Page 100 - Conflict, Terrorism, and the Media In Asia

Gujarat 2002 and the Indian news media 89
were drawn up against the backdrop of colonial India’s partition into independent
India and Pakistan in 1947 and the tense Hindu–Muslim relations that accompa-
nied it. There was as yet no television, and, until the transistor revolution of the
1970s, even radio was confined to the affluent sections of society. When Gandhi
was shot dead on 30 January 1948, the second sentence on All India Radio’s news
3
bulletin was that the killer was not a Muslim. The editor of the bulletin wanted
to nip any rumours in the bud, and the speedy announcement that Gandhi’s
assailant was not a Muslim prevented attacks against the millions of Muslims that
had chosen not to migrate to the new (Islamic) state of Pakistan.
But the ban on naming communities in the news media never really worked. The
identity of the victims and attackers was all too evident when news reports used
euphemistic phrases such as ‘members of a particular community’ or ‘members of
the minority community’ (meaning Muslims) or ‘members of the majority com-
munity’ (meaning Hindus). For decades, both the privately owned press and the
government controlled electronic media adhered to the guidelines. Varadarajan
(1999: 160–229) argued that the convention of not identifying communities

works to increase the sense of suspicion and anxiety amongst ordinary citizens
not just in riot-affected areas but also elsewhere in the country...people tend
to assume that the victims are ‘their own’ while their attackers are ‘the other’.

While covering Gujarat 2002, television journalists openly identified the attackers
and victims in their voice-overs as the footage showed graphic images of violence.
As Phillip observed
When the television camera focuses on a riotous mob or its victims, it leaves
little to the imagination of the viewers...The ban on naming the communi-
ties was a fit case for review, although with the advent of television it has
become redundant. Questions also remain whether the guidelines are applic-
able to the electronic media...(The) argument that the violence in Gujarat
would have been worse if the media, particularly electronic, had not aroused
public opinion against the killing spree through focused and sustained reporting
cannot be dismissed out of hand.
(Phillip 2002)
Television coverage of the events made it impossible to adhere to the Press Council
guidelines. Television journalists such as Rajdeep Sardesai and Barkha Dutt of
STAR News identified attackers and victims as ‘Hindus’ and ‘Muslims’. However,
as Varadarajan (2002b: 275) pointed out, it was improper to use the term ‘Hindus’to
describe what was usually a politically mobilized mob: ‘The discourse of communal
riots had no room to acknowledge that some Hindus brought together by political or
economic motivation to attack Muslims at large cannot really be referred to as “the
Hindus” or even as “some Hindus” ’(2002b: 275). Naming the attackers as ‘Hindus’
also concealed the reality that the overwhelming majority of Indians who happen
to be categorized as Hindus – practising or non-practising – have been vociferous
in their criticism of the attacks against Muslims.