Media Crawled During Emergency. Today Is Its Spine
Straight?
Saeed Naqvi
It is not a
complaint but rather a reflection on the general state of play: in my 50 years
of journalism, Narendra Modi happens to be the only Prime Minister I have never
met. Whenever I tried meeting him years ago I was directed to Vinay Sahasbudhe
of the RSS. In his very polite way he was able to transmit the message:
meetings with Modi were not going to be the order.
New Delhi,
once the world’s favourite haunts for journalistic banter, could now be among
the world’s least informed capitals. Newswise, Mumbai, Kolkata, Chennai,
Lucknow became livelier. In the absence of information, anchors and journalists
fell back on the tedium of speculating on the outcome of this by-election, that
state election, gathbandhan or Mahagathbandhan, caste or communal and so on.
For the
unending war, now in its 18th year in Afghanistan, show me one
discussion on the electronic media. Or, for that matter, in print. Wait
patiently until the Indian Express reproduces the main editorial of The
Economist explaining the state of play in what is our backyard.
Afghanistan is
not an exception. The once Hindu Kingdom of Nepal has been explained to us by
BBC, CNN, New York Times, Reuters. The vibrant arenas for cockfights which pass
for our news channels have no bureaus in Afghanistan, Nepal, Bangladesh,
Maldives, Sri Lanka, Myanmar, China, Russia, the UK, US, nowhere. Just one
formula:
Udhar raqeeb
idhar hum bulay jaatey hain
Ki daana daal
ke murghe laraye jaatey hain
(Me from this
side, rival from the other
Toss some
corn, and there begins the cockfight)
The Prime
Minister in his very first speech in the Lok Sabha in May, 2014, had talked of
ridding the country of “ghulami” or intellectual servitude. If the Prime
Minister is as good as his word, he should immediately take note of this
monopoly of the foreign media. Gandhiji was all for windows to be kept open so
that influences from all sides can enter – and depart. The Prime Minister swears
by nationalism; I call it self-esteem. Both are bruised if India’s ruling elite
is captive to Anglo-American media only, in the coverage of International
Affairs.
Despite the
fact that Russia, China and Iran are not liberal democracies, all three have a
large number of bureaus across the globe. They make effective interventions
whenever the Western media slants the story against them. In the 2019 elections
the world media went to town against “the Divider in Chief”. Did Modi’s cohorts
ever think of challenging the affront? If they tried to they would discover
that the world’s largest democracy does not have the means to reach audiences
beyond its shores.
Modi’s experience
with the media is limited. In his earliest stages his exposure was to a hostile
media which implicated him in the Gujarat pogrom of 2002. Later his core team
with inputs from such groups as APCO, an international consultant, helped build
brand Modi which did not need the media in its normal newsgathering and column
writing avatar. The process of branding did not require him to dwell on the
economy, which he knew was in a shambles. He was advised by his marketers to
dwell on an “intangible” theme, which had emotive power. Pakistan was amplified
as a hate object and publicly flogged at Balakot; Modi’s rhetoric served as the
accompanying sound effect. “Ghar mein ghus ke mara” or “bash him in his house”
is the language of gangsters but then even Robin Hood was an adorable outlaw.
Does Modi need
the media at all? Ofcourse he does. The Modi project would be stillborn without
the media, but he needs a “captive” media, not a “critical”, independent one.
This entails a
two tier media policy. Modi will be exempt from media interrogation. He will
make appearances calculated by his core team only to enhance his charisma and
serve some critical purpose.
Where interaction
with the media will be essential is, say, the Ministry of External Affairs. Otherwise
unfiltered material will saturate the alternative space. Moreover being on
talking terms with the media enhances a general sense of ventilation. Let me
give an example of a seemingly innocuous story which served the national
purpose in an unexpected way.
A Joint Secretary
from the MEA, my Deep Throat, working with Prime Minister Morarji Desai’s team,
accosted me outside his office and invited me to his room for coffee. His princely
friends from Jaisalmer and Barmer had sent him photographs (which he showed me)
of private jets from Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the UAE landing at air force
runways. These luxury aircraft were lined with scores of hooded falcons and
equipment for palatial tents to be erected in the desert.
The Shaikhs of
Araby had identified the desert around Jaisalmer and Barmer as the world’s
finest hunting ground for the Great Indian Bustard, the most handsome of birds.
Environmentalists had seen a sharp drop in the bustard population. If falconry
was not discontinued the bird would be extinct. Deep throat managed to obtain
written orders to the district authorities in Rajasthan. The story appeared on
page one. A senior MEA official travelled all the way to the Shaikh’s luxurious
hunting ground. They were requested to pack up their tents. I had not realized the
story would spread like forest fire. It gathered momentum as a national
campaign. The Great Indian bustard was saved and all because of one conscientious
objector. All nature lovers owe him a word of thanks. Just as the Deep Throat
of Watergate was eventually revealed, I think there is no harm in revealing the
savior of the Great Indian Bustard. He is an ailing man today. Infact, quite
ironically, Deep Throat has lost his voice. His name is Vinod Grover, once our
ambassador to Ankara, The Hague and Nairobi.
# # # #
No comments:
Post a Comment