Editors Guild Fact Finding Mission
Report by Aakar Patel, Dileep Padgaonkar, B.G.Verghese
New Delhi, May 3, 2002
Preface.............. 2
Terms of Reference..... 2
Acknowledgements............... 2
Overview.......... 2
Freedom and Responsibility. 3
The Godhra episode............. 4
The Fuse is Lit 5
Sandesh: “Something happened”....... 6
The Gujarat Samachar story 8
Other Gujarati papers............... 8
Meeting with Narendra Modi 9
The Story as told through Gujarat
Government Press Notes... 11
Criticism of the “Secular Media”......................... 12
The Other Side of the Fence....... 13
TV and Radio networks........ 14
Zee TV,...... 14
Star TV....... 14
Local Electronic/Cable Networks 15
Cable.......... 15
Pamphlets and Handbills........ 16
Digital media.. 17
Rumours......... 18
Attacks on the Media............. 18
Textbooks and warped mindsets......................... 19
Media Codes and Ethics.............. 20
Recommendations....................... 21
Two major negatives....... 22
What Now?... 23
As Gujarat erupted on February 27, there were those who blamed the print and
electronic media for aggravating tensions and inflaming passions by their
graphic or sensational coverage. While some thought it fit to shoot the
messenger, there were voices from the media alleging impediments, threats and
attacks to thwart their independent and objective functioning. Responding to
these very divergent points of view, the Editors Guild of India Executive, with
its President, Mr Mammen Mathew, Editor of the Malayala Manorama, in the chair,
decided to depute a fact-finding mission to Gujarat to report on the situation.
A three-member
team was appointed consisting of Dileep Padgonkar, Executive Managing Editor of
the Times of India, Aakar Patel, Editor of Mid-Day, Mumbai, and B.G.Verghese,
columnist. The Team decided to and go to Gujarat after Holi and other up-coming
festivals. The visit was actually undertaken between March 31 and April 6,
2002.
It visited
Ahmedabad, Gandhinagar, Anand, Godhra and Vadodara and met the Chief Minister
and his senior officials as well as district officials, both civil and police,
and the Railway´s Station Superintendent at Godhra. We were able to obtain
copies of official documents through the good offices of Information Department
and other officials. We met a whole range of non-officials, jointly and
severally, including media representatives, academics, writers and cultural
workers, NGOs, social workers, judges, Gandhians, community leaders, ranking
politicians, senior VHP officials, business representatives from the small
scale and market sectors and the chamber of commerce, members of the minority
community and dalits. Many offered moving personal narratives, representations
and memoranda, much documentation and analysis of events, media monitoring
reports, newspaper clippings, copies of pamphlets and handbills and other
background material.
We were, however,
unable to meet the Governor, the Gujarat DGP and the DC and Police Commissioner
of Ahmedabad from whom we had sought separate appointments.
We are grateful to all those individuals and associations, named and unnamed,
who took the time and trouble to meet us. In Delhi, Aruna Patel and Juhi Sharma
kindly helped translate material from Gujarati and Hindi into English. Kusum
Malik assisted with computer glitches and formatting. Other individuals and
associations readily provided material at their disposal or assisted us in
procuring various references. We owe them all thanks for their presentations,
the valuable data they provided and unfailing support.
Alok Mehta and
Sumit Chakravartty, Secretary-General and Treasurer of the Guild respectively,
helped with logistical and other support. The Times of India, Ahmedabad and the
Guild office in Delhi provided staff support. Our thanks to them.
Some critics felt
or implied that Dileep Padgaonkar´s presence on the Fact-Finding Team was
inhibiting as his paper, the Times of India Ahmedabad edition in particular,
was also under scrutiny. Mr Padgaonkar, however, made it clear to all
interlocutors that while he may have a personal point of view as Executive
Managing Editor of his paper, this would in no wise colour his objectivity as a
member of the Team. The members of the Team approached their task with an open
mind, exercising the best professional judgement they could individually and
collectively summon.
Gujarat burned and
was convulsed with barbarous violence for over 40 days from February 27, 2002
when the Sabarmati Express, running from Faizabad to Ahmedabad, was attacked
and torched at Godhra killing 58 passengers, many of them women and children.
Whatever the provocation, as alleged by some, nothing extenuates the outrage.
This utterly horrible crime calls for the swift pursuit and punishment of the
perpetrators. Even as the Godhra tragedy was roundly condemned, the anticipated
backlash took on the dimensions of a holocaust primarily aimed at the Muslim
community. This soon engulfed central, north and northeastern Gujarat,
including Ahmedabad, Vadodara and parts of the eastern tribal belt.
Nearly 800 persons
were killed according to the official count; unofficial estimates are far
higher. It was a slaughter of the innocents. The brutalities were
unprecedented, especially against women. The targeting of Muslim homes,
establishments and sources of livelihood was precise and bears evidence of
premeditation. The term “ethnic cleansing” and “genocide” have been used to
describe the horror. Later, there were retaliatory strikes on Hindus, albeit on
a lesser scale.
The Editor of Sandesh was to tell us that “Something
happened”. What ?
In the first week
of April, some 120,000 victims of both communities were still to be found
taking pitiable refuge in makeshift relief camps run by NGOs with some official
assistance. What remains is a miasma of fear, hatred, insecurity, guilt and
grim foreboding. Gujarat and India have suffered a grievous moral and material
loss from which it will take much time and effort to recover. A whole community
was targeted for the alleged sins of its co-religionists at Godhra long prior
to that event and far beyond Gujarat. Ancient wrongs, real and imagined, were
sought to be collectively avenged by the savage violation of the rights of a
living, demonised “enemy”. There has been an appalling emotional partitioning
of minds into “we” and “they” among all too many across Gujarat and elsewhere
in India. Millions in the country and throughout the civilised world have been
appalled. Yet, in the midst of the carnage, there were innumerable stories,
many yet to be written, of courageous and moving interventions by friends,
neighbours and even strangers in defence of the helpless and endangered across
this divide. That lends hope.
Overall, our
finding is that the prompt and extensive portrayal by sections of the local
press and national media of the untold horrors visited on innocent people in
the wake of the Godhra carnage was a saving grace. The exposure of the supine
if not complicit attitude of the State and manifest outpourings of communal
hatred, stirred the conscience of the nation, compelled remedial action,
howsoever defensively and belatedly, and activated the National Human Rights
Commission, the Minorities Commission and other safety mechanisms. However, the
role of sections of the Gujarati media, especially the Gujarat Samachar and
more notably Sandesh, was provocative, irresponsible and blatantly violative of
all accepted norms of media ethics. This cannot be lightly passed over.
There were certain
inadequacies and lapses in general media coverage that we shall address; but
the charge that the media was a major aggravating or even causative factor in
the situation is specious and self-serving and must be dismissed.
The official information machinery of the State was clearly inadequate to the
task and preferred to sing the praises of the Chief Minister rather than
deliver timely and authentic information. Official attitudes encountered ranged
from complacency to helplessness; but some officers were clearly uneasy at
being disabled from doing their duty.
Gujarat was the first large scale “television and cable riot” covered in real
time. This poses delicate issues and difficult choices that merit discussion.
Finally, the role of digital communications, the mobile phone, SMS (smart mail
service), email, web sites, autonomous computer generated handbills and
posters, and the digital camera, was pervasive, insidious and oftentimes
dubious, being prone to misuse. This “new media” has introduced an altogether
new dimension of global and person-to-person communication that must be
carefully assessed. Censorship is not the answer; sobriety, training,
professionalism and codes of conduct are necessary.
Freedom of the
press is a derivative of the citizen´s fundamental right to freedom of speech
and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. It is,
however, subject to “reasonable restrictions” under Art. 19(2). While the media
enjoy the right to freedom and independence in the discharge of their duties,
they are essentially trustees for the larger freedom of speech and expression.
Through judicial pronouncements and international covenants to which India is a
signatory, this includes the citizen´s right to inform and be informed. The
right to know is a precious democratic right and is through this means that the
citizen is ensured participation, transparency and accountability.
The Indian media
is privileged to enjoy a wide measure of freedom By this very token, it must
exercise this freedom with responsibility in matters relating to public order,
decency and morality, defamation and incitement to an offence. It is incumbent
on the media to strive for objectivity, fairness and balance, to avoid
sensationalism or anything that is liable to inflame passions, especially
during periods of stress and tension. It is also obligated to make corrections
and afford injured parties the right of reply. In situations of communal
strife, the Indian tradition has been to avoid naming the communities involved
so as not to exacerbate tensions.
These conventions
were evolved in the 1950s and 1960s when the media was far more limited in
terms of reach and circulation. There was no TV and even radio was largely
confined to more affluent homes (until the transistor revolution). News
bulletins were few and by and large there was a 6 to 24-hour news cycle. No
more. The information revolution and new technologies have created an instant,
interconnected world intricately and extensively networked by large, small and
inter-personal means of communication. The new media does not respect 24-hour
deadlines. News is disseminated in real time. The 24-hour TV news channels
enter homes and work places with immediate announcements and updates of
“breaking news”. Email, the web and mobile phone are ubiquitous.
Despite the speed
with which electronic news moves, rumour travels faster, like greased
lightning. There are many voices, big and little, formal as well as personal
carrying it here, there and everywhere. So truth and authenticated information
are in constant competition with disinformation. To use the terminology of
nuclear warfare, the legitimate media must therefore enjoy first-strike
capability. Else it will trail behind disinformation, speculation and rumour,
never quite catching up and merely reacting to the agenda set by master
manipulators and vested interests. Technology has critically altered the rules
of engagement between truth or objective news reportage and falsehood or
concoction. Old norms therefore require careful review and revalidation or
amendment.
This is obviously
a complex and delicate issue that requires extensive debate and reflection so
that appropriate norms are devised for the future.
It is in this
context that modern media coverage and the reportage of Gujarat must be
evaluated. It might be irresponsible not to portray the facts as they are with
all dispatch. Like war, riots too begin in the minds of men and truth can be a
defence against “information terrorism”, incitement and panic. Sensationalism,
horror and excitement of passions can be moderated, if not averted, by the
manner of presentation, the choice of words and commentary, the editing of
footage and pictures, the headlines, positioning and general treatment. This is
where professionalism, experienced “gatekeepers” like chief reporters, news
editors and chief sub-editors or page editors and anchors can exercise
discretion under overall top editorial control not merely during “office hours”
but in anticipation of major deadlines around the clock.
The Sabarmati
Express, running some hours behind schedule, was torched in Godhra just before
8 a.m. on February 27. Local reporters soon reached the spot and filed the
news. Aaj Tak was probably the first news channel to flash the breaking news.
