Page 108 - Conflict, Terrorism, and the Media In Asia

Gujarat 2002 and the Indian news media 97
when journalists witness a different reality? And what implications do such
contours of power geometry have for democracy, citizenship and multiculturalism?
The coverage of Gujarat 2002 marked a departure in the way the Indian media
approached communal clashes. It also highlighted the disjuncture in the news cul-
tures of the English-language news media and the non-English variety. Windmiller
(1954: 313–315) observed that ‘India’s English language press is the only national
press and it is paramount in the world of Indian journalism’, but it is also true that
this was one of the many instances when the English-language press’ disconnect
with the wider Indian realities showed up. It will be incorrect to generalize that the
entire English-language press is balanced and impartial or that the non-English
language press is biased and one-sided. There are instances of biased reporting in
the former and instances of impartial reporting by the latter. But during events of
such magnitude – such as the events after the mosque demolition in Ayodhya –
influential sections of the non-English language press are known to have provided
biased coverage while major sections of the English-language press made efforts
to provide critical reporting by covering different versions.
In the era of media proliferation, the importance of the news media has increased,
going by the flak unleashed by dominant political groups. The proliferation of tele-
vision channels and growing viewership, rising literacy and the increasing circula-
tion of newspapers indicates that barring notable exceptions of blatant bias, the
Indian news media will continue to play the role of a watchdog in the world’s largest
democracy. Since the early 1990s, there are apprehensions that the news media will
not be able to highlight the abuse of power or signify weaknesses in society due to
the gnawing march of corporatisation (Sonwalkar 2002). But the bold and inde-
pendent coverage of Gujarat 2002 provides ground for some hope because Indian
journalism’s ability to hold the state accountable, when power is abused, has not
been obliterated by infotainment – yet. The coverage was marked by state-spon-
sored efforts to intimidate and censor, but these had little impact. Censoring ensured
that the message of government complicity was well and truly conveyed to the
larger audience, within and beyond Gujarat – due to the experience of censorship
during the Emergency of 1975–1977, the popular perception being that censorship
is imposed when the state wants to prevent citizens from knowing facts.

Notes

1 Hindutva stands for Hindu-ness but is widely used as a synonym for political Hinduism
that seeks to win political power on the basis of India’s Hindu majority. Hindutva sup-
porters conflate ‘Hindu’ with ‘Indian’ and seek to build a de facto Hindu nation, if not a
de jure theocratic state. In the Indian context, such politics is often referred to as ‘com-
munalism’, which refers to the organized politics of hostility and antagonism between
members of religious communities – in this case, between Hindus and Muslims.
2 Launched in 1996, Rupert Murdoch’s STAR News enjoyed much credibility as its news
content was provided, until March 2003, by NDTV, a respected Indian production house
headed by Prannoy Roy, who had built a reputation on Indian television over a decade
covering elections, budgets and foreign events. After March 2003, the channel set up its
own editorial infrastructure.
3 Gandhi was shot dead by Nathuram Godse, a Hindu.