Govt ad masquerades as truth

BY Meena Gopal| IN Media Practice | 25/04/2010

                      From the Free Speech Hub

These days, all major newdailies are flooded with news and analyses on "naxal" violence and the police"action" against Maoists for the past several months in the states of WestBengal, Jharkhand, Orissa, Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra and Chhattisgarh whichhave  suffered the intensity of violent occurrencesthe most.

Recently, the union governmentlaunched Operation Green Hunt to flush out and eliminate Maoists in thesestates on the grounds that they were threats to internal security. And, oneheard and saw Union Home Minister P Chidambaram and the Chief Ministers ofthese states constantly airing their views on the need to wipe out the Maoist menace.

News reports indicated that evenas the state paramilitary forces take strong action against the Maoists, effortsto promote development would simultaneously be undertaken in these backwarddistricts in these states. Clearly, the message being conveyed to the publicwas that the Maoists were thwarting the state’s desperate efforts to take developmentto the backward districts of the country and were posing obstructions to this effort.

Of course, there is nomention, let alone a discussion, about why there was no development in theseparts, even after more than 60 years of Independence. Similarly, there is no mention orunderstanding of how the state would identify the Maoists and weed them out fromthe masses in these states in order to eliminate them.

Even as these reportscontinued pouring in, an advertisement issued in "public interest" by theMinistry of Home Affairs, Government of India, in several national dailies (seeThe Hindu, March 20, 2010, p.14) for nearly a week added anelement of intrigue to the goings-on.

It showed a frail woman lookingdown despondently with the following lines attributed to her: "First, theMaoists came promising prosperity; then, they took away my husband; then, theyblew up the village school; now, they want to take away my 14-year olddaughter. Stop, please stop this mindless violence; (and then in bold capitalletters) I want to live!"

A line pops up alongside: "Abjureviolence, support development". The background depicts a broken hut with pots,pans and other belongings, lying scattered, of a family squatting in front oftheir home, and another image of couple of school boys standing in front of ademolished building, which is obviously a school.

This advertisement from theMinistry of Home Affairs appeared on page 14 of the newspaper which curiouslyhad a contradictory story on page 12 of the same edition. The news item on page12 read: ‘Witnesses allege biggest anti-naxal operation of 2009 was fake.’

According to the story, somewitnesses from a village in Chhattisgarh’s Dantewada district said that 12 ofthe 30 people killed by CoBRA (Commando Battalion for Resolute Action), aspecial force of Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) raised for Operation GreenHunt, had no links with Maoists and that six of them who were picked up werekilled in cold blood.

The witnesses described indetail the manner in which these men went about their daily chores such asherding cattle before the forces picked them up and shot them. They alsomentioned the manner in which the forces destroyed parts of a school which wasalready demolished.

The publication of the reportand the advertisement in the same issue of the newspaper created a peculiar situationin which an advertisement in one part of the newspaper emphasized an issueconsidered untrue by the news report in another part of the newspaper. Theadvertisement was issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs which, incidentally,is also responsible for Operation Green Hunt.

The advertisement smacks ofpropaganda. We are used to seeing such propagandistic advertisements bypolitical parties during their election campaigns in a bid to influence publicopinion, or by corporates slamming one another’s products in brand wars. They projecttheir supposed accomplishments while deriding those of their opponents.

But, why should thegovernment indulge in propaganda? When a government adopts propaganda as a mechanismto reach out to the people, it is a tacit admission of a people's divided thinkingon the role of the Maoists.

An uncanny parallel ranthrough the actions referred to in the ad: took away my husband, blewup the village school, and the actions attributed to the paramilitaryforces in the news report: picked up, destroyed parts of a school.

It was as though thegovernment was seeking desperately to airbrush its deeds and project them onthose they consider their opponents. And what is the line about the taking awayof the 14 year old daughter insinuating?

Such propaganda reeks of thegovernment’s desperation to legitimize its violent actions against its own citizensby vilifying Maoists who seem to have gained not just the support of the peoplein the tribal districts but also the sympathy of the middle class readers ofthese national dailies.

The government stands exposedin the claim, ‘Issued in public interest.' How can an authority whoselegitimacy is shaken by the inconsistency portrayed in the advertisement andthe news report speak of the interest of the public? Also, how can itshamelessly utilise tax-payer money/ public funds to disparage a section of thepublic while seeking to influence another section? Anyone with common sense andsensitivity can see through the dubiousness of the state role.

Finally, a couple ofquestions on the need for public vigilance on media ethics: How can newspapersaccept advertisements from anybody claiming public interest when theythemselves are the conscience-keepers of the public domain? Is all advertisingand such space offered by the media for revenue sieved through some policyparameters based on morality and ethics of journalism?

Even as we contemplate therole of the state, the role of the media, which brings to us our knowledge ofthe world, should also be looked at critically.