher Hussain           3 January, 2009                          Muslim India

www.sacw.net

Cries of war are once again vitiating the atmosphere in both India and Pakistan. The governments, the media and the opinion makers are contributing to the hype and increasing the hysteria by the day.

There is also silence. But this silence is from the peace activists on both sides of the border- an unfortunate silence and inaction from that very same section of society that should have been the most vocal and proactive in these times of madness and mayhem.

In fact, many people, especially in India, who are known votaries of conflict mitigation and have dedicated most of their lives to promote peace are also talking of keeping "all options" open! That they are disappointed enough to support cries for action that could also lead to a war between India and Pakistan is just a sign of the very difficult times that we have come to be in. If even activists working in the areas of peace and harmony have become so pessimistic and see strong and unilateral actions alone as the way out, what could be the thinking and the mindset of the common people who are being battered by the constant hate hype in the media and in such circumstances could war be far behind?

Of course the response of the Pakistan establishment post Mumbai terror attack leaves much to be desired. Any person, especially in India, is aghast and extremely exasperated by the constant flip flop and the denial mode of the Pakistan establishment in all matters regarding the Mumbai terror attack and the acceptance of the presence of terror groups and suspects on the Pakistan territory. Even more frustrating is the apparent unwillingness or inability of Pakistan government to stop or deal with such terror groups. This seems to be resulting in a growing sense of public outrage in India - propelling the Indian government to adopt a hard and aggressive stance, especially in view of the forthcoming general elections scheduled in April 2009.

It is also true that there are more terror attacks and suicide bombings taking place in Pakistan then in India. And most of the times, it is the very same forces that are behind the terror attacks both in Pakistan and in India. The people of India know this. The people of Pakistan know this. Even if the Pakistani establishment keeps denying this to the point of absurdity and the government of India drives itself into a frenzy trying to make Pakistan Government "accept and confess".

History proves that people can be swayed and misled by political jingoism and media hype to welcome wars at their own eventual peril. Two examples: Germany under Hitler and US under Bush - where "advanced civilizations" were led into wars that ultimately proved disastrous for every one and more so for these very same countries. One can never find solutions through war or conflicts. The challenge is to find solutions to wars and conflicts.

Given the traumatic experience of partition, three and a half wars fought in the last 60 years, the festering Kashmir problem and allegations by both countries that the other side is supporting civil strife, insurgencies and terror strikes in their country have succeeded in making people of both India and Pakistan suspicious and antagonistic towards each other. In such a situation, neither the politicians nor the media will have to work over time to take both the countries to war. But when media and politicians in both the countries have started creating hype and hysteria, then it will not be long before war would be accepted by all – including responsible citizens and civil society groups - as an option for consideration.

War Scenarios:

Indian government could engage in precision strikes to destroy terror camps within Pakistan territory. US is already doing this and is only succeeding in generating more sympathy for the terror groups and hatred for itself. Even though the Pakistan Government is making some cosmetic protests it has not confronted or countered any of the intrusions into its territory by US. If India is to undertake similar intrusions into Pakistani territory, then no Pakistan government can last beyond a day if it does not retaliate to the Indian intrusion. And any retaliation in the present situation could only conclude in a full scale war.

If there is a full scale war between India and Pakistan there appear to be four possible scenarios:

a) Scenario I: The conflict ends in a nuclear holocaust destroying most of the sub-continent and long term consequences for planet earth.

b) Scenario II: Some how the Indian government prevents a nuclear holocaust, wins the war and takes control of Pakistan- just like America took control of Afghanistan or Iraq. Terrorism will not disappear but will acquire additional support from resistance that will naturally spring up against the occupying forces. And the legitimacy of resistance will make the entire population stand against the occupier. Threat of violence will no longer be from isolated fanatic groups but from the entire populace. Lessons from the ongoing American misadventures in Afghanistan and Iraq are too obvious to be ignored.

c) Scenario III: India causes considerable damage to Pakistan, does not occupy any territory but succeeds in over throwing the government that is unable to contain terror groups. Pakistan is already a very weak state with a democratic government just about in place. After a war, Pakistan would become weaker with an even weaker government - taking the country into a downward spiral of lawlessness and emergence of many more groups espousing terror and violence. In such a scenario, whether the threat of violence to India from terror groups will increase or decrease is for any one to see.

d) Scenario IV: The Governments of India and Pakistan start a fight but international pressure forces them to disengage. There are no winners but certainly both would pay a price and being smaller of the two, Pakistan would stand to suffer more damage economically and politically, resulting in a weakening of the state and strengthening of lawless and terror groups with long term and disastrous consequences for India also.

Other Possibilities:

The international community, including India, knows that apart from the elected government there are multiple power centers in Pakistan. They also know that the elected government is weak and despite its best intensions lacks sovereign control over its own military, intelligence outfits and large parts of its very own territory that seems to be under the sway of fanatic groups and terror outfits. The only effective and long term solution in such a scenario would be to strengthen the elected government to improve and increase its authority to a level that would make the government of Pakistan willing and capable of controlling all other players to effectively usher in a law abiding environment and violence free society.

The best pressure and support for action for any government could be from its own people. If the people of Pakistan could assert their will and express their disapproval for the terror outfits with as much consistency and fervor as they did to bring about the ouster of the regime of General Musharaf, then this would strengthen the government and provide legitimacy to its actions and all other centers of power that seem to be operating autonomously will have to eventually fall in line. Actions by any government purely from external pressures could make it look like a puppet regime and undermine its legitimacy and become counter productive.

But the will of the people of Pakistan has been suppressed and violated for most of the last 60 years (with active support and connivance of the international community) and it cannot be expected to find its voice and its force within 60 days. It may require careful nurturing and long support before it can come into its own and the sooner this fact is recognized, the better it will be for all concerned.

Of course, the strengthening of the democratic will of the people of Pakistan should also be accompanied with pressure, along with support, from the international community on the Pakistan establishment. But international pressure does not mean and should not degenerate into immediate threats of war.

The Immanent Threat

But given the war frenzy into which both India and Pakistan seem to have propelled themselves within weeks of the Mumbai terror attack, imagine what would happen if another terrorist attack is unleashed on India in the immediate future and before both the countries are able to scale down the prevailing war hysteria and return back to non combative positions? Will the government of India be able to still continue with benign war rhetoric even in this election year and after so much extreme posturing from both sides or will it be compelled to launch at least some retaliatory strikes that could develop into a full scale war.

