When the Pakistan foreign office summoned the Indian deputy high commissioner to protest against the killing of one of its soldiers on January 6 in an unprovoked cross-border raid, New Delhi said nothing much had happened. The Indian army had merely opened fire to thwart an infiltration attempt from the Pakistani side. An infiltration attempt at the height of snow, and in the midst of a diplomatic thaw? The Pakistani army is at it again, the Indian media concluded, they scuttle peace every time. “Pakistan violates ceasefire, yet again,” said Mail Today.
On the morning of January 8, there was another incident. This time, India said two of its soldiers had been killed in a cross-border raid. Pakistan denied it. Curiously, the Indian media went to town with the word “beheading” in the headlines; but the reports did not give details of the decapitation—no official quote, no name of the beheaded soldier and so on.
A statement issued by Rajesh K. Kalia, spokesman for the Indian army’s Northern Command, called it “yet another grave provocation”. But many headlines ignored the “yet another”. Kalia’s statement said: “Two soldiers, Lance Naik Hemraj and Lance Naik Sudhakar Singh, laid down their lives while fighting the Pak troops.” But, take note, it did not make any mention of the bodies being mutilated or beheaded.
So how was the media going to town with reports of mutilation or beheading? The Hindu attributed it to “sources”. NDTV’s defence correspondent attributed the information to “senior army sources”, and the Hindustan Times to “a top army official not wishing to be named”. This report said the headless body was that of Lance Naik Sudhakar Singh; it later turned out to be Hemraj Singh. A PTI report named its source: Brig J.K. Tiwari, deputy commander of the 25th Division. According to Tiwari, “one head was severed and another body was beheaded. It (the head of a jawan) has not been recovered... probably, they have taken it along with them”. (Was the severing of a head different from a beheading? Was one person beheaded, or two? Never mind the details.) The missing head, the report said, was of Lance Naik Sudhakar Singh.
You cannot blame the media for this confusion, which lasted at least two days, because there was no official word. But at least one reporter, Dean Nelson of the London Telegraph, thought it important to call up the Indian army’s chief spokesperson, G.L. Narasimhan, who said one body had been mutilated but he could not confirm if there was a beheading.
I looked for official confirmation of the beheading in, for instance, the defence minister’s statement on January 9 but there was none. By evening that day, Reuters quoted Kalia, saying there was no beheading. On the same day, Pakistan asked the United Nations to investigate the January 6 incident and asked India to also seek an investigation of the January 8 incident to prove the charges it was levelling. But India refused. By January 10, Indian army officers were talking about the beheading on TV news but there still was no official statement.
It was only after Pakistan officially pointed out that India hadn’t officially said that a soldier had been beheaded that Col Jagdeep Dahiya, a spokesman for the defence ministry, issued a statement: “It is clarified that Pakistan has quoted the initial press release given by the spokesman of Indian army’s Northern Command, on 08 Jan 2012, when the details of the incident were still not clear.... Subsequently, on the same day, the Indian army made a statement that the body of one soldier was mutilated. Both these statements were made based on information available at the time of making those statements...it is reiterated that the body of one soldier was found mutilated and beheaded, the body of [the] second soldier was also mutilated.” It went on to say that earlier statements did not mention the decapitation because there wasn’t enough clarity. In other words, it took the Indian defence establishment four days to confirm whether or not a soldier was beheaded.
The best confirmation of the beheading could have been from the unfortunate family of the soldier. But the media downplayed why the family of Lance Naik Hemraj Singh sat on hunger strike. A report in The Hindu quoted his brother: “What was brought to us was a body covered in a white sheet. Now, it could be anyone’s body! We were not allowed to see what was inside,” he said, highlighting that he had spent his childhood with Hemraj and knew that his brother had a mole on the back. “I would have checked it, but they didn’t allow me to do that.”
What does all this say about the Indian defence establishment? It first told us of the decapitation by letting the news slip out through anonymous sources; then, it refused to confirm whether there had been a decapitation; then again, it said there had been a decapitation; and once again said there wasn’t one before denying its denial. The media did not question the establishment on its tying itself up in knots.
News reports—this time from unnamed civilian sources—that gave an alternative narrative did not have much of an impact on the war-mongering on TV news, which some say is itself becoming a national security hazard. The Hindu’s grandmother story was the most important of these narratives. The report said that a grandmother who crossed the LoC to be with her family raised alarm bells on the Indian side and the Indian army started building observation bunkers in violation of the 2003 ceasefire agreement. This was the root cause of the escalation of tension on the LoC. Various details proferred in this story were denied by the defence ministry but not this part: “Last year...two Indian soldiers were beheaded in an attack on a forward position by a Border Action Team (of Pakistan).” Indian special forces responded by targeting a Pakistani forward post, killing several soldiers, said the report, and, by the account of one military official, which The Hindu could not corroborate independently, beheaded two. Saikat Datta’s report in the DNA said that it was the Indian army that started this round of hostilities, and by now, everybody had forgotten the claim that militant infiltration was responsible for the January 6 incident.
