In the ‘Need to
Know’ versus ‘Want to Know’ debate the media has crossed the boundaries of
ethical journalism and has shifted its focus entirely on the TRP game. India is
a dominant power in South Asia and has close ties with all nations except with
its traditional adversary , Pakistan. Since 2008 onwards Pakistan has not
broken the chain of terror related activities to create havoc across the Line
of Control and even in the heart of India i.e. Mumbai.
With former Portuguese
Prime Minister Guterres now in line for the next Chief of the United Nations,
several political analysts believe India will become a permanent member of the
Security Council. Membership apart, what
has happened recently is that India has carried out surgical strikes across
Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (PoK) region to wipe out terror camps. China has maintained
a diplomatically safe distance. China has put on hold for three months the listing
of Jaish-e Mohammad (JEM) Chief Masood Azhar’s as an international terrorist. The
Chinese stand on the Uri attack and surgical strike response issue is obvious.
The historical escalation dynamics of conflict between India and Pakistan over
Kashmir reveals a very chequered past.
The Indian Media
is playing the role of a watchdog passing on minute by minute updates on the
escalation dynamics, proudly claiming Pakistan now stands exposed, and that India
has won the game. Recently in the Uri attack, 18 Indian soldiers were martyred
and in response India carried out surgical strikes. The nation wanted to know
what was happening so the DGMO addressed the media and informed the masses
about the safe situation.
India’s
qualitative shift in its approach towards diplomatic engagements with its
traditional adversary was seen when SAARC meeting was postponed with all SAARC
nations asking for isolating Pakistan for its continuous proxy wars and
terrorist attacks on Indian soil. India has always won the game of escalation
dynamics and media reports sometimes declare victory before it is actually
achieved on ground.
The problem is
that with the commercialisation of media houses and the corporate control on content,
it becomes difficult to accept the credibility of news programs and debates. Some
seem to be planted; others who report from ground zero tend to exaggerate
sporadic events. Notwithstanding the fact that the media is profit driven, we
still have ethical war correspondents who pass on factually correct information
to the masses.
The media can
act as a platform for dialogue between warring factions. It does not always
play a negative role in the escalation dynamics of conflict. Sometimes this
dialogue is spearheaded by analysts, experts, armchair critics and citizen
journalists but moderated by business representatives or anchors who are
supposed to maintain a neutral stand but take sides. An interesting twist in
the tale is how these media houses are blaming each other for factually incorrect
reporting, airing pro Pakistan stories. So much so that a certain section of
the media branded as pseudo liberals were accused of taking pro Pakistan side
when Indian soldiers were being martyred. Once again there arises a genuine
need to control the content that flows through various primetime programs.
The
state has to intervene to protect the masses from jingoistic actions and
reactions. Press censorship is essential in times of conflict. Unlike the emergency
period when Prime Minister Indira Gandhi put a complete stop on the media today
we need an institutionalised mechanism to check the outputs of news channels,
digital media and the print media to save our masses from getting swayed by
false reporting or dramatised recreation of violent acts leading to hatred
towards the Pakistani establishment.India’s foreign
policy is peace centric. We cannot have the media destroy the social fabric our
country in the name of TRP.
No comments:
Post a Comment