Reporters not Decision Makers –Why Primetime is all about War

“The Change in the nature of military operations brought about by the end of cold war along with a revolution in communication technology has transformed information and the news media into an even more vital component of conflict and conflict management”

                                                                Warren P Strobel

In his renowned work, "Social Contract", Rousseau said, "War is no way a relationship of man with man but a relationship between states, in which individuals are only enemies by accident, not as men, but as soldiers. Once soldiers lay down their weapons they again become mere men. Their lives must be spared."

Conflict is the core component of the Realist approach in International Politics and some of the other cognate disciplines. The very essence of human nature is that human beings are in a state of perpetual conflict leading to a dangerous struggle for power. The adjective ‘dangerous’ has been used because countless lives have been lost in this mad race for political power and territorial ownership and the struggle continues. Even as I write this, India’s surgical strikes on terrorist camps in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (PoK) post the Uri attacks is being widely debated. The political cauldron is burning with key question – Pakistan is a Terrorist state, it needs to be diplomatically isolated from the rest of the world. The SAARC summit has been cancelled. Pakistani actors are being asked to return to their country. Indian Actor Salman Khan and several others feel isolating Pakistani artists alone is not the solution. It is the Indian government which gives them visa and work permit. 

In a state of panic every sentiment however is against Pakistan. Watch any Indian News Channel; they would be conducting comparative study on what if Pakistan strikes back. How well prepared are we. Whether Shaheen will destroy Delhi or Bhramos will destroy Pakistan and China. This is a major move and will have serious repercussions later on if remedial measures are not taken as soon as possible. So what are these repercussions? A full fledged war with Pakistan? The role of China in the entire war game? What’s the economic impact of war going to be like in an era of defence budget cuts? And all this seems to be decided between 9 pm to 10 pm on primetime news shows. The Mediatised war has given a definition to news reporting today.

Indian Media and the War Game: The real time accuracy of News Reporting and Media intertwined, is an Omega dialogue within itself and is slowly becoming a self sustaining system. In the 21st century the world as we know it, is largely and both loosely dependent on how it is shown or talked of, using various means of communication. 

Global broadcast Media agencies and the news industry in India, has sped through many pivotal turning evolutionary stages. This is an account of many diverse purposes and paradigms that they operate on or for. For a decade now, multi-variate chaos and conflicts have affected world affairs and it's stability in different shapes and sizes. Mediating information and/or using admissible credibility, to report frivolities during a crisis is usually accepted or believed to be a norm supporting ethical journalism. 

Diabolically under many circumstances the very same means was found to be a result of an orchestrated propaganda, designed by facilitators of organized conflict and systematic control. I firmly believe that media under this model works stronger off late. Overturning governments, civil crisis, industrial espionage, global terrorism and many other focus of reporting are slowly creating an automatic system of different situations being identified as an offspring of each other.

Media discourses have undergone discernible changes in the last few decades and with changing global political order, wars, natural calamities and political mobilization a fresh approach towards understanding the functioning of Media in times of conflict and peace becomes inevitable. Equally, the need of the hour is to remember that an arbitration by juxtaposed media, however well meaning may serve to aggravate situations, inflame passions and therefore subvert or frustrate conflict resolution measures.

In all intents and purposes the mushrooming of 24x7 News Channels , widespread use of the world wide web and the rise of Social Media platforms (The Burhan Wani effect) recently have redefined the mental constructs that helped us to understand the functioning of Global political order especially in times of Conflict and Peace. The effect of a strongly linked, cosmopolitan and international neighborhood owing to superior access to all forms of media may not necessarily be a positive aspect; ideologies, identities, territorial integrities, and indeed the very concept of nation states may be challenged by perceptions of global institutions percolating via the Media.

Access to 24x7 real time information through diverse media forms and their ability to mould perceptions have forced a reevaluation by governments, international businesses and even non state actors to view the heightened role of the Media in the shaping of conflict. Time and space are two distinct variables in communication studies that have aided paradigm changes in existing theories and questions that have already been answered but need a fresh perspective that can solve key issues which affect the socio political environment in contemporary times. With real time broadcasting of on ground events our perceptions about the world around us has undergone significant changes. 

One of the sterling examples of this was demonstrated during the 9/11 attacks on the American mainland; raw ability to transpose events as they unfolded into people's homes was on evidence, giving a perspective not seen hitherto fore.

It has been widely debated that the Media is prone as well as responsive to influences wielded by governments because of their inherent need to access corridors of power. Contrarily it has also been argued that governments are vulnerable and inclined to pressures by commercial media, due to their widespread reach and their ravenous yearning to connect with the masses. Eminent political philosopher Aristotle had said that man is by nature a social animal and therefore the relationship that thus develops between man and the state becomes an important subject matter of research, with ultimate aim of that defining relationship being welfare and happiness.

