‘No-Threat
Feel’ In Handling
Incidents Of Conflict
By M Shamsur Rabb Khan
22 October,
2008
Countercurrents.org
Difference of approach is palpably dangerous. While covering, reporting, writing, talking or deliberating different genre of incidents, the government and the media (both print as well as electronic) treat them in obviously different way. Some incidents and events of violence are considered ‘dangerously threatening’, hence wider coverage and incessant reporting and analysis, while others, though serious enough to be highlighted with equal prominence and focus, do not even draw due attention. How dangerous a speech Bal Thackeray, or his nephew Raj Thackeray, or Parveen Togadia makes, media as well as government takes it as ‘not-so-threatening’ to the unity and integrity of the nation, while the arrest of terror suspects (or even innocent) creates enough upheaval, as if the whole country will be defeated by a few mindless men.
Take, for example, three genres of conflicts and related incidents in our country: terror attacks, Naxal violene and communal riots. While violence unleashed by Maoists has done colossal damage in terms of lives and property (both public and private) for years, including killings of police personnel and CRPF jawans, we have not seen any seriousness from the government and the media so far. Even the killing of 54 jawans last year did not deter media and the government to come up a single culprit. No highlight of incidents of violence by Maoists receive prime time attraction on our 24x7 news channels; not much stir from the government, and no such arrests by the police vis-à-vis the so-called Islamic terrorists. The basic premise in dealing with Maoists is that they are home-grown, hence ‘nationalists’ even if they on a killing spree, and therefore, they are not a threat to the country. We are yet to see a single prominent figure (with his history and background etc) belonging to Maoist group being arrested or highlighted by the police and the media respectively in comparison to the speed with which the names of Muslim terrorists are being displayed, written on front pages and subsequent mindless arrests, including encounters.
Just consider the news item ‘12 CRPF jawans killed by Maoists’ in Chattisgarh recently. Had it been done by Islamic terrorists, it would have been a week’s material for all the TV news channels as well leading dailies, but killings by the Maoists does not even grab a front page coverage in a newspaper like the Times of India (Jaipur edition, 21 October 2008)): while the news of suicide by a Punjab IAS officer is a headline, killing of 12 RPF jawans is covered on page 7.
Media grabs incidents of terror attacks with swift (and rightly so) inspiration and go on showing them with extra focus that includes details of organisations, persons involved, their background in poor light, etc. Unfortunately, the same TV crew and newspaper reporters are nowhere in Kandhamal, Orissa during a month communal riots, highlighting no name of culprit, no analysis of any organisation’s involvement, no blaming news analysis, and no gumption to initiate their civil society like advocacy to prosecute the criminals. Hence, while we have so many names of Muslims terrorist (suspected and innocent) floating in the media on a daily basis, there is not a single name of perpetrator of Kandhamal violence at all. Is this not a sufficient proof of the media and the government working in collusion with a preconceived notion and deliberate action as to which incident is to be highlighted?
In communal violence, the general perception of the government, particularly the police is to heap as much damage to the minority groups, e.g. Muslims or Christians as possible, either to ‘compensate’ the damages done to majority, e.g. Hindu groups. Hence, wholesale pogrom of Muslims in Gujarat or Christians in Kandhamal is the sheer testimony to the fact that the government and the media simply ignore when they have to highlight the crimes of members of the majority community, or deliberately overlook the unprecedented death and destruction caused by them. What they highlight, in case of communal violence, is the fact that in a subtle way, for example, the news item appears: ‘stone were thrown from a particular community on the procession passing through a mosque’. Quite clearly, the culprit is Muslim. Even in Orissa more Christians are arrested than the Hindus, but it does not make any difference in stance that the government takes and media highlight.
Well, in modern times, media has become more powerful
So, which is the gravest threat to the integrity of the country – Islamic terrorism, Naxal violence or communal riots? Opinion may vary: for Hindus, Islamic terrorism can be the biggest threat while Naxal violence and communal riots are ‘no-threat-feel’ issues; for Muslims and Christians, communal violence is the greatest threat; and for the government and media, the order of preference is Islamic terrorism, Naxal violence or communal riots. In actuality, all the three are equally a serious threat, hence needs equal treatment in coverage, presentation and handling.
Government’s actions, in practice, have been highly prejudiced in handling the three genres of conflicts: while rioters, whether of post-Mumbai blasts riots, or post-Godhara riots, or Kandhamal riots, are either not arrested at all, or if arrested after much pressure, never put under the severe non-bailable clauses of the law vis-à-vis those arrested in Godhra are prosecuted under POTA. In handling Naxal violence, or communal violence, state governments have been deplorably ineffective. It is not that they cannot do it, but they do not want to do it since vested interest groups in the government are reluctant to take strict actions against the Maoists or Hindu rioters more due to ‘no-threat-feel’, or vote bank politics. In terms of damage, a Muslim’s or other minority community’s property is not considered as national wealth, even burning of a railway station does not cause any stir in the government machinery.
While train burning at Godhara, if at all it was a conspiracy, is an act of terror, mass killing, rape, arson and loot on such a large scale are not an act of terror or anti-national act, hence no threat to national integrity. In case of terror attacks, on the other hand, the police works overnight (and rightly so) to encounter, arrest, prosecute, fabricate, and highlight the perpetrators, and at times with vengeance or retribution. But the same police become a mute spectator when rioters kill, chase, butcher Muslims and Christians and burn down their properties, or rather support the rioters, or gave free hands and passages to them. Media add fuel to the fire by not highlighting such heinous crimes or government adds people’s woes by not taking stern actions against such criminals. In case of terror attacks, prosecution of Muslims has been speedy in the form of extreme police brutality, while in case of riots, it takes long enough to even prepare a charge sheet against the Hindu rioters; in case of dealing with Muslims terror suspects, punishment starts with arrests, while in case of dealing with Hindu rioters, commission of inquiry is set up, and that even after mounting pressure from social and human right activists, whose recommendations are never implemented.
The differentiation in handling incidents by the government and the media is based on self-define, general perception of the severity of consequences that the three genres of conflicts may bring about in the long-term. Perhaps the most dangerous threat to the national integrity is the ‘no-threat feel’ when dealing with Naxal and communal violence by the Maoists and the Hindu zealots, while ‘yes-threat-feel’ when tackling terror attacks and their perpetrators. The problem is partial and biased governance whereby the whole system of the government and media work in collusion in treating the three genres of conflicts in this country. So, any one raises question over Batla House encounter, or harsh treatment to post-Godhra suspects vis-à-vis perpetrators of the Gujarat riots, he is blamed for demoralizing the moral of the police force, or called playing Muslim appeasement card, or branded the advocate of vote bank politics.
Those who advocate fervently for Muslims to join the national mainstream must understand this crystal clear policy of bias treatment of incidents of thee genres of conflicts in the country. Not only this deliberate distinction negates the basic principle of rule of law, but also creates a sense of victimhood among the helpless and hapless citizens, who find themselves surrounded and smothered from all quarters, with no hope of justice.