Zee TV´s local cameraman in Godhra rushed his footage to Ahmedabad. This was
aired soon after 2 p.m. Others, including Doordarshan, followed, deputing
camera crew from Ahmedabad, Baroda and Delhi. An anonymous email message was
widely circulated attributing what purported to be an eyewitness account
obtained by two local correspondents, Anil and Neelam Soni, whose designations
and telephone numbers were given. This spoke of an altercation at the station
between karsevaks, who alighted from the train for tea and snacks, and local
hawkers of the minority community. (See Annexure 1).
There is more than
one version of what followed. The “molestation” and “abduction” of a girl is
alleged. The train began moving out of the station when incensed hawkers pulled
the alarm chain to stop it within a few hundred metres, beside the Godhra Railway
outer signal cabin adjacent to the Ghanchi bustee to which the vendors belong.
The train was mobbed and stoned and Coach No. S-6 was set on fire.
When exactly this
email message was actually sent is not clear. However, on being queried, the
Sonis denied having filed the story. They disclaimed it as a fabrication.
Nevertheless, others purportedly gave out somewhat similar versions,
embellished by reports of earlier misbehaviour along the entire route as
reported by a Faizabad newspaper, Jan Morcha. (See Annexure 1A). First official
reports of the Godhra incident spoke of a terrorist plot with cross-border
connivance. The Railway Police has conducted preliminary investigations and the
one-man Commission of Inquiry appointed by the Gujarat Government is now seized
of this matter and its fallout. The facts are yet to be established.
Two points need to
be kept in mind about the Godhra incident. As some people were known to have
escaped from the ill-fated S-6 coach, the number that had perished was
officially assumed to be relatively moderate until quite some hours later when
the charred remains of all those trapped inside were finally extricated. The
first press release issued from Gandhinagar on February 27 quoted the Minister
of State for Home Affairs, Gordhanbhai Zadaphia as stating that “as per
preliminary report, six people were killed, 38 injured and out of them 18 were
discharged from the local hospital after necessary treatment. He said that the
number of deaths could be on the higher side also”. The Government Press Note
is at Annexure 2.
The magnitude of the horror only unfolded several
hours after the tragedy. The evening TV bulletins and the next day´s papers
told the grim story. Even then, most national and possibly several regional
channels remained fascinated by the presentation and analysis of the Union
Budget through much of February 28. Crawlers at the bottom of TV screens and
occasional news updates developed the Gujarat story.
Meanwhile, on
February 27 itself, subsequent incidents of violence in Godhra town were
brought under control but trouble erupted elsewhere in the district and other
parts of the State. The torched carriage No. S-6 was detached and the Sabarmati
Express continued its journey, disgorging trumatised passengers en route at
Vadodara, Anand and Ahmedabad. Word spread. The return of badly charred bodies
to grieving families stirred passions. The VHP sounded a call for a Gujarat
bandh on February 28 which was endorsed by the ruling party. A “ashti yatra”
was mooted but fortunately called off in time. However, Gujarat was already in
flames.
There was little
doubt that the Godhra carnage was likely to provoke a strong backlash in view
of Gujarat´s sad record of periodic riots on a variety of issues. Preparations
were according made to meet the situation. However, mob fury took over. The
subsequent seeming justification of the brutal reaction by linking it to the
‘original sin´ of Godhra lends credence to the widespread charge of official
passivity if not connivance and a clear lack of political will within the
ruling establishment. Innocent Muslims (“Babar ke aulad”) were deliberately and
calculatedly targeted for dastardly crimes attributed to their co-religionists
not merely in Godhra but earlier elsewhere. There can be absolutely no sanction
for such ‘transferred guilt´. Though Muslims defended themselves and did indeed
retaliate in some cases, the reported breakdown of deaths, arrests, fatalities
and casualties from police firing and “refugees” huddled in the relief camps
tell their own story. The “riots” were clearly one-sided.
The national print
and electronic media documented the holocaust and the meticulous targeting of
Muslim homes, mohallas, shops and establishments, factories, hotels and
eateries and other economic assets as well as dargahs, mosques, shrines and
kabristans. Neighbouring Hindu properties were spared. Obviously these targets
must have been marked out as even Muslim establishments with names like Tulsi
Restaurant or Tasty Bakery largely catering to a Hindu clientele, were looted
and fired.
Sheela Bhatt
posted an interview with K.K.Shastri, the 96-year old President of the Gujarat
unit of the VHP, on the rediff.com portal. This makes chilling reading.
According to Mr Shastri, the list of Muslim-owned shops was prepared on the
morning of February 28. It was done as “we were terribly angry (over Godhra).
Lust and anger are blind”. “Hindutva was attacked. This is…. a tremendous
outburst that will be difficult to roll back”. Further, “we can´t condemn it
because they are our boys”. Shastri added, “The VHP has formed a panel of 50
lawyers to help release the arrested people accused of rioting and looting.
None of these lawyers will charge any fees because they believe in the RSS
ideology”.
Mr Shastri is said
to have denied making these remarks. The two VHP Joint General Secretaries, Mr
Jaydeep Patel and Dr Kaushik Mehta, whom we met at the VHP office in Ahmedabad,
also contradicted the report, making out that Mr Shastri was old and hard of
hearing. They rejected the theory that Muslim premises were targeted. Sheela
Bhatt has the tape. The text of the rediff.com story as reproduced by
“Mainstream”, Delhi, is at Annexure 3. The tenor of the April issue of “Vishwa
Hindu Samachar” published by Rashtra Chetna Prakashan and edited by Mr
K.K.Shastri lends credence to what he told rediff.com. A two-page article
therein praises “Chhote Sardar” for his handling of Godhra and its aftermath.
Many media persons
experienced the anger of Hindutva forces. So did the Guild team. One of its
members was closeted with some print and TV journalists at Ahmedabad´s Circuit
House on April 1, when there was a loud commotion. A group of six or eight VHP
storm troopers burst into his room shouting and gesticulating, jostling those
present, vehemently accusing them of hatching a dark conspiracy behind closed
doors. A Gujarat Information Directorate official sought to intervene and said
that discussions were in progress with a representative of the Editors Guild.
The mob thereupon turned on the latter vociferously demanding to know whether
he was Hindu or Muslim. He replied that that was irrelevant, said he was a
“Hindustani”, gave his name and asked the intruders to introduce themselves and
state their purpose. They refused to identify themselves, shouting “hum Hindu
hai”, each insisting in turn that this was his name. It was explained that the
Guild Team was in Gujarat to inquire into the media scene and wished to meet
everybody and hear all sides of the story. It was going to Gandhinagar the
following day to meet with ministers and officials. This evoked the derisive
retort that they, the intruders, were the “ministers” we should hear. They were
then invited to sit down coolly and relate their version of events.
The group slowly
simmered down. Its spokesmen charged the English media and national TV
channels, with defaming the majority community with one-sided and totally
biased coverage. “They only listen to Muslims and ignore Hindus”. They do not
focus on Muslim rioters and damage to Hindu property. Hindus who escaped from
the Godhra inferno and admitted to hospital in Ahmedabad and Hindu refugees in
the Prem Darwaza and other relief camps had not been interviewed. Aaj Tak
invited the harshest rebuke, especially for its prompt coverage of the first
few hours. The demand was that this channel should be shut down and its
“licence” revoked. Aaj Tak was probably first on the air with live footage of
the rioting. The Times of India and Indian Express, both of which have
Ahmedabad editions, were also singled out for mention.
The VHP vigilantes
left after about 30-40 minutes to cries of Jai Sri Ram and the two ringleaders
did finally give their names and calling cards. They expressed regret for any
offence caused but insisted we should meet the VHP leaders and provided the
mobile telephone number of Mr Jayant Patel, Joint General Secretary, who was at
that time travelling in Kutch. By now a small posse of policemen had arrived
and as the Guild Team went to the Prem Darwaza and Shah Alam relief camps, a
DCP awaited us with a message from the Police Commissioner seeking to know if
we wished to lodge any complaint or sought police protection. We declined both
offers.
Mr Jaydeep Patel
was contacted that evening and the Team did meet him and Dr Kaushik Mehta, the
other VHP Joint General Secretary, a couple of days later. On our narrating the
incident, they said that the VHP was so popular that all sorts of people went about
using its name. Earlier, in mentioning this same incident to the Chief
Minister, we said this little episode had told us more than anything else about
the mindset behind the riots. We expressed surprise that “partners” of his
Government should behave in this manner. Mr Modi agitatedly denied such
partnership.
A starker
revelation of the Hindutva mindset at work in Gujarat was soon to follow the
encounter with the VHP when we visited the CMD and de facto Editor-in-Chief of
Sandesh. If there is one thing that can be confidently said about Mr Falgun
Patel, it is that he is honest to a fault. We met this press baron on one of
the higher floors of his plush and gleaming new office in Ahmedabad, far above
the dust and din of the city sprawled below. Let him tell the story, as
prompted by our queries.
The English media,
he said, had sided “out and out” with the minority community and the Gujarat
papers were, by and large, pro-Hindu. He blamed the English media for throwing
all restraint to the wind by citing the religious affiliation of various groups.
Others therefore followed suit. Hindus were not temperamentally prone to
starting riots. Gujarat had known worse disturbances, as for example in 1969.
But this time Hindu anger “irrespective of class” was inflamed by the burning
of innocent women and children at Godhra. “Something happened”. Even Hindu
women felt “theek hai, salon ko maro”. Some English papers carried baseless
stories that Godhra was not pre-planned and that karsewak misbehaviour at the
railway station provoked the Muslims. When it was said that the Times of India
ran its story on the basis of an on-the-record briefing by the IGP Railway
Police (See Annexure 11, P 19), this was dismissed as “bullshitting”.
Mr Falgun Patel
described the Godhra incident as “unforgettable” and the reaction to it as
justified. “Can a 20 per cent minority take the majority for a ride? There has
to be a limit”. Muslims had done nothing to throw out the Latifs in their
community (a reference to a notorious Ahmedabad don who was killed in an
encounter some years ago). Dariapur (a Muslim dominated section of the walled
city) had a godfather and so the Muslims thought they could get away with
anything. When the BJP government assumed office, a clear message went out to
the Muslim mafia. Hence they were quiet. But asked by us why innocent persons
should be targeted, Mr Falgun Patel said the idea was “to pressurise ordinary
Muslims to put pressure on Muslim goons to behave”. After the way “these
Muslims” had behaved, “Hinduism ke naam per hum kuch bhi karenge”. Mr Patel
complained that outsiders who had “no feeling for Gujarat” ran the local
English papers. It was, however, pointed out to him that these papers hired
talent, irrespective of community.
Asked of checks
and balances in the production of Sandesh, Mr Patel remarked that all news
obtained was “balanced by our own version”. The paper “editorialises the news”
as the regular editorials and articles carried later “are too late”. He freely
admitted in response to a query that the paper´s reporters did lose balance and
were communalised “all down the line, even today” (April 2). This view was
proffered as “a general statement” and further amplified by a subsequent remark
to the effect that “the Hindu reaction is so strong that we have to be
cautious. I get 200 calls a day”. Yet the paper did have a Muslim readership
and was not anti-Muslim per se.
