Off the record and pointless

BY Thakore| IN Opinion | 19/08/2006

Hammer and tongs

ALOKE THAKORE

            There may be many intriguing issues about the nuclear deal between India and the United States, but among all the stories on this subject nothing will, or rather ought to, come close to a news report that appeared in rediff.com in its ability to envelope the issue with an air of intrigue and a touch of the unreal. That it was a silly and meaningless piece of reportage is another matter.

The report began on a promising note. It said, "Seeking to allay the apprehension of senior Indian scientists, a senior Congress leader has said India can always walk out of the Indo-US nuclear deal if it`s not in conformity with the framework agreed upon by both countries." A nice lead if there was one to touch off interest in the reader about who this person within the ruling coalition could be, what does this mean, and does this reflect some change in party or government opinion. Also, it would be nice to know who the heck this senior Congress leader was.

But alas this leader with "decades of experience in governance" had spoken on the "condition of anonymity." I always thought that condition of anonymity is when someone calls and tells you over the phone without any identification, when someone puts a hood over your head and gently, or otherwise, informs you when you are bundled into a car, or a dickey, taken to a place and told something, or even more simply when a letter arrives with information without identification, or just perhaps, when on a cold Delhi morning you reach for the car to see a scrawl on the dew covered windscreen. But I am yet to fathom, and the piece appeared on the 16^th of August and it has been two days trying, how a senior Congress leader with decades of experience, could speak on the condition of anonymity.

There is more to the report than just not getting the difference between a condition of confidentiality with its concomitant request for anonymity and a condition of anonymity. The report goes on to put all kinds of information in the mouth of this "senior Congress leader." Sample some nuggets. "He said that India, while accepting strict safeguards regarding civilian nuclear power projects, has not compromised on its strategic capabilities."; "Insisting that all international agreements have mutual benefits, the leader merely said, "India is a sovereign country," when specifically asked whether India will backtrack from the deal."; " However, he strongly refuted the idea of having a resolution in Parliament conveying a "sense of the House" against Indian apprehensions. He said that any such resolution would have far reaching consequences."; " The senior Congress leader added that one should read debates of the Constituent Assembly on whether international treaties should be ratified by Indian Parliament or not."; " Interestingly, the veteran leader also argued that in 1971, when a few decisions made by Indira Gandhi were challenged, the Supreme Court gave a judgment in what is now well-known as the Golak Nath`s case. It said: Parliament is considered to have no power to take away or curtail any of the fundamental rights guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution. The leader said, "Indira Gandhi went for a snap poll, came back to power and brought a Bill seeking to amend Article 368 of the Constitution to provide for amending the Constitution."; and in what may be said to be the most insightful comment, " He also said in international agreements, there are no free lunches. And added that many Indian scientists are opposing the deal because they suffered a lot during the sanctions regime."

Read all these points, go over the piece (http://in.rediff.com/news/2006/aug/16ndeal2.htm) and find out for yourself what this single, confidential conversation tells us that is not already common knowledge or that could not be factually written based on documents. Precious nothing. What is the need to attribute such banalities to a "senior Congress leader" under conditions of confidentiality unless you are telling the reader something that is new? Is there a fracturing of opinion in the Congress that this leader represents? Is this the first dissenting voice that we might hear from? Is this something that deserves confidentiality and does the source merit anonymity? Is this a story that deserves to be a single source story? Is this a story that should pass muster at the desk?

Nay. And ditto for all others. And yet we have such a story as part of a complete coverage on the Indo-US nuclear deal. While any student of journalism worth his or her salt knows that the Ws and H should be answered, even if these are forgotten in the hurry to pass off a vapid conversation as reportage, should not the desk have asked, "What is in it?" This report, like many others, does not meet the "So what?" test and it regurgitates material that would be better off as bullet points from a research desk. Also, single source stories are the bane of our business. Exceptions should justify themselves. If there are reasons for granting anonymity, then the reader needs to be told why it is so. The fact that this story comes from a reporter who otherwise provides the reader interesting stories leads one to conjecture that the desk might have let the name and not the story go past it. Let me reiterate that this is but a guess. Quality control in such a work as journalism should not be determined by experience, past records, or name. There are standards in reporting that all should meet. After all there is no dearth of people with fancy designations who present drivel with their by lines and mug shots. 

Contact: hammerntongs@fastmail.in