India and Pakistan relations and the media
By Seema Mustafa
Every other day, when a television anchor in India is bored and wants to stir things up, he or she decides to do a programme on India and Pakistan and brings in a select panel that generally consists of a retired general, a strident and “nationalist” security expert (if it is a Muslim, all the better), a political leader, and then, of course, at least two worthies from Pakistan. Some anchors are a little more sober than the others in that the screeching is confined to acceptable decibels; others are notorious for speaking for the “nation” and insisting the truth is as it is not, while a decided minority tries to conduct a decent debate, slipping now and again into the “you” versus “us” positions.
In the midst of this, the poor Pakistani guests face the worst of it and make viewers wonder why they agree to be on the programmes over and over again. They are verbally assaulted, wringed, and hung out to dry as pale shadows of their former selves. They are made to accept every wrongdoing of their government, held responsible for every terror attack and asked repeatedly, at times, to apologise for all that has gone wrong in India-Pakistan relations since 1947, terrorism, of course, being at the forefront. Some are reduced to stuttering heaps, others give vent to anger that usually provokes the anchor to cross all levels of journalistic ethics, and still others try to make some sense of the nonsense even as their faces express their helplessness at the futility of it all. Besides, the manner of seating — senior experts placed uncomfortably on a couch in poor light — makes them appear even more like lambs on the slaughtering slab with the knife in the anchor’s hand.
A few weeks ago, when news that an Indian jawan had been beheaded at the Line of Control, broke, television anchors had a field day. Throwing sobriety to the wind, they were all out there advocating war and revenge in different ways. More recently, when a terror attack killed five paramilitary personnel in Kashmir, the news worthies were back insisting on holding every individual of Pakistan responsible without making the necessary distinction between the government, the army and its agencies, and the people, of whom a large section denounces terrorism, insists on a change in policies and has been struggling for peace and harmony for decades now. There is a strong peace constituency in Pakistan that does not figure on Indian television (probably the reverse is true as well) just as the “peaceniks” of India are rarely brought on television to advocate the need for restraint. In fact, these prime time India-Pakistan news discussions are hinged on guests taking extreme positions, with anchors taking special care to ensure that those advocating peace in the two countries are not brought in to dampen the hate-filled atmosphere.
In fact, the two governments have moved far ahead of their respective television stars, as there are efforts now to continue peace talks regardless of idiot box stridency. After the beheading of the Indian soldier, New Delhi initially tried to maintain restraint but when television theatrics continued, the government decided to fall in line and make anti-peace noises to placate the media. Despite this, however, trade and business is continuing, officials are meeting to iron out vexed issues, and students, academics, journalists and others are crossing the border on a constant basis. In fact, after the beheading that drove the media down the bend, the armies of both countries immediately established contact and used the hotlines to ease the tensions. The ceasefire, significantly, has held since then but no one is reporting this.
It is time then, despite the freedom that the media must have, for news anchors to be made part of a system of checks and balances. This can come through high-level regular briefings where anchors are introduced to the many dimensions of a complex relationship and are made aware of the responsibilities that have to be attached to any reporting on India-Pakistan relations. Reporting cannot be without responsibility, particularly when instead of preaching peace, journalists today believe that advertisements come from waging war.
” 
” 
” 
” 
” 
