Posted Monday, Mar 01 10:30:22, 2010 on the Hoot
The public information scene in Andhra Pradesh in these days of big expansion of media in the private sector could be a copybook example of what Habermas considered the ‘structural transformation of the bourgeois public sphere’. In this transformation brought about by corporate media, instead of being shaped from critical rational debate and reflection, public opinion has become the manufactured opinion of polls and media experts. According to Habermas, the link between the debate in public sphere and people’s participation in the political process is broken, making the citizen a spectator/consumer of politically manipulated news and entertainment.
However, on a reverse trend, while all of us addicted to the English news channels were plumbing the depths of the earth-shattering controversies like the one around the release of MY NAME IS KHAN, a quiet but significant change in strategy was being tried out by a relatively new Telugu news channel, HMTV.
The demand for a separate state for Telangana is one of the biggest issues to hit media headlines in Andhra Pradesh since the demise of YS Rajasekhar Reddy. The frenzied live coverage of events during the last two months has inspired public interest litigations against the media.
In a significant second judgment that escaped much media scrutiny, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh passed restraining orders on 10 January against several Telugu TV news channels, preventing them from showing repetitive footage of controversial acts and statements that whip up hatred between Andhra and Telangana regions (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/hyderabad/HC-warns-TV-news-channels-against-crossing-the-line/articleshow/5431741.cms). The judge invoked Rule 6 of the Cable TV Networks Rules 1994 punishable under Section 16 of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995. The judge put several Telugu news channels on notice for 6 weeks. He directed “the channels not to transmit programmes which create panic in the minds of the people of this state, programmes which are not verified properly or the speculative ones and also not to hold such debates which are of no use to the public.”
Amid all this, a new kind of programme took shape on HMTV, a 24x7 news channel. The channel first aired the programme called Andhra Pradesh Dasa, Disa on 20 December 2009 at prime time in the evening, when the issue of statehood for Telangana was at its most controversial. Each of the shows (running into its tenth edition) telecast on weekends ran for over 4 to 6 hours at a stretch. The channel received overwhelming public response and viewership, encouraging it to continue the experiment. The first edition was telecast live from Hyderabad, but the later nine shows have been from various major district centres of Andhra, Telangana and Rayalaseema areas. Each of the episodes drew intellectuals, students, community members, labour representatives and others.
The channel gives airtime to any speaker who wishes to express her/his views on the show. The central theme is the political future of Andhra Pradesh state. The show begins with the anchor introducing the theme with the latest developments, and the Chief Editor, Mr Ramachandra Murthy, setting the context and explaining the rules of engagement in the show. Each speaker is invited by the Chief Editor by name and asked to speak for a defined length of time. The speaker gets uninterrupted time. In Telangana area, a person advocating united Andhra Pradesh is given time to speak in detail first. In other regions, a person from Telangana is allowed to present the argument in support of separate state for Telangana.
At a time when opposing points of view are shouted down, whether on a TV show, at a public meeting or in our legislatures (sometimes resulting in physical assaults), the participating audience of the heavily attended shows listen intently and wait for their turn to rebut. The anchor and chief editor intervene firmly, only if any one resorts to personal attacks or digresses from the issue at hand. There is no attempt to cut short, interrupt or provide distorted summaries of the speakers. No famous last words of the anchors reasserting their own views on the issue. The show is for the viewer and without insulting the intelligence of the viewer, the whole spectrum of views is aired.
For a TV audience tired of listening to bickering politicians, wannabe intellectuals and self-important anchors who feel they are steering the fortunes of the nation, it was a revelation to hear the ordinary people’s take on the issue. The clarity of thought, articulation and confidence with which each speaker presented the ideas and the decency with which others listened helped reaffirm one’s faith in democracy. It is a lesson for our worthy legislators that the search for a solution is possible through discussion. The viewers got to know both the complexity of the issue and the historical background to it.
