Will
India Have Its Own World Media On Modi’s Watch?
Saeed Naqvi
Outside SAARC, Chinese Premier Li Keqiang
was the first world leader to call Prime Minister Narendra Modi. This was
followed up by Beijing sending its foreign minister, Wang Yi to New Delhi on
Sunday.
South Block grasped the signals. But
when I opened the newspapers, I could have sworn that a chill was about to
descend between the two countries.
There were no analyses of a new promise
in Sino-Indian relations, possible investment in Indian infrastructure (the
Chinese have $3.5 trillion parked precariously in US banks and treasury bonds),
an interesting China, Japan, US triangle is emerging. Instead, all newspapers
carried extensive coverage of the 25th anniversary of the Tiananmen
Square. All the pieces were passionate indictments of human rights in China,
ironically on a day when the Badaun rape tragedy was shaming us in the United
Nations.
Narendra Modi has been to China on four
occasions as Chief Minister of Gujarat, twice as State guest, feted at the
Great Hall of the People. What, then, was the source of this new found zeal for
human rights in China? Even Prime Time TV had set aside a slot to focus on grim
looking Chinese, marching with candles.
You would have thought the channels had
flown out special teams to Tiananmen Square to cover the event. But this is not
the way the World Information Order functions. In fact nothing was happening in
Beijing. Channels like CNN, combining with the social media, had whipped up
frenzy in Hong Kong which a battery of cameras captured. The footage created
the illusion of a nation commemorating Tiananmen Square.
It was this footage which was made
available to channels across the globe hooked habitually to a grid controlled
in New York and London. The media’s critical faculty has been so numbed over a
century of colonial experience that it cannot, on occasion, separate news from
propaganda.
The hot-and-cold relationship the US has
with China results in wild fluctuations of mood between the two countries.
China’s trade surplus of $200 billion annually represent one facet of the
relationship. And yet the Chinese are viciously needled by Americans too.
Reacting to one such provocation, a Chinese leader became unusually lucid. He
described America as “first class rascal”.
Consider this against another evolving
story. Briefing the media in St. Petersburg, President Vladimir Putin expanded
on the “extraordinarily” new substance in Sino-Russian equation of which $400
billion gas contract is an important part.
Putin also spoke at length on
Russian-India relations, on India’s helpful stand on Ukraine, and the
telephonic conversation he had with Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
This is a sensitive phase for a major
realignment of global forces. Indian stakes are high with the West as well as
with China and Russia with both of which US lobbies are developing adversarial
relations. Hillary Clinton has already given notice (more or less) that she
intends to raise the pitch on Ukraine should she be in sight of the Democratic
nomination for the 2016 elections.
In the world’s eyes, India today is a
vibrant, exciting destination. Public opinion in the country is supportive of
the lines that are opening up with all important capitals. But an aggravation
of West’s confrontation with, say, Russia (even China) will affect Indian
public opinion too. Why? Because the West’s demonization of Russian and
possibly Chinese leaders will also expose Indian public opinion to these
diatribes because we are still locked into the colonial information grid.
The point I am making is this: not
having our own means of covering world affairs, our media ends up using stuff
which is part of someone else’s agenda. It is sometimes inimical to our
interests. Public opinion in India gets manipulated whenever the US throws a
tantrum with, say Bashar al Assad. On Egyptian or Syrian elections we have only
western versions. We do not have a single news bureau in SAARC countries,
China, Japan, anywhere? For the world’s largest democracy, this is something of
a shame.
If we had a news bureau in Kabul, we
would have been much better informed about the attack on the Indian consulate
in Herat or the circumstances in which Alexis Prem Kumar was kidnapped. Must we
depend on Western journalists to inform us about Kabul, Jaffna or Kathmandu?
Must the world’s largest democracy be a passive
recipient of images beamed from news centres controlled by CNN, BBC, Reuters
and Associated Press? This is a disgraceful state of affairs. We must
proceed along with these networks but only as part of a concert of democracies.
What is required is a Public Service
Media not tied to existing systems like Doordarshan or Rajya Sabha and Lok
Sabha TV. It is much easier to start something new rather than reform existing
systems which have developed deep seated habits.
New Delhi gives away billions in
assistance to SAARC neighbours. It must take a leap of faith and concurrently
invest a billion dollars in its own media which must also cover world affairs
as comprehensively as CNN, BBC and Al Jazeera. The returns in power, prestige,
influence and business will be astronomical.
Create a Board of Trustees with someone
with national prestige and credibility as chairman. The Board will insulate
your editorial team from the market as well as the government.
If information is power, it follows that
a control on sources of information is essential to wield that power. It is
also not possible to conduct an independent foreign policy if the sources of
information are controlled by London or Atlanta, Georgia. Those stations will
continue to cast a shadow on our public opinion unless we have a global media
of our own.
#
#
# #
No comments:
Post a Comment