We have already seen that any conflict between India and Pakistan at this juncture could only mean advantage terrorism. In such a situation one should not be surprised if there is another terror strike on India in the very near future- that could actually trigger a war that nobody really wants… except of course the terrorists.

Just one more terror strike by 5 to 10 deranged fanatics and two nations- both products of the most ancient and glorious civilization – could be destroyed. What a comment on the wisdom and sagacity of the human race of the 21st Century!

________________________________________________________________

Source: South Asia Citizens Web

Three days of Mumbai terror reporting

Media and Conflict

By Anjali Deshpande & S.K. Pande   December 9, 2008     Muslim India 

The Hoot

The media behaved as if the country was so terrified it came to a standstill. As if Madhya Pradesh did not go to polls, as if Delhi did not vote, as if a former Prime Minister, V P Singh, did not pass away Anjali Deshpande and S.K. Pandey of the Delhi Union of Journalists detail their observations.

At the outset we offer our condolences to all those who lost their lives in the fight against the planned terrorist attack that shook India. We salute in particular the martyrs who sacrificed their lives to save the sovereignty and integrity of the country, in what is clearly a planned heinous terrorist attack with wider ramifications. We support the call for restraint reporting, for terrorism has international and national linkages and is often used to destabilise countries. The initial role of some of the media was to grab the eyeballs rather than ask questions and reflect all facets of life as they unfold without adding to the tension strife and trauma in such situations. In some cases the ethics evolved over the years was thrown into the dustbin. Add to it all the fact, that when some restraint began more than a touch of jingoism took over.

If there is one thing the electronic media helped in particular to do in the last three days was to bolster the confidence of terrorists and to give them a sense of achievement far greater than their action may have provided them.

The Times of India continues to aid the cause with sensational reporting two days after the operation is over. On November 30 the TOI had a chilling banner headline “There is Nobody Alive Here” with a four column black and white picture of the Harbour Bar of the Taj in shambles. The want of colour accentuates the feeling of dread that the picture inspires, especially contrasted with a little file picture of the same bar, in colour, inserted at the bottom of the big picture as an inset or a pictorial footnote so to speak.

The media behaved as if the country was so terrified it came to a standstill. As if Madhya Pradesh did not go to polls, as if Delhi did not vote, as if a former Prime Minister, V P Singh did not pass away, as if nothing else happened in the country. This may be a very insensitive thing to say but the major English dailies today are writing as if food writer Sabina Sehgal Saikia’s contribution to India was greater than that of V P Singh. (We are eating better thanks to her asserts Veer Sanghvi, (HT November 30) forgetting that half of India barely manages to get one meal a day.) Such is the lasting hatred the Mandal Messiah inspired in the self obsessed upper and middle classes of India.

Writing just the day after the rescue operation at the Trident in Mumbai was over, Shekhar Gupta chose to tell us how many times he had stayed in the Trident and how much its staff knew about his quirks (IE November 29). There seems to be a competition between editors to tell us how familiar they are with these prohibitively expensive hotels. Understandably then nobody asked the four MPs who barely escaped from the Taj why they were to hold a Parliamentary Sub Committee meeting in one of the most expensive hotels of the country? Was no room available in the parliament Annexe?

From the Beginning

When the undeclared war on Mumbai began unfolding on Wednesday November 26, 2008, the Government and the media especially the television media seemed to have joined a race to prove who is the more irresponsible of the two, the one elected by the people or the other thrust upon the people of India. The media’s claims of self restraint are always made after it has done everything to damage people’s lives, investigations and its own credibility. If there was one time when the government could have used its powers to take the telecasts off the air by cutting off the waves this was it.

As a body of journalists the Delhi Union of Journalists cannot and will not ask for censorship but as some of its members watched the live media coverage grew more and more desperate knowing not where to turn for relief.

The News and Broadcasters Association, set up to ensure ethical reporting, was conspicuous by its absence of any advisory, directions or advice. TV channels continued to telecast sensitive information jeopardising peoples’ lives. They told everyone where the commandos were approaching the Taj and the Trident hotels from; they showed us just where the commandos had landed on the rooftop of Nariman House. They also helpfully let us know that the electricity connection to the Nariman House was cut off. And that the NSG had night vision equipment, and would launch an attack at night! As if the backers of the desperadoes on their brutal murder spree were not watching TV and keeping them updated. Those who argue that viewers can use the remote to not watch what they find unethical or irresponsible should note that many in India did, people went to offices and went to vote but the TV all the same managed to give important information to the backers of the terrorists who were glued to their screens. The remote is not the solution to such irresponsibility.

In fact Times Now reported on November 27, around 6 P M that the terrorists were being given updates by people in other countries ‘who are watching TV’! Despite this the live coverage continued uninterrupted and continues even now. In fact so responsible is the media that Ritu Sarin writing for the Indian Express November 28, the day after the operation at the Trident was over, that she took advantage of people going inside the hotel to slip in!

Ambivalence

Some ambivalence and debate within the newsrooms of TV channels was evident from the way they behaved. In its 11 A M bulletin on November 27 NDTV India (Hindi) said they were not telecasting live from outside the Trident in Mumbai because the police had requested them to stop live coverage. It said the police had told them that the coverage could affect the ongoing operation. The anchor said that that is the reason they were not going to telecast the scenes outside the Trident. Before you could laud this decision to withhold news in the interest of the security of people, the security of the commandos and others fighting this latest attack and society at large NDTV English choked out our words of congratulations.

NDTV English continued showing the operation. It also took us to the scene outside the Trident. There Barkha Dutt spoke to the Deputy Chief Minister R R Patil asking him for details. She asked him whether there were any Indians among the hostages. RR Patil said he could not disclose information for it could affect the security of the people held hostage. Patil also pointed out that firing from outside could give away the direction from, which security forces were approaching the building. Despite that the channel showed where the commandos were hiding behind pillars! Barkha then asked Patil if there is any information about who is behind this attack! Patil hesitates then says firmly that they have some clues but he will not disclose them now and will talk about it at the ‘proper time’. Soon NDTV India was back to telecasting the scenes live. Whatever happened to the earlier decision to not telecast live in the interest of the ongoing operation?