Mr Falgun Patel
was down to earth in his perception of the Gujarat media scene. Running a
newspaper is big business and Gujarat essentially has two newspapers, Sandesh
and the Gujarat Samachar, both bitter rivals. The Gujarat Samachar has a
circulation of around 8.10 lakhs and Sandesh about 7.05 lakhs. But because of
its pro-Hindu stand, Sandesh´s circulation had increased by 150,000 copies
since the riots began. This newspaper competition was “not healthy” and it was
left to each newspaper to contradict inaccuracies in the other. There was “no
ethics or principles”. Gujarat Samachar, he alleged, had a pro-Jain bias.
“Hindu protection is my duty”.
Mr Patel
complained that authentic and timely information was seldom available from the
Home Department, Police or Information Department. The media had not been taken
into confidence or fully briefed. The Police Commissioner of Ahmedabad had held
his first press briefing only on the 34th day of rioting. The Chief Minister
(who we were told personally conducted daily 4 p.m briefings for the first ten
days) was, in Mr Patel´s view, fond of TV appearances and ignored the print
media. The CM´s TV appearances were, however, inadequate as he would only
respond to queries and kept repeating that everything that had happened was a
reaction and that normalcy had been restored. Incidents and casualty figures
could not be easily confirmed.
Mr Falgun Patel
said that on February 28 itself Sandesh appealed for calm. It front- paged a
story to the effect that Gujarat was still recovering from last year´s
devastating earthquake and a subsequent cyclone disaster and should therefore
keep cool despite Godhra. Positive stories of human interest and communal
harmony were also run “to send out a humanitarian message”. Sandesh also
praised the Bhavnagar SP for his firm and timely action (in preventing harm to
a large number of children huddled in a madrassa in imminent danger of being
attacked). Incidentally, soon thereafter, this officer was among those who were
summarily transferred on what we were told by the CM was “long-pending
promotion”.
The Guild Team
questioned Mr Patel about some of its more sensational reports in screaming
headlines, many of which were unsourced, speculative or without any basis. One
of these was a dire warning about Hajis returning to Gujarat with arms and RDX
to wreak vengeance. This caused considerable panic and was contradicted as
baseless. Mr Patel´s plea was that the report had appeared in the Asian Age a
day earlier and that Sandesh had followed it up and made its own inquiries with
the Intelligence agencies and others. Thereafter the Chief Minister had been
alerted but had taken the report rather casually. (The Team subsequently saw
the Asian Age report and found its contents and alleged Intelligence background
to be very different in purport and tenor. It in no way justified the Sandesh
story). Mr Patel´s defence was that the Asian Age story had not been
contradicted.
Mr Patel was also
asked about the Sandesh banner headline about the breasts of two Hindu women
having been chopped off by the mobsters at Godhra. He replied that the
information came from the DSP Panchmahals. This was promptly contradicted and
the contradiction appeared in the Gujarat Samachar. This, we were told, was a
fall out of “competition” between the two rival papers. Sandesh´s own policy
was “not to carry corrections and clarifications”.
Mr Patel countered by referring to the coverage of the destruction of the Wali
Gujarati dargah by the Times of India. “Was this right?” he asked. (Wali
Gujarati lived in the 17th century and was India´s first Urdu ghazalkar. This
well known cultural landmark, dear to all communities, was razed to the ground
on February 27 and a paved road built over it within days. Some 240 large and
small Muslim dargahs, mosques, shrines and kabristans were similarly vandalised
throughout Gujarat and Hulluria Hanuman (riotous Hanuman) murtis installed at
some sites. In Vadodara, the tomb of the famous Baroda court musician, Ustad
Fayyaz Khan was desecrated.
Asked about the
killing of Ehsan Jafri, a former M.P and several others by fire in Gulberg
colony despite desperate calls for help over several hours, Mr Patel said that
Mr Jafri had a “bad record”. (Many others told us later that on the contrary
Ehsan Jafri was a poet and much respected figure who worked for the masses and
preferred to live in a cosmopolitan residential area rather than in a Muslim
ghetto. Justice Akbar Divecha´s flat was vandalised in Ahmedabad and the
residence of Prof J.S. Bandukwala, who teaches physics at M.S. Baroda
University and is a votary of communal harmony, was similarly ravaged.
Finally, Mr Patel
showed us a letter dated March 18 sent to him officially as owner and chief
executive of Sandesh by the Chief Minister. In this, Mr Narendra Modi,
personally expressed his high appreciation for the newspaper´s restrained
coverage of the recent events in the best traditions of journalism. Mr Modi
told us later that similar letters had gone out under his signature to a number
of Gujarati language papers. Gujarat Samachar and 14 others were sent such
letters according to a hurried listing by the Information Department. The text
of the original letter in Gujarati and its English translation is at Annexure
4.
Before parting company, we mentioned that we were
going to Gandhinagar to meet the Chief Minister and others. Mr Patel wryly
remarked, “The Government dances to our tune. We can get them to do anything”.
Others, later, made much the same comment - in reverse.
The owner-editors
of the Gujarat Samachar, Mr Shreyans Shah and Mr Bahubali Shah were generally
reticent but said their competition with Sandesh had in no way compromised
journalistic standards. “I never publish news keeping circulation in mind; the
paper´s policy is to promote communal harmony, Mr Shreyans Shah asserted.
However, there had been a rise in circulation of about 50,000 to 60,000 copies,
“though these things do not last”.
An article in the
Samachar had implied that Ehsan Jafri, who was brutally slain, “got what he
deserved”. Queried on this, Mr Bahubali Shah said he stood by what the paper
had written.
Both Shahs said
there was inadequate official information during the first weeks of the riots.
There are a large
number of Gujarati papers, 32 large and small vernacular publications in
Ahmedabad alone. Fulchab, in Rajkot, was characteristically the first to take
out a peace rally immediately after Godhra.
In Ahmedabad we
met editors of three other dailies, Sambhav (four editions), Prabhat (Ahmedabad
and Mehsana) and Gujarat Today (which has a Muslim ownership). All three are
seen to have been moderate and balanced in approach.
Sambhav´s CMD, Mr
Kiran Vadodaaria, avoided publishing pictures of corpses. The paper received an
anonymous threat on April 1 because it had carried a column by M.J. Akbar, the
Asian Age Editor. The Editor told us that though no curfew passes were
distributed to his staff, they were able to move about quite freely with their
formal press cards which were honoured.
Prabhat´s
Director, Mr Ashish Kothari, spoke of swords and liquor being distributed on
February 27. Its Editor felt that TV had played a very positive role by
exposing the machinations of those behind the rioting mobs.
Mr Aziz Tankarvi
is Editor of Gujarat Today, the only daily newspaper owned and run by Muslims
in Gujarat. He told us that his paper had carried more editorials on the
developments in Gujarat than any other published in the State. His endeavour,
he said, was to cool tempers. Independent observers confirmed that Gujarat
Today generally carried balanced reports – an assessment that VHP officials
whom we met strongly contested.
Like Prabhat,
Gujarat Today too did not receive Mr Narendra Modi´s letter of commendation.
Senior
administrative and police officers in Anand told the Guild team that local
newspapers incited violence through irresponsible reporting. One paper,
Madhyantrar, edited by Mr Jashwant Rawal, was specifically named. The paper´s
April 3 edition, shown to us, alleged that a Muslim police officer was behind
the local riots. An eight-column commentary on the front page was headlined:
“Muslims will have to prove that they are full Indians”.
The Kutch Mitra
ran a statement by a prominent Moulvi on its front page for several days
condemning Godhra and expressing regret over what had happened. The Saurashtra
Samachar, Bhavnagar, of March 2 carried a special supplement devoted to
religious harmony.
We had asked for
separate meetings in Gandhinagar with the Chief Minister, the Minister of State
for Home Affairs, the Information Minister, the Chief Secretary and the DG
Police the better to serve focussed discussion. However, Mr Narendra Modi met
us without his ministerial colleagues or the DGP but collectively in the
presence of the Chief Secretary, the Home Secretary. a senior police official,
the Revenue Secretary (who looks after relief and rehabilitation), the Director
of Information and several others.
A large bust of
Gandhiji is installed in front of the Sachivalaya and looks across the road at
the adjacent Old Secretariat that houses various Government Directorates. The
Old Secretariat is a protected area. Yet the Gujarat State Wakf Board, located
just below the Directorate of Information, and the Gujarat Minorities Finance
and Development Corporation housed in the Block opposite, both Government
offices, were attacked and torched by a mob during office hours on February 28.
Staff in all the Directorates ran for cover. The Old Secretariat was closed;
later, curfew was imposed in Gandhinagar. No arrests had been made until April
2, the day of our visit. Records pertaining to dargahs, mosques, madrassas and
kabristans were lost in the fire.
We told Mr Modi of
our mission and asked for his assessment of the media´s role in the ongoing
crisis in Gujarat. He was coy; it was too early for him to say anything about
the media as CM, he said. But if Narendra Modi were asked that question, that
would be a long story. Coaxed to say something more, he said the media,
especially TV, was very powerful. None in the media had appealed for peace.
Yes, maybe editorials had appeared, but ordinary people did not read
editorials. He himself had gone on the air and repeatedly called for peace. (In
his address over Doordarshan on February 28, Mr Modi referred to Godhra and
went to state: “Gujarat shall not tolerate any such incident. The culprits will
get full punishment for their sins. Not only this, we will set an example that
nobody, not even in his dreams thinks of committing a heinous crime like this”.
In a separate Doordarshan soundbyte he is reported as stating: “If raising
issues relating to justice or injustice adds fuel to the fire, we will have to
observe restraint and invoke peace”. Ambiguous words these. Annexure 4AA).
Responding to
queries regarding various statements attributed to him by the media, Mr Modi
denied citing Newton´s law. Nor had he spoken of “action-reaction”; he had
wanted neither the action (at Godhra) nor the subsequent reaction. When we
cited footage in Zee to the contrary (Annexure 4A), there was no reaction from
Mr Modi The Chief Minister said he had merely only narrated the facts and
justified nothing. He was pained by a “Diary” item about his “feasting” while
Gujarat burned that the Times of India had carried the previous week. He had
merely gone to his constituency in Rajkot to thank party workers after his
recent by-election victory and had had a quick, Spartan meal before hurrying
away to inspect some continuing earthquake relief works. The Indian Express too
had had carried unkind references to him in its “Modi-Meter” column.
He had not said
“normalcy” had been restored in 72 hours but only that the situation had been
largely brought under control during that period, unlike on past occasions when
rioting had continued for weeks. Firing had been ordered and a large number of
arrests had been made. Scare stories in some papers, such as about returning
Hajis and breast-cutting in Sandesh, had been officially denied but the
contradictions had not been carried. This was because newspapers sought to
sensationalise issues. Asked why the State did not prosecute offending
newspapers under the law, Mr Modi said “we prefer to move on”.
