Understanding Conflict & War Reporting in India

“Why is there so much research about the role of news media in political conflict & war and so little concerning the media & peace?. There is not one major study which has looked at the role of the news media in an ongoing peace process…Even the most casual observer cannot fail to be impressed with the ability of the news media to serve an either constructive or destructive role in the promotion of peace”

Gadi Wolfsfeld

General Eisenhower had said that the essence of successful warfare is secrecy; the essence of successful journalism is publicity. We live in an era wherein the fourth estate has become a larger than life entity, moulding perceptions of the viewers, readers, listeners to suit their business interests. Mahatma Gandhi opined that one of the objects of a newspaper is to understand the popular feelings and give expression to it, another is to arouse among people certain desirable sentiments, and the third is fearlessly to express popular defects.

Fearlessly to express popular defects has made media a powerful manipulative tool in the hands of corporate houses, using which truth is suppressed and propaganda stories make it to the primetime. If we take a closer look at the ongoing debate around the surgical strikes, the aftermath of Uri Terror attacks we will be able to get a fair amount of idea about how newsrooms have turned into battlefields. The task of a news anchor or reporter is primarily to inform the masses about what is happening in the world they live in. However, news channels today, in the mad race to win the number one position in the TRP game are designing their news programs in a manner which is almost like a 3D version of any event. Dramatic recreation, props, animations, background music are all used to catch the viewers attention.

Let me emphasise yet again that the task of the anchor/journalist is to inform the viewers and maintain a neutral stand on the issue they are reporting on. This however is no longer the case. There has been a pragmatic paradigm shift in the way war reporters’ pitch in their reports today. Some report from the battlefield taking risks, some sit in the studios with eminent speakers moderating debates on national security and defence. As I write this, a local journalist was injured as Pakistan continues to indulge in firing and heavy shelling along the Line of Control. Some are asking for proofs of surgical attacks. So does the credibility of war depend on whether it has been communicated to the world or not?

Every exclusive war reporter in India today wants access to battlefield. The Indian example of Barkha Dutt in Kargil is more than just a story of war reporting gone haywire during the Kargil War in 1999. It is important to note here that Barkha Dutt is probably the only woman in Indian journalistic circles known for her fearless war reporting from conflict zones. That during the Pathankot attacks the Supreme Court asked NDTV, a New Delhi based private news channel to control its content during conflict is another question altogether. Off late we have Shweta Singh from India Today Group who has ventured into the conflict zones but her reports are mostly happy interactions with the soldiers during peace times. There are some army kids too who now proudly present news as though they are the men in uniform themselves. India, being the patriarchal society that it is, does not allow women journalists to enter into conflict zones it seems. This is a sad state of affairs. We have women writing on conflict but being far away from ground zero and depending on “secret sources”, the credibility of the reports by them cannot be established. So why aren’t there many women venturing into the conflict zones in India? Is the risk too high? Is sexual assault a factor? Do women prefer studio jobs? Are men not allowing women to venture into the strategic affairs arena because they feel they know more about war and conflict? Are women made to report only  on Peace and Human interest stories?

The above questions are open to subjective interpretation. War reporting is an arduous task and it takes a toll on the mind and the body. The psycho-social implications of conflict reporting are very hard hitting. Bloodshed and violence force a reporter to take sides no matter how much they may try to remain neutral. All classroom teachings of unbiased news reporting goes for a toss when a person sees 18 dead  bodies of soldiers or mutilated bodies of soldiers, like it was during the Kargil conflict.

I strongly condemn the way newsrooms have turned into battlefields. Using props and dummy globes the journalists are trying to evoke anti Pakistan sentiments which is not a healthy sign for future diplomatic course of actions with Pakistan.  Our traditional adversary never fails to surprise us with terror attacks and proxy wars but what is more disturbing is the way the journalists behave in the newsroom. They scream, they disrespect the soldiers, they call panelists and not let them speak, they feel their curiosity is far more important than getting to the truth and getting their facts correct. Gender bias is obvious. Men take charge even in newsrooms.

Technological advancements and with the massive increase in the usage of social media platforms more and more women are coming forward and expressing their views on strategic affairs. They may not be skilled reporters but their opinions are capable of giving rise to a new set of debates. The tug of war between the military and the media unlike in the west is also  a major component of the way the military keeps the media away from their operations. Perspectives matter. Unfortunately everyone has an opinion, the soldier, the journalist , the politician and often there is a clash of interest but in this tussle, the journalist wins because he/she has an access to the platform from which information is passed on to the rest of the population. But ultimately it is the 140 characters that make news these days. Skilled journalists cannot be replaced and are here to stay but given the outreach of social media platforms, every citizen is a journalist, every citizen can talk about national security and the government will have to listen. After all it is free speech guaranteed by the constitution of India, free press and democracy i.e government of the people, for the people, by the people. The buck stops here!