Zee news similarly was ambivalent. It kept suspending live telecasts only to resume it soon. What it lost in this way it tried to amply make up for by using the backdrop of close up shots of flames leaping up. These were shots of a window of the Taj that had caught fire and these were being used long after the fire had been extinguished. So if the terrorists wanted any allies in spreading fear and panic, there was the television media at hand and not even wanting to be paid for its services.

There was ample evidence that the authorities had requested the media to keep some distance and some information to themselves. Despite that shortly before 12 noon, November 27, on Times Now an experienced and senior journalist, Arnab Goswami, made the announcement that one terrorist has been caught alive and has been jointly interrogated by the three forces including the RAW. How can any media professional be allowed to forget that those who planned this audacious operation could also be watching and would take appropriate measures to cover tracks the moment they realise that one of the attackers is probably giving out information?

Exclusive news, for the terrorists?

Irresponsibility knows no bounds. On November 27 all the channels were gleefully telling us that the authorities had found a ‘sat phone’. Effectively ensuring that any further calls to that phone would not be made. Who knows what information could have been gleaned had the backers of these desperadoes not known that one of the satellite phones was with the authorities? Around 6 PM the same day NDTV India reporter Neha Jain got close to the rubber dinghy dragged from the sea and said to have been used by the terrorists, giving a detailed explanation about how and where it was found floating. Then she placed her hand on a wooden structure fitted onto the boat to tell us this is where the engine is and the authorities have found no evidence or marks of any model number or engine make to give them a clue where those things were made. Thank you Neha, the boat at least has one set of fingerprints now! Where were the authorities? Was there nobody to ensure that reporters do not mess with what could be evidence?

Even the next day, on November 28, sense had not dawned. It seems the Information and Broadcasting Ministry had issued an advisory by then that obviously had been ignored. We did have the anchor of NDTV India asking its reporter outside the Taj to get away from there, save his life. “In fact I appeal to all of you to leave the scene, go away. Your lives are more precious than any news”, said the anchor. To no avail of course. Soon an AFP reporter was injured. And there was the usual scramble to get shots of the injured journalist, not any attempt to help him on his feet and to an ambulance. What a most unedifying sight.

The raft the terrorists are supposed to have used was shown any number of times on all the channels but no journalist asked the Deputy Chief Minister of Maharashtra and other top authorities who visited the site what the coast guards were doing? Why did they not notice any suspicious people on a raft? And whether we need more coastal patrolling. Fishermen are said to have alerted the police to the arrival of suspicious people at the seashore. Luckily no TV journalist tried to interview any fisher folk for such witnesses’ lives could be endangered. Predictably the next day’s Indian Express carried the picture of the fisherman who had spotted the boat and alerted the police. 

Will the media ever learn please?

Before investigations are completed TV channels had launched into detailed stories of the route the terrorists had taken with maps and dotted lines marking the route from the sea, all in place. Who says the media does not work hard? In fact the media did not sleep at all. Reporters just did not seem to want to leave the scene sucking at the horrific narcotic of watching terror at close quarters.

No wonder then that drunk on this flow of adrenaline the media forgot to ask many questions. They did not ask the authorities what is the coast guard supposed to be doing if such boats and terrorists can land in the financial heart of the nation? They did not ask why three senior officers of the ATS Mumbai were travelling in the same car? All three, Karkare, Salaskar and Kamte were shot dead by terrorists whose car they then hijacked in an unsuccessful attempt to get away. Are there no rules in place to ensure that senior investigators travel separately to make their elimination tough if not impossible? They still have not asked this question.

There are so many questions they have not asked. For instance in the evening of November 29, PS Oberoi, chairman of the Oberoi group in a press conference asserted that no terrorists had booked into the hotel, no terrorist had checked in as a guest. The obvious question to ask him was how did he know? Did we hear that question asked? No, we did not. How can Oberoi assert this before the investigations are complete? It may be necessary for the image of the hotel (oh, please, our security system is foolproof) but it certainly is not good for impartial investigations.

Silly Questions?

When you are so close to an event you can be excused for your mind getting benumbed. Naturally you can’t think and you make many mistakes. That thanks to the live coverage we got to know. Some of these examples truly stand out. On November 27 a young man told Barkha that his sister was inside the Taj hotel and he had come to see what was happening for he had not been able to get in touch with her. “Are you worried”, asked Dutt! As if he was there to celebrate. And just when he began elaborating on the kind of things that worried him she cut him off! For instance he said he wondered if they were being allowed to use the toilet. “That is of minor concern as long as she makes it out safe”, declares Dutt! So is she the one who is going to decide what kind of worries a man should have when his sister is possibly a hostage inside? And please, we should be avoiding questions to the relatives of those missing like ‘How does it feel when someone has possibly lost his wife or child one cannot expect such a question to a trauma stricken person.’

Such incidents were aplenty, that could have been hilarious had they not been part of an unfolding tragedy. When people rescued from the Trident walked out India TV zoomed on a father with a little baby in his arms. The anchor went breathless with excitement. “Look at the little baby, that little innocent”, he said repeatedly just in case viewers were looking elsewhere. Then he went on to say “ek masoom bachchca jo shayad yeh apne dil ki baat kah bhi nahin sakata!” Just as well that the six month olds can’t talk or the masoom would certainly have been in for a bad time with a mike in its face!

The only competition the media had was from the authorities. On November 28, around noon a commando, in black, even his face wrapped in a black kerchief gave a blow by blow account of the operation! The vice admiral of the Navy went into a TV studio (NDTV?) to give us details of what the Marcos (short for Marine Commandos) were doing and had done while the operation was still on! Not to mention our then Union Home Minister Shivraj Patil who told us all just how many NSG commandos had left Delhi on the night of November 26 and what time they had landed in Mumbai. They left at 2.30 and landed at 5 AM he said. No questions asked about the propriety of such information being given out during the operation. Who will ask such a question when those who should be asking are themselves involved in giving out sensitive information?

This is not to say that the media should not cover the events. But they can easily record and keep some for later. Such recordings can also provide crucial inputs to investigations and can also ensure fair investigations by not letting the police cook up stories later with impunity. However withholding news may sometimes be the most ethical decision to make in the larger interest of society and the security of the nation. Instead some TV journalists were concentrating on speculating about those behind the attacks.