The Chief Minister
justified the presence of two Ministers in the Gandhinagar and Ahmedabad Police
Control Rooms. This was standard practice in Gujarat, even during the
earthquake last year; moreover, the control room was a convenient place from
which to interact with the public. (Later we were to hear of reports of a
Minister´s son sitting in the police control room in Godhra. When we queried
this with official interlocutors, we were informed that no action could be
taken unless an FIR was filed. None had dared do so).
He went on to deny
reports of his comparing his term of office to a “one-day cricket match”. What
he had said when he took office was that there were 12,000 hours to go before
the next Assembly elections. Just as in a one-day cricket, achieving a given
run-rate is critical, he had appealed for a better “work-rate” to fulfil the
Government´s promises to the people. This remark had been twisted.
He said he had
visited both Muslim and Hindu relief camps and had spoken to all camp
organisers. He would not like to comment on the National Human Rights
Commission´s report but the media had omitted many positive references made by
the Commission about the Government´s performance. The NHRC had also called for
a media code and self-policing under the terms of Article I9 (2) of the Constitution.
The Chief Minister
had little to say about the killing of Ehsan Jafri and the attack on the two
Justices of the Gujarat High Court, apart from pleading an inadequacy of forces
to control large mobs roving across far flung areas of the city. He denied
saying that “private firing” by Jafri had enraged the mob. Words had been put
in his mouth as he had merely referred to a newspaper report that said this is
what had happened. He also denied any pre-planned targeting of Muslim
establishments and said that local people knew the who and the what of these
things as they lived in the same community.
Mr Modi had no
explanation for the widespread destruction of Muslim dargahs and shrines and
how it was that in at least one case the rubble had been cleared and a tarred
road built over the site. The Team pointed out that the usual complaint was
that damaged rods and pavements were never repaired for months on end and that
tarring a road is a major operation that calls for organisation, mechanical
equipment and efforts beyond the capability of stray hoodlums. The CM pleaded
lack of knowledge but did say that he had ordered the removal of makeshift
Hindu shrines and idols installed in some of them. He then went on to ask if it
was helpful for TV to have shown a decapitated Hanuman idol at a desecrated
Hindu shrine at Anjar in Kutch that very morning (April 2).
The CM defended
the recent transfer of several police officials, including some who had dome
commendable work in controlling riots. He felt these “long-pending promotions”
would act as an “incentive”. He said there could be two views opinions on this
count but agreed with the suggestion that perhaps promotions might have been
announced but the actual movement of the officers deferred until after the law
and order situation had stabilised.
He also accepted
that he would have done well to call local editors for a frank briefing. This
would have enabled him to explain the Government´s concerns and solicit their
cooperation.
Mr Narendra Modi,
like certain other official spokesmen in Delhi, also drew a comparison between
media coverage of the Gujarat riots and the restrained and responsible role of
the American media after the September 11 attack on the World Trade Towers in New
York. Dead bodies were not shown on television or in press photographs. The
fact is that on September 11 and for some days thereafter none other than
firemen could approach, let alone enter, the WTC and very few bodies were
recovered until much later. People were shown jumping off higher floors and
clinging to windows. The two episodes are very different and there was no
arson, rape, loot and rioting in New York of the kind witnessed in Gujarat.
Before we left,
the conversation turned to how confidence and mutual trust might be restored.
The Team said that commissions of inquiry in India had lost credibility because
of delays and obstructions in their working and inaction on their findings. In
the circumstances, the Gujarat Government could not do better than to enable
the K.G.Shah Commission to complete its task expeditiously and thereafter take
immediate action on its findings. Mr Modi thought this a good idea.
However, on
visiting the shell of the burnt out carriage No. S-6 at Godhra station (with a
Railway escort) on April 3, we were surprised to see this prime exhibit
standing in the yard unguarded and stray people entering it at will. Anyone
could remove or plant anything in the carriage, tampering with whatever
evidence it has to offer with none being any the wiser. Furthermore, it was
only on April 1 that Justice K. G. Shah, heading the one-man Commission of
Inquiry, reportedly visited his office, having been provided with some staff
and other wherewithal with which to commence his labour. Interviewed over TV he
is reported to have said that his inquiry could quite take time. As of April 6,
when the last of us left Gujarat, none seemed aware of any notification having
been issued by or on behalf of the Commission calling on people to come forward
with relevant evidence or announcing any programme of work or schedule of
visits. (See Annexure 5 for K.G. Shah Commission´s terms of reference).
Even before
leaving for Gujarat, we had requested the State Information Department for a
set of relevant press notes and other official documents, statements and
appeals that would enable us to understand the situation from the official
perspective. We were provided a set hurriedly put together Press Notes in
English. These are briefly analysed below. All citations are in the actual
language used in the official releases.
The phraseology
most often used for the Godhra incident was “inhuman genocide”, “inhuman
carnage” or “massacre” while the subsequent riots were invariably described as
“disturbances”, and occasionally as “violent disturbances/incidents”. The Chief
Minister visited Godhra on the evening of February 27 itself and the Press Note
issued thereafter described the torching of the Sabarmati Express as a
“pre-planned inhuman collective violent act of terrorism”.
Several releases
refer to the situation having been brought under control within 72 hours. An
official release on March 5 carried twin headings: The State Government has
taken stringent action to stem riots and violence: Narendra Modi; and “Chief
Minister´s Appeal to Trade and Industry, Religion Heads and Intellectuals for
the Revival and Restoration of Economic Activities has evoked Encouraging
Response”. The occasion was a Citizens´ meet organised by the Gujarat Chamber
of Commerce and Industry in response to an appeal by the CM “to revive and
restore economic activity”. The release notes that “Modi said it was the duty
of the state government to provide security to the citizens even by taking
drastic actions. Referring to the keen interest shown by the people around the
globe in the ‘Resurgent Gujarat´ after devastating earthquake, he said that
entire world was looking at the progressive and fast developing Gujarat”.
After
again referring to “the pre-planned collective terrorism against Gujarat”,
Pakistan´s proxy war and its “clandestine role…behind the Godhra genocide”,
“Modi asserted that at this critical juncture, interest of Gujarat was maintain
peace and said that the Government had discharged its duty to stop violence”.
Further, he said, “the elements wanting to perpetuate violence and destabilise
Gujarat were disappointed. Making a reference to Shabana Azmi´s demand to file
a case of mass murder against the Chief Minister, Modi said that he would not
have any regret to be hanged at the Bhadra Fort if restoration of peace within
three days was considered an offence”.
Another press
release dated March 9 was headed “We will not surrender to the elements out to
malign Gujarat says the Chief Minister”. The occasion was another address to
“leading business men and the merchant community” under the auspices of the
Maskati new Cloth Market Mahajan. He said Mahatma Gandhi had taught Gujarat to
fight against injustice. Health Minister Ashok Bhatt who also spoke “was
cheered when he said that the trading community hails the Chief Minister as
‘the Sardar opposed to terrorism´, because he restored peace to Ahmedabad in
only 72 hours”. The press release concluded with the observation that
“businessmen, traders and the owners of process houses were full of praise for
the strong will power of the Chief Minister and described him as ‘Chhote
Sardar´”.
A March 4 press
release from Ahmedabad on the occasion of Mr L.K. Advani´s visit to Gujarat
stated that “Home Minister L.K.Advani today said that the Godhra genocide had
given a setback to the four year of peaceful Bharatiya Janata party Rule in
Gujarat”. The comment was reflected in the heading.
There were a
couple of press notes on community amity. A release dated March 2 quoted the
Chief Minister as denying newspaper reports of people having been burnt alive
in Pandarwada village in Panchmahal. We were later to learn that this was one
of the worst instances of rural violence. (This has been documented by
Communalism Combat, Mumbai and figures in its Report “Genocide, Gujarat 2002”,
March-April issue, No. 77-78).
We were not given
any releases issued by the Police Department or by the Ahmedabad Police. So we
do not know to what extent, if any, they filled the gaping holes in the
narrative offered by the Press Notes issued through the Information Department.
It is quite possible that the latter file given to us was incomplete and
consisted of no more than a representative sample. Be that as it may, the media
and, through it, the people of Gujarat were not kept properly or fully informed
through the official information channels. What was put out was a travesty of
the horrific events that engulfed the State. Much of it was one-sided and
self-serving, eulogising the Chief Minister and focussing on a particular
section of the trading community while Gujarat burned.
The file of
official Press Notes given to the Guild is at Annexure 6.
The Directorate of
Information also gave us a file contained 11 clarifications issued by it in
respect of certain statements and views attributed to the Chief Minister in
various news reports, editorials and articles by columnists. The Chief Minister
himself referred to certain of these comments when the Guild Team met him. The
file of “Clarifications” is at Annexure 7.
The vocabulary of
discourse, like much else in Gujarat, has come to reflect the deep emotions and
divisions aroused by events in the State. Thus, the term “secular media”, is
used pejoratively to describe those papers and channels which are only critical
of violence against the minority community.
One critic wrote
to the Guild as follows after its Fact-Finding Mission was announced: “Till
date, only politicians were coddling and flattering this (Muslim) community
under the cover of “secularism” for their selfish motive of securing votes. But
now, media people, especially Xavierites and convent-ites having recently
entered this field, have also joined their bandwagon and have given completely
biased and one-sided coverage… Not a single educated and forward Muslim like
Shabana Azmi or Dilipkumar have defamed their fanatic and downtrodden member in
very clear and true words (sic). While our own journalists have played pivotal
role in depicting VHP members as hardliners and fanatics causing great harm to
the prestige of our community and of our nation…. Try to understand one thing –
“If you are defaming your family member, you are undermining your own
interest…..”.
Sections of the
media have been criticised for directly or indirectly linking the Godhra
incident to Ayodhya. Vir Sanghvi, Editor of the Hindustan Times had this to
say: “The sub-text to all secular commentary is the same: the kar sevaks had it
coming to them. Basically, they condemn the crime; but blame the victims”.
(Annexure 8) Others, like Jaya Jaitley, the Samanta leader, argued in the
Indian Express that “there is a whole mass of feelings out there that these
people (Opposition/intellectuals) are missing and will continue to miss if they
remain comfortably secluded in their make-believe worlds”. Her conclusion: “If
Godhra had been adequately condemned, perhaps the retaliation would have been
more easily contained. If the intellectuals and the so-called secular
Opposition leave it to the fundamentalists, violence is all we will get.
Whether we like it or not, they were the only ones who reflected the anger
against Godhra, when both secular media and politicians had failed”. (Annexure
9).
