Like everyone else, I continue to sit transfixed in front of my computer andtelevision screen since the 26th of November. Also, like everyone else, I havemuch admiration for Indian media. Something, however, is slipping. There seemsto be lack of direction and an absence of a deeper analytical understanding ofwhat the media’s role should be in this rather grave situation. Itschoreography of catharsis has taken a dangerous turn.
First, just some basic questions, prompted by sheer personal insecurity. Iremain unconvinced by BarkhaDutt’s passionate defence of NDTV’s coverage of the attacks. I amworried about the way details of airport security are being divulged constantly.While we depend on the media to expose its gaps, perhaps some details should bereported directly to the authorities and not through public outlets? If thereare potential attacks being planned, should there be such open knowledge aboutwhat security arrangements are in place? Very legitimate doubts have been raisedabout the way operations at the Taj were being telecast. There needs to beoversight of the media’s actions, and I would feel safer if such oversight wasin place. By the way, should the confessions of Mohammad Ajmal Amir be narratedby the media as they emerge? Is receiving this word-by-word account really inour interest? And can we have some consensus on his name?
Second, it is commendable that the media has taken on the role of being theconduit of public anger towards our system of governance. However, the system ofgovernance does not consist only of the politicians or the bureaucracy. Ourcelebrities, corporate leaders and the elite more generally are intrinsicelements of this system of governance. They are also the greatest beneficiariesof the system which they now blithely condemn. At the very least, should themedia not raise questions about their complicity -- at the very least the issuesof tax avoidance, tax evasion, land grab, etc. all of which are gains madedirectly from this system of governance? To the contrary, all we see are prettyyoung journalists enamoured by the rants of the great men and women theyinterview. As they ask coyly of their interviwees, "So what would you do tomake a change?", the same generalities follow. This, quite simply, insults themany Indians who are already active in social change. The smugness andpresumptuous demeanour of these suddenly engaged celebrities is impossible tostomach.
Advertisement
The talk shows are worse and their effect even more serious. Suggestions ofwar and carpet bombing and gun ownership are aired regularly and with impunity.Enough is enough chant the divas. Enough of what exactly is enough? This is acountry where the wealth of 40 people equals 30 percent of our $1 trillionnational income and 77 percent live under Rs.20 a day. Enough is enough, surely.But it was not so, until very recently.
In shock (and awe) I watched the other day a rather shrill (and ill-informed)host ask her guests why the Pakistani civil society is not standing by us inthis hour of need. Oh really? Do we stand behind them when unmanned US droneskill innocent civilians everyday? Did we stand behind the children who had theirlimbs blown off on their way to school? Did we stand behind the people of Bajaurwho became refugees in their own country?
This brings me to the final point: there is almost no analysis in the mediaabout how the deep imbroglio in South Asia is a direct consequence of USinvolvement in the region, in particular its actions since 9/11. Remember GeorgeBush’s famous (and ominous) line: "if we don’t fight them there, they willfight us here"? This line is repeated time and again in these terriblychoreographed debates on television. We hear how there have been no attacks onUS soil since 9/11. True, very true. But how? Only by displacing them on toother soils, such as ours. Indeed, this is just another grotesque moment in thebloody history of empire. Remember, how another imperialist at another time,told us how it had saved us by partitioning us? Of course, the blame must lie,as always, with us: for not seeing through these manipulations and for allowingour leaders to use them for their own advantage - in our name. Ironically, thisis also precisely what a large section of the American public has finally cometo regret: that they had allowed the manipulation of fear for political andeconomic gains of some. The two wars, fought on the backs of the Americanunderclass, have wreaked havoc both inside and beyond America’s borders.
The Indian public, now very understandably traumatized and overcome with afeeling of helplessness, needs to be given this wider context. It needs to bereminded of the long history of US intervention in Afghanistan and Pakistan, itsrole in fomenting instability and its destructive oil-hungry militarism since9/11. Its long history of direct support to military dictatorships and armedmilitancy in Pakistan must immediately be brought into this discourse. It may bedifficult at this point in time, as the US has positioned itself as India’sprimary ally in pressuring Pakistan. But it is an alliance they must know theyowe us, for having stoked the fires of conflict (which, of course, we ourselveshave so perversely ignited and kept alive). Similarly, they owe much to theordinary citizens of Pakistan who suffer from the scourge of militarism that theAmerican government and the Pakistani establishment have unleashed on them. Notonly should we not call for a new war, but we should call for an end to allongoing wars, including on our own soil. It would be an unforgivable irony ofhistory if we allow this tragedy to turn us into a local agent of Americanimperialism in South Asia.
I hope our powerful media is up to the task.
Advertisement
Ananya MukherjeeReed is Associate Professor, Political Science at York University, Toronto,Ontario, Canada.