Finally, we earnestly feel that there has to be an internal media code for reporting terrorism, and barbarism taking into account in the making of a new world disorder or inflaming internal passions and at times suggesting something more then even an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth approach that could put even the Nazi jingoes to shame. Some of our journalists turned politicians appearing on TV definitely did so and anchors enjoyed the jingoism. One should also not forget that there is something known as an international war on terror project part of which was felt in select parts of the world after 9/11 creating a new world of disorder.

Before extreme measures are envisaged by jingoistic politicians, it is time that the Press Council be turned into a Media Council with more teeth giving representation to all forms of media with experts from media and judiciary thrown in for a balance. It should be autonomous with some known members of civic society also thrown in.

24x7 reporting of terror has indeed been has also been a traumatic experience for our colleagues. Some of them really did a good job under the circumstances. A fine all round colleague with a zest for life is no more. With our criticism of the reportage we reiterate our demand that there should be immediately a risk insurance cover for journalists on such hazardous missions.

PS: How was it that RDX was found at the CST terminus just yesterday (3/12/2008) and all along our media was concentrating on VIP Hotels without even finding out what else was happening in commonly used places?

________________________________________________________________________________________

(Anjali Deshpande is a well-known freelance journalist. S.K. Pande is the Chief of Bureau, India News Network, President of the Delhi Union of Journalists (DUJ) and Director of its Media Centre. Both are associated with the Ethics Council of the DUJ)

Hindus in power have little personal engagement with Muslims: Kavita Srivastava

By Yoginder Sikand,    TwoCircles.net         26/11/2008      Muslim India

Based in Jaipur, Kavita Srivastava is the President of the Rajasthan chapter of the Peoples' Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL). She and her comrades have been consistently working in Rajasthan for the cause of human rights, particularly for the state's Muslims, Christians, Adivasis and Dalits, and have taken up the issue of targeting of Muslims by agencies of the state and the media in a major way. She discusses this and more in this interview with Yoginder Sikand.

Q: How do you see the way in which the state in Rajasthan is responding to acts of terror that have rocked the state in recent years, most particularly in the aftermath of the deadly blasts that shook Jaipur earlier this year?

Kavita Srivastava
A: The situation is indeed grim. Muslims are being readily branded as terrorists, and this is how many government officials view them. So, soon after the blasts large numbers of innocent Muslims were wrongly suspected or branded as terrorists. They were arrested and interrogated by the police, and many of them were subjected to cruel torture. The police somehow automatically assumed that Muslims were responsible for the blasts, without having any proof. Almost a fourth of those who died in the Jaipur blasts were Muslims, although Muslims account for just about a tenth of the city's population. But still the dominant view was that Muslims had killed Hindus in the blasts, without, as I said, this being proved at all.

Anti-Muslim bias in agencies of the state is mounting today. Just one instance of this is how some of the Muslims picked up by the police were treated. They were asked if they believe in the Quran or in the Indian Constitution, this ridiculous question reflecting the entirely erroneous notion that a religious and observant Muslim somehow is a traitor or a potential traitor to India. Then, of course, were the large numbers of Muslims who were picked up and thrown out of their homes in Jaipur, accused of being Bangladeshis, their miserable hutments being bulldozed over. All this suggests that there are powerful forces at work that seek to push Muslims to the wall.

And then there is the media. They simply parrot the police version of any Muslim whom it picks up as a terrorist, and when it is found that this person is innocent and is subsequently let off, the media chooses not to say anything about it. So, in this way, the image of large numbers of Muslims is being deliberately tarnished. Many of them have lost their jobs because of this, and are tainted in society for the rest of their lives although they have nothing to do with terrorism. I could cite several instances of this, people whose cases we have taken up. This is really a very worrying development.

Q: Why is it that the media, the police and the investigating agencies often jump to the conclusion that blasts must be the handiwork of Muslims soon after these occur even before any investigation has been conducted?

A: Unfortunately, that seems to be the case in large parts of country, including Rajasthan. Obviously, it is possible that some terror attacks might have been done by some Muslim elements, just as it is possible that they might be the handiwork of, say, Hindu extremists. But surely the agencies of the state and the media should not rush into concluding anything before a detailed investigation. Sadly, that does not seem to happen in most cases. So, they generally begin with the premise that any blast must be the handiwork of Muslims, and that obviously influences or determines the conclusions that they reach. They start with this premise probably, or at least in part, because there seems to be this widely-held, though erroneous, image in society of Muslims as somehow inherently and congenitally programmed to be prone to violence and terror. And so Muslims and their behavior come to be seen in an essentially criminalized way, not just by the police or media but also in the wider public domain.

Q: And why do you think this sort of image of Muslims is so deeply-rooted?

A: One major reason is that most Hindus, especially those in positions of power, have little, if any, personal engagement with Muslims. So, being unable to relate to them as real, flesh-and-blood people, they tend to see them in the form of sinister stereotypes and cruel caricatures. The only source of information about Muslims they might get is from the media, large sections of which, of course, are communalized and are getting increasingly more so.

Take television, for instance. You won't find a single programme set in a Muslim household. It's almost always set in an 'upper' caste, upper or middle-class Hindu family. Hindi cinema—or Hindustani cinema actually—once had considerable space for Muslims, although they were generally presented in stereotypical terms, as decadent feudal lords luxuriating in comfort, or as burkha-clad women or singing, paan-chewing qawwals or whatever, not as 'normal' human beings. But even that space has vanished, and now numerous Bollywood films clearly and explicitly demonise Muslims in a very carefully planned manner. In addition to all this is the poisonous anti-Muslim propaganda of the Hindutva forces. So, all this combines to colour the public domain and the public perception of Muslims in an increasingly negative light. As members of the wider society, it is not surprising that many people in the police, the courts and the media are also influenced by this way of thinking.

That said, let me also say here that the Rajasthan police must be distinguished from its Gujarati counterpart, which is far more anti-Muslim. At the same time, the Rajasthan police seem to be acting on the same premise as the Gujarat police does when it comes to Muslims, often regarding them as behind each and every terror attack and ignoring the possibility that some non-Muslim elements—say radical Hindutva groups—might be behind terror acts.

Q: There are now demands being voiced to make anti-terror laws even stricter as a means to counter terrorism. How do you see this demand?