Not only is the
logic flawed, but Godhra was roundly condemned by all. Leaders of 11 prominent
national Muslim organisations denounced “the barbaric and brutal violence in
Godhra” on February 28. (Muslim India, April 2002). The Prime Minister and
Leaders of the Opposition were signatories to a joint appeal to maintain peace
and communal harmony the following day. Sandhya Jain, writing in the Pioneer of
April 23, 2002 under the heading “Perceived fair play will cool Hindu rage”,
opines that “majority bashing has assumed such alarming proportions that there
is growing concern among analysts that the proverbial Hindu patience may be
reaching breaking point. Serious commentators are of the view that political
parties and the media should understand the Godhra-Gujarat conflagration from
this point of view, and resist the temptation to fish in troubled waters”.
The Guild Team
received a letter from Bhopal labelling marked portions of “Outlook” (March 18,
2002) a gross misuse of the right to freedom of expression. The impugned
reports included several reports and columns by the Editor, Vinod Mehta, Prem
Shankar Jha and Priyanka Kakodkar (reporting from Godhra). Vinod Mehta wrote: “
….Are we equating state terrorism with an act of terrorism committed by a group
of crazy, bigoted individuals?…When law-abiding citizens are being burnt alive
by mobs, objective journalism needs to be jettisoned; the media has no option
but to tell the story from the side of the victims so that the country can see
the grisly events”. Others are sore because the media did not se through the
sinister plot underlying Godhra, namely to bring about the economic
destabilisation of India, beginning with Gujarat. At the same time, some
critics are of the view that the media has carried exaggerated accounts of the
economic loss suffered by trade and industry in Gujarat. A letter to the Times
of India calls for balance. It reads: Please refer the Sunday Times, March 10,
P 1. “Razed dargahs pave roads to mystery”: it is a title biased against
Hindus. The report under the title states that Hanuman Mandir was also razed.
So the correct title is “Razed dargahs and Hanuman Mandir pave roads to
mystery”.
Hotline, a
Gujarati weekly published from Surat, carried a long piece in its edition of
April 6 by its editor, Vikram Vakil, under the heading “English media exposed”.
He cites and comments on 10 examples of “indulgence in gossip” citing the Times
of India, Indian Express, Outlook and Star TV. Particular mention is made of
reports on the burning of the Sabarmati Express in Godhra on February 27 and on
a Times story (March 19) of 150 persons being burnt alive and thrown into a
disused well. Hotline says this was just a rumour and was denied by the police.
(See summary translation at Annexure 10). This is precisely what the Times had
said too. (See Annexure 11, P 13).
The Gujarat Janhati
Rakshak Samiti of Vadodara led by Ajay Dave represented to the Guild Team
against the pro-minority mind-set of the English media. It noted their failure
to cover and analyse the reasons for adivasi anger against Muslims in rural
Vadodara and spoke of “provocation” such as the azan being called 40 times a
day in a single village (eight mosques each calling the faithful to prayer five
times). The Hindus were “oppressed and suppressed”. “White collar indignation”
over Godhra had spilled on to the streets, taking the form of looting instead
of killing ! The “topiwalas” were at the root of all wrongdoing and thought
they had license to crime. The backlash being witnessed was “a natural
reaction” to Godhra.
The Samiti
presented a memorandum, with a number of newspaper clippings appended,
excoriating the “nasty role” of certain English and minority language
newspapers and TV channels. They were charged with “one-sided coverage”. Their
aim was to defame Gujarat and bring it down to the level of Bihar “so that industrial
investment in Gujarat is inhibited and its economic prosperity suffers a
setback”. (See Annexure 11).
A Muslim liberal
in Ahmedabad complained, more in sorrow than in anger, that many contemporary
and contextual articles he had sent in recent times to the local English
newspapers were never used. He pleaded that the media, especially the English
language press with its national reach, should find space for local liberal,
modern Muslim voices and enable them to network. Muslim Indians must know that there
is an alternative discourse to what they hear from traditional sources or
radical forces. Likewise, it is imperative to rebuild inter-community links and
bridges that have been destroyed. The point, made with feeling and eloquence,
is well taken.
A number of civic
and human rights groups and NGOs in Ahmedabad and Vadodara have been monitoring
the media and shared their perceptions and findings with the Guild Team. Among
these, the People´s Union for Civil Liberties and Shanti Abhiyan in Vadodara
and a number of other community groups in Gujarat have meticulously tracked
media trends in Gujarat.
The attitude of
Sandesh has been noted earlier. Gujarat Samachar (Vadodara edition) is again
shown as using provocative, instigative headlines for unsourced, unverified,
exaggerated or even fictitious stories. (See Annexure 11A). A lack of
objectivity and balance is evident in much of the coverage, though some
positive stories were also published. The Muslim-owned Gujarat Today is seen to
be more restrained and balanced and mindful of carrying stories of communal
harmony despite the violence. The Times of India and Indian Express are
commended on the whole. But some matters could have been more adequately
covered such as combing operations, atrocities against women, conditions in
relief camps and the involvement of persons named by local people in various
areas. The Express is cited for some of its investigative stories but there is
criticism of headlines such as ‘Dial M for Modi, Murder´ and ‘Modimeter´, the
latter being a daily tally of casualties.
The overall
conclusion of PUCL-Shanti Abhiyan is that “When Muslims were at fault, names
were taken, perpetrators were clearly identified. When Muslims were the victims
of murderers, arsonists, looters, etc, then it has not been clearly stated who
attacked whom. No sources have been quoted for headlines, even when they have
simply been lifted from speeches by VHP leaders (like “Khoon ka badla Khoon”).
Headlines are also misleading and often followed up by reports that do not
substantiate headlines…. The anti-minority stand is obvious in the slant in
news reporting. Editorials and news items are often written in a way that
implicitly and explicitly justifies carnage after the Godhra incident”.
(Annexure 12).
The Memorandum
presented by the Anjuman-e-Imdad-e-Bahami, Vadodara, is revealing. The
mendacious reportage of Sandesh is exposed. Yet the representation concludes
with a reaffirmation of the secular ethos of the average citizens of Gujarat”.
(Annexure 13).
Another Memorandum
presented by the Shahpur Seva Samaj, Ahmedabad, on “Provocation and Instigation
of Violence ….” contains a detailed analysis of the Gujarati press. It lists a
number of fabrications prominently published and subsequently not corrected when
officially denied. (Annexure 14).
Still another
Memorandum against Sandesh in particular was submitted by K.R.Kazi of Vadodara
together with copies of offending stories along with a gist of offensive
passages/inferences given in English. (Annexure 15).
A representation
by residents of Tandalja, a Muslim majority area in Vadodara, speaks of a media
campaign in Gujarat Mitra and Sandesh to have the locality declared a disturbed
area" as it is a “mini-Pakistan”. (See Annexure 16). Sandesh
(Bhavnagar
edition, March 1, 2002) is cited as inciting Hindus to avenge Godhra. An
unsourced report reads: “Hindus were burnt alive in Godhra and leaders in
Bhavnagar did not even throw a stone in the name of bandh. Ahmedabd, Vadodara
and Rajkot partly avenged the killing of Hindus in Godhra. In the case of
Bhavnagar, the gutless leaders are hiding their faces under the guise of
non-violence. (Annexure 17). Gujarat
Today was found to
be generally balanced and moderate in tone. The visuals it published were
sober. The paper sought to promote communal harmony and carried editorial page
articles by liberal Hindus and Muslims including translations of columns from
the mainline English press.
Aaj Tak and ETV
(Eenadu) operate Gujarati channels in addition to Doordarshan. There were few
critics of ETV and its coverage was described as balanced. Aaj Tak in
particular received a lot of flak for its candid coverage. It had earned praise
during the earthquake for going off the beaten track and picking up special
nuances. This same approach possibly proved an embarrassment to some on this
occasion. Like the other networks it used mobile OB vans that allowed quicker
and more exhaustive coverage.
(NDTV) carried
some graphic footage and interviews in the thick of the riots – in Ahmedabad
and along the Vadodara-Godhra highway where a number of industrial
establishments and trucks were burnt. There were strong critics of its
coverage, including what was termed as the arrogant and hectoring tone of its
correspondent while interviewing a tired Ahmedabad police commissioner at the
end of a long day and its insistence that the Army´s deployment was unduly
delayed. Rajdeep Sardesai, NDTV´s Political Editor, responded to this criticism
in a subsequent newspaper article. Star also carried an extremely moving
interview with Professor J.S Bandukwala in Vadodara, a man whose secular ethos
continues to burn bright even after going through a terrible ordeal.
There is little
doubt that some of the television coverage unmasked the State Government. It
hit back by banning Star on March 2 for several hours. In an interview to
“Outlook” (March 18, 2002), Mr Narendra Modi was asked why he had sought to
muzzle the press. His response was that “There was no ban on the media. I
blacked out just one channel because of the provocative reporting methods used.
Traditionally the print media has used its own methods of self-censorship,
taking care not to mention the names of communities while reporting riots. If
every half an hour names of communities are going to be mentioned, without any
substantiation or any attribution, it inflames the situation instead of
allaying it. It is not difficult to see what impact it will have. I must also
tell you that since then the channel has tendered an apology and made amends”.
Asked about this, Star News commented that it met Mr Modi at a press conference
and requested him to lift what it termed an unfair ban. The Chief Minister
complied. It must also be added that Mr Modi was given opportunity on the
channel to air his point of view on events in Gujarat by prior arrangement
before the ban.
The coverage by
Doordarshan and AIR´s Ahmedabad kendras was staid. There were viewers and
listeners who said that they appreciated this though others expressed
dissatisfaction. One of our interlocutors said that while AIR reported the
facts, Doordarshan siad the situation was under control. The Chief Minister´s
peace appeal was replayed several times by Doordarshan. Peace rallies in different
parts of the State and programmes emphasising communal harmony were aired.
These included sound bytes in Gandhiji´s voice, culled from archival material,
and stories of Hindus sheltering Muslims. Efforts were made to counter rumours
and scenes of joint Holi celebrations were screened.
According to a
report in the Indian Express (March 8, 2002), AIR, Delhi was quizzed by
somebody in the Prime Minister´s Office regarding an English discussion that
was critical of the manner in which the Gujarat riots had been officially
handled. This is said to have resulted in an inquiry and the transfer of the
concerned Programme Officer. The discussants, Bhishma Narain Singh, a former
Governor, Prof. Imtiaz Ahmed of JNU and Amulya Ganguli of the Hindustan Times
were admittedly critical. However, if the issue was an alleged lack of balance
in the programme, the answer is that Prasar Bharati cannot be totally anodyne
about stark events and hope to enjoy any credibility; nor is balance always
possible in a single programme and may often only be achieved over a series of
broadcasts that allow all legitimate points of view a fair airing.
Many cities in
Gujarat have local cable-television channels that broadcast several hours a
day. Gujarat Samachar has such a channel in Ahmedabad. There is another in
Anand known as the Charotar Area Network Link or CAN-Link which is a 24-hour
channel and also publishes a local newspaper, Naya Padkar. What subscribers
wanted from their local media was positive stories of community living and hard
information about incident-prone areas, curfew hours, safe routes for commuting
and so forth. This was not forthcoming and such information as was provided was
sometimes confusing.