The unparalleled growth in mass media channels have widened the the roles it could play in diverse areas apart from performing the functions of providing information, influencing public opinion and social attitudes, entertainment and bringing about greater social integration.. In contemporary times, the media plays an important role in providing information through news reports and analysis, which is beneficial in assessing the role it plays in conflict escalation and peace building processes

In Indian context, the press has historically played a powerful role in motivating people to participate in the freedom struggle during the pre-independence era. After independence, the press included the more powerful electronic media, radio and television in communicating political information to the people. All these media channels compete with one another to bring people closer to the political processes, important issues linked to them and their probable effects on society. Panel discussions, opinion analysis, talk shows, interviews and speeches on the mass media attempt to create a political awareness and influence the future course of political activity in the country.

The mass media are now regarded as intervening influences in creating political awareness and assessment of political performance. In India the differences across local, state and national elections may also be a factor which determines political awareness, interest and voter participation.

Wars and territorial conflicts have long served as empirical test ground for theories of politics and how different groups of people understand political communication processes within society. 

Voices all across the journalistic community however elicits the response that media coverage of stories today does not focus on real issues affecting millions of people and instead is led by sensationalism and glamour. Monroe E Price & Mark Thompson argue that today the human mind is exposed to modes of political influence that are more persuasive , insinuating and sophisticated than was easily imagined half a century ago and Media are prime conduits and agents of this influence. The editors of “Forging peace: Intervention, Human Rights and the Management of media Space opine that a good deal has been written about the strategies of media exploitation that were used to bring about particular conflicts. It is widely accepted that media played a central role in fomenting ‘ethnic violence’ in Rwanda and Bosnia Herzegovina where government forces and rebels or other factions contested the very organisation and content of the press and broadcasting. The impact of international media on diplomacy, mediation and humanitarian assistance has also been appraised.

There are important pragmatic lessons to be learnt from the examples of Rwanda and Bosnia. A coherent international policy on these issues is unlikely to emerge especially one that might involve specific duties of intervention for the international community unless a framework is developed for addressing the information on challenges and needs in conflict zones as well as for evaluating the different techniques of what has been called ‘Information Intervention’. Forging Peace. analyses the tension between interventive action of governments, international organisations and military forces on the one hand and the international legal protection of freedom of Media & information on the other.

Gadi Wolfsfeld expresses concern over the research about the role of news media in political conflict and war with little work done on role of news media in conflict resolution and peacebuilding. “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. The news media have become the central arena for political conflicts today.”

With the advent of the print media in the early 17th century, it's promise as a means to both spread objective information as well as misinformation in order to control and manipulate the views of the populace was realized. Thus its emergence as a powerful tool. In the last century this has been further reinforced with electronic media acting to speed up the process, with its amazing reach as well as inherent hastening of the ability to reach masses 

In his monograph Ajai Rai has explored the causal relationship of conflict situations and the media. According to him, the inertia, the incompetence and the corrupt motives of the individual media-man often bring about conflicts, or prolong or aggravate them. The internal and external vested interests also create and perpetuate conflicts of all types to promote their social, religious, political and economic agenda. To attain their nefarious ends, these forces manage and manipulate, corrupt and coerce the media in several ways, and use it as a pawn in their diabolical chess game. Under these inexorable pressures, a media outlet either closes down, cowers or allows itself to be controlled and corrupted. Sometimes it becomes a willing partner in the wicked game. A few withstand all pressures, but this "tribe," is almost extinct and has been driven out by competition by those who run the media for purely commercial interests. This is very evident in contemporary Indian electronic media where invariably the commercial interests coupled with the intense political news room pressures result in a scenario of this sort.

Ajai Rai further goes on to say that this ground reality of media vis-à-vis conflict situations contrasts sharply with the defined role of the media. In actual or potential conflict situations the role of the media is crucial. It should on no account itself contribute directly or indirectly to the creation of conflicts or situations which breed conflicts. It has to avoid oral or written words, projections of scenes and depictions of pictures, which may inflame passions of the people, create hatred between different sections of the populace, or lead to violence. All audio-visuals, news and views disseminated by it, and the manner and method of their dissemination, must conform to the most elementary precautions taken for civilised living. In practice this does not happen.

In the field of conflict resolution, media can really play a major role in enlightening the public, building up opinion and in guiding people towards cognizance of the need for peace. Its role dictates that it should take all steps within its reach to help end conflict and ensure the restoration of peace. Media can also help find amicable and effective solutions and possibly be the guiding beacon to prevent any relapses or recurrences.

Specifically, in the cases of armed/military conflicts, the objective defined for the media is "humanitarian reporting". Though it may sound ironical as there is hardly anything humane about conflicts; Essentially humanitarian reporting entails focusing on violations of the conventions of war by either of the protagonists of the conflict. These conventions governing the conduct of armed conflicts are called the humanitarian law of war. These laws declare that the object of war should be to eliminate the possibility of a total war. In view of this legitimate objective, the use of certain types of arms and ammunitions which unnecessarily aggravate the suffering of disabled men, or render their death inevitable, is prohibited. All poisonous gases and bacteriological methods of warfare are banned. The comprehensive treaty not only prohibits the use but also their development, production and stockpiling. The law protects the wounded and sick, the shipwrecked and the prisoners of war. It also protects civilians who have fallen into the enemy's hands, from arbitrary treatment and violence. The basic purpose of these laws is three-fold. First, they are essential to prevent man's fall from decency to barbarism, and to mitigate the horrors and hardships of the conflicts. Second, the laws ensure a disciplined army, which is distinguishable from the marauders and plunderers. Third, the observance of rules also creates goodwill among belligerent states, their armies and civilian populations and helps restore peaceful relations between them sooner when the conflicts cease.