The show is in some senses a conventional talk show but has broken many conventions of the standard ratings-driven talk shows with much success. The show has opened the possibility for television to
• become a public access medium, providing a forum for democratic debate
• facilitate a genuine, critical rational debate even in the present media scene
• provide truly useful information and perspectives on issues of importance
• facilitate informed decision-making by citizens
The show also debunks the myth that today’s audiences have a short attention span and have no appetite for serious information. The show goes to prove that audience is thirsty for useful information that helps them understand contentious political issues. They also respect well-founded views with which they may not agree, following the Aristotelian dictum: It is the mark of an educated man to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
Whatever the final outcome of the movement for separate Telangana state, the maturity of Indian democracy was demonstrated time and again on many occasions in the past few months in Telangana.
One such event that deserves mention is the Vidyarthi Garjana rally held at Osmania University on 3 January 2010. The High Court, after much hesitation, gave permission for the rally to be held from 4 pm to 6.30 pm. Only after the leaders gave written assurances the High Court allowed it. Over1,50,000 students from all over Telangana converged on Osmania campus. They were allowed in only after verifying their identity cards. The sea of students listened to speeches, shouted slogans, sang, danced and dispersed by 6.30 pm without a single untoward incident. It was an extraordinary demonstration of the democratic spirit of the educated youth in India that media forgot to celebrate because there were no clashes to report.
The Andhra Pradesh Dasa, Disa programme of HMTV provides one more cause for the celebration of the democratic spirit, as far as media scene is concerned.
Saturday, 27 February 2010
Wednesday, 17 February 2010
Future of Public Broadcasting in India
Published in The Broadvision,souvenir brought out on the 27th National Convention of the Programme Staff of All India Radio and Doordarshan, 10,11 December 2009, New Delhi
Unless one is Rupert Murdoch, very few people have serious objections to the idea of public broadcasting. It’s almost like motherhood and apple pie. But both the high priest of commercial broadcasting, Rupert Murdoch, and the disappointed votaries of public broadcasting have some serious bone to pick with the shape public broadcasting takes in various socio-political contexts.
Even as it was struggling with colonialism and its brutal impact on its society, India got an early entry into the annals of broadcast history. The early influence of BBC gave it a head start both by way of technology and understanding about what social purpose broadcasting could serve. All India Radio evolved as a self-confident medium uninterrupted for about thirty years after Independence up until 1977. All major cultural talent in India passed through its portals and found its initial moorings there.
Partly from the time television arrived on the scene in a big way in the mid-seventies and much more so with the expansion of electronic media in the commercial sector, the public broadcasters in India feel more and more compelled to be defensive about what they stand for, to be apologetic. The commercialization of the media market was accompanied by strident attacks on the state-run broadcaster. Some popular arguments for attack being, ‘it is not the job of the government to run electronic media’, or ‘Why should public pay for programming that they don’t watch’. While some of the arguments may sound true, it is important to examine what lead to this popular perception.
In this paper, I would like to address these perceptions and the need for clarity on these issues:
a. Not the job of the government to run broadcasting:
This wisdom dawned on the third world intellectuals after President Reagan popularised deregulation in the overall economy and more specifically in the media industries in United States of America. The mid-80s and 90s saw a spate of regulatory fiats which opened up the markets for private sector media players all over the world. The argument was that the private sector is more responsive and will cater to the needs of the market with greater efficiency, while ensuring diversity.
The advent of private broadcasters was greeted with great excitement and anticipation. But soon, the private enterprises’ business priorities made it clear to the consumer/audience that diversity and innovation are not a priority to the private operators. Unlike the state-run broadcasting, neither did private enterprise privilege the cultural and national goals.
The reality of private sector’s actual performance in the marketplace is unfolding before us every day much to the chagrin of parents, teachers and civil society in general. The private sector not only failed to cater to the needs of the people, it chases success formulas, without diversity and without much creativity. It is frenetic, market driven and is changing the cultural landscape of the country into a quagmire of immorality, corruption and violence.
With this experience of what the private sector broadcasting is capable of, there is little doubt that a large section of the population is looking for an alternative. Broadcasting being technology intensive and capital intensive, it is well understood that it is either the deep pockets of big business or the state that can set up broadcasting enterprises.
The Indian state built up a formidable terrestrial broadcasting network over the last 62 years after Independence. The network continues to be the most watched in term of sheer reach to all nooks and corners of the country and cutting across all classes of audience. The miniscule ratings that the satellite channels boast of are no competition to the extraordinary access Prasar Bharati has to its audience. It also serves the interests of a vast rural, poor audience who do not have disposable income and who are not valued as consumers by the commercial media. This in itself is an important contribution.
But the impact of rapid and successful expansion of commercial media industry on Prasar Bharati has been adverse over the years, not so much in loss of commercial revenue but in loss of policy direction. The public broadcaster began to convince itself that to fight this market, it is necessary to lose its essence and to mimic the competition. The successful public broadcasters across the globe have cautiously avoided this and strengthened their programming strategies instead to provide a high quality alternative to the commercial product. It is for Prasar Bharati to rediscover its former clarity of vision and provide healthy entertainment and information to the audience. More than ever, it is necessary for the state to strengthen its broadcast set up to provide a credible alternative to the commercial broadcasting.
The answer to the statement, ‘it is not the job of the government to run electronic media’ is, it is the job of the government to protect the public from the onslaught of commercial media by providing alternate cultural products. India is known to be a very different kind of market. It is well known that subscription channels like the BBC and Discovery are doing well in India. There is a fairly good chunk of audience that is willing to support good programming. Only the larger publicly funded systems (BBC of UK and PBS/NPR of USA) will have the wherewithal to take on the commercial channels. The public broadcaster must revive its faith in its audience and address their cultural needs.
b. ‘Why should public pay for programming that they don’t watch?’
The implication of such a statement is: Commercial broadcasting is providing what the public wants and therefore gets ratings and advertisements. Advertising supported media is free. Expensive media products are generated and delivered to the audience free of cost. This is a myth that has been actively promoted by the media industry and the advertisers. The issue really is what is being watched and in which context and who is paying for what.
Advertising-driven content has many peculiarities to it. Firstly, it assumes much about what the viewer/listener wants and by repeatedly promoting some products and ideas, normalises them. For instance, the newly launched FM stations do not have access to much of high quality music that AIR has. However, by repeatedly playing what is available and presentation couched in bantering conversation with the listener is insidiously making the listening experience ‘interesting’. It is this poor quality product attractively packaged that makes money quickly and moves on to something new, which is the primary characteristic of commercial media business. Some kind of hit and run strategy.
The other is, if any charge is associated with the experience of media products, the scenario will be different, as is evident from Rupert Murdoch’s media empire grappling with the idea of charging for its products. Respected establishments like the BBC (domestic and online, not the world service) are providing very high quality product free AND without the support of advertising, News Corporation is hesitating to charge as it may lose a large segment of its current ‘patrons’. This more or less leads us to the point that the news and entertainment consumer will not pay for what he is supposed to be wanting from his media house if it is to be paid for. Crime, sensationalism and disaster news and mindless entertainment that is advertiser-supported and free to the consumer, will have far lesser chance when the consumer begins to play the role of a ‘rational being’ in the economy and spends only on products he perceives as Value-for-Money. This already operates in the film industry. Films that don’t make the cut fail at the box office. The film-goer will not spend his hard-earned money on a poorly made film. However, he may well see it when it is shown on television ‘free’. This does not give us the liberty to claim that that’s what the audience really wants. Much poor quality programming gets by because it’s there, and it’s free.
There is a need to make the audience aware of the enormous material and cultural cost of advertising to the consumer. By perpetuating the myth that advertiser supported programming is free, we are not just helping to cover up the hidden social and cultural costs of advertising, we are also getting the audience to accept a much poorer standard of programming ... (we cannot be too demanding about what we don’t even pay for, can we? Even if we are, who’s listening?).
Delivering his acceptance speech at the International Press Institute Award 2007, the eminent editor-in-chief of Outlook group of publications, Mr Vinod Mehta* said, “…. content is a mix of what the reader wants and what he does not want. The trick is to marry the two and make money.” More importantly, he concluded, “Really great journalism must do more than merely give people what they want. There has to be room for the unexpected, for stories the public has no idea it wants until it sees them….. “ Ideally, this would be a fitting motto for good public broadcasting too. A good broadcaster also leads audience tastes, doesn’t always follow them.
Common belief about public broadcasting is that it guzzles public money. When public money is invested, it also carries the onus of providing programming that is of use. But in the case of AIR and Doordarshan, the licensing revenues and advertising revenues that they earn are not always available for improving programming. Historically, there has been an obsession with technological expansion at the cost of programming. Added to this, the new mantra of all public enterprises, self-sufficiency.
No public broadcasting enterprise can be expected to survive merely as a profit centre. Expenditure on public broadcasting is an investment in the future of a community. Leaving the cultural landscape entirely to the private enterprise is to abdicate the responsibility of the state in protecting the cultural diversity and integrity of the nation (just as the state is also responsible for the unity and integrity of the country).
Looking to the future….
There is a world-wide debate today to reclaim the cultural space usurped by commercial interests much to the degradation of social life. While there are some reservations on how effective state-run broadcasting can be in doing this, it is an opportune time to ride the public sentiment and regain the lost ground. A public broadcaster’s identity is closely tied to the kind of programmes it can deliver and the value-for money it can create in public perception. For this, the public broadcaster needs firstly to be proud of its achievements; while boasting of a proud legacy, it also needs to get young and speak to a 21st century nation of young people. Be present on the net - on Facebook, Twitter and other sites to create a buzz on important issues that the broadcasters are focusing on. Interestingly, All India Radio is already on Facebook … but wait a minute... it’s not our Aakashvani… it is an Australian music band!
Unless one is Rupert Murdoch, very few people have serious objections to the idea of public broadcasting. It’s almost like motherhood and apple pie. But both the high priest of commercial broadcasting, Rupert Murdoch, and the disappointed votaries of public broadcasting have some serious bone to pick with the shape public broadcasting takes in various socio-political contexts.
Even as it was struggling with colonialism and its brutal impact on its society, India got an early entry into the annals of broadcast history. The early influence of BBC gave it a head start both by way of technology and understanding about what social purpose broadcasting could serve. All India Radio evolved as a self-confident medium uninterrupted for about thirty years after Independence up until 1977. All major cultural talent in India passed through its portals and found its initial moorings there.
Partly from the time television arrived on the scene in a big way in the mid-seventies and much more so with the expansion of electronic media in the commercial sector, the public broadcasters in India feel more and more compelled to be defensive about what they stand for, to be apologetic. The commercialization of the media market was accompanied by strident attacks on the state-run broadcaster. Some popular arguments for attack being, ‘it is not the job of the government to run electronic media’, or ‘Why should public pay for programming that they don’t watch’. While some of the arguments may sound true, it is important to examine what lead to this popular perception.
In this paper, I would like to address these perceptions and the need for clarity on these issues:
a. Not the job of the government to run broadcasting:
This wisdom dawned on the third world intellectuals after President Reagan popularised deregulation in the overall economy and more specifically in the media industries in United States of America. The mid-80s and 90s saw a spate of regulatory fiats which opened up the markets for private sector media players all over the world. The argument was that the private sector is more responsive and will cater to the needs of the market with greater efficiency, while ensuring diversity.
The advent of private broadcasters was greeted with great excitement and anticipation. But soon, the private enterprises’ business priorities made it clear to the consumer/audience that diversity and innovation are not a priority to the private operators. Unlike the state-run broadcasting, neither did private enterprise privilege the cultural and national goals.
The reality of private sector’s actual performance in the marketplace is unfolding before us every day much to the chagrin of parents, teachers and civil society in general. The private sector not only failed to cater to the needs of the people, it chases success formulas, without diversity and without much creativity. It is frenetic, market driven and is changing the cultural landscape of the country into a quagmire of immorality, corruption and violence.
With this experience of what the private sector broadcasting is capable of, there is little doubt that a large section of the population is looking for an alternative. Broadcasting being technology intensive and capital intensive, it is well understood that it is either the deep pockets of big business or the state that can set up broadcasting enterprises.
The Indian state built up a formidable terrestrial broadcasting network over the last 62 years after Independence. The network continues to be the most watched in term of sheer reach to all nooks and corners of the country and cutting across all classes of audience. The miniscule ratings that the satellite channels boast of are no competition to the extraordinary access Prasar Bharati has to its audience. It also serves the interests of a vast rural, poor audience who do not have disposable income and who are not valued as consumers by the commercial media. This in itself is an important contribution.
But the impact of rapid and successful expansion of commercial media industry on Prasar Bharati has been adverse over the years, not so much in loss of commercial revenue but in loss of policy direction. The public broadcaster began to convince itself that to fight this market, it is necessary to lose its essence and to mimic the competition. The successful public broadcasters across the globe have cautiously avoided this and strengthened their programming strategies instead to provide a high quality alternative to the commercial product. It is for Prasar Bharati to rediscover its former clarity of vision and provide healthy entertainment and information to the audience. More than ever, it is necessary for the state to strengthen its broadcast set up to provide a credible alternative to the commercial broadcasting.
The answer to the statement, ‘it is not the job of the government to run electronic media’ is, it is the job of the government to protect the public from the onslaught of commercial media by providing alternate cultural products. India is known to be a very different kind of market. It is well known that subscription channels like the BBC and Discovery are doing well in India. There is a fairly good chunk of audience that is willing to support good programming. Only the larger publicly funded systems (BBC of UK and PBS/NPR of USA) will have the wherewithal to take on the commercial channels. The public broadcaster must revive its faith in its audience and address their cultural needs.
b. ‘Why should public pay for programming that they don’t watch?’
The implication of such a statement is: Commercial broadcasting is providing what the public wants and therefore gets ratings and advertisements. Advertising supported media is free. Expensive media products are generated and delivered to the audience free of cost. This is a myth that has been actively promoted by the media industry and the advertisers. The issue really is what is being watched and in which context and who is paying for what.
Advertising-driven content has many peculiarities to it. Firstly, it assumes much about what the viewer/listener wants and by repeatedly promoting some products and ideas, normalises them. For instance, the newly launched FM stations do not have access to much of high quality music that AIR has. However, by repeatedly playing what is available and presentation couched in bantering conversation with the listener is insidiously making the listening experience ‘interesting’. It is this poor quality product attractively packaged that makes money quickly and moves on to something new, which is the primary characteristic of commercial media business. Some kind of hit and run strategy.
The other is, if any charge is associated with the experience of media products, the scenario will be different, as is evident from Rupert Murdoch’s media empire grappling with the idea of charging for its products. Respected establishments like the BBC (domestic and online, not the world service) are providing very high quality product free AND without the support of advertising, News Corporation is hesitating to charge as it may lose a large segment of its current ‘patrons’. This more or less leads us to the point that the news and entertainment consumer will not pay for what he is supposed to be wanting from his media house if it is to be paid for. Crime, sensationalism and disaster news and mindless entertainment that is advertiser-supported and free to the consumer, will have far lesser chance when the consumer begins to play the role of a ‘rational being’ in the economy and spends only on products he perceives as Value-for-Money. This already operates in the film industry. Films that don’t make the cut fail at the box office. The film-goer will not spend his hard-earned money on a poorly made film. However, he may well see it when it is shown on television ‘free’. This does not give us the liberty to claim that that’s what the audience really wants. Much poor quality programming gets by because it’s there, and it’s free.
There is a need to make the audience aware of the enormous material and cultural cost of advertising to the consumer. By perpetuating the myth that advertiser supported programming is free, we are not just helping to cover up the hidden social and cultural costs of advertising, we are also getting the audience to accept a much poorer standard of programming ... (we cannot be too demanding about what we don’t even pay for, can we? Even if we are, who’s listening?).
Delivering his acceptance speech at the International Press Institute Award 2007, the eminent editor-in-chief of Outlook group of publications, Mr Vinod Mehta* said, “…. content is a mix of what the reader wants and what he does not want. The trick is to marry the two and make money.” More importantly, he concluded, “Really great journalism must do more than merely give people what they want. There has to be room for the unexpected, for stories the public has no idea it wants until it sees them….. “ Ideally, this would be a fitting motto for good public broadcasting too. A good broadcaster also leads audience tastes, doesn’t always follow them.
Common belief about public broadcasting is that it guzzles public money. When public money is invested, it also carries the onus of providing programming that is of use. But in the case of AIR and Doordarshan, the licensing revenues and advertising revenues that they earn are not always available for improving programming. Historically, there has been an obsession with technological expansion at the cost of programming. Added to this, the new mantra of all public enterprises, self-sufficiency.
No public broadcasting enterprise can be expected to survive merely as a profit centre. Expenditure on public broadcasting is an investment in the future of a community. Leaving the cultural landscape entirely to the private enterprise is to abdicate the responsibility of the state in protecting the cultural diversity and integrity of the nation (just as the state is also responsible for the unity and integrity of the country).
Looking to the future….
There is a world-wide debate today to reclaim the cultural space usurped by commercial interests much to the degradation of social life. While there are some reservations on how effective state-run broadcasting can be in doing this, it is an opportune time to ride the public sentiment and regain the lost ground. A public broadcaster’s identity is closely tied to the kind of programmes it can deliver and the value-for money it can create in public perception. For this, the public broadcaster needs firstly to be proud of its achievements; while boasting of a proud legacy, it also needs to get young and speak to a 21st century nation of young people. Be present on the net - on Facebook, Twitter and other sites to create a buzz on important issues that the broadcasters are focusing on. Interestingly, All India Radio is already on Facebook … but wait a minute... it’s not our Aakashvani… it is an Australian music band!
Sunday, 7 February 2010
India is ignoring its citizens
Eric Randolph's thought provoking piece on the free press in India
India is ignoring its citizens
Despite criticism by civil society and the free press, the state is continuing its violent campaigns against Maoists unchecked
o Eric Randolph
o guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 3 February 2010 09.00 GMT
Alongside the great internet firewall of China, the vicious paranoia of Burma's ruling junta, and the lists of murdered journalists in Sri Lanka, India appears as a beacon of free speech and open-minded self-criticism. And yet, for all the vociferous passion of its journalists and activists in calling the powerful to account, the overall impression is of voices screaming into a vacuum.
Nowhere is this feeling more evident right now than on the issue of the left-wing insurgency raging through India's poorest regions. Under the broadbrush moniker of Maoists or Naxalites, these insurgents represent one of the few forms of resistance for villagers and hill tribes against the inequities of continuing feudal structures and the encroachment of global corporations – backed by the state – who treat them as awkward impediments to mining plans.
The Naxalites can be brutal, and the villagers under their control often find themselves unwillingly cut off from health services, education and development. But they have held on to the moral high ground thanks largely to a state response that has been unremittingly heavy-handed: special forces operations, the arming of vigilante groups, the dispossession of land, forced encampment – all accompanied by tales of extrajudicial killings, rapes and, for some godforsaken reason, the chopping off of children's fingers.
India's civil society looks on in abhorrence at what is widely seen as a full-blown war against the poor. Even the government-appointed Council of Experts had to conclude that: "Often any individual who speaks out against the powerful is dubbed a Naxalite and jailed or otherwise silenced. The search for Naxalite cadre leads to severe harassment and torture of its supporters and sympathisers."
Those who try to report these crimes find themselves bundled away to police custody "for their own protection". This has been happening to Sodi Sambo, a 28-year-old woman from Gompar village in Chattisgarh who says she witnessed security forces murder nine of her neighbours in October 2009, and was herself shot in the foot in front of her two small children. She tried to file a complaint, only to find herself under armed guard in a nearby hospital with no visitors allowed and denied the right to travel to Delhi for treatment.
With Amnesty International and the supreme court wading in, her case might just be heard. A couple of troops might even be reprimanded. In the meantime, the operations will continue. Just a fortnight ago, home minister Palaniappan Chidambaram announced another massive offensive across five states, confidently claiming it would target only insurgent leaders. Since no journalists are allowed anywhere near these war zones, we have to take his word for it.
Which brings us back to the issue of free speech, and also its implications for military strategy. One of the key lessons of modern counter-insurgency is that you have to take the voters – and therefore the media – with you. Militaries have long struggled to balance the rights of a free press with the risk that they might record something that damages its credibility. In the west, this took centre stage in Vietnam, which many in the US military felt was a war fought and lost on the evening news and in the pages of Time magazine.
That thinking has led to embedded journalism, military PR departments – even dedicated YouTube channels – which seek to "sell" the campaign back home and abroad. It has made governments acutely conscious of legitimacy, if not for moral reasons, then at least for its impact on operational effectiveness.
In India, however, there seems to be scant concern for legitimacy in the anti-Naxal campaign beyond flagrant attempts to silence witnesses and bar journalists and activists from affected areas. When it does try to justify itself, the government hides behind the argument that the Maoists are impeding economic development that could improve the lives of the poor – ignoring studies that show this model of development may have actually increased the number of poor by 100 million.
The Naxalite issue shows up a yawning chasm between what civil society says and what government does. The failure to listen means the government is losing not just the battle for hearts and minds, but even the physical fight on which it has focused its efforts. Last year, 319 security forces were killed compared with 219 Maoists – an extraordinary tally given the discrepancy in each side's resources.
The fact is that any number of exposés on the wrongs of this campaign has little or no impact on voters with so many other issues and allegiances to consider. Nor does the government fear the opprobrium of the international community, which is preoccupied with winning India's support in Afghanistan and salivating over her enormous defence budgets. The editor of one leading news publication admitted last week that the media's efforts were having "no political impact".
The most pessimistic conclusion to draw is that free speech in India only serves to strengthen those who flout other articles in the constitution. "How can we be authoritarian," the government can protest, "when we allow the media such freedom to criticise us?" Too often, however, the only victory of expression is its freedom to exist, rather than its power to effect change.
Or we can be more optimistic, and take heart in the strength of ideas to gradually permeate through society and perhaps enthuse a future generation of leaders, tired of a system that stands so apart from the moral conscience embodied in its academics, activists, journalists and ordinary citizens, in whose name the brutal price of progress is paid. The superiority of India's civil society must surely, in time, earn it the influence it deserves.
India is ignoring its citizens
Despite criticism by civil society and the free press, the state is continuing its violent campaigns against Maoists unchecked
o Eric Randolph
o guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 3 February 2010 09.00 GMT
Alongside the great internet firewall of China, the vicious paranoia of Burma's ruling junta, and the lists of murdered journalists in Sri Lanka, India appears as a beacon of free speech and open-minded self-criticism. And yet, for all the vociferous passion of its journalists and activists in calling the powerful to account, the overall impression is of voices screaming into a vacuum.
Nowhere is this feeling more evident right now than on the issue of the left-wing insurgency raging through India's poorest regions. Under the broadbrush moniker of Maoists or Naxalites, these insurgents represent one of the few forms of resistance for villagers and hill tribes against the inequities of continuing feudal structures and the encroachment of global corporations – backed by the state – who treat them as awkward impediments to mining plans.
The Naxalites can be brutal, and the villagers under their control often find themselves unwillingly cut off from health services, education and development. But they have held on to the moral high ground thanks largely to a state response that has been unremittingly heavy-handed: special forces operations, the arming of vigilante groups, the dispossession of land, forced encampment – all accompanied by tales of extrajudicial killings, rapes and, for some godforsaken reason, the chopping off of children's fingers.
India's civil society looks on in abhorrence at what is widely seen as a full-blown war against the poor. Even the government-appointed Council of Experts had to conclude that: "Often any individual who speaks out against the powerful is dubbed a Naxalite and jailed or otherwise silenced. The search for Naxalite cadre leads to severe harassment and torture of its supporters and sympathisers."
Those who try to report these crimes find themselves bundled away to police custody "for their own protection". This has been happening to Sodi Sambo, a 28-year-old woman from Gompar village in Chattisgarh who says she witnessed security forces murder nine of her neighbours in October 2009, and was herself shot in the foot in front of her two small children. She tried to file a complaint, only to find herself under armed guard in a nearby hospital with no visitors allowed and denied the right to travel to Delhi for treatment.
With Amnesty International and the supreme court wading in, her case might just be heard. A couple of troops might even be reprimanded. In the meantime, the operations will continue. Just a fortnight ago, home minister Palaniappan Chidambaram announced another massive offensive across five states, confidently claiming it would target only insurgent leaders. Since no journalists are allowed anywhere near these war zones, we have to take his word for it.
Which brings us back to the issue of free speech, and also its implications for military strategy. One of the key lessons of modern counter-insurgency is that you have to take the voters – and therefore the media – with you. Militaries have long struggled to balance the rights of a free press with the risk that they might record something that damages its credibility. In the west, this took centre stage in Vietnam, which many in the US military felt was a war fought and lost on the evening news and in the pages of Time magazine.
That thinking has led to embedded journalism, military PR departments – even dedicated YouTube channels – which seek to "sell" the campaign back home and abroad. It has made governments acutely conscious of legitimacy, if not for moral reasons, then at least for its impact on operational effectiveness.
In India, however, there seems to be scant concern for legitimacy in the anti-Naxal campaign beyond flagrant attempts to silence witnesses and bar journalists and activists from affected areas. When it does try to justify itself, the government hides behind the argument that the Maoists are impeding economic development that could improve the lives of the poor – ignoring studies that show this model of development may have actually increased the number of poor by 100 million.
The Naxalite issue shows up a yawning chasm between what civil society says and what government does. The failure to listen means the government is losing not just the battle for hearts and minds, but even the physical fight on which it has focused its efforts. Last year, 319 security forces were killed compared with 219 Maoists – an extraordinary tally given the discrepancy in each side's resources.
The fact is that any number of exposés on the wrongs of this campaign has little or no impact on voters with so many other issues and allegiances to consider. Nor does the government fear the opprobrium of the international community, which is preoccupied with winning India's support in Afghanistan and salivating over her enormous defence budgets. The editor of one leading news publication admitted last week that the media's efforts were having "no political impact".
The most pessimistic conclusion to draw is that free speech in India only serves to strengthen those who flout other articles in the constitution. "How can we be authoritarian," the government can protest, "when we allow the media such freedom to criticise us?" Too often, however, the only victory of expression is its freedom to exist, rather than its power to effect change.
Or we can be more optimistic, and take heart in the strength of ideas to gradually permeate through society and perhaps enthuse a future generation of leaders, tired of a system that stands so apart from the moral conscience embodied in its academics, activists, journalists and ordinary citizens, in whose name the brutal price of progress is paid. The superiority of India's civil society must surely, in time, earn it the influence it deserves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)