Vadodara has four
cable channels. While they did carry some official peace messages, it is
alleged that they were politically exploited and some of their coverage
amounted to incitement. PUCL and Shanti Abhiyan were particularly critical of
the JTV and Deep channels. (See Annexure 12 P 27). The Police Commissioner
Vadodara felt the cable networks had “played havoc” and warned them. The
licenses of two operators were suspended on March 17 after they showed live
footage of rioting in the sensitive Macchipith area on March 15, when the VHP
celebrated news of the performance of shilinyas at Ayodhya. This same live
footage was repeated the following day. The licenses were restored after 48
hours. FIRs were, however, registered against News Plus and the VNM Channel
respectively and the operators released on bail.
On the other hand,
some observers told us that the cable coverage exposed violation of Section 144
or curfew by large crowds and instances of police inaction. However, even these
sources admitted that the live coverage did arouse passions.
Networks are
subject to rules framed under the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act,
1995. Operators have to seek registration by an authorised officer who may be a
district magistrate, sub-divisional magistrate or police commissioner within
his/her area of jurisdiction. The Rules prescribe a code for programmes and
advertisements. No programme may be carried which offends good taste or
decency, attacks religious communities, incites violence, contains false and
suggestive innuendoes and half-truths, or is unsuitable for unrestricted public
exhibition. Any authorised officer may prohibit certain transmissions
infringing the code or otherwise if expedient to do so in the public interest.
Penalties include fines and seizure of equipment.
The Guild Team was
informed that during long periods of curfew between March 1 and 15, some cable
channels made it a point to screen “patriotic” or “nationalist” films such as
Gadar, Border, and Ma Tujhe Salaam.
The new media was
actively used for positive and negative ends through the Gujarat riots.
Computer generated or more crudely and clandestinely printed pamphlets and
handbills, without any imprint line, were brought out and widely circulated.
Some of earlier vintage were recirculated. Among those we met, some testified
to seeing handbills being openly distributed in large numbers at street corners
and traffic intersections. The dissemination of such material was reported in
the press. Their authenticity is difficult to establish and it is entirely
possible that some are products of disinformation wilfully distributed with
diabolical intent. Others appear more plausible in view of circumstantial
evidence from other quarters. Either way, this is a most dangerous development,
even if not altogether new, as means of instant and widespread dissemination
are now technologically available.
A pernicious piece
of hate propaganda, officially disseminated by the VHP, calls for the economic
boycott of Muslims. This was admitted to the Indian Express by Mr Chinubhai
Patel, the Parishad´s Gujarat treasurer. (See Annexure 18). A more recent four
page pamphlet circulating in Ahmedabad by this same organisation carries an
appeal for funds to provide security for Hindus. It reads: Your life is in danger,
you can be murdered any time… We are collecting funds for securing the
interests of the Hindus..…there are thousands of more Godhra carnages being
planned”. Mr Chinubhai Patel has confirmed that these pamphlets are in
circulation. (Times of India, April 26, 2002).
PUCL/Shanti
Abhiyan has summarised the content of several other pamphlets (See Annexure 12,
P 30-31). The most damaging of these is an alleged secret RSS circular listing
ways of killing or debilitating minorities. The economic boycott theme figures
again and was found to be circulating by chain distribution in Sadhari, Pali
district, Rajasthan. The Express, March 24 (Delhi edition) reports the police
seizure of a pamphlet urging Hindus to create a “jagrut Hindu rashtra”,
allegedly circulated by the Bajrang Dal president, Hastimal, who is said to
have been arrested. The theme: “Don´t purchase anything from Muslim shops,
don´t travel in their vehicles or visit their garages; don´t watch films which
feature Muslim stars. In this way we can break their financial backbone”. The
same news item says that the police seized a pamphlet in tribal-dominated
Banswara, exhorting Hindus to hang a saffron flag outside their homes to help
identification during Moharram.
A bunch of vicious
handbills was handed over to us in Ahmedabad by one of the groups we met. These
call for economic boycott of Muslims and warn Hindus against Christian schools
and praying at dargahs. Others appeal to the police and Army and salute
Narendra Modi. One handbill has a message for Muslim youth and instructs them
on how to deal with kafirs. This is attributed to a Dr K.M.Farukh but carries
no address or other identification. All the other handbills are unsourced.
(Annexure 19).
A Hindi leaflet
attributed to the Bharat Bachao Sangh, Allahabad and said to have been found in
Coach No S-6 of the Sabarmati Express was also given to us. (Annexure 20).
Gruesome coloured
photographs depicting the charred and mutilated remains of Sabarmati Express
victims are reportedly being circulated at meetings, accompanied by fiery
speeches. (Hindustan Times, April 9). The Guild Team was officially given a set
of such photographs with provocative captions at the VHP office. This evoked
extreme horror and disgust.
In Ahmedabad we
were told of the seizure a booklet titled “In Defence of Hindus” purporting to
be a “riot manual” from Nagpur containing a list of do-it-yourself brutalities.
Corresponding
reports have appeared of pamphlets allegedly circulated by Muslims. One of
these, titled “Give Challenge to Open Terrorism by Covert Terrorism”, is said
to have been distributed at the Shah Alam refugee camp in Ahmedabad, a charge
denied by organisers of the camp. It is said to be attributed by intelligence
sources to an unknown organisation called Lashkar-e-Khelendeen and calls for
guerilla strikes to destroy the “Narendra Modi terrorist organisation”. (HT,
April 9).
In Ahmedabad, the
National Medicos Organisation on April 2 gave the Guild Team a “provocative”
Hindi leaflet ending with the slogan “Pakistan Zindabad”. The same “medico”
representation was strongly critical of the English press and spoke of “a …
series of events like Kargil, hijacking of Indian Airline plane, attack on
J&K Assembly and Indian Parliament, capture of RDX and other weapons at
various places and series of bomb blasts. It said “we need to break this
pattern in order to protect security and integrity of this country and national
self-respect”.
To counter these sinister campaigns, Shanti Abhiyan and the Baroda Chamber have
sought to disseminate positive messages. But the day the Guild Team left
Vadodara, the papers reported that large billboards sponsored by a citizen´s
group with messages of communal harmony had been defaced. The advertising
agency contracted for the job was also threatened. (Times of India, Ahmedabad,
April 6).
Equally
significant is a widely distributed publication entitled “Godhra and After”
produced by the Vishva Samvad Kendra, Gujarat, and given to us at the VHP
office in Ahmedabad. It lists “facts” that give “several reasons to believe
that this (Godhra carnage) was a pre-planned conspiracy”. Travellers of a
particular religion were asked to get down at the previous station, namely,
Dahod; patients of a particular community were discharged from the Godhra civil
hospital a day before February 27 and not a single case from that same
community was registered that day; and no student or teacher of a particular
community was present in Godhra´s schools on February 27. From this it is
surmised that not only was the torching of S-6 a pre-planned attack but there
was forewarning of something untoward likely to happen that fateful day.
The Guild Team
checked these “facts” with district officials, the Railway authorities and
local journalists. There was no corroboration whatsoever.
The Gujarat riots
probably mark the first occasion when digital media has been so extensively
used, if at all. Rioters and middle class looters were directed by mobile
phone. Accordingly to some who monitored it, the Gujarat State web site had
little reference to the riots, barring information about forthcoming
examinations. SMS messages were reportedly sent to some people warning them
that milk supplies had been poisoned. Others received telephone calls about a
threatened rocket attack, setting off alarm and pancic. Chain messages were
sent by email.
A liberal Muslim, M.H. Jowher of Manfin Infotech Ltd, started a web site
www.riotinfo.com on March 7 following the eruption of mass violence. He
preaches communal harmony and writes of the law and the Constitution. Here is
someone trying to build fraternity anew amidst the smouldering ruins of hate
and despair. He advertised for support on April 12 and received a dozen
positive responses from Hindus interspersed with some threatening calls. He has
sought to put out correct and authenticated information about the riots and
specific events in order to counter mischievous propaganda. He has done this in
part by mailing assumed addresses. Many have bounced back but others have
scored hits.
Mr Narendra Modi
too is something of an internet buff and has a personal web site
www.narendramodi.org. This has posted ardent fan mail with some messages
hailing him as a god and “asli mard” for protecting Hindus. (See Annexure 12, P
28-29). It is conceivable that a hacker may have broken into Mr Modi´s domain
to post material calculated to cause him embarrassment. Even so, it would
appear incumbent on someone in his position to have a web manager to monitor
the site and remove any offending material rather than assume legal and moral
ownership by letting it remain on his site.
We were told of a
number of e-mail boards such as E-fore from Ahmedabad and Vadodara which
carries an account of Gujarat developments with daily updates. This was started
at the time of the Kutch earthquake in 2001 and is said currently to network
about 1000 persons. Teesta Setalvad´s Communalism Combat from Mumbai operates a
portal known as www.sabrang.com. Help Asia is the name of another e-group;
ekta.online.com is said to be run by an NRI group based in California.
Film too has come
to play a role in Gujarat. An NGO, Concerned Citizen´s Initiative, has 22 hours
of video footage on Gujarat compiled from various sources. An edited version of
this has been screened in Delhi and is available with Sahmat. Such scenes
captured by amateur filmmakers can offer candid and revealing information,
unobtrusively obtained. (See Annexure 21).
The Police too have also now started employing videography more intensively
than before. This has enabled them to film rioting and crime and garner
material evidence for identifying criminals, making arrests and launching
prosecutions.
Email, like the telephone, has been used to threaten, intimidate and send hate
mail. Hindus sheltering their Muslim neighbours received threatening calls
which had a chilling effect. Two serving Muslim Judges of the Gujarat High
Court, Mr Qadri and Mr Akbar Divecha were threatened and had to flee their
homes. The residence of one was attacked and burnt. A Hindu brother judge who
offered him a safe haven in his own home was reportedly the recipient of
threatening calls. The greatly respected Dr J.S Bandukwala of M.S. Baroda
University, who has devoted his life to communal harmony, was similarly
threatened. Ehsan Jafri frantically phoned for assistance repeatedly, but in
vain. He was cruelly tortured and burnt alive with others in the Gulberg
Society colony in Ahmedabad.
Nothing flies as
fast as rumour, now given wing by electronic technology. Reference had already
been made to rumours of milk supplies being poisoned and a possible rocket
attack on Ahmedabad. According to Ahmedabad´s Police Commissioner, vested
interests spread rumours which created tension and in certain cases became a
self-fulfilling prophecy. What is worse, he says, educated people have
“repeatedly been disobeying curfew restrictions and moving out of their houses
just to participate in rumour-mongering”. He felt that many incidents in
Juhapura and Gomtipur were “initiated” by rumours. (See Annexure 22). Rioting
is becoming an instrument of information war.
