ON WAR

On War

The history of the formation of nation states is intertwined with armed conflicts and bloodshed. War in its protieform manifestation is central to the understanding of International Relations and several other cognate disciplines. When India for example was partitioned in 1947 there were riots, refugee crisis. Similar examples can be seen in the case of Israel, Palestine and all other nations grappling with ethno national violence and bellicose tactics used by the governments to suppress such violence.

According to Clausewitz war is an extension of politics by other means .Headly Bull’s defined war as organized violence carried on by political units against each other

 Nations today are accelerating their defence modernisation process and conducting nuclear explosions to test their capabilities and war preparedness. The psychological pressures by the international community such as the United Nations have fairly managed to control nuclear proliferation across the globe. Both India and Pakistan are traditional adversaries and nuclear states. Hence in all probability its best to avoid any full blown war in spite of India following a “No First Use” nuclear policy.

What is war? E H Carr, Hans Morgenthau had already opined that nation states will go to any length   to gain power. Geopolitical wars have changed the history and geography of the world map. Conflicts or wars have existed since time immemorial. Gray, Kaldor, Thornton , Hoffman and Bousquet, Creveld have explored the many dimensions of war, hybrid, postmodern asymmetric etc. War is essentially rooted in socio political and psychological inequalities. The internal conflicts such as the Naxalite movement in India are quintessential cases of resource inequality. War or conflict is more than just an act of violence. It is an action reaction mechanism based on historical transformations of human societies.

Institutionalization of war is yet another dimension that has been a central theme of political studies and International Relations. In common parlance, Institutionalization refers to the process of embedding some conception (for example a belief, norm, social role, particular value or mode of behaviour) within an organization, social system, or society as a whole. (Source Wikipedia). The defence forces in India follow a structural pattern of hierarchy and the institution of the defence mechanism is guided by policy makers from the Ministry of Defence, India. The discipline of International relations was moulded to suit the objectives of the United Nations created in 1945 to save the succeeding generations from the scourge of war. But some wars are never ending. They may not be a full fledged armed violence; proxy wars can disrupt the social fabric of political societies as well.

There are several dynamics of war that need to be understood to tackle internal and external disturbances. The first is to deal with economic inequality. Redistribution of wealth or dictatorship of the proletariat as crafted by Karl Marx is an important study in itself. Other factors include religious differences, territorial disputes, violence against women, gender inequality, political non representation etc. The mechanism of war is like a manipulative tool in the hands of the political establishments to suit specific interests. Analogy can be drawn in the case of the fourth estate which focuses on dramatic stories, sensationalism to increase their TRP’s. This is also a war, a war to win the first slot during primetime telecast of debates.

It is very difficult to understand the logic behind conflicts and wars as Clausewitz opined there is a marked difference between absolute and real wars. Wars are politically motivated. Unless a just social order is put in place inter and intra state conflict will continue to plague human societies. With the disintegration of the Soviet Block in 1991, the world witnessed the rise of United States of America as the new hegemon controlling international politics. In recent years economic development and globalisation has led to many nations competing with the hegemon for their space in the international arena. India is seen as a dominant state in South Asia and the rise of the Dragon is a direct attack on America’s hegemonic superpower status.

The realignment of nation states and changing dynamics of war has transformed the academic discipline of international Politics. In the years to come, there will be more bloodshed if a just uniform political order is not put in place. In my opinion anarchy also leads to war. Some form of control is must. This control can only come through a strong judicial system and civil codes across the globe and doing away with discriminatory policies.

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)

Conceptualising Peace- Why Diplomacy is Necessary for a Stable Geopolitical Order

Historically in the 17^th century Jean Jacques Rousseau and John Locke believed that war was unnecessary and hence they crafted the social contract theory which called for peaceful co existence of all human beings under institutionalised socio political and economic order. A point worth noting here is that there are two connotations of Peace-Positive and Negative. Negative simply means absence of violence and positive means a just social order. Johan Galtung focussed on positive peace and stressed upon the need to have a just social order in place. Justice is an important cog of peace or so believed Galtung.