The Geopolitical Dynamics of Ethno- National Conflicts Today

One of the many dimensions of conflicts today especially ethno-national is that it is one of the biggest challenge to national security of all nation states that are grappling with it. According to statistics, (Horowitz), since 1945, millions of lives have been lost due to such conflicts. Daniel Patrick Moynihan had opined that a lot of nations will be born in bloodshed. Such was the outreach of ethno national conflicts. Historically the notorious Nazi leader’s ethnic cleansing madness changed the history and geography of geopolitics forever .To develop deeper insights it is important to understand the concept of nation first. Wolfe defined nation as a concept denoting a common ethnic and cultural identity shared by a ‘single people’. As per the Primordialist approach to understanding nationalism, common dissent plays a very important role in determining ethno-national conflict.

After the Gulf War, President of the US George Bush first introduced the new world order to other states.  With the new world order came Ethno National Conflicts as collateral damage, to pre existing history of violence, territorial dispute etc. Sri Lanka, Rwanda, Bosnia, Chechnya, Burundi, Quebec changed the geopolitical dynamics of ethno-national conflicts as we witness today. Strategic realignments have undergone significant changes in the last one odd decade. With the disintegration of the USSR in 1991 the fulcrum of power shifted inexorably towards the United States (US). However the fear of spread of communist ideology even as the cold war was on led to a massive increase in ethno national conflicts all across the globe. This type of conflict arises essentially out of the identity crisis faced by ethnic groups asserting a separate identity for them, to protect the interests of their community. The Tamils in Sri Lanka for example wanted a separate Eelam state for themselves. After the death of their leader Prabhakaran, the strife still continued. Nations are built over centuries. The feeling of nationalism is a strong sense of belongingness to a specified territory. But the building of nation-states was not essentially based on ethnicity.

The aspiration levels of ethnic groups are sometimes so high that clash of interests with the state can lead to violent uprising. According to George de Vos, ethnicity consists of subjective, symbolic, emblematic use by a group of people. Ethno Nationalism is a sub division of nationalism based on ethnicity/race. Language, religion, social norms etc are crucial components of ethno-national conflicts.

The uprising in Syria over Shia Sunni divisions among the Muslims, the rise of ISIS are all linked to ethnic identity assertiveness. Latvians, Kurds etc are all fighting for their identity, for their space in geopolitics. Ethnicity historically was linked to specific territorial areas but with globalisation ethnicity transcends borders of nation states. Migration is an issue along with refugee crisis. Situational and subjective approach studies ethno-national conflicts as sporadic cases of clash of interest over rights and duties.

There are several dimensions of ethno national conflicts. Political deprivation, economic exploitation, hard stands of belligerent leader’s etc. economic development that goes haywire supporting the elites causes a great deal of frustration among ethnic minorities. The quintessential kurds have faced the consequences of economic underdevelopment pursued by the leaders in Iraq.

Demographic pressures have redefined ethno-national movements. The Mujahir Quami Movement in Pakistan focuses n separating Karachi from other states in Sindh. The baloch assertiveness is another example. Recently Prime Minister Narendra Modi said India is with the people of Balochistan and strongly condemns any violation of human rights in that area by the Pakistani establishment. This angered many and after the Uri terrorist attacks and surgical strikes, one thing is crystal. Ethnic conflicts are here to stay and for centuries there will be bloodshed unless diplomatically the leaders of the new political order decide to follow a uniform nation code to tackle ethnic problems and uprisings.

Rise of Islamic fundamentalism, the ISIS, Saffron terror are all examples of how ethnicity plays a pivotal role in determining nationalism today. Refugee crises, bloodshed, disruption of peace are all collateral damages of such a mad fight for ethnic identity assertiveness. Ethno National conflicts are challenging the nation state system and this is a very serious issue the leaders of the world need to address to first. Divisions on the political map of the world will lead to more anarchic interpretation of balance of power with each ethnic group claiming to be superior to the other.

Identifying Bosnia as a nation according to Henry Kissinger was an irresponsible mistake. But in today’s era, it is only wise to focus on larger goals of economic growth, progress, job creation, education, human rights and not on ethnic conflicts. Only then can we have a just stable geopolitical order. Ethno national conflicts consume time and since their legacy is built on the ethos of identity it is important to not ignore it completely as well. A middle path must be taken.

Image Courtsey-Google Images

Reference Reading

Weiner Myron, Sons of the Soil - Migration and Ethnic Conflict in India (Princeton Legacy Library)

Maria Koinova, Ethnonationalist Conflict in Postcommunist States: Varieties of Governance in Bulgaria, Macedonia, and Kosovo (National and Ethnic Conflict in the 21st Century Series)