Hate speech in reporting Kasab trial

BY Shubha Gokhale| IN Books | 04/08/2009

Loksatta enjoys a reputation of being politically neutral. As part of the Indian Express Group, it was started in 1948 and has become one of the largest selling Marathi language newspapers in Maharashtra. In contrast to Loksatta, Saamna and Prahaar are perceived to present politicized news. Saamna is the official mouthpiece for Maharashtra¿s right-wing opposition party Shiv Sena. Prahaar was started by a former Shiv Sena leader and current Congress party member, Narayan Rane. Prahaar is not as well-known as it was just started in October 2008.

A comparison of their news coverage of the 26/11 trial of Kasab showed that Loksatta and Saamna predictably lived up to their reputations, while Prahaar seemed to suggest a regional and political bias by the absence of any extensive coverage. 

Kasab¿s sudden interruption of the trial to give a confession was extensively covered and commented on in Loksatta and Saamna. However, Prahaar seemed too preoccupied with other subjects to devote more than a couple of news articles to this event. Its front page news covered local topics like the effect of monsoon delays in parts of Mumbai and problems in the ongoing state-wide college (11th grade) admissions. This priority to news with local urgency over national coverge was also reflected in editorials focused on other topics like inflation, monsoons and corruption in the local construction business.

While Loksatta¿s reporting was fairly neutral in nature, Saamna sensationalized the issue with frequent use of vitriolic language. Loksatta coupled the trial coverage with two editorials criticizing the central and state governments regarding its inaction and for not being prepared for any future terror attacks. As described below, Saamna did not stop at the state government in similar criticisms. Its targets included the Hindus, Muslims, the Indian courts, the Indian Prime Minister, Pakistan, and even the USA. Further, Loksatta and Prahaar used strong language in their articles, but Saamna seemed to stand alone in terms of sheer intensity of the words used, some examples of which are described below.

The three newspapers used different adjectives to describe Kasab. Prahaar introduced Kasab as simply the main person ("Mukhya Aropi") that was accused of the 26/11 attacks, and repeatedly referred to him as the accused throughout its two articles. Loksatta had no adjective for Kasab in its July 21st article regarding his confession. Later articles referred to him as a Pakistani terrorist. On the 21st of July, Saamna¿s article introduced him as an evil doer (Krurakarma Kasab). Although not a very strong adjective, the word had stronger meaning in the context of the article. Its Marathi title can be translated as ¿Kasab creates an uproar in the Court, Stop the trial, Punish me, We did Attack¿. This article sensationalized Kasab¿s confession in his trial. Each subsequent Saamna article repeatedly introduced him using this adjective and Kasab¿s alleged full name, Mohammed Ajmal Amir Kasab, something not seen in Loksatta, Prahaar, or other English newspapers. Perhaps Saamna wanted to indirectly emphasize his Islamic religion by using his entire four word name. Even if there was no such motive for the name use, Saamna¿s overall choice of words clearly reflected Shiv Sena¿s hard line nationalism.

The 21st July article described his confession as impure ("napak") and a Saamna editorial on the 23rd of July even referred to him as the devil ("shaitan"). In comparison, Prahaar¿s neutral description, coupled with the extremely brief lengths of these articles may betray Prahaar¿s disinterest in reporting national news that does not help the regional political standing of its Congress backer - Narayan Rane.

The omission of certain information also seemed important in showing such biases. Since July 21st, Loksatta clearly highlighted that Kasab said an Indian citizen in Pakistan was a member of Laskhar-E-Tayeba and had taught Kasab Hindi. Prahaar¿s two articles never mentioned this new information. This omission is suspicious since most national newspapers and TV channels had deemed this fact critical enough to be mentioned. However it seems unlikely that revealing this information would harm a new newspaper that is not widely read for national news. This omission may also be a political tactic to de-emphasize any perceived anti-Muslim bias in light of the upcoming elections then. In Saamna, the local link was mentioned in just one sentence towards the end of the first article regarding Kasab¿s confession. Saamna articles and editorials never mentioned this fact again. Comparing the relative importance given to this information in Loksatta, Saamna and Prahaar, it seems like the latter two were trying to distance themselves from politically sensitive information, one is not sure why.

From the 21st till the 25th of July, Saamna delivered a blow by blow colourful account of the confession saga occasionally replete with hate speech. Apparently, "shaitan" Kasab was laughing during his confession. He readily admitted that he killed the public and the ¿valiant heroes¿ ("shoor veer"), the police officers. The July 21st emotional news article ended with Pakistan¿s ¿arrogant¿ ("moordad") refusal to act on Kasab¿s confession. Saamna severely criticized Pakistan¿s view that the confession may have been one-sided and done under police pressure. On the 22nd of July, when describing why the trial was to be continued, Loksatta and Prahaar first presented the Mumbai Special Court¿s reasoning that the confession was incomplete since Kasab did not accept all the charges against him. In contrast, Saamna first presented the prosecution¿s theories regarding his confession, and then briefly mentioned the court¿s actual reasoning and decision. It also added that Kasab tried to give a message to Pakistan which was not allowed by the Special Court and that Kasab tried to spread "communal hatred" with some statements that the Special Court did not allow to be published.

While Loksatta¿s terrorism-related editorials maintained a strong overall disapproving tone, Saamna seemed sensationalist and political in its criticisms. One editorial in Loksatta, published the same day as Kasab¿s confession (July 21st), stated that Indian black marketers of necessary food items were the true terrorists of India. Citing inflated food prices despite a strong economy and a normal monsoon season, it accused the government of being criminally negligent in its ability to keep such inflation under control. A later editorial (July 25th) severely criticized the abuse of the National Security Guards (NSG) for the protection of political and social celebrities so that these forces were too dispersed to quickly respond to any terrorist attack.

Saamna¿s editorials were more intense in their wording and range. For example, two editorials were titled, ¿The Sons of Fools¿ ("Moorkha Lekache") and ¿Stripping The Government¿ ("Sarkarche Wastraharan"). The first editorial that was published on the 23rd of July, criticized the Indian legal system, stating that the government¿s soft policy towards Muslims means that Kasab would never be hanged. It further suggested that Kasab¿s public hanging at the Gateway of India is a fitting punishment for his killings. According to Saamna, the state¿s refusal to do so showed its vote-focused policy towards Muslims. It then went on an allegation spree against the allegedly weak positions that India and the USA frequently take with Pakistan. The second 25th July editorial focused on the Mumbai High Court¿s criticism of the state government¿s lack of preparation for future terrorist attacks. It again alleged that the current government¿s soft stance was merely due to their desire for Indian Muslim votes.

Thus, while Loksatta criticized certain governmental policies, Saamna¿s criticisms were focused on Congress¿s alleged political policies which could only change with  the party¿s ouster from power. Hence their editorial targets show that Saamna had a political objective in its opinions and news reporting. Prahaar devoted no editorials to Kasab¿s trial or even to terrorism in general. Its omission seemed to reinforce its strong regional political bias. Perhaps Prahaar did not want to report unpleasant news that would bring back memories of state incompetence during the attacks, especially when state elections are looming on the horizon.

 (Shubha Gokhale is a second year law student at Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, N.Y. )