No right to question?

Three journalists were held and detained by the joint forces for eight hours in Salboni police station on June 15, for trying to get into the Pirakata forests in Lalgarh area in 'Junglemahal' (comprising the three districts of West Midnapur, Bankura and Purulia). They were gheraoed in a village in Mathurapur where they had been staying and brought to the police station along with three other activists from Kolkata and some thirty local villagers.

While the police later set the journalists free, long after reconfirming their identities, they arrested thirteen of the others on charges of breaching section 144 in that area. The activists have on the other hand, been slapped with more serious charges of garnering support for the Maoists and waging a war against the state. West Midnapur superintendent of police Manoj Verma later explained the detention, arguing they had violated provisions under Section 144. "Besides the police have evidence to prove that the group was there on the invitation of Maoists and their frontal organization, the PCPA. They had also attended Kangaroo courts of the PCPA", he said. 

When some other journalists asked senior police officials what made the police suspicious of the journalists, the reply was that the media was deliberately being 'soft on the outlawed and taking their side'. 

But a day later, police killed eight Maoists in an encounter in the 'Ranjya forests' and caught one of the alleged Maoist squad members. The media were given a complete view of the operation from ground zero including the parading of the survivor. A senior print journalist from Kolkata later sought to know from officials present, details about the so-called tip-off and the operation itself.

Activists in Kolkata had already raised questions about the identity of the lone captured accused. Instead of a reply to the journalist's questions, a senior officer rather tersely sought to know 'which side of the war zone' the journalist was.

This is not only true in the war zone in Lalgarh where suspicion is bound to grow amongst people. Last month after a CRPF van was blown away by the Maoists and five jawans lost their lives, four journalists were brutally beaten with batons and AK-47 rifle butts by CRPF personnel just about a kilometre away from the blast site. The jawans accused the journalists of being responsible for the death of their colleagues, by their continuous coverage of the anti-rebel operations.   

One of the media persons attacked later reported that the CRPF jawan had told him they had been identified as targets for a long time. "It was because the jawans believed that we were anyway tilted towards the opposite camp (read Maoists and the PCPA) and have been accusing the jawans of 'inefficiency'".

After the April 2010 'Silda camp attack' by Maoists where 24 jawans lost their lives, reporters on duty were targeted by family members of the deceased. Yet police blamed journalists for bringing on the attack, by unnecessarily hyping inefficiency stories of the jawans and their casual behaviour, in a high alert zone.

That is just one side of the story. Even in state capital Kolkata, reporters are constantly being targeted for being biased and accused of taking sides. If ever any uncomfortable question is put forward to people in official positions, the journalist is outright termed as prejudiced and intimidated to such an extent, that a second question would never follow. As the media fraternity stands in disagreement in a politically divided Bengal, the media's 'right to question' is terribly infringed and hence the objectivity of the story is totally lost.

A day after the 'Gyaneshwari train' tragedy, a group of political intellectuals organized a press conference in the Kolkata Press Club only to subject reporters to a prepared text. Painter Shubho Prasanna and some others, wanted media persons to believe their assertion, that it was not the outlawed Maoists, but the CPI(M), who were behind the attack. When the media attempted to question the basis and motive behind the allegation, they were accused of being prejudiced and one-sided.

Such instances of intimidation in political circles have been customary in recent times. The reason behind all this lies in their ability to get away with even publicly demoralizing journalists. The unusual factor here is the growing cases of intimidation even in bureaucratic circles.

It seems strange that, on one hand, journalists are intimidated, arrested, and beaten up for covering stories from the Lalgarh area and are being accused of being 'soft on the outlawed'; while on the other, it is the police who would call up selected media friends for photo opportunities of an arms catch, a police haul of a landmine and even joint forces operations when Maoists are supposedly killed in an encounter.  But the same takes a complete 'u turn' if questioned -- as in a recent case about the identity of the 'lone alleged Maoist caught alive during the encounter'.

A senior TV journalist covering the Lalgarh issue, who had been beaten up by the CRPF jawans, says the moment a media person talks of developmental issues or reasons related to tribal hostility towards policemen and urbanites; he/she is termed  'pro' this or that and then becomes the target of political outbursts. "But then that is just our job. Once when you are cornered, targeted and intimidated the real story will never get the chance to come out".

Another senior print reporter confessed that media contacts and relations with the Maoists, in carrying their releases is 'just' for purposes of doing one's job. "If the outlawed are suspicious it is understandable. But if senior officers and leaders get suspicious and bully us it is difficult. Our job is not to act like police informers. They can question the accuracy of the story but not intimidate us". 

Surprisingly, such hostility is seen even from activists or intellectuals in Bengal who are now divided on political lines. If the intellectual fraternity takes sides, the onus is definitely on the media to bring out the objectivity of the issue. But the real problem now is also the deeply enforced division in the media fraternity along political lines. Thus the objectivity of media is somewhere getting lost in 'either with us or with them' opinions. Those not towing these positions are isolated.

It is a known fact that Mamata Banerjee, called journalists 'paid employees' of her detractors, even as she has now groomed her own flock of 'yes madam' journalists. A similar situation exits even on the other side of the political spectrum. But, what irks is the rising intimidation and bullying of journalists by the bureaucracy along political lines. This is not just mishandling media issues but also curbing a journalist's 'right to question'.

The flock of intellectuals owning allegiance towards the 'winds of change' in Bengal, would never take a question on Mamata's stand on her relationship with the PCPA now -- the prime accused of the 'Gyaneshwari accident' -- although they would not mind blaming the CPI(M) for the incident.

On the other hand, another flock of intellectuals holding candle light marches for the Gyaneshwari victims would not admit, it was the failure of the state administration. Because this group apparently owes its allegiance to the state government and the march was a mere answer to the press conference held the previous day by another group, holding the CPI(M) responsible for the attacks. And if a journalist puts forth a question, they would simply be termed 'opinionated'.

The question here is if mere allegations were to make news, then a journalist's work would be limited to being a typist, typing speeches made by whomsoever, rather than trying to be objective about the issue.  

'Not to answer' a question posed, can be anyone's choice, but to question is a journalist's right and if that is violated the colours of a true story will never see the light of day.