Page 101 - Conflict, Terrorism, and the Media In Asia

90 Prasun Sonwalkar
Referring to the practice of not naming communities, Sardesai observed that

no one is quite sure who initiated this practice, but...it does seem a bit like
obfuscation, and an attempt to inject a false blandness to the harsh and grim
reality of a communal riot. If a shop of a Bohra Muslim has been attacked,
should that be disguised by suggesting that a shop belonging to ‘a member
of a minority within the minority community’ was attacked?
(2002a)

As Barkha Dutt stated, ‘Naming the community under siege in Gujarat was moot to
the story. In fact it was the story, revealing as it did a prejudiced administrative and
political system that was happy to just stand by and watch’(2002, emphasis in orig-
inal). The press also abandoned its earlier restraint: ‘Newspapers were both sensa-
tional and fairly upfront about identifying the communities involved’(Ninan 2002).
Some newspapers published from other parts of India adhered to the guidelines, but
many, including the English-language The Asian Age, named the Muslim victims.
L.K. Advani, deputy prime minister at the time and a leading figure in the
Hindutva mobilization, used the US media’s coverage of the September 11 attacks
to criticize the way the Gujarat events were being reported by the Indian media.
He asked the media to draw lessons from the coverage of September 11 – displaying
media sensitivity towards victims and their families – and suggested that ‘some-
times, speaking the truth may not be an act of responsibility’ (The Telegraph
2002). He was against the graphic coverage of the violence on the grounds that it
could inflame passions elsewhere. A former journalist, Advani recalled the prac-
tice of not naming communities, and remarked, ‘But now all that has been
flouted’ (The Telegraph 2002).
The open identification of communities involved during the Gujarat events sets
a precedent for the reporting of Hindu–Muslim clashes in the future. However,
such identification is unlikely to be adopted across the news media, mainly
because of the deep-rooted convention of not naming the religion of those
involved, and because of the criticism – or flak – that the coverage of Gujarat
2002 attracted. Also, the original motivation that led to the Press Council of India
formulating the guidelines – to prevent escalation of violence – remains valid.

Hindutva flak: disciplining the media
Bold and independent coverage by the news media invites flak from political
actors who are shown in a bad light. Criticizing the BJP and Hindutva forces
severely for their role in the Gujarat events got STAR News and English-language
newspapers such as The Times of India and the Indian Express bad press. As
journalists who covered the political activities of the Hindutva forces over the last
two decades are well aware, one of the methods of disciplining the media is
through physical violence. When the Babri mosque was being demolished on 6
December 1992, several journalists suffered injuries when they were attacked by
‘kar sevaks’ and many had their cameras broken.