Ideally, human rights reporting of armed conflicts should be objective, fair and impartial, irrespective of the nationality, race, religion or ideology of the violators of the law, and of their victims, and has to be above all uninfluenced by biases and prejudices. In practice it is not so because even in peaceful situations, reporting is subject to internal predilections and external pressures, apart from human biases and opinions. Thus, armed conflict witnesses this all the more. Few can withstand the pressures and the influences of the social groups in which they operate, and fewer still can overcome their predispositions actuated by their own nationality, race, religion, culture and ideology. However, without being immune to outside and inside forces, one cannot discharge his/her duty as a humanitarian reporter.

The main objective of reporting on violations of humanitarian law of war ought to be to preserve and promote human dignity. Individuals do not lose their rights as human beings , whether they are part of the armed forces of their country, or innocent civilians caught in a crossfire in conflict zones. Just as combatants are not individually responsible for their action, so are the civilians equally unable to do anything about their precarious situation.

In an age of fast paced instant gratification via the electronic and cyber based information, the media's role in conflict situations has come to acquire new meaning. Contemporary wars and political conflicts will be preceded by "infoattacks"—disinformation, psychological warfare and propaganda campaigns. Warring forces on the other side of the Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (PoK) will attempt to win without firing bullets and rockets. It has already happened. The CNN won the war for the US-led multinational forces in the Gulf well before the Iraqi soldiers and their camps were destroyed. 

Academic Researchers have focused their analyses and examinations and envisaged the issues around the distinctions between state authorized and rogue use of Media to incite conflict, between authorized and unauthorized incidents of information intervention and between preventive intervention as opposed to that directed towards resolving conflict.

While there is not yet sufficient evidence to support the claim that media is becoming a controlling actor in the formulation of policy in international conflicts, it plays a dramatic role which affects many important dimensions of foreign policy and diplomacy. As such it may be constraining rather than determining.[ii]

Philip Taylor opines that the convergence between contemporary “PSYOPS” ‘Psychological Operations’ or military propaganda and civilian uses of information technology has important implications. So while popular sentiments may be in favour of diplomatic isolation of Pakistan, Cancellation of SAARC and surgical strikes on terrorist training camps in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (PoK), Strategically it is not a great idea to declare war however much the national sentiments may support it.

Immediately after the Uri attack , in which 18 Indian soldiers were martyred , the nation wanted to know why India was not taking a firm stand. The media houses self declared a war on Pakistan creating hash tags on twitter calling for tough action by the Indian establishment. The Indian Prime Ministers stand on human rights violations in Balochistan also fuelled widespread anti Pakistan sentiments supporting India’s stand on Balochistan. However the media or the fourth estate cannot decide what strategic action needs to be taken. The media is not a decision making body and the reporters however intellectual they may look and sound they are only reporters . Their task is to inform and educate not decide and force their opinion on the viewers. I fail to understand how news rooms are turning into Army headquarters with anchors behaving like Generals .While all this isolation of Pakistan continues Mr. Sitaram Yechury CPIM wants dialogue with Pakistan. Certainly Diplomatic dialogues and bilateral negotiations and Confidence building measures have failed. First Pathankot then Uri. And now the news room. The reporters should stick to causes and actual consequences rather than imaginary consequences.

 I am a regular consumer of news at Primetime and I strongly condemn the way news panelists are called, not allowed to speak and everything is being decided by one man and twitter hash tags. For Patriotic rhetoric it is explicable but for strategic action, dear media please let the men in uniform decide. War may be an extended version of politics between nations (Clausewitz) but this TRP competitive version of war which completely distorts public mental constructs needs to stop. It is far more dangerous that what it looks like. However reluctant these news anchors/reporters may sound that they are just doing their job, they are brainwashing the masses into believing that India is at war with Pakistan. We have been in a state of war with Pakistan since 1947 but there comes a point in geopolitics when strategic actions are the only way out to draw boundaries and tackle strategic dilemma, whether to strike or not. Even theoretical ontologisms that call for Jihad and media narratives fail to convince the establishments to stop the propaganda war through the mass media.

Pic Courtesy-Google Images

Reference Reading :

1. Louis Kriesberg and Bruce W Dayton Rowman &Little field 2011 Constructive Conflicts-From Escalation to Resolution

2. Edward Said Covering Islam-How the Media and the Experts Determine how we see the rest of the world 1997 Vintage

3. Amelia Arsenault, Sheldon Himelfarb and Susan Abbott, United States Institute of Peace, Evaluating Media Interventions in Conflict Countries- Toward Developing Common Principles and a Community of Practice, first published in 2011.

4. Sean Aday, Henry Farrell, Marc Lynch, John Sides, John Kelly, Ethan Zuckerman, United States Institute of Peace Report, 2010.