Foreign policies of all nation states are politically and strategically Peace centric in nature. The legacy of India’s foreign policy is built on the ethos of peace. Peace is pure linguistic parameters means absence of war. Peace comprises of respite from war, freedom from violence and terror, and now in the digital era also suppressions of thought. Maintaining peaceful and friendly relations with its neighbours was a very crucial element of the Panchsheel (Five principles of peaceful co-existence) agreement that sought to strengthen the ties between India and the Dragon. Panchsheel essentially included five basic principles which guided India’s foreign policy makers in determining the extent of socio political, economic and strategic relations with the rest of the world. Mutual respect for each other's territorial integrity and sovereignty, Mutual non-aggression, Mutual non-interference in each other's internal affairs, Equality and cooperation for mutual benefit and Peaceful co-existence were the five tenets of India’s diplomacy and foreign policy.

Peacemaking and conflict resolution are synonymous terms that have been the central theme of international Relations and Peace studies. The fulcrum of peace and conflict studies has shifted inexorably towards conflict resolution and transformation across the globe. The United Nations Peace Keeping missions and its success stories are a testimony to the fact that the global social order however anarchic it may be wants peace. Welfare of all individuals and economic development post 1947, when India was partitioned and gained independence from the British rule became the core component of drafting of the new Indian constitution.

In spite of having strained relations with Pakistan, India has been trying endlessly to rebuild its relationship with its traditional adversary with confidence building measures, cultural exchanges, diplomatic meetings, political bilateral negotiations etc. The No first use of Nuclear weapons is a classic example of how much peace is valued by the Indian establishment. Johan Galtung’s positive peace calls for a strong judicial system to implement executive decisions for maintaining the peace fabric of our society. Karl Deutsch defined such a society as one in which there are "dependable expectations of peaceful change" for the foreseeable future. Today, in the era of globalisation, power struggle, peace has almost become a utopian ideology.  In the mad race to gain access to the corridors of power almost all nations are fighting internal and external wars. This breaks the whole chain of peaceful co existence policy which seems to be followed only on paper and not in principle.

  

The problem in geopolitics is that as long as the struggle for power and the need to build nuclear weapons in the name of self defence continues, peace cannot be established. Modernisation of defence forces, increasing defence budgets across the globe clearly indicates how the psychological war is actually going on endlessly. It is ultimately the media, the fourth estate that highlights such PSYOPS (Psychological Operations). Yet again we are totally dependent on the media to tell us what is happening around the globe and with no control on the info attack that goes on, peace goes for a toss.

As long as nations stick to constructive ideology of nation building, peace can give us a stable world order. But territorial disputes, disputes over water, child rights violation, human rights violation, gender discrimination and violence against women, violation of Geneva convention , ethnic, religious confrontations continue, peace cannot be established. The way forward is diplomatic engagements i. e the task of negotiating with troublemakers to reach a safe point of adjustment. With each nation building up weapons and accelerating its defence modernisation processes, the fear of disruption of peace is inevitable. It is diplomacy that will take us forward. It is important in the upkeep of peace.

Machiavelli, Richelieu, Guicciardini, Kissinger and several others were strong advocates of diplomacy. Machiavelli believed that ‘diplomacy was a tool of deception to grant more power to the state’. In either case diplomacy is an important cog of peace building. Nation States need diplomacy to manoeuvre their way in the geopolitical order without compromising on their territorial integrity, sovereignty and national identity. This perception however is marred with uncertainty. Peace is not just absence of war. We need to explore the many dimensions of diplomacy and conflict if we need to understand peace. Clash of interest between nations, individuals are bound to arise and when one Bouazizi sets himself ablaze the entire world witnesses a revolution. Hence diplomacy should also cover the checks to be made on the information attack by commercial media houses in their mad race to get the number one slot during primetime.

Structural injustices need to be done away with. This may take many years but eventually some order can be attained. If the K question in India Pakistan relations reaches a point of adjustment through international pressure probably Uri’s won’t happen again. But no one can bell any cat or dragon in this new global political order. Diplomatic alliances can bring the world together but as long as internal disturbances continue to paralyse nation states from within peace cannot be established. Hence another aspect of diplomacy should be to mitigate internal conflicts and focus on larger goals such as economic growth etc. The journey from underdeveloped to the developing to the developed can only be achieved through diplomacy.

Reference Reading

Dasgupta C War and Diplomacy in Kashmir,1947-48

 Schelling Thomas, Arms and Influence.

Theorising Mediatised Conflict: Peace is Not Absence of War News

Theorising Mediatised Conflict: Peace is Not Absence of War News

“We live in a dirty and dangerous world. There are some things the general public does not need to know about and shouldn't. I believe democracy flourishes when the government can take legitimate steps to keep its secrets and when the press can decide whether to print what it knows.” Owner of the ‘Washington Post’ Katharine Graham

Oscar Wilde had said that Media is that tool of War which bridges the gap between information and deliberate disinformation. To become an effective tool, the war correspondent should be an avid reader and an enthusiastic digger of all the basics about his subject-the armed forces.  As long as war is regarded as wicked, it will have its fascination and people will always want to know the truths about the armies which fight for them.