Such mischievous
tendencies are best countered by timely and authenticated information.
We heard many accounts, possibly apocryphal, and saw some handbills of “quiet”
districts being marked out for “action” and local politicians and activists
being sent bangles to stigmatize their pusillanimity. This evoking of the macho
spirit must be linked to the feats of “manhood” exhibited by mass rape and
bestiality towards women.
Reporting can be a
hazardous occupation in situations of tension and conflict. Its intrusive
reporting of what some possibly thought would have better been allowed to
remain a quiet vendetta, invited trouble.
Print and TV
journalists told the Guild team of the harassment they faced from VHP and other
activists. In Vapi, activists snatched the camera from an ETV crew but returned
it later. In another incident an ETV cameraman, a Muslim filming a shop being
burnt in Dakor, a pilgrim town, was taken away by activists but later let off.
ETV received threatening calls for showing the severed hand of a Muslim man.
This portrayal was deemed partisan. A Zee TV crew, filming a restaurant being
burnt, was similarly attacked. On February 28, Muslim miscreants in Behrampura
burnt an ANI camera and car and confined the crew in a State Transport bus for
over four hours. An office of Gujarat Today in Ahmedabad was attacked and
damaged. A member of the Guild Team had to deal with an excited VHP mob in the
Ahmedabad Circuit House on April 1.
Ms Medha Patkar,
the NBA activist leader is a red rag to the bull to many in Gujarat for her
opposition to the Sardar Sarovar project. That, however, was no reason for her
to be attacked by an unruly Congress-VHP crowd at Sabarmati Ashram on April 8
while attending a Gujarat peace meeting. The Police rescued her and was leading
her to safety but then suddenly lathi-charged the newsmen covering the scene.
The Chief Minister expressed his regret over the incident and appointed a
one-man judicial inquiry under retired Justice S.D.Dave of the Gujarat High
Court. He was to report by the end of April.
Barkha Dutt of
NDTV reported of vigilantes armed with swords surrounding her car on a Gujarat
highway screaming “what´s your religion?” Hindu, she replied, “privately
cringing for my cameraperson, Ajmal Jami”. (Outlook, March 25).
Indian Express photographers were targeted and its chief reporter, Janlyala
Srinivas, threatened. Its Rajkot man, Parish Joshi was mobbed and his camera
damaged while photographing a shop being set on fire. In Ahmedabad, its
photographer´s flash-gun was damaged though this could have been by accident
when the police was trying to control crowds. In Surat, the Express cameraman
along with a colleague from Sandesh and another media person were attacked by a
Muslim mob. Kerosene had been poured on them but a passing RPF posse was
fortunately able to rescue them in time.
Bhargav Parikh,
the news coordinator of Zee News and Tejas Gondalia, his cameraman were beaten
up and had their camera smashed in Ahmedabad. The Times of India´s Sudhir Vyas
was beaten by the police in Rajkot. NDTV crew had to cry Jai Sri Ram before
their vehicles were allowed to move.
Sonal Kellog of
Asian Age and a local reporter of another paper were barred from entering part
of Surat´s walled city where they had gone to interview a woman who had been
attacked. They were themselves beaten and were unable to file a complaint with
the police. (Hindu, April 9, 2002).
The Resident
Editor of the Indian Express, Mr Virendra Kumar told us that the office van
used for dropping night staff home was routinely and repeatedly searched by
prowling mobs armed with swords and pipes looking for Muslims. Identity papers
had to be shown. All this during curfew hours. A Muslim member of the staff
sometimes slept at the office. Another, finding his house surrounded by a mob,
phoned the office which in turn alerted the police. Mr Kumar himself received a
stream of hate mail accusing the Express of being anti-Hindu. The tenor of what
seemed like an orchestrated campaign was, “You have no right to live in India
and write like this”.
Over and beyond
the dreadful killings and bestiality in Gujarat and a lowering threshold of
tolerance and restraint, what is deeply worrying is the purveying of hatred and
divisive prejudice by narrowly sectarian groups. If wars begin in the minds of
men, so do riots. Children, in particular, need to be taught to be good
citizens and imbued with values conforming to the high ideals of the
Constitution. Textbooks and history must therefore be written and prescribed
with due care.
One of the basic values of the Constitution is Fraternity. Yet one finds some
of the books published and prescribed by the Gujarat State Board of School
Textbooks of poor quality in terms of content, context and style. (It would be
good to look at other states´ textbooks too). Take for example the Social
Studies textbook for Class 9. Chapter 9 is on Problems of the Country and their
Solution. The very first section (problem?) is “minority community” (P 93).
Children are told that “apart from the Muslims, even the Christians, Parsees
and other foreigners are also recognised as the minority communities. In most
of the states the Hindus are in a minority and Muslims, Christians and Sikhs
are a majority in these respective states”. So the Class 9 child is told that
Muslims and Christians are foreigners and that Hindus are in a minority in most
states”.
Reform measures
are suggested for the minority community alongside their economic progress. But
things can go wrong and lead to communal violence. “Therefore a special riot
police force should be raised to tackle such explosive situations” and “victims
of communal violence also should be properly compensated…”. Here, children are
being suggestively told of the perils of communal violence almost as part of
everyday life. Barkha Dutt, quoted above, saw a boy of 10 clutching a bottle of
petrol at one of the barricades she encountered on a Gujarat highway when she
was asked her religion. What was he going to do with it, she asked. “It´s for
self-defence against them”, he said.
Then we come to
“Problems of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes” (P 94). What ails them ?
“They have not been suitably placed in our social order, therefore, even after
independence they are still backward and poor. Of course, their ignorance,
illiteracy and blind faith are to be blamed for lack of progress because they
still fail to realise importance of education in life”. The message: the
Scheduled Castes and Tribes have only themselves to blame for their sorry
plight. (See Annexure 23). The sections on Women and Anti-Social Activities are
not more inspiring.
Class 12 students
sitting for their Board examinations in Gujarat on April 22, 2002 were put to a
grammar test. The English paper asked them to remove the word “if” and rewrite
the sentence, “If you don´t like people, kill them”. This was followed by
another question asking students to rewrite a short passage as a single
sentence. The passage read: “There are two solutions. One of them is the Nazi
solution. If you don´t like people, kill them, segregate them. Then strut up
and down. Proclaim that you are the salt of the earth”. The consternation this
singularly insensitive question understandably aroused was sought to be
assuaged by an official explanation that the passage was culled from
E.M.Forster´s “Tolerance”, a prescribed text and that the question paper was
set last September by a “minority teacher”.
A horrified father
was reported as saying his son had come home agitated and asked whether he
should disown all his Muslim friends. “We are at a loss for words to explain
things to him”, the distraught parent said. (Asian Age, April 23, 2002).
The framing of
school curricula has become a subject of controversy of late. Gujarat is
planning to revamp its curriculum, which is by no means objectionable in
itself. But again the spirit that animates it is important. On January 26,
2002, the first anniversary of the great earthquake that devastated parts of
Gujarat last year, the State Education Department issued a circular to schools
to observe “Dharti Puja”, enclosing a list of shlokas by which to propitiate
the Mother Goddess. This as India enters the 21st millenium and needs to move
fast forward rather than backwards. (See Annexure 12, P 32-35).
There have even
been reports of betting over the riots. Bookies have been placing bets on who
would start riots and where and whether the Gujarat riots would spread to
Rajasthan. There has been betting on the death toll. (Times of India, April
10). So now we have rioting as a blood sport.
The media has long
been subject to formal and informal media codes. Foremost among these are
constitutional and statutory injunctions. Article 19(2) permits imposition of
reasonable restrictions on freedom of speech and expression in relation to “the
security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states, public order,
decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or
incitement to an offence”.
On the onset of
the latest communal outbreak in Gujarat, the Chairman of the Press Council,
Justice K. Jayachandra Reddy issued an appeal calling upon the media “to mould
public opinion on correct lines in regard to the need of friendly and
harmonious relations between various communities and religious groups and thus
promote national solidarity…”.
On April 3 Mr
Reddy noted with deep anguish “that a large number of newspapers and news
channels in the country and, in particular, a large section of the print and
electronic media in Gujarat has, instead of alleviating communal unrest, played
an ignoble role in inciting communal passions leading to large scale rioting,
arson and pillage in the State concerned.” He called once more on the media to
observe “proper norms and standards … and not to distort or exaggerate (and)
not to employ intemperate, inciting and unrestrained language”. The local
papers were particularly enjoined to strict adherence of this norm.
The Press Council
Chairman asked the media “to be peace makers and not abettors, to be trouble
shooters and not trouble makers” in the present situation. He concluded by
reminding the media that contravention of ethical norms in reporting or
commenting on matters pertaining to communal harmony is likely to invite penal
action under provisions of Section 295-A of the Indian penal Code and allied
provisions”. Section 295-A is akin to Section 153 and relates to speech and
writings which wilfully injure religious sentiments and maliciously incite
communal hatred.
In its Report to
the National Human Rights Commission, the Gujarat Government insisted that “the
major acts of violence were contained within 72 hours”. It asserts, however,
that “on account of widespread reporting both in the visual as well as the
electronic media, incidents of violence on a large scale started occurring in
Ahmedabad (and) Baroda cities and some towns of Panchmahals, Sabarkantha,
Mehsana, etc”. The NHRC was not greatly impressed. It referred to Articles
19(1)(a) and I9(2) and went on to express itself “clearly in favour of a
courageous and investigative role for the media”. At the same time, it added,
“the Commission is of the view that there is need for all concerned to reflect
on possible guidelines that the media should adopt, on a ‘self-policing´ basis,
to govern its conduct in volatile situations, including those of inter-communal
violence, with a view to ensuring that passions are not inflamed and further
violence perpetrated”.
Mr L.K.Advani,
Home Minister, urged the media to practice “responsible journalism” when he
addressed the National Union of Journalists at Tirupati on April 6. He deplored
the general decline in media values he sensed in the coverage of the December
13 terrorist attack on Parliament and the more recent events in Gujarat. The
age-old convention of not mentioning the names of communities involved had been
abandoned by a section of the media.
The question of
naming the religious identity of riot victims was the subject of considerable
deliberation in the Second Press Commission, the National Integration Council
and the Press Council. The Editors Guild is seized of the matter. The issue is
undoubtedly highly sensitive and complex. Technology has introduced a new
dimension to the debate, though this by itself cannot be a reason to ignore
content. A balance has to be struck and where it is struck will vary with
circumstances. Barkha Dutt puts it pithily: “Naming the community under siege
in Gujarat was moot to the story. In fact it was the story”. Rajdeep Sardesai
adds: “It was the mob that was determining the pace of events, and not the
channels who were merely reporting what was happening on the ground”.
No iron law can be
laid down. This would be undesirable and even counter-productive. The present
instance of Gujarat itself amply demonstrates the danger of an information
vacuum both in time and content as this is likely to be filled by rumours or
deliberate disinformation, both of which pose dangers.