5. Blogs and Bullets- New Media in Contentious Politics, Sean Aday, Henry Farrell, Marc Lynch, John Sides, John Kelly, Ethan Zuckerman, United States Institute of Peace Report, 2010.

6. Forging Peace :Intervention, Human Rights and the Management of media ,Indiana University Press 2007 primarily focusses on role of media in conflict situations and impact of information intervention in escalation, de escalation of conflicts.

7. Media and Political Conflict, Cambridge University Press, 1997. This book gives an insight on the role of news media as participants in conflict. The author has analysed the role of media in the Gulf War, the Palestinian Intifada, and the attempt by the Israeli right wing to derail the Israel- Palestine Peace Accord.3

8. Ajai Rai, Conflict Situations and the Media: A Critical Look, IDSA Monograph Series.

9. Philip Seib , Media and Conflict in 21st Century, , Palgrave and Macmillan, 2005.

Inevitable Politicisation of the Indian Armed Forces: Conflicting Interests

In the run-up to the Presidential elections in the US, a number of veterans' names have come to be associated with both the Presidential Nominees; General Michael Hayden, former CIA and NSA Director has endorsed Donald Trump, as has Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, former DIA Director. Similarly, Admiral James Stavridis, former NATO Supreme Allied Commander was briefly being considered as Hillary Clinton's running mate. As the armed forces were seemingly getting embroiled in the political fight, the current Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Joseph Dunford wrote a powerful article stressing on the need for the armed forces to stay away from the melee and not to politicise the military. In his article, General Dunford reminded his men to conduct themselves in a manner to reassure the next administration of being served by an apolitical military, while continuing to exercise their right to vote for the candidate they chose, yet guard against the institution being politicised by way of their conduct in public. He stressed upon the long American history of an apolitical military upholding the principle of civilian control, starting from General George Washington resigning his commission. 

In more recent times, General Dwight D Eisenhower has also served as the President of the US, after having served his country as Army Chief of Staff and Supreme Allied Commander NATO, retiring in 1952 before running for President.

The Indian armed forces have long prided themselves for being apolitical, even to a fault- and continue to remain subservient to the elected representatives of the people, under the principle of civilian control. Yet many events force us to scrutinize this under a lens. Historically, controversy has dogged the armed forces, sometimes bordering on endangering national security. Whether it was General Thimayya's controversial resignation as Chief of Army Staff due his differences with Defence Minister VK Krishna Menon which was withdrawn later with the Prime Minister's intervention, or Lieutenant General BM Kaul's appointment as the Corps Commander owing his proximity to Prime Minister Nehru and held responsible for the Indian debacle in the 1962 Sino- Indian War, the armed forces are no strangers to interference by the political hierarchy. Admiral Vishnu Bhagwat who had himself sought redress by the courts in his appointment as Fleet Commander, was later sacked by the Defence Minister George Fernandes for allegedly showing 'defiance of civilian authority'. Then there is the case of General VK Singh's age issue which put him at loggerheads with the government of the day. Even the ongoing tussle between the present Chief of Army Staff General Dalbir Singh with the officer slated to be the next Chief, Lieutenant General Praveen Bakshi, ostensibly due to the present incumbent being from the Infantry and the next one from the Armoured Corps, has begun to take political overtones. In the bargain an officer of known calibre and professional acumen, Lieutenant General DRN Soni (also from the Armoured Corps) has become the object of machinations to keep him from Army Commander appointment.

Amidst all the brouhaha one fact remains as an undercurrent; the growing politicisation of the armed forces. The veracity of this is ascertained by the highly uninspiring leadership at the top levels of the military hierarchy; more and more one hears rumbles from the rank and file about the senior leadership failing to provide motivation to their troops. This is also amply demonstrated by the recent dissatisfaction among the armed forces with regard to their pay and status. It was left to the veterans to take up the issue with the government and led to a string of emotionally charged scenes with the veterans going so far as returning the medals awarded to them for their service to the nation. Does this call for an introspection? What further compounds it is the organizational ethos which stifles criticism at lower levels. In his 1970 book, “Exit, Voice and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations and States”, Albert O Hirschmann has argued that voice can be made the mechanism of feedback for an organization. He says that criticism is a healthy thing and to encourage it means to enhance growth prospects. Whereas limiting criticism both overtly or by covert means, often expressed as culture or innuendo, would limit the ability to present alternate viewpoints or dissent. This is harmful to the organizational growth in the long run. This is the malaise that seems to be hurting the Indian armed forces. And it stems from this growing politicisation at the senior leadership levels.

That it is harmful in other and more diverse ways can be understood by the importance given to civil- military relations in a democracy. The principle of civilian control is underlined by the fact that the civilian leadership depends heavily on the inputs it receives from its military advisors. The quality of this advice depends on the integrity of the decision making and execution processes. This very reliance is undermined by the lack of a moral dimension which is a natural fallout of allowing political interference in the armed forces. Lieutenant General James Dubrik, US Army has commented on the moral dimension of strategic competence wherein he stresses upon the quality and integrity of senior military ranks as a precursor to the decisions taken at strategic level by the civilian leadership. Writing about the US army, (but what certainly seems to be apt for the Indian armed forces as well) he further advocates the empowerment of junior leadership, but rightfully also points out that the army has not taught and reinforced seniors leaders who empower. In one thesis thus, he brings out the two dimensions imperative to healthy civil- military relations; namely, looking at inward growth and having an upright moral character to outward competence. (Closer home, seminal work in this field has been done by Anit Mukherjee, currently a Professor with the S Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Singapore, and formerly an officer of the Indian Army).

If the US example is anything to go by, the DePuy reforms in the 1970s hefted substantial responsibility for adding professionalism to a force which was humiliated post Vietnam and faced growing opprobrium back home. It tackled not only issues related to training and administration, but delved deeper in to the experiential and creative realm, and helped put in place structures designed to identify, nurture and advance the best for future generations of leadership. Most of the contemporary generalship of the US owe their careers to this tumultuous period. However, this very senior leadership is now calling for yet another set of reforms to cater to the generational shift in the past 40 odd years since the DePuy reforms.

Is it time for the Indian armed forces also to look inward and institute a mechanism more in keeping with the paradigm shift that has taken place amidst us? The growing aspirations (at all levels) will further compound the problem of politicisation both from within and without. It appears critical to reform and indeed vital to the health of the armed forces. In the long run, it would only enable better civil- military relations and strengthen the foundations of democracy. De-linking the military from politics is crucial to this aim. It may serve the armed forces hierarchy well to remember the following words by General Joseph Dunford:

“As military professionals our most important asset is the trust and credibility with the (American) people. While we must safeguard our professional integrity, extra vigilance is required during any political transition”.

 Image Courtesy: Google

The Media Military Relations in India: Perpetual Tug of War

The arcane and abstruse world of the Military and Media landscape in India is under political and public scanner yet again following reports of reckless handling of the Kashmir violence that erupted after the killing of a Hizb-ul-Mujahidden youth leader, Burhan Wani. In an open letter to the dead militant, Major Gaurav Arya of the Indian Armed Forces heavily attacked the dubious intentions of the youth leader, stating any action by the army was totally called for. A young boy associated with the militant outfit was hunted down by the forces. This is a routine course of action and therefore there is no scope for the forces having gone haywire in their quest to establish peace and security in the valley putting an end to all apprehensions about the  ever-increasing monstrous role of the Army in the Valley. 

The  controversial Armed Forces Special Powers Act ( AFSPA) and the Public Safety Act ( PSA) have created a new form of resentment against the forces in the eyes of the common people of the valley. These acts are under scanner for being draconian in nature. However, given the backdrop of the perpetual war like situation in Kashmir, it becomes necessary to analyse the currents and undercurrents in the changing dynamics of the media military relations in India especially in the context of peace keeping and conflict resolution in Kashmir.

Kashmir, since 1947 has been the cynosure of all eyes focussing on South Asia both nationally  and internationally. The news worthiness of the ‘K’ question in all deliberations, dialogues with Pakistan cannot ever be underestimated. Certain sections of the media, branded as the Pro Pakistan Lobby and the Pseudo-Liberals are currently being heavily trolled on social networking sites for questioning the intentions of the armed forces in the valley. The Supreme Court of India too has slammed the Indian Media for misinformation and false reporting, for revealing more than is necessary for the sake of sensationalism, jeopardising national security on numerous occasions. Refer to the deliberate revealing of operations and the logistical positioning of the forces by a private news channel when they were involved in the encounter with terrorists at the Pathankot Air Base earlier this year. In the Indian context, the relationship between the media, dissident forces and  the military reveals a very disturbing history.

Television Ratings and saleability of news is what drives the media today. There is little regard for what the people want to know and what they should know. Responsibility and Accountability are being sacrificed at the altar of viewership rating points. The business of news is preying upon disturbances , whether social, economic , political  or  psychological and with advancements in technology and digitisation of the world wide web, the race to become number one news service provider by private companies is getting even murkier.

The media no longer just reports an event. It acts as the judge, jury and executioner, investigating ever aspect of disturbance through the superficial prism of law creating more nuisance for the forces which are known to maintain strict professionalism in dealing with the media. The Directorate of Public Relations, Ministry of Defence, Public Relations Office deals with the media keeping military ethical standards on the forefront at all times.  Army Rule 21, Defence Service Regulations has been in place to control any misinformation flowing in the country . The impatient and intrusive reporters in their quest for exclusives often cross the lines of ethics and invariably put the military in the witness box for no rhyme or reason.

Conventionally , the role of the Media was primarily to inform, educate and entertain the masses. Recent trends engulfing the entire spectrum of mass media reveal how the fourth estate is now becoming a parallel government in itself, reporting on issues which sometimes have both political and social ramifications.  How the media projects the image of the military is hilarious in itself. The media claims to be this larger than life entity that simply has the godly right to spin stories in the name of public accountability. This hunger for news has often created both monsters and gods and the common people are yet to discover the true side of any story given the short shelf life of yellow journalism today. 

The Freedom of speech and expression as guaranteed by the constitution of India, has often been misused to suit business interests. The oxygen of publicity being supplied to dissident forces, in the quintessential Kashmir valley for example calls for some serious introspection on the part of our media. Is all this necessary? It is not the media’s job to tell the military how they should function. The army through its Public Relations  Office is working to project itself as a positive force, a force for the people of India, a force of the people of India, a force by the people of  India. The media must not digress from its primary role, TO INFORM. 

Image Courtesy  : Google 

Self Reliance in Defence Manufacturing: The Indian Example, Some Reflections

                

For several experts in the field of National Defence and Security, ‘Make in India’  has been more than just a mere slogan, and an amalgamation of all the ongoing projects,  procurements and forward planning in India’s security sector. Prime Minister Narendra Modi, in his bid to transform the otherwise lackadaisical approach of India’s Defence Public Sector Undertakings (PSUs) and Defence Research and Development Organisations (DRDOs) as well as Private Companies envisioned a progressive approach strongly backed by a strategy built on the ethos of credibility and immediate deliverables, job creation, thus adding strength to India’s indigenous defence industry under his mission “Make in India”.

Some Reflections: Marred by project delays and issues of Request for Information (RFI), Request for Proposals (RFP) and Transfer of Technology (ToT), licensing issues with Russia, United States, India’s defence sector is currently undergoing massive transformation, a natural corollary to Modi’s frequent visits to other countries and subsequent discussions with his counterparts on defence and security. The revised Defence Procurement Policy is also being projected as the game changer. However financial, political and strategic investments in projects meant to modernise India’s defence industry exhibit a very uneven path. Whether it is the MMRCA, Tejas or AWACS statistics reveal that India is yet to achieve a great breakthrough in defence, compared to China or Pakistan as in the case of AWACS.

The Cabinet Committee on Security has time and again sanctioned several projects, but uneven investments have often defeated the very purpose of rapid military transformations, to tackle new asymmetrical threats.  If statistics provided by the defence ministry are to be believed, India has signed five deals of more than Rs 2,500 crore since May 2014. This includes the Tactical Communication Systems (TCS), Futuristic Infantry Combat Vehicle (FICV) (worth $ 7.5 billion) for the Indian Army, construction of seven Shivalik class frigates (Project 17 A) for the Navy, by Mazagon Docs Limited and Garden Reach Steel Industry, amounting to Rs 45201 crores. Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) is currently in the process of building basic trainer aircraft HTT 40 and Sukhoi MK 1 aircraft in line with the 272 target set for 2018 by the Indian Air Force. There are several such deals being planned. But deadlock over Rafale continues to make headlines. Meanwhile, reacting to the commercial deadlock over Rafale prices with Dassault, other players such as Lockheed Martin (F 16), Saab (Gripen) are now streamlining their business strategy, to meet the requirements of the Indian industry under Make in India. Saab is willing to partner with Indian companies, giving India complete software control to build the Gripen fighter in India. Saab is also keen on setting up an aeronautic training academy in India.

For a strong indigenous defence industry both outside support and internal political commitments are very crucial. Integral to any development program, is the need to provide a conducive socio-economic and political environment where any proposed idea can take roots. The liberalisation of the FDI Policy in Defence, which shifted the fulcrum of indigenisation from ‘state of the art technology’ to ‘modern technology’ was indeed a welcome change. The buzz word, Indigenously Designed, Developed and Manufactured' (IDDM) now stands at 30:70, (Imports 30%) focus remaining on indigenisation. The FDI policy was revised to fill critical gaps in technology aiding job creation and growth if Indian industry. Despite the very obvious reports on project delays, falling production targets in the case of the Ordnance Factories, and sudden inflow of private players such as Reliance and Mahindra for example in the defence arena, ‘Make in India’ is a progressive move aimed to strengthen India’s defence industry.

However, there is no systematic explanation for India’s dialogues with Russia and the US over defence procurements and projects. The very crucial aspect of Transfer of Technology (ToT) especially nuclear propulsion (for example, in the case of nuclear supercarrier) has often caused unnecessary delays in signing of agreements between Original Equipment Makers (OEM’s) and India. Offset policy (2012) allows Joint ventures through the non-equity route. Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar recently stated that the real impact of Make in India will be seen in 2017. Parrikar stressed on the need to outsource certain products in order to maintain a healthy production chain. So the question remains: Can private players deliver better? Is the budget enough to meet the requirements of Make in India? Will the dynamics of a Russia- US power play (add China for good measure), affect India’s position as a strong defence power in South Asia and subsequently on the global stage? It was in 2001 when private players first entered the defence domain, with a 26% FDI bid. But terms and conditions laid out by the government were so stringent, that deliverables were far from being met. Technical education lagged behind affecting human resource availability.

One very important aspect of defence modernization is the ongoing Research and Development (R&D) in the field of security that has been crafted to meet the requirements of the modern day battlefield. Advancement in information technology and the changing nature of threats, whether man-made or accidental, on land, sea, air and even the virtual space now coerces one to assess the outcomes of  procurements, acquisitions and mergers, in defence manufacturing sector.

The pace with which technology is becoming obsolete is a real problem. Defence preparedness calls not just for military modernisation but also reforms, which are capable of accelerating the R& D processes in the field of security. Moreover, it should be kept in mind that no one player or OEM can fully manufacture critical equipment. Several components are now procured from various producers, making the procurement procedure lengthy and complicated. These can cause unnecessary delays too.  Another point of view currently attracting a lot of attention is that opening the doors of the security sector to foreign players will jeopardise India’s position as a strong defence power.

That foreign players are still not fully convinced with the idea of ‘Make in India’ especially shifting their production bases to India, a market which has inherent haphazard supply chain structures, is a different question altogether. Lastly, more than flooding the market with success stories, the focus should be on the needs of the defence forces and on the operational efficacy of equipment manufactured under Make in India. Positive market trends have indeed widened the horizons of defence manufacturing in India but India still needs a little more political and financial push to achieve a higher degree of self-reliance in defence technology.

Image Courtsey-Google Images

Women Combatants: The Gender Narrative

In quick succession over the past few weeks, the political leadership in some major countries have indicated their commitment to bringing women in frontline combat roles in their armies. There have been statements to this effect by the US, the UK, and India. These have evinced in turn a slew of articles debating how women would affect operational efficacy and efficiency. For the record, about three dozen countries around the world have women in their armed forces, though not necessarily in combat roles. The roles assigned to women differ from country to country, with some having passed legislation for equal rights and therefore equal roles within the armed forces, Norway and Sweden being in the forefront; while others have steadfastly held back from assigning combat duties to their women intake, notable amongst these being France and Turkey. By virtue of its acute requirement for defence forces right from its inception, Israel has always had women employed in combat duties, and has legislated equality of women in any role in the IDF to that of men. The form of recruitment varies from the voluntary to conscription in all these countries. Similarly, they have each charted their own course for the training requirements, physical standards, mandatory term of service, roles and duties assigned to women, and inevitably the laws on sexual harassment. Given the wide spectrum of issues which likely affect and govern the intake of women in armed forces, a logical debate arises about the recent declarations by the US, UK and India. Have certain realities been overlooked? What is it that compels these leaders- is it simply a race for gender equality while disregarding facts based on reality? This analysis seeks to examine both sides of the argument to decide what the right course of action should be.

Firstly, the Israeli example. As said earlier, certain issues emanating from the its very inception required each and every able bodied individual to take up arms; this in effect made it possible for women being assigned frontline combat roles. There was simply no debate, it was the need of the hour. Throughout the history of Israel as an independent nation, virtually the same set of circumstances have pushed it in to decisions based on need. Simultaneously, its armed forces served as a giant cauldron for the rapid amalgamation of its huge and varied immigrant population. These factors made it imperative first, then simpler to continue (later) with women serving in combat roles. Yet, despite its 2000 Equality amendment to Military Service Law, only one woman serves as a Major General and sections of the establishment feel that the glass ceiling may still take some time to crumble. This notwithstanding, Israel has undergone decades of strife on its borders, giving valuable insights in to problems which women may face; it is to its credit that the country seems to have dealt with most of them successfully.

Any army seeking to bring women in to combat must also realistically examine certain other issues. Primarily these deal with the biological differences (with men), followed by psychological differences and concerns related to the likely enemy they face and tactical situations arising from it. Physically women are smaller than men, have less strength, endurance and the ability to bear punishment that the body has to face in combat regimen. They are also more prone to muscoskeletal injuries, more so after pregnancy. These factors obviously make them more prone to injury such as stress fractures, and they may not be able to endure heavy weights such as carrying a wounded comrade with his equipment over long distances. Even during training women have had to be given reduced loads to maintain the momentum of training; lower physical standards in training would result in reduced fitness for basic combat tasks. At the end of the day, it has to be remembered that 'gear carried is gear required'. In aerial combat, it has been scientifically ascertained that the ability to withstand high gravitational forces that fighter pilots have to endure regularly, is reduced substantially in the female body. Certain armed forces have maintained the same physical standards for women as are expected from men because of these realities of combat, but at the cost of lower numbers at the recruitment stage, and increasing number of dropouts at subsequent stages.

Chief amongst the psychological reasons is the purported awkwardness or the inability associated with men taking orders from women seniors or officers. However, what is definitely worse is the debilitating effect on unit and individual morale that the sight of a wounded woman comrade would have. Most societies follow their own form of patriarchy, and deep rooted prejudices may be difficult to erase completely. Even if education and awareness were to bury these, the second factor of being witness to a wounded woman has been seen to arouse very strong protective instincts. While this may be an honourable thing in civilian life, it degrades the morale of the unit, lowers the robot like proficiency of the individual soldier and ultimately results in lower efficacy in combat. Evidence of this exists historically in the 1948 operations in Israel. Many anecdotal examples abound, where senior and experienced officers and NCOs have expressed their consternation at the decision to allow women in combat units.

While squeamishness on the part of women on seeing blood and gore in combat operations may be possible, suitable psychological training may help to reduce the shock effect associated with injuries and death. Another area of concern is the possibility of capture, torture and sexual assault by the enemy. This has been in fact expressed by women soldiers themselves. Feminism and gender equality may sound exalted as theories, but they cannot change biological realities. Also, given the degree of barbarianism shown by what these women would face, namely ISIS fighters, or other terror oriented groups of that genre, capture would almost certainly result in torture, decapitation and rape, probably on live media. Is any army ready to accept these costs? More importantly, is any political establishment ready to accept the cost?

The decision to announce the entry of women into combat roles is definitely politically motivated, aimed at achieving political correctness which seems to be in sync with the rhetoric on equality of sexes. However, this decision needs to be tempered with practicality and pragmatism. In their bid to achieve political correctness, governments may well end up making the biggest politically incorrect decision. It would take only one media recording of physical assault on a woman combatant to bring this house of cards down. What it will end up doing to the combat effectiveness of the armed forces is another story altogether.

Pic Courtesy: National Geographic

Press Censorship: Facts versus Fiction in Conflict Reporting, who decides?

                               

“Citizens of the democratic societies should undertake a course of intellectual self defense to protect themselves from manipulation and control, and to lay the basis for meaningful democracy.”

                                                                                                                                       Noam Chomsky

The unprecedented rise of the fourth estate is central to any understanding of conflict and conflict reporting today. The press plays a pivotal role in shaping perceptions about the Orwellian states, warring factions, generating fresh debates and discourses around existing conflicts and peace building measures. The paradigmatic shift to citizen journalism through social networks has also changed the dynamics of journalism today. Given the political and social ramifications of “free and fair reporting” versus “carefully scripted propaganda stories”, some reflections on changing role of the Fourth Estate would help us develop deeper insights into the functioning of the media landscape today.

In 1985, British Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher while addressing the American Bar Association had cautioned the world about the dangers of open society and the need to have a code of conduct for the media in place to restrict information flow which could jeopardise national security. It is the “Oxygen of Publicity” that determines the trajectory of any crisis and Ms Thatcher argued for cutting off this oxygen supply   to the terrorists and trouble makers as a security measure to protect the state and civil society. In recent years several debates surrounding the censorship act and uniform media ethics, freedom of speech have started dominating academic discourses on the Press today.  

Why censorship is necessary?

The purpose of any censorship on the media should be pragmatic and not draconian in nature. Globally, the same set of parameters work for any censorship law, or body – Regulation of broadcast, print and all media services, creating acceptable code of conduct and ethics, ensuring complaint and feedback mechanism are in place, monitoring of digital spaces etc. Censorship does not mean suppressing all that is happening in the political arena, or the security arena or any arena for that matter. It simply means doing away with any kind of “Breaking News and Exclusives Phenomenon” which could create chaos and insecurity endangering National security. Whether it is an autocratic regime or a democratic establishment the currents and undercurrents in the media landscape are almost the same.

An independent press both strengthens and weakens the democratic mechanisms of good governance. Serious debates on Press censorship dominated the political corridors of India when the Indira Gandhi government, imposed restrictions on freedom of speech and expression during national emergency in 1975. The censorship was withdrawn in 1977. The levels of restrictions however remain a bone of contention between the State Run and the Private media establishments. Whether it is the OSA (1923), or the IT act (2007) the Indian establishment has mechanisms in place to prevent information attacks of any kind.  In 2010, the Irish government was deliberating upon Internet filtering, reinforcing the graduated response mechanism in some ways to secure its digital space.  In Erdogan’s Turkey several journalists have been jailed time and again for going against the establishment. In 2014 Russia had closed down a number of media outlets and restricted foreign investment in its press industry in the name of safeguarding national interests.

In the wake of the recent terrorist attacks and internal disturbances across the world, limited censorship and not absolute free press is what is required today. There was a time when terrorist explosions were covered by the print media and the radio, but monitored by official sources for factual correctness. Today, in the era of TRPs and corporate benefits, credibility has taken a back seat. Imagine a Charar E Sharif episode or any of the wars fought by the India Military against its notorious neighbour being shown live on TV today. Uncontrolled media, with the backdrop of TRP race and corporatisation, has the potential of changing the word order, and creating anarchy which will give rise to more chaos both psychological and social. The Danish cartoon controversy falls in place here. Even Movies which usually mirror society have an uncanny knack of showing us such things; case in point being the Pierce Brosnan starrer ‘Tomorrow Never Dies’ in the James Bond series which depicted this race toward anarchy.

One crucial point that needs to be addressed is who decides what the Nation wants to know?  The Supreme Court of India had slammed the television media for live coverage of the 26/11 Mumbai attacks. The minute by minute update could have jeopardised the entire operation involving commandos, and indeed did so at times. The apex court stated that any activity which endangers national security cannot be justified in the name of freedom of speech. The live coverage of the 2016 terrorist attack on India’s Pathankot Airbase, yet again highlighted the reckless nature of the journalists in dealing with national security issues. Why should the nation suffer?

In the ongoing trend of Primetime debates on television, it must be kept in mind that not everything that is discussed between 9 and 10 PM, leads to policy restructuring or institutional transformations. However what it does is, it creates an artificial sense of the right and the wrong, spawns public hysteria, and makes that momentary lapse, appear rational in the minds of the viewers. While Noam Chomsky suggests a course on intellectual defence against manipulation and control, would someone put a check on what is being fed to us? Is that reason enough for some form of censorship? Who decides?

Pic Courtsey : ToonPool