War and Conflict have been the central theme of study in International Politics and other cognate disciplines.  The Media today also thrives on news related to conflict and war. In fact news reporting today is skewed towards sensationalism, conflict and war. But there are also constructive roles that the media can play in transforming conflicts.

Theorising Mediatised Conflict is an arduous task since there is a very thin line between fact and fiction shown on television news these days. With the commercialisation of the broadcast industry and the entry of corporate houses in mainstream media world, profit making and not ethical news reporting has become the new motive. Profits are made through sensationalism for which often catchy headlines and news production with images, animations and dramatic recreation of events are used for higher TRP’s. This negative role of media today however is a new characteristic feature of the news industry. Ethical journalism has been replaced by sensational breaking news and exclusive phenomenon. But the media often referred to as the fourth estate is a powerful tool that can bring about great revolutionary changes in the society.

The media can play a positive role too. Robert Karl Manoff describes a number of roles which the media could play in preventing and moderating conflicts. He also offers examples of media peace initiatives. The media can publicize the principles of human rights and other moral norms, and can act to enforce those norms by publicizing violations. They can also focus public censure on hate groups. They can publicize and support peace-keeping operations. The media can act as a go-between for parties who lack any other means of communication. The media can educate the parties about each other's interests, needs, and core values, and help to confirm the parties' claims of transparency. They can help to undermine harmful stereotypes and promote humanization of the parties. The media can help educate the parties and public about existing conflict resolution resources, and about other successful cases of conflict management. The Voice of America radio broadcasts take this approach. The media can reinforce leaders' credibility with their constituents, and engage in other confidence-building activities. The media can work to deflate rumors and propaganda. The media can respect the need for privacy and confidentiality in the negotiation process. They can also reinforce settlements by publicizing them as important, shared historical events. June Gerd has attempted to provide an overview of some possible ways in which old and new media can make a positive contribution at different stages of the conflict cycle, from early warning to de-escalation, reconciliation and strengthened social cohesion.

Technological innovations have changed the legacy of warfare built on the ethos of maximum destruction. Today the digital platform is far more dangerous than a hand grenade or a bomb because of its reach. When Tarek el-Tayeb Mohamed Bouazizi set himself on fire in Tunisia, the world witnessed the Arab Spring, the downfall of corrupt regimes such as that of Mubarak in Egypt. How did it happen? It was the digital platform that transformed the nature of agitation and converted a sporadic outburst of anger into a widespread revolution. Such is the power of the media. The term mediatised conflict essentially establishes the relationship between the tools of mass communication and the root causes of conflict and how spin doctors twist tales into half hour slots that deeply influence mental constructs of the viewers. Perceptions are moulded and all this leads to a very complicated war matrix. Clausewitz had said that War is an extended version of politics between nations, “On War” is a masterpiece, a case study of war in its totality, but the TRP war is more dangerous. It can in seconds make a fiction a fact. The uncertainty as Clausewitz had described in war is applicable to news reporting too. This makes the whole mediatised war game mote lethal.

The recent surreptitious strikes, direct attacks on military bases in Uri, Pathankot, and Baramula are all hard facts but the media needs to be controlled by the state because any misinformation can upset social peace and harmony in split seconds. Theoretically it is the business houses that control the media and with profit making being the ulterior motive, it is not surprising that truth and lies has become a snakes and ladder game in production of news across the globe. The Indian establishment needs to increase its policy footprints and control the information being passed on to the masses. It may sound utopian but if Mahatma Gandhi’s theory of non violence has not lost relevance today then some amount of check on the paradigmatic contours of news reporting especially in the times of conflict becomes essential.
War is an act of violence intended to compel our opponent to fulfil our will, said Clausewitz. The corporate houses having complete control on the news rooms are doing the same to their viewers, forcing them to watch their channels through exclusives. Aren’t they?



Reference Reading
Manoff  Karl Robert The Media's Role in Preventing and Moderating Conflict This paper was prepared for the Virtual Diplomacy conference hosted by United States Institute of Peacein Washington, D.C. on April 1 and 2, 1997
Junne Gerd,  Role of Media in Conflict Transformation
Clausewitz von Carl,On war, Wordsworth Edition Limited, 1997.