The golden rule in
all but the most exceptional cases would probably be to portray the facts
honestly and completely while avoiding sensation, gory pictures and details,
strong adjectives and provocative display. Narratives must be placed in context
and balanced over time with other available material. Observance of such a code
will clearly be more onerous for television, especially with regard to
on-the-spot coverage with little or virtually no time for editing. Yet we do
know that the national channels did hold back what they considered might be
inappropriate footage.
Pictures can
excite emotions and inflame passions. Repeated replay of footage of the burning
train and the charred remains of the victims or other scenes of arson and
violence is one of the problems of 24-hour news channels which may have to be
differently addressed. At the same time, photographs can capture the essence of
a tragedy and evoke far more compassion than words. Perhaps the most poignant
image from Gujarat was not of the many dead, but of one living Indian, his face
contorted with fear. It shamed and shocked ordinary people and, hopefully
spurred many of them to think and act positively.
The Editors Guild
has initiated debate on existing codes and practices with a view to reviewing
these and attempting to develop a new framework for guidance in the future.
Other bodies like the Press Institute of India have been engaged in a similar
exercise. Television, especially in relation to 24-hour news channels, is still
a relatively young medium led by young professionals. Pressures are tremendous
and instant decisions have to be taken. Aaj Tak´s Uday Shankar is right in
saying that in covering events live, the news story is “built up incrementally”
as it happens and gets pieced together, filled in, backgrounded and analysed as
events unfold. He told a recent workshop that the channel withheld or heavily
edited particularly lurid footage, “war cries” and the destruction of places of
worship.
Disagreements
about facts and interpretation are best addressed by the right of reply, with
appropriate expressions of regret, corrections and clarifications where
necessary. The Express, for example, carried a story on April 9 about the
distribution of swords and trishuls under the heading “VHP hand in Gujarat´s
weapons of violence”. The VHP Joint General Secretaries, Dr Kaushik Mehta and
Mr Jaideep Patel sent a denial. This was published by the paper together with a
rebuttal by the Express correspondent who basically stood by his story. (IE,
April 24, 2002).
As the dust
settles, the media, jointly and severally, need to review what happened and
what lessons there are for the future. Such introspection should be followed by
consultations with political leaders, both government and opposition,
administrators, police and security officials, and civic and community leaders.
Such interaction would be most useful at both national and state levels.
Consideration needs to be given alongside to developing norms for live coverage
of riots by television and cable networks, naming of communities and such other
matters by appropriate media associations. The Editors Guild of India could
take an initiative in the matter.
Many so-called
“leaders” of destructive movements and even known criminals have been built-up,
even glorified, by the media howsoever inadvertently. There is need for
collective reflection on this issue as publicity and image-building makes
megalomaniacs and crackpots, often puny figures, appear larger than life and
twice as important. Greater circumspection is required in interviewing them and
inviting them to chat shows and panel discussions.
The mischievous role certain Gujarati newspapers cannot be glossed over. Some
of them have been named for irresponsible and unethical journalism in the past
but have regrettably learnt nothing and forgotten nothing. Wilful incitement to
offence, propagation of hate and fuelling disorder are criminal offences. We
accordingly suggest that a high judicial officer be appointed by the Government
to examine the writings of those sections of the media that are prima facie in
flagrant violation of the law and recommend what action, if any, should be
taken against them. It is learnt that the Police Commissioner, Vadodara, did in
fact seek penal action against a leading Gujarati daily; but his superiors did
nothing.
We further suggest
that a similar inquiry be made into the handbills, pamphlets and other
offensive material put into circulation, not always by unknown persons. The
authorship of some of these has not merely been alleged but admitted.
We concur with the
NHRC´s recommendation that “provocative statements made by persons to the
electronic or print media should be examined and acted upon, and the burden of
proof shifted to such persons to explain or contradict their statements”.
Charlatans of every brand must know that they cannot misuse the media with
impunity and get away with it.
None of these matters falls within the purview of the K.P.Shah Commission of
Inquiry. They call for separate scrutiny.
Official information systems, certainly in Gujarat, need immediate overhaul.
Sycophancy and propaganda do not constitute information. They destroy
credibility. There is an obligation on the part of the State to enable the
media to play its true role. It is in its own highest interest to do so. The
media has a constructively adversarial role vis-a-vis the State; but in this
information age it is in a sense part of the larger universe of governance.
According to the
Indian Express (April 28), the Ministry of External Affair´s portal
meadev.nic.in too has indulged in something of a fantasy that does the country
little credit. (See Annexure 24).
Our broad
conclusion is that the national media and sections of the Gujarati media,
barring some notable offenders, played an exemplary role in their coverage of
Gujarat, despite certain lapses, many of them inadvertent or minor. There were,
however, some notable offenders, especially Sandesh and Gujarat Samachar and
certain local cable channels. Technology has introduced a new learning curve
and there are lessons to be learnt, internalised and developed into codes of
best practice. But the notion that the media should shy away from telling the
country how it really is must be firmly rejected. The freedom of the media
derives from the citizen´s inherent right to expression and information. This
freedom carries with it an equally great responsibility that must be honestly
and honourably discharged.
It is not for nothing that the nation´s motto is “Satyameve Jayate”, Truth
Shall Triumph.
Much has been said
one way or the other about the media´s role in Gujarat. This Report, among
others, addresses these issues. However, two glaring negatives stand out.
Ever since
Independence, whenever there has been a national disaster or emergency, natural
or manmade, there has always been an appeal for funds – from the Prime
Minister, Chief Ministers, Governors, chambers of commerce and industry,
Rotarians, NGOs and, above all, the newspapers. Such an appeal serves two
purposes. It helps raise sorely needed money for relief and rehabilitation or
to meet the emergency in question. More than that, it provides opportunity for
thousands and millions of other citizens to reach out to the victims or those
in distress in a gesture of fraternal solidarity and sympathy and to mobilise
support. Newspapers have often vied with one another to lead the field.
This time there was not a single appeal from any quarter, anywhere in or for
Gujarat, some small local groups excepted. The silence was deafening. On being
queried about their strange reticence on this occasion, newspaper editors and
others gave the same reply. On further consideration it was felt that few
contributions might be forthcoming and if this did indeed happen, that would
send out a wrong message.
Not all will
agree. The relief camps in Gujarat, all basically privately run with no more
than rations being supplied by the government, need funds. The media has
covered the distress but has unfortunately found itself unable or unwilling to
help reach out.
We recommend that
that the Guild issues an appeal for a Fund for Gujarat through its members.
Some in high
authority have chastised the Indian media for its role in Gujarat, contrasting
this with the manner in which the American media covered the events of
September 11. Then two situations are not comparable and the reasoning
underlying the homily is specious. What was notable about September 11 was the
alacrity with which the US national and state leadership, led by the President
and New York Mayor, used the media immediately and repeatedly to offer words of
comfort and reassurance and make known their steadfast resolve to deal
resolutely with the crisis. Attacks on some individuals by bigots were
immediately condemned and prosecuted.
In India, the
Prime Minister did not consider it fit to broadcast to the nation, though he
was advised to do so; nor did any senior Government leader. Neither did the
Governor of Gujarat. The Chief Minister did certainly broadcast one or more
peace appeals and met the press for routine briefings. But none of these
functionaries reached out to the bloodied, fearful, tortured people of Gujarat
to give them solace and a solemn assurance that all criminal elements and their
mentors would be put down with a stern and even hand and the guilty brought to
book.
Two most potent
means of rising above the storm, binding India, healing the wounds and rallying
the nation to live by the cherished ideals of the Constitution were pointedly
ignored. In this, the leadership failed the media and the media failed the
people.
The Prime Minister
did, however, speak at a public meeting in Goa on the occasion of a BJP
conclave. It was said his remarks were not fully reported and misinterpreted by
the media. A clarification followed. The full text of his remarks are with us.
It is true that Mr Vajpayee did indeed refer to two facets of Islam, the
compassionate and the militant jehadi. But he too spoke of cause (“the
Godhra”conspiracy”) and consequence (“the subsequent tragedy”). The latter was
“no doubt condemnable but, he asked, who lit the fire? How did the fire
spread?”
At other points,
the Prime Minister spoke of “we” and “they”. He said, “India was secular even
when Muslims hadn´t come here and Christians hadn´t set foot on this soil”.
“They” came with their own modes of worship and “they” too were given a place
of honour and respect. No one thought of converting “them” with force, because
this is not practised in “our religion; and in “our culture” there is no use
for it. (Annexure 25).
This is not the
language of a prime minister and certainly not the language one is accustomed
to hearing from Mr Vajpayee, who spoke with genuine anguish at the Shah Alam
camp in Ahmedabad some days earlier. The words were possibly inadvertent, but
the occasion and the context were certainly misplaced.
The BJP President
spoke of “the provoked and the provoker”, later that same evening when Mr
Narendra Modi´s handling of the situation in Gujarat was proudly acclaimed by
the ruling Party. He appeared to justify medieval vendetta, placing it above
the Rule of Law.
Happenstance perhaps, but on April 23, the Pioneer carried an article by Prafull Goradia, a BJP notable, suggesting what he thought would be a neat solution – that Indian Muslims migrate to Pakistan. (Annexure 26).
Competition for
ratings and circulation can sometimes be negative media drivers with trivia,
with titillation and sensation crowding out more studied reportage and
analysis. The need for political and economic reform in India has been amply
debated, even if action on the ground has been disappointing; but can the same
be said of social reform and analysis of deeper societal changes?
Gujarat has
suffered a terrible tragedy. India too. The dead are gone; ravaged homes and
work places will be restored even if rehabilitation takes time. What next ? Can
one dare accept the partitioning of minds into “we” and “they” and the growing
ghettoisation of Gujarat´s cities within fortified “borders” following every
one of its periodic bloody riots? With Government and governance losing
relevance, are fearful communities (Hindus included) now left with no option
than to enthrone new and more ruthless Godfathers?
How is it that
Gujarat´s famed entrepreneurship has spawned upwardly mobile classes so devoid
of anything other than gross consumerist values that they turn to loot and
acquiesce in arson to “create” real estate? This despite vocalised recognition
of the economic interdependence of the two major communities. Where are the liberal
voices? The Gandhians have been marginalised. The trade unions have been
emasculated with the decline of the textile industry and new cohorts of white
collar workers on the take. Religious leaders have been largely silent or
afraid, though religiosity is rampant and evident in city skylines. The
intellectual and cultural community is isolated. The adivasis are being stirred
up by interested groups. Where is the political leadership? This is a portrait
of a depraved and intolerant society that has displaced Gandhi and Sardar
Patel´s Gujarat. Yet there are many striving to restore lost values. All is not
lost.
The media will and
must continue to turn the searchlight on Gujarat. But there is that underlying
story waiting to be probed and told -if Gujarat and India are not to burn
again.