A: What some people, such as the Hindutva right-wing, some police officers and pro-establishment media persons, are so forcefully advocating today is for a change in the law or a new law so that statements given by the arrested before the police can be counted as evidence against them. Now, we all know that this would lead to the further hounding of innocent people picked up by the police, who might torture them to make false 'confessions', which would be used as 'evidence' to falsely implicate them in cases for which they were not involved in, and which would let the real culprits go free. This would be a major assault on democracy.

Under the proposed draconian 'anti-terror' laws that some right-wing hawks are proposing, even human rights groups taking up the case of people wrongly accused of being terrorists could be arrested. Anyone who criticizes the wrong role of the police, the judiciary or any other branch of the state could then be easily branded as a criminal or terrorist sympathizer or abettor.

In other words, if such a draconian law comes into place, if you even think differently from the state you could be booked. Anyone who even talks of state terrorism could be labeled as a 'terrorist' or 'anti-national'. If you take up the rights of oppressed people who are being suppressed by the state, as is happening with human rights activists working with Adivasis in Chhatisgarh, for instance, you could be branded as an enemy of the state and thrown into jail. Or, as is happening in Orissa, activists protesting against multi-nationals grabbing Adivasi lands, backed by the state, can be arrested, but no action will be taken against the Hindu mobs, backed by Hindutva fascist outfits, which have left tens of thousands of Christians in the state homeless.

And now there is talk of the need for a new 'anti-terror' law according to which any person can be arrested if he or she even simply intends to support any banned group. In that case, how would the government presume that it can judge anyone's intentions? Obviously, this would make a complete mockery of any claims to democracy.

In other words, with these sorts of new laws that are being put into place or are being so vociferously advocated day in and day out, I fear India may be moving in the direction of a 'police state' run by intelligence agencies so that the state and the ruling classes can do whatever they want without any opposition whatsoever. These represent the sinister agenda of forces that are bent on destroying whatever little democracy we already enjoy.

Q: What, then, do you see as the way ahead?

A: This is a political issue, and for this we need a political struggle. It concerns not just Muslims, who might be among the worst targeted by such draconian laws, but all oppressed and marginalized social groups, communities and classes. It is a major threat to democracy, and so all democratic forces need to come together to stiffly oppose these draconian laws.
___________________________________________

Photo: Kavita Srivastava

Kavita Srivastava can be contacted on kavisriv@gmail.com

Disclaimer: The views expressed in the articles and statements published in Muslim India are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the opinions of the editor/publisher of Muslim India.

'Journalistic Fascism' and Indian Muslims

By Dr. Yoginder Sikand, New Delhi, 09/11/2008                      Muslim India

"Ajit Sahi is an investigative reporter with the New Delhi-based Tehelka magazine. He recently published several startling reports clearly indicating that scores of innocent Muslims, including some former members or associates of the banned Students' Islamic Movement of India (SIMI), across the country have been falsely implicated by the police, intelligence agencies and the media as being behind various terror attacks. In this interview with Yoginder Sikand, he talks about how influential sections of the Indian media are playing a major role in demonizing Muslims today."

Q: You have been associated with the media for several years now. How do you see the way in which the so-called 'mainstream' Indian media responds to or projects Muslims and Islam, particularly in the context of the recent spate of bomb attacks, in which the media, despite the absence of evidence, has blamed Muslims and Muslim organizations for?

A: I think the media does not want to recognize or admit it, but it sees these issues from basically a Hindu, or at least a non-Muslim, point of view. I tell my media friends that if they were Muslims they would not believe any of this media propaganda about Indian Muslims taking to terrorism, or at least would be greatly suspicious of these claims, because these claims are largely dubious and false. They typically answer is, 'No, we are secular, liberal and progressive. We are not communal'. But I do not agree, of course. I think the way they respond necessarily indicates that they are influenced by their not being Muslim. A hidden anti-Muslim bias pervades the media, although media persons who like to call themselves secular and liberal would hate to admit this. This is reflected, for instance, in the fact that in most cases of Muslims arrested on grounds of terrorism, all that we have are 'confessions' before the police, which are not admissible as evidence before courts, because obviously such 'confessions' are often false and procured after brutal torture. But the media simply projects these statements as supposed evidence, and then weaves this picture of Muslims as terrorists.

At the same time, there is a distinct lack of willingness in large sections of the media to recognize the very obvious and very deadly fact of terrorism being engaged in by people linked to the Hindutva camp. Thus, for instance, there is huge evidence against Narendra Modi of being responsible for the massacre of Muslims in 2002, and if it was somewhere else in the world Modi would have been tried as a criminal, and would probably have been sentenced to death or a hundred years in prison. (For the record, I am opposed to capital punishment.) I mean, he should be tried under international criminal law and charged with 'ethnic cleansing', but, of course, our supine, so-called 'mainstream' media is not demanding this. You really can't expect anything else from India's week-kneed so-called intellectuals. They do not have the guts to correctly describe Hindutva as it really is—as fascism, in the same league as Nazism.

Q: How do you explain what you have referred to as the deep and pervasive anti-Muslim bias in large sections of the Indian media?

A: One reason for this, of course, is that there are very few Muslims in the so-called 'mainstream' media, even in those newspapers, magazines and TV channels that see themselves as 'progressive' or 'liberal'. Now, some might say that this is because there are relatively very few well-educated or well-qualified Muslims, but I don't buy that argument. Surely, if you have a staff of a hundred people it should not be difficult to find twelve or fourteen educated Muslims to employ to reflect the proportion of Muslims in the Indian population. But I would be surprised if any of the so-called 'mainstream' papers have even half that proportion of Muslims among their staff.

The argument is also often made that ensuring a proper representation of the Muslims or the marginalized castes; the Dalits and the Adivasis, in the media would impact on the media's quality or merit. I think this cry about merit is the biggest hoax. After all, we all know that appointments in government services and even so often in the private sector are often not made on the basis of any sort of merit at all. Give me another story! I'd rather believe that the British are going to come back to rule India than swallow the claim that appointments are always made on the basis of merit.