Cultural isolation is not the way forward-Indo-Pak Relations

Indian film actor Salman Khan raised some serious questions about Pakistani actors being targeted post the Uri attacks and surgical strikes in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (PoK). Echoing similar beliefs are several eminent film personalities who strongly believe that Pakistani actors working in India have nothing to do with terrorism or terrorist related violence that killed 18 Indian soldiers in Uri recently. The international community condemned the cowardly act of terrorism and India urged all SAARC nations to boycott the SAARC summit until Pakistan claims responsibility for the terrorist activities and proxy wars against India. Khan went on to say on camera that it is the Indian government that issues visas and work permits to Pakistani actors such as Fawad Khan and Ali Zafar hence targeting them and threatening them is not the way forward. Diplomatic isolation is purely political but popular sentiments are now calling for complete socio economic cultural and financial isolation of Pakistan, declaring it a terrorist state.

Pakistani artists have the right to work and prosper in India however whatever currency is being paid to them goes to the Pakistani treasury and therefore the Indian establishment should put a stop to it. This raises a serious question mark on the credibility of the Pakistani artists who also have a certain social responsibility they need to cater to by virtue of being a celebrity. Recently Rahul Agrawal, member of the Indian Motion Picture Producers Association (IMPPA) resigned. Colonel R S N Singh Former RAW Chief, said resignations don’t matter. The need of the hour is to isolate Pakistan socially, politically, culturally and economically. Speaking on the visa permits to Pakistani artists, Rashtriya Swayam Sewak (RSS) activist Ratan Sharda said the situation is that of a real war and asking Pakistani actors, artists to leave India is collateral damage, a common component of every war. Film maker Shyam Benegal on the other hand asked the people not to brand Pakistani artists as terrorists. They are artists and art has no connection with terror. Amidst all this chaos,, there is one thing which is crystal. The Indian Media has lost its sense of social responsibility and is igniting new anti Pakistan passions in the heart of every peace loving Indian. But for how many more years will this continue. Cultural isolation may be a wise decision for the moment but art and creativity cannot be confined to borders. Singer Adnan Sami’s pro India sentiments are being shown through images repeatedly by the broadcast media to provoke people to urge the Indian establishment to go to war.

A bomb or a grenade does not differentiate between a cricketer, an artist, an actor, a soldier or a civilian. War has never lead to constructive image rebuilding of nations being targeted or victimised or nations that thrive on terror tactics.

Confidence Building Measures, all the diplomatic dialogues, talks, hotline conversations, skype debates on primetime are political in nature and are driven by a strong agenda i.e gaining maximum visibility on international platforms such as the United Nations. How will a Fawad Khan leaving India solve the ‘K’ question in Indo Pak ties? Maharashtra Nav Nirman Sena (MNS) has threatened to disrupt movie screenings of actor Salman Khan for allegedly taking sides of Pakistani Artists. But then has the MNS ever done anything constructive? If Fawad Khan leaves will our soldiers return home?

Where are we heading. In the name of patriotism we are creating possibilities of ‘Poorna Swaraj” once again. No Pakistani man woman or child should live in India. Don’t let them work here. Don’t give them salaries. Instead throw them out because our ancestors decided to leave the K question open ended. Why should Fawad Khan pay the price for being born in Pakistan and having a Pakistani Passport? The answer lies in the question itself. We Indians tend to react more and act less. Extreme reactions from certain sections of pseudo liberal journalists or just pure and simple news readers are not just threatening their viewers with the possibility of a war with our neighbour they have already decided the war game.  Just a day ago on national television i saw a young gentleman, or Cardiff educated journalist i should say teaching us the war game, telling us about surgical strikes. Of course this has no connection with him being an army kid. Twitter hash tags run the country. Actors make money. Artists come and entertain the masses and leave. India has to take a firm stand and not be soft on terror. Culture is different from politics and irony is both India and Pakistan have the same cultural roots.

So why target the Pakistani Artists/Actors? This is essentially because India is an intolerant nation. It can react but not act. If it acts the media reacts. If the media reacts the international political order acts.  Like Marxist thesis synthesis and anti thesis. No. Please don’t mix terrorism with cultural “ism”.  What happened in Uri was unfortunate and Pakistan will have to bear the consequences of the cowardly act of mindless violence but I disagree with a certain Fawad Khan being thrown out of India. Atithi Devo Bhava! Incredible India.

Image Courtsey -Google Images

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.