Buried inside a report by Shishir Gupta in the Hindustan Times was the claim that two Indian soldiers were beheaded in July 2011 and “three months later, heads of three Pakistani soldiers went missing, with Islamabad lodging a protest with New Delhi.” Don’t you love it that while Indian soldiers are beheaded, Pakistani soldiers’ heads go “missing”—as though they detach themselves from the bodies of the soldiers and just disappear? The report also claimed that similar beheadings (of Indian soldiers) and heads going missing (of Pakistanis) had taken place in 2000, 2003 and 2007. When Admiral Lakshminarayan Ramdas (retd), former chief of the Indian navy, tried to say on Barkha Dutt’s show on NDTV that the Indian army has also beheaded Pakistani soldiers, he was cut short by Dutt. But in 2001, Dutt had herself written that she had seen a head displayed as a war trophy by the Indian army during the Kargil war in 1999. Two other journalists were not shy of recalling similar experiences: Sankarshan Thakur of The Telegraph (on his website) and Harinder Baweja of the Hindustan Times on Twitter.
If these incidents happen so often, why did anonymous sources in the Indian army decide to use the defence correspondents to make it seem like an unprecedented provocation from Pakistan? There is little doubt that the beheading of a soldier, and the taking away of his head as a war trophy is sickening and outrageous and every such incident should come to light. But it should also remind us of the brutalities of war, and that the LoC is a ceasefire line where hostilities have merely been halted until the next battle; that the two armies stand eye-to-eye there because of the Kashmir dispute; that Jammu and Kashmir is not a settled question. Such thoughts are apparently anti-national. And bad for TRPs.
(The writer is with Kafila.org)
Edited online: The print version of the article has a typo and erroneously says, "By evening that day, Reuters quoted Kalia, saying there was no mutilation." This has been corrected in the copy above which now reads: 'By evening that day, Reuters quoted Kalia, saying there was no beheading."
Cheap Logomachy exposes the role of mass media in mobilising public support to further the interests of fringe elements in the LoC affair. And everyone knows how our corporate-controlled big media ‘manufactures consent’ among the people. They select targets, they determine the boundaries, they shape discussions, they control the flow of information.... Such media outlets must be held accountable for the wilful and malicious propaganda they put out.
Really must file a RTI and see how this publication company is alive. Maybe these hate monger leftists like SV do their articles for free. Pathetic Creep
//the LoC is a ceasefire line where //
Exactly, my red friend! In war, you expect such barbaric behaviour. It is not too uncommon.
It doesn't make it legitimate, but it is possible to move on. But we thought it was ceasefire? yes, firing and killings happen. But this behaviour is typical of certain tribal mindsets found in Pakistan.
However, the intensity and the frequency of these incidents within Pakistan and of course, outside, is spectacular. They do it in Pakistan against their own people and do it against us infidels. It has happened in the last century & for centuries before as well.
There is a certain kind of religious and ethnic tribal fanaticism that exists over there that enables people to do this without feeling an iota of guilt.
Beautiful and objective journalism still exists. The article primarily exposes the role of mass media to mobilize public support for the special interests of fringe elements in the ranks of Indian Govt and also their disrupting abilities.
Clearly, the purported defense against some foreign danger has become instruments of tyranny at home. The corporate media has grown just too powerful and purchasable to manufacture consent amongst the populace. They set the agenda, they select targets, they determine the boundaries, they shape discussions, they control the people, the flow of information and they even restrict to serve their dominant bosses to achieve their goals.
While the talk of containing the maverick mass media is a taboo, we ought to device strategies to counter its ill-effects. The media has to be accounted for what it willfully and maliciously hides and that if revealed could diffuse tensions and promote some peace.
Nationalism is indeed a disease that has made monsters out of normal people…and the butchers who behead each other are regarded as Heroes in their respective countries.
there is a class of psuedo intellectual in India who loves to appear above the fray, but they only reveal their own stupidiy. The beheading is not in dispute. The reason why such incidents become news is hard to say, but it usually reflects some kind of "tipping point". Why does some murder or rape make the news, when there are dozens of such incident daily. You could write a thesis on it.
The writer ignores the wider background, the history of Pakistani sponsored terrorism, the supressed rage from the 26/11 attack that is now dismissed by the Pakistanis as inconsequential, the passivity of the Indian state. Only now Pakisitanis can quote articles from "kafila" and outlookindia" to feel even more smugly satisfied. What you are doing is setting up the justification, or even narrative, for the next terrorist attack. Thanking you Sir
I am not sure why the author is barking at media if he agrees that incidence like this should come to light. Just because they did not in the past that does not mean that media should not report them now. The same argument was used by some sickos for outage against rape. We cannot have a normal relationship with Pakistan if we are going to have war like situation at LOC.
We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism
1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.
2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads
3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site
4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.
5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT
6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.
7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.
8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.
9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:
a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you
10. We have an online thread for our comments policy:
You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT