Terror attacks and the symbolic message

This has not been the first time; and it may not be the last time either. The scenes are becoming that much more routine and common. In the last seven months or so over 500 people have been killed – most of them innocent civilians – in merciless terror attacks in major cities like Hyderabad, Ahmedabad, Delhi, Guwahati, Malegaon and now once again Mumbai, by both Islam and alleged Hindu terrorists.
The audacity with which these terror attacks are carried out is one angle to these rampant strikes. What is even more shocking and terrifying, especially in the present Mumbai terror, is the obvious message that comes alive as a powerful symbol: India is a haven for terrorists and easy target to vent someone’s anger on someone else. The almost complete failure of Indian intelligence during this terror strike can only further destroy the faith of common man in the State. The life of common man has come to naught, what with he/she finding no security anywhere. Indeed it is surprising that the Mumbai city which is on the shore of the sea had such poor security with hardly any coast guards or security agents at important places like the India Gate, that the terror outfits could sneak in so casually and hold the entire city to ransom.
If we look around the world and see we should further be troubled to learn that no other country, including Pakistan, has had so many and such brutal terror strikes in the recent past. The USA had one major attack – the 9/11. That’s it. After that no one ever heard of any kind of terrorism in that country. Similar was the case in the U.K. After minor terror strikes in 2001 and Glagow international airport car bombings in June 2007, no one heard of terrorists holding the cities to ransom. Only in India can such terrorism be meted out on innocent civilians and how. This is because the powers that be are either afraid to act or they do not have the political will to respond. They did care, of course, about themselves – when the Parliament was attacked on December 13, 2001. Democracy was under attack, they said, as though democracy contained only in the stony Parliament structure and had nothing to do with civilians.
It is now or never. Unless the state acts immediately, these strikes will only increase. Terrorists, whoever they are, have to get a strong message that India and Indians cannot be an easy prey for their hate mongering. Passing anti-terror laws like the POTA and MCOCA will not deter the terrorists from carrying out their sinister designs. What India, at this stage needs is stringent security measures in places of high human activities like railway stations, bus shelters, government offices and also market places. Further, we cannot fight the disease by fighting the symptoms. One needs to go to the root of the problem and see why India is an easy target for the militants. Our think tank has to deliberate seriously, pooling together the resources of the experts in the subject and then act accordingly. Only thus can the terrorists get a strong message and not otherwise. The common people are not asking authorities to provide them with z type of security. What they are just asking is to at least keep cities and towns safe for them to freely move around. If the state cannot do even this much, then it has indeed no credibility to be in power. The common man only hopes that the honourable Home Minister will at last take this wake up call seriously.
As for the media, it was a heyday of sorts. What one viewed on TV, as described by the anchors, may not have been the actual scene on ground zero, even if it was tense and frightening. What one saw throughout the day on TV was melodrama and great work of dramatics doled out by the TV journos. Of course, electronic media is all about dramatisation as journalists there are expected to describe and visualise news. But we till now thought that it was not to be melodramatic and Bollywood style narration. With Barkha Dutts and Rajdeep Sardesais and Arnab Gosamis vying with one another for viewers’ attention, you could only forgive them their misdemeanor.

Power politics and a not-so-sure media

Politics is always about power. But Indian politics is also about power at any cost. That is the message the common people receive always. This time around, it was more vivid than ever. Indian politicians – well, most of them – are concerned about power and only about power and nothing else. They do not seem to be concerned whether people are killed or cities and towns are being burned down by militants.
Take a few examples of recent past: there was a clear case of booking Raj Thakre under the National Security Act. He has already over 80 cases registered against him. This time, though, he went about fearlessly inciting violence and challenging the government to arrest him at its own cost. But the Vilasrao government was not interested in acting tough. Arrest him they did. But we knew it was a token arrest. The reason is obvious. The Congress party does not want Raj Thakre to stop his pranks, as he is a threat not so much to the ruling coalition as the Shiv Sena itself. It is just trying to use Raj Thakre as a weapon to wipe out Shiv Sena from Maharashtra, as they drove away the left parties using Bal Thakre in the seventies. However, it has not been an easy task for them, as the North Indians form a major part of their vote bank. Raj Thakre for them seems a greater choice than North Indians.
Another clear example is the recent Assam blasts and how political parties tried to cash in on them. No sooner was the State rocked by terror attacks than opposition party leader L. K. Advani began the blame game, holding Bangladeshi militants responsible for the blasts. Our politicians, it seems, have an unimaginable sixth sense which can get to know the cause of incidents even before they can be investigated. While it is true that the UPA government is slow on terror, taking into consideration the possible alienation of a community (their vote bank), it is also unfair on the part of the BJP to terrorise a community, holding it responsible for all the terror in the country.
Unfortunately for the BJP, it had to face the turn of events. And it was a very embarrassing situation as well, to see one of the hardcore VHP leaders being arrested in connection with the Malegaon blasts. It is interesting to see how BJP leaders are trying to hold their nerves together and putting up a brave face. “Let the law deliver justice; but let us not try and accuse someone when investigations are underway,” they say. But the Rudys, the Ravi Shankar Prasads and their ilk have no problem delivering ‘justice’ to those arrested from other communities, even before they being convicted by court.
Media, especially the English press, have given quite good coverage to Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur. However, media are in a piquant situation. Till now they used the terminology ‘Islamic terrorists’ or ‘suspected Islamic terrorist’, almost associating terrorism with Islam. But they have been slow to use the phrase ‘Hindu terrorist’ or not even ‘suspecting’ Hindu terrorists. Terrorists are terrorists, irrespective of their religion. Media seem not to be sure as regards Hindu terrorists and are waiting for the court to decide it. This only means that media are being very partisan as regards terrorists.

Politics of violence

It was indeed quite a sight to watch Navin Pathnaik, the Orissa Chief Minister, grilled mercilessly by Karan Thapar on CNN-IBN in the Devil’s Advocate programme. Only Thapar can do what he is best at: ask straight forward, relevant and challenging questions, without mincing words. Earlier, several leaders, including L. K. Adwani and Ram Jethmalani have walked out of Karan’s programmes, finding him impossible. Fortunately, Pathnaik withstood the ‘onslaught’, even as he fretted, frowned and almost sweated it out in the confines of the air-conditioned studio.
What one has to admire is Pathnaik’s resolve and consistency throughout the interview, denying allegations that not even the minimum was done to protect Christians when they were attacked in Orissa. He went on to say that everything possible was done to stop violence. However, one cannot still understand why Christians are living in such fear in Kandhamal and neighbouringdistricts. One even fails to reason why the government is shying away from acting tough on those who are out to destroy Christians in Orissa, even after such international pressures. There have been reports of hundreds being converted (not re-converted, for they were not Hindus but tribals before accepting Christianity) to Hinduism by force. And if conversion by force is a crime, why not punish these self-styled protectors of Hinduism? Why this double deal?
The answer lies not so much in the communal as the political angle of the development. Parties have realised that one of the best way to come to power and stay there is to polarise people on communal lines, kill some if you must and sow the seeds of hatred among the dominant class. Modi did it to near perfection in Gujarat . He is the model for most political parties, even as some of them do not wish to accept it openly. Raj Thakre is doing that in Mumbai. Unfortunately, the Congress and several other so called secular parites have their own agenda and hence are ambivalent as far as taking a clear stand on Hindutva politics is concerned.
We pride in calling ourselves the largest democracy. But I think we need to ask ourselves whether this democracy on which we have placed our trust is able to give all citizens security guaranteed by the Constitution. Why should some live in eternal fear while others roam about fearless terrorising and killing people? Why is that political parties, including the ‘secular’ ones, care little about people, especially the poor, when they call themselves public servants? The answer is very simple: altruism may be a pan-Indian virtue, propagated in our religious heritage; but that is not a virtue to be imitated as regards modern politics is concerned. Most of today’s political parties, including the Left, have compromised heavily on ideologies and are busy strengthening their base at any cost. While the Congress tries its traditional means of wooing subalterns and minorities, the BJP is anti-intellectual and playing, as usual, its Hindutva card. The Left are Marxists on paper. But their recent adventures in Singur and Nadigram only prove the fact that they are out to convert Marxism into neo Capitalism. Meantime, Media are content to maintain the status quo instead of critically evaluating such developments.

A Wednesday - the arrival of the common man

Is anybody taking the common man seriously? R. K. Laxman’s common man in Times of India is merely a mute spectator to everything that happens around him. Perhaps he is wise as he knows that talking may not help much in easing uneasy situations.
But the common man in the film A Wednesday is not dumb. In fact, throughout the film he talks the most, and rightly so; because his only desire is that he be taken seriously. For long he has been kicked around like a soda can on the streets. No more! Now he has risen, with vengeance. So what if his means are unethical and too technical? His ultimate aim is quite clear, at least to him. And for that he is ready to take a risk. His worth is acknowledged at the end by the web hacker who accepts that this common man is ‘the best’.
A Wednesday raises many questions. Does not the common man have any other means to make his presence felt than hold the entire city to ransom? Does he require ‘blackmailing’ as his weapon to announce his arrival? Does he think he can thus clean up the mess around him? When Inspector Rathod tells him on his face that he is a coward, afraid to come in the open and fight, the common man has no issues. He quite plainly accepts that he is afraid. But more afraid is he to go to market, catch a suburban train; for he thinks he is not safe anymore. He does not know when the next bomb will go off. He is made to be resilient, not by choice but by force.
Is the common man taken seriously, at least in the film? For a while, yes. There is no other choice. One cannot take risk with situations where lives of thousands of people are involved. So he is taken seriously, not as a common man, but as a supposed terrorist. But whether he succeeds in representing all common people is a further intriguing question.
A Wednesday indeed is a good film with a simple but effective plot. Neeraj Pandey has done a commendable job; so have the actors, especially Naseeruddin Shah as the common man and Anupam Kher as the Inspector. The main plus point of the film is that it makes the audience think. The hapless common man among the audience who has witnessed the mindless terror attacks in the bylanes and subways will surely identify himself with the common man in the film. It will further give him a cathartic effect. For a while, the common man in the audience might as well think that the path chosen by the common man in the film to tackle terrorism could as well work, what with technology coming handy. But whether technology can be a solution for all evil in the world and whether an ordinary common man has the access to such sophisticated, almost out-of-reach, technology is even more difficult question.
One thing, though, is certain. The film makes a bold statement from the perspective of simple ordinary people – do not take us for a ride; take us seriously. Give us a sense of security which is what we are asking for, not your empty promises.

Media becoming communal?

“Journalists say a thing that they know isn't true, in the hope that if they keep on saying it long enough it will be true.” - Arnold Bennett

People being divided on communal lines, though unfortunate, is nevertheless acceptable. Political parties sadistically trying to get political mileage out of communal politics, though difficult to accept, is still understandable; for, at the end of the day a politician will only look for his survival in the political fray.
But how can we understand journalists and media professional openly declaring their communal ‘credentials’? This is exactly what has been happening in Mangalore in the last few weeks. Very many reporters were indirectly, if not directly, involved in some sort of communal tension. There were also reports of reporters actually abetting communal violence. However, greater violence was done through their reportage. At least a few of them had the audacity to put the entire blame on the Church. They were resistant to at least accept that violence on minorities, on whichever pretext, was not acceptable in a democracy.
Why is such a development taking place among media professional? Do these journalists also experience some sort of insecurity that they need to align to some political party or communal organisation? Or do they slavishly accept the order of their superiors? It could be both. But the question is how can we call all that journalism? Reporters are supposed to be objective, at least when it comes to reporting sensitive issues. They are not to show any leaning to any political party. All that is good wisdom; but in reality, there is nothing called objectivity in journalism anymore. If one has to be objective one has to give up all adjectives. If a reporter calls a murder ‘brutal’ he is already giving his opinion. Or if a reporter terms Bishop Moras’s interaction with the CM as ‘lambasting’, we cannot call it objective, as Bishop may not have lambasted the CM. He may have just voiced his concern, of course, with a little impatience and anger.
So objectivity is relative. Nevertheless, objectivity should necessary be the ultimate goal of a journalist and he/she should strive to be objective at every beat.
What we have seen in the reportage of Karnataka violence is a subjective approach by many reporters, increasingly adding subtle comments to their reports. There was this lady of a news channel. After covering the Mangalore incident on one of those days, she added an unsolicited comment, ‘Unless there is serious rethinking on conversion, such incidents can only repeat,’ (or to that effect). First of all, has she to add her ‘wise’ comments in a report that is so sensitive? Secondly, who has given her the authority to evaluate constitutional rights? Thirdly, has someone told her that such violence will continue? Or is she just making an assumption? Is she aware that a communal force viewing her ‘report’ could get carried away? This was not only poor reporting; it was irresponsible and disgusting, to say the least.
Swapandas Gupta of the Times of India has a strong BJP allegiance, which everybody knows. But at least as a journalist he has the moral obligation to commit himself first to good journalism. However, he had no qualms in wholeheartedly endorsing Modi, even when the whole nation knows that it was because of him that three thousand Muslims were lynched in Gujarat. Journalism is just getting murkier.
Channels and newspapers were full of such stuff, though they did give a wide coverage to communal turmoil in the country. It is not news today to know that communal elements are increasingly spreading their tentacles within the newsroom. This development is mainly due to the fact that people from lower strata of society and the minority communities are either not getting into journalism or they are not given freedom to do objective reporting. We do require many more journalists from these communities in today’s media. One cannot expect a dominant class to be objective, especially when it comes to issues of dalits and minorities. We need more dalits and those from minority communities to do that.