In India, merit basically has come to stand for those who can speak and write in English. Many of these so-called 'meritorious' people in the media have come straight out of universities or have done some media course in some Western institute. They have little idea of the Indian society. Because they are the English-speaking, they rarely have an insider's connect with the community they report on. In fact, they take pride in that fact and in distancing themselves from 'ordinary' people. They think that not having anything to do with non-English-speaking Indians sets them in a position to comment on our society. I think this is really despicable and tragic. And they style themselves as 'liberal' and 'unprejudiced', and claim to be 'objective' about marginalized groups, about Muslims or Adivasis or Dalits, but actually have deep-rooted prejudices about them, which many of them do not even realize they have. These subconscious biases are often much more dangerous than consciously held prejudices.

Q: How do you think this sort of portrayal of Muslims in the media can be countered?

A: The media is a reflection of the middle class of any country. It is the middle class that inhabits the media. So, unless the dominant views in a middle class change, the media cannot change substantially. People have to be sensitized to realities, but this is not what the media is really doing. This can only happen when there is a fair representation of all social groups, including religious communities and castes, in the media. But, like India's bureaucracy and the judiciary, the Indian media has a very heavy over-representation of 'upper' caste Hindus, who are otherwise a numerical minority in our society.

I am reminded of a brilliant though acerbic correspondence American journalist Alexander Cockburn recently had with Tom Brokaw, who is now anchoring NBC's Meet The Press show following the death of its host Tim Russert earlier this year. The simple question that Cockburn asked Brokaw repeatedly is: how come Meet The Press always has a white male as its host? Why doesn't NBC appoint a black journalist, of whom there are many who are also very qualified, as the next MTP host? Of course, after exchanging two mails, Brokaw had lost his temper and was hurtling inanities – because there is no convincing explanation except white racism to Cockburn's question.

The Indian news media has become even more blatantly communal and anti-Muslim in recent decades. A turning point came when LK Advani became Minister for Information and Broadcasting in the Janata Party Government under Morarji Desai in 1977. That gave a tremendous boost to the RSS, which started pushing in large numbers of hardcore RSS-walas into various newspapers. Before that, the Hindutva ideology was considered so demeaning that people would not even discuss it in their drawing rooms. It was considered a pathetic contrast to the uplifting moral ideology of Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru, which aimed at healing our society and nation-building. I mean, sanctifying the RSS ideology with religiosity is like matching Hitler with Gautam Buddha. But things began to change rapidly from the 1980s onwards, and now ultra-chauvinist forces have become very powerful and deeply entrenched all over in Indian media. This has to be seen in conjunction with the way that capitalism has unfolded in India. Rapacious capitalism and neo-imperialism go hand-in-hand with divisive bigoted religious fervor and nationalist jingoism.

Q: In which way does nationalist jingoism feed into anti-Muslim biases?

A: I think there is a very clear and direct relationship between the two. The sort of nationalism that is being projected by the Hindutva lobby is fiercely anti-Muslim. It is premised on a Brahminical worldview. It projects Muslims, but also all non-Hindus and those Hindus who do not agree to its ideology, as 'anti-national'. The Hindutva groups say they are willing to accept Muslims so long as they don't "look Westward". This is a cunning strategy aimed at forever stoking the flames of divisiveness. For what is a Muslim worth if he doesn't look westward, toward Mecca? Isn't it bizarre to argue that capitalism is good to globalize but Islam must only localize?

Also, the Hindutva lobby is obsessed with military power and the desperate lust for India to be recognized as a 'super-power'. But the irony of the thing is that while it brands Muslims as 'anti-national', there are an overwhelming number of middle-class Hindu families in this country whose sons and daughters have gone, or who want to go, to settle in the US and thereby turn their backs to India. Strange as it may seem, NRI Hindus are one of the fiercest backers of Hindutva lobby that pushes son-of-the-soil nationalism. I think that it is these people who have abandoned India for the American life that are pathetically anti-national. Why shouldn't they be first asked to show their patriotism toward India by returning to the motherland? I mean, how do you turn your back on your parents, on the land of your birth, its mountains, the air and the rivers of the country that nurtured you, and defect to America, a country founded on genocide and still practicing it on a global scale, and yet be not considered anti-national?

Q: To come back to the question of how and why large sections of the so-called 'mainstream' Indian media have become so communal, what other factors do you see at work?

A: I think we need to go back a bit in history to understand this. Before 1947, the English-language media was solidly pro-British, and even many of those that were owned by Indians. They wanted to be close to the centre of power, and that remains the same even today. But an influential section of the vernacular media joined the freedom struggle, especially after the return of Mahatma Gandhi to India from South Africa in 1915. A spirit of social service and sacrifice motivated such publications, as indeed they infested the national mood. Within such media, too, there was this notion that for the sake of the country and truth one should be prepared to put all at stake. So many publishers and editors went to jail for challenging British authority.

After 1947, our law-makers were aware of the dangers of leaving the media completely in the hands of their owners and unprotected journalists who could be susceptible to manipulation. So, they enacted the Working Journalist Act, which determined that journalists' salaries and said their working conditions would be regulated not by the owners of media houses but by rules laid down by a wage board, headed by a retired high court judge, every few years. Journalists could not be sacked at the whim of the owners. For many years, this system worked fine. The modern post-Independence history of the Indian press has very many proud moments of workers' strikes called to force the hands of the proprietors to pay due wages of the workers as prescribed by a wage board. But all this began to change dramatically when, in the mid-1980s, the Times of India group began to offer journalists many times their salaries if they willingly left the wage board system and came on board on a simple hire-and-fire contract.

Soon the virus caught on in the entire industry and, as a result, the Working Journalist Act is now dead. So are the trade unions. Media organizations are now typical corporations centered on the profit motive and not on, what Obama called in his victory speech, "service and responsibility". Instead, the goal of all Indian media is to maximize profits. All this was bound to change the quality of journalists.

Earlier, many newspapers and journals were edited by leading literary figures whose stature went far higher than those of the proprietors'. Editors of The Times of India group, Girilal Jain and, before him, Sham Lal, were stalwarts. TOI publication Dharmyug had the literary giant Dharmvir Bharati as editor whose epochal writings 1950s onwards, such as Gunahon Ka Devata and Andha Yug, are still the benchmark for quality writing in Hindi literature. It is unbelievable today that a group like TOI, which now focuses entirely on profits and publishes the most banal news, published the Hindi journal Dinman, which was the pinnacle of intellectual discourse in Indian society as late as just 25 years ago.
The one not unexpected consequence of journalists losing the protection of the Working Journalist Act is that they have become much more susceptible to pressures and manipulation. They are now hired on a contract basis and can be dismissed whenever the owners want. That, indeed, is the norm in any newspaper or TV news office. Journalists have little or no job protection, and are at the mercy of a class of owners who are hugely compromised, many engaged in dubious business deals, hobnobbing with politicians, aspiring for the Rajya Sabha, running their media houses to further selfish economic interests. This loss of journalistic integrity has provided a tailor-made situation for what I call 'journalistic fascism'.

Q: What do you mean by that term?

A: By this I mean a sort of extreme jingoism to the point of schizophrenia, wholly devoid of reasoning and empiricism, playing on completely wrong and insensible biases and prejudices and seeking to prove these as 'sensible'. And this is well illustrated in the case of the fiercely anti-Muslim biases that characterize large sections of even the so-called 'mainstream' media. Let me give you an instance. When the SIMI case was being heard in the Supreme Court a Muslim friend was sitting at the back of the media room when he overheard some journalist friends – Hindus – abusing India's Muslims in the vilest terms, branding them as traitors who deserved to be expelled from India, and so on. He was stunned. These were his friends, right? I mean, you might expect this sort of stuff to be said in an RSS shakha, certainly not from so-called top national-level journalists sitting in the media room of the Supreme Court?

The most devastating consequence of the changing media ethic that sees maximization of profits, rather than social service, as their primary objective is to be seen in how journalists have been displaced in media houses by sales and marketing teams as effective decision-makers. Often, leading staffs in these teams have stronger bases and far larger pay packets than even the top editorial persons.
And the principle drive of these sales and marketing bosses is to maximize circulation or viewership, which then translates into higher profits. Like the tabloids of London, this can only mean a shortcut to sensationalism, by playing on and further magnifying basest prejudices, and this holds true as regards the issue of anti-Muslim prejudices as well.

Let me cite an instance. After the 19 September Batla House police encounter in Delhi's Jamia Nagar, some friends in an English TV news channel ran a half-hour prime time show raising all the doubts about the police claim that the two alleged terrorists shot down had killed Inspector MC Sharma. The show in the very next half-hour was, however, devoted to the many awards Sharma – a dubious police officer anyway with many "encounters" under his belt – had received in his lifetime. The first show got a viewership of around a fifth of the latter, and so from the next day they decided to adopt only the line on which the second story was based, thus pandering to the prejudices of the viewers because they found that profitable.

So you see, no matter what the hunks and babes of TV news tell you in their TV promos about how fiercely independent they are, the truth is that it is increasingly the marketing and sales teams that decide what shows should be made and broadcast or what articles and views should be published, or what should be 'consumed'. I am sure you know that readers and viewers are now called 'consumers' internally in the media houses. I know that – I grew up in that environment and practiced it until I realised what I was doing and bolted from it. If you go to the office of any of the scores of TV channels that have cropped up you can see this for yourself. The entire process of deciding what programmes to do is based on what ratings, in terms of viewership, they are likely to get. These channels are staffed by men and women barely beyond teenage, who are given hefty salaries but who have little or no knowledge of and empathy for their own societies, particularly for the poor and the oppressed. Many of such journalists are intellectual pygmies, not more intelligent and aware than George Bush. In other words, all this talk of 'socially responsible media' is just for public consumption. So, to expect any kind of 'society first' attitude from this media is simply foolish.

In the US, if there is the rabidly right-wing Fox News and the Weekly Standard, there is at least a Los Angeles Times, and countless other liberal media projects. But in India, one simply despairs to find a single liberal media outfit that talks the language of sanity and practices the journalism of truth, at least on the issue of Muslims.

Q: What do you think Muslim organizations should do to counter the demonization of the community in the media?

A: To expect that the media, the courts, the police and the politicians would deliver on their own is futile. For this, one has to build public pressure. Muslim organizations and ordinary Muslims must get out of this sense of victimization in which they are trapped. I can empathise with them, given the concerted assaults on their lives and liberties. But they alone can bring themselves out of it. They have to mobilize their community and battle, without doubt in a non-violent way, for their civil rights as Indians. What can they do? Well, if a hundred Muslims were to arrive in a courtroom when an innocent Muslim, falsely accused of being a terrorist, is brought before the magistrate, there would be immense pressure on that magistrate to record the statement of the accused instead of leaning the way of the police and sending him back with the police, to be tortured more. Mahatma Gandhi repeatedly said that none could be a slave if he was not willing. So, Muslims need to get out of their siege mentality, and stand up and speak from a position of fearlessness. After all, how many innocent Muslims can the police keep arresting or shooting down in fake encounters? During my travels, across India and recently even overseas, I remind my Muslim brothers of the non-violent resistance exemplified in the life of the Prophet Muhammad, who agreed to a compromise with his Meccan opponents in the Treaty of Hudaibiyah and risked his leadership, but did not give up the peaceful approach. As an unarmed Prophet it was more difficult for his Meccan opponents to deal with him, and because of this he was able to change their hearts so much that the next year he triumphantly entered Mecca totally peacefully and the Meccans accepted Islam.

I know it is easy to pontificate. After all, I am a Hindu and I don't need to dread the evil state and the public bias that our Muslim brothers face. Yet, my advice to my Muslim brothers is to give up fear, anger and bitterness. This is a moral fight if ever there was one, and we must understand that though we are ranged against them, even the perpetrators of such horrific injustice on innocent Muslims are its victims.

Muslims must seek to build pressure on the judiciary and to engage with the Hindu middle-class and the media. But my biggest fear is, and I sincerely hope this does not turn out to be true, if the oppression of Muslims continues unabated they might find themselves pushed to the wall and might then react through counter-violence. And if, God forbid, this happens, because the entire system has failed Muslims, including the police, the courts, the politicians and the media, and they have been denied justice and hope, then it would spell disaster for them as well as for the country. I am not being an alarmist, just realistic. It is time that the leaders of this country, or those who call themselves so, wake up to this danger ahead.

Q: You have investigated scores of cases of Muslim youth, many of them said to be former members or sympathizers of the banned SIMI, who, you have found, have been falsely accused of being responsible for various terror acts. Can you summarise your findings?

A: I have seen some 150 such cases, and these are meant to be the really serious or major ones. In none of these cases is there much, or, in the vast majority of the cases, any, evidence to establish the guilt of the accused. In fact, if anything, there is overwhelming evidence to establish the innocence of most of the accused.

Q: So, then, who do you think might be responsible for many of the deadly blasts that have taken place across India recently? In some cases, as the recent revelations about the Modassa and Malegaon blasts suggest, could Hindutva terror groups be involved?

A: I can't answer that question without firm evidence, but I would not be surprised if there is a link between the sudden increase in the incidence of such bomb blasts and the nearness of the Parliamentary elections. I think an in-depth study also needs to be made of the timing of such blasts. For instance, Manmohan Singh survives the no-trust vote in Parliament on July 22 and just three-four days later bombs go off in Bangalore and Ahmedabad. Then, a day after the fraudulent Nanavati report on the Godhra train fire is released, Tehelka editor Tarun Tejpal held a press conference showing hidden camera's video of a petrol pump attendant in Godhra admitting he was bribed by the police to falsely accuse Muslims of buying petrol from him to burn the train. Nanavati had premised his entire finding on the testimony of this petrol pump attendant, who we conclusively proved – in his own words – to have lied after taking a bribe. That press conference was broadcast live in the afternoon. It would certainly have become a big story for the news networks in the evening. But just about half an hour after the press conference, a bomb went off in South Delhi's Mehrauli. And the media effectively dumped Tehelka's startling revelations to vacuously report on the Mehrauli blast. So, I think there is an urgent need to do a detailed study about precisely when such blasts happen, and perhaps on the basis of that we can think of some causal relationships.

We must understand that it is not just the hardcore Hindutva outfits that are seeking to cash in on this rhetoric of terrorism. Look at the horrendous way in which even in Congress-ruled states such as Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh and Delhi innocent Muslims are being hounded in the name of countering terrorism, at the same time as the Congress is soft-pedalling the issue of Hindutva terrorism for fear of losing Hindu votes. The Congress is no less a pathetically scheming party than the BJP.

Q: Some people have raised the possibility of groups like the CIA or Mossad being involved in acts of disruption in India in order to destablise the country and to drive it further into the embrace of America and Israel. How do you see this argument?

A: On this I am wary of speculating anything, because I like to speak on the basis of evidence. But, yes, I would like the CIA's operations in India to be explored. We need to know a lot more about the CIA than we presently do. Unfortunately, many of us are blind to the reality of how shameless America and the CIA have been since the past century. The CIA has for long been involved in engineering internal strife all over the world. US expansionism and imperialist hegemony is premised on promoting internal instability abroad. We know, for instance, how the CIA trained the Pakistani ISI and Osama bin Laden to fight the Russians. And now there's talk about the Americans and Israelis working with the Indian armed forces in counter-insurgency operations, and a separate institution for this has been set up somewhere in Mizoram. America and Israel have done everything in their power to bring hatred upon their own countries. So why do we want to be in their league? Look at where Pakistan has reached—almost to the point of civil war—by siding with America. Do we want to go the same way? I, for one, do not.

Q. What do you feel about the 'Indian Mujahideen' and another outfit with a similar-sounding name that has been blamed for the Assam blasts? Do you think these are real organizations or are they, as some people allege, simply fictitious and perhaps a creation of the Hindutva lobby and/or the intelligence bureau? Is there any sold proof that these outfits do actually exist?

A. Once again, I can't say they don't exist without incontrovertible proof that indeed these are only a figment of the police's imagination. But the fact is that the credibility of the Indian police and intelligence agencies is, as far as I am concerned, questionable, to put it mildly. Can you remember the last time the police in India genuinely cracked a case without public pressure, or came up with the truth, or did not try to implicate a wrong guy? I will take you back six years when Delhi-based journalist Iftikhar Geelani was arrested by the Delhi Police and accused by the Intelligence Bureau of spying for Pakistan. The poor man spent seven harrowing months in Tihar Jail, on which he wrote a book, My Days In Prison. It turned out that the entire case against Geelani (not to be confused with Prof. SAR Geelani of the Parliament attack case) was fabricated by the IB. The secret and classified document that the IB claimed was found on his computer was a document that was published by an Islamabad institute and widely circulated, including in India. In fact, so malicious was the IB that they altered the document to make it a look as if it was from the Indian government.

So, coming back to Indian Mujahideen, if the Indian security agencies and the police have a watertight case against this outfit, then why don't they bring the evidence to the public domain? Why are they always racing to hold a press conference and plant stories of their claims through pliant journalists but never forthcoming with evidence? How do we know for sure that the e-mails that the government claims were sent by IM were actually sent by it?

At this point, I must tell my Hindu brothers and sisters of the Indian middle class – many of who appear to be resolutely behind the IB and the police insofar as the Muslim-as-terrorists theories are concerned – that they should be careful in allowing their prejudices to get the better of their reasoning. I mean, just look at how the American white, Christian middle class plumbed for all the deceitful lying that George Bush did in order to get their support to attack Afghanistan and Iraq. When people ask me why would IB and the police lie, I ask them, why do they think George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice lied and continue to lie? After all, these were the top leaders of the world's most powerful 'democracy'. So let's not be naïve and reject the possibilities that the Indian Mujahideen does not exist.

Q. You say the timings of the blasts need to be studied and point to the fact of the sudden increase in these blasts as the elections draw closer, thus suggesting a possible causal relationship. Can you elaborate on precisely which political forces/parties might stand to gain from these blasts, which, in turn, might shed some light on this possible causal relationship?

A. I must make this clear that I am not suggesting that any political party is behind the bomb blasts, though BJP leader Sushma Swaraj did stunningly seemed to suggest that the Congress might be behind the Ahmedabad blasts of July 26 this year. But isn't it obvious which parties stand to gain from the politics of polarizing that follows such terror attacks? It is obvious that the BJP gains a lot from consolidating an anti-Muslim bias among at least the urban Hindus by raising the fear of unchecked terrorism arriving at our doorstep. We now have the very interesting case unfolding in Maharashtra with the arrest of hardcore Hindutva elements for the September blasts in Malegaon. But, as I said, the Indian police cannot be trusted, and the entire Malegaon case could well be a political stunt by a desperate Congress party, which rules Maharashtra, to counter the political mileage that the BJP was hoping to draw from the blaming of Muslims for the other terror attacks.
==========
Ajit Sahi can be contacted on ajit@tehelka.com