"Pardafash" and the media

BY Sachin Agarwal| IN Regional Media | 16/04/2003

Sachin Agarwal and Shivam Vij in Lucknow

Lucknow faced the ‘blues’ again as Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Mayawati held a ‘Pardafash’ (tell-all) rally in Lucknow to coincide with the birth anniversary of the  Dalit icon and the father of the Indian Constitution, Dr Bhim Rao Ambedkar. The one to be exposed was her bete noir Mulayam Singh Yadav. Overall, the press did not criticise Mayawati too stridently.

TV coverage: Many in Lucknow stayed inside their homes to watch her speech live on the array of news channels that have come up. Most news channels telecast it in parts, taking a break or moving on to other news. Those interested in seeing the whole of the marathon speech relied on Sahara Samay Uttar Pradesh, with a veteran journalist as a political commentator and a Samajwadi Party (SP) leader for spontaneous reactions to the Chief Minister’s allegations against her party, besides, of course, a correspondent at a rally ground —all live. No wonder Sahara Samay Uttar Pradesh is being hailed as a great leap forward for TV journalism in the state.

HT’s analysis: But it was inevitably the next day’s papers that one had to rely on for comment on the significance of the rally. This job was done best by Sunita Aron, resident editor (RE) of the Hindustan Times. In two news-analysis stories on pages 3 and 4 describe the political ramifications of the event. Her threat to embrace Buddhism along with Kanshiram and thousands of BSP leaders, wrote Aron, is to prevent the Sangh Parivar from incorporating Dalits into the Hindutva fold with another Ram Mandir agitation. For if this were to happen, it would erode the BSP’s Dalit vote-bank. "One has to wait and watch," the story concludes, "what would eventually influence the Dalits — the slogan of swabhiman or Ram Mandir."

The second story deliberated on the significance of thousands of BSP workers coming from several other states to attend the rally. "So far perceived as ‘Maya’s reply to Mulayam’ the Lucknow rally of the BSP has larger political ramifications. It  would not only give a pan-India image to Mayawati... but also weaken the Congress going to the polls" in Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Delhi, where the Congress vote-bank, she said, is primarily Dalit.

Maya Times: By contrast, the commentary of its rival paper, The Times of India, left a lot to be desired. In a story titled "UP politics set to turn murkier," Atul Chandra, its "Editor (Lucknow Market)" said nothing that was not already evident in the Page One report. "The steeliness with which Mayawati is ready to take on her political rivals proves that she has left the June 2, 1995 incident, in which she was virtually held at ransom at the State Guest House, way behind her. She is going to match them an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth..." he wrote in a piece that almost pandered to the ruling party. To be fair, however, an analysis by special correspondent (Delhi edition) Arvind Singh Bisht did take into account what effects Mayawati’s actions against Mulayam Singh Yadav could have on Dalit politics in the state. The respective castes to which Mayawati and Mulayam Singh Yadav belong, Bisht observed, have often been in violent conflict with each other.

Internal Dalit politics: Jansatta Express (Hindi) said that the crowds assembled in the sweltering heat once again proved Mayawati’s the one ruling the roost: "Upcoming Dalit politicians Ram Vilas Paswan and Udit Raj were trying to eat into Mayawati’s Dalit vote-bank but she has again proved her supremacy over Dalit politics." In the editorial it criticised Mayawati for turning a political battle personal by ensuring that Mulayam Singh Yadav goes to jail. It also observed that the BJP had succeeded in widening the rift between the BSP and the SP - an observation that no one else has made.

Rashtriya Sahara’s biased objectivity: The only other paper to devote edit space to the subject was Rashtriya Sahara. Sahara also made Jansatta’s point of Mayawati getting too personal against Mulayam Singh Yadav. But when Sahara begins to defend Mulayam, one is tempted to remember the paper’s well-known links with the SP. Sahara also criticised Mayawati for using rudimentary language in her speech, and said: "The ‘pardafash’ rally murdered language. Perhaps she had to use crude language to communicate to BSP leaders but non-Dalits are not likely to take kindly to it." And: "Time will tell where the public keeps Mayawati and Mulayam in the Ram-Ravan analogy." Even the headline "Ek brasht, kalankit mukhya mantri kuch bhi kar sakti hain (A corrupt, besmirched chief minister can do anything)" appeared more as a veiled, indirect attempt to defend Mulayam and attack Mayawati. In fact, when one read the story, it was only a report on the SP’s reactions to the FIRs. 

The schools were closed, Mr Editor: As most roads leading to the rally ground were blocked, journalists had to take a long detour to reach there. This inconvenience prompted the Indian Express to claim, "The press was the worst hit". Its resident editor Raj Saran Verma wrote: "Ask the local resident who has to wait for the long-winding convoys of the chief minister to reach office, children who miss school and traffic that is thrown out of gear." This was unwarranted because April 14 was a national holiday and schools and offices were closed. There was no substantial traffic either, as people preferred to stay in their homes, away from the heat. As The Pioneer observed, the BSP show this time was better managed than on earlier occasions. But this was only in the context of traffic, because the papers also reported that 3,000 people suffered heat stroke at the rally ground. Express Newsline’s lead story was headlined: "As Mayawati spews fire inside, rallyists fume outside".

Understanding Dalit sentiments: It is apparent that Verma, the Express RE was personally hurt by Mayawati’s tirade against caste injustices and her derogatory statements against Hindu idols in a CD released by the Samajwadi Party. In an ‘Express Comment’, grandiloquently titled "The moment of truth for Hindu faith," he writes: "Her speech today not only baited the Manuwadis but also threw a challenge to the entire Hindu faith." His anguish fails to take into account the fact that Mayawati has considerably moderated her approach over the years. No longer does she proclaim, "Tilak, Tarazu aur Talwaar/ Maro inko jootay chaar (Curse be upon the Brahmin, Vaish and Kshatriya castes)". At the rally she invited people of all faiths, and even Thakurs (a caste angry over her decision to book independent MLA and former minister Raja Bhaiyya under the terrorism law, POTA)  to join her party. She is even trying to reach out to the educated upper class, as evident by the appearance, for the first time, of hoardings that describe her government’s achievements in English, considered the language of the elite. She even seemed grateful to the press for a change, acknowledging that her message was reaching millions through the media (a special plane was chartered to bring national media corps from Delhi). By and large the press has failed to record these changes.

Another crucial factor that Verma and several in the media fail to understand is Dalit sentiment, and that the reason behind the success of Dalit politicians is lack of self-esteem (Mayawati calls it ‘swabhimaan’) amongst Dalit masses, who see themselves as an oppressed lot in a society where caste hierarchy is still prevalent. Armchair journalists can write reams about Mayawati squandering money in the exercise of making Ambedkar her private property, but in the end this is what impresses the Dalit voter. This reasoning was not lost on Dainik Jagran which observed: "As Mayawati’s helicopter neared the rally ground, BSP supporters waving at the helicopter in the sweltering heat were almost trying to touch it high above in the air. This made them realise their potential and destroyed their Dalit chetna."

Where was the BJP’s reaction? While all papers reported the Samajwadi Party’s reaction to the events of the day, and most also reported the Congress party’s reaction to the filing of an FIR against former UP Governor Motilal Vora, only a few papers reported what the BJP, the government’s coalition partner, had to say. The Times of India quoted BJP leader Kalraj Mishra from Chennai: "The coalition government should avoid indulging in levelling charges and counter-charges and instead concentrate on development."  Swatantra Bharat reported that BJP leaders were relieved as Mayawati did not say anything derogatory against idol-worship (like she did in the CD, released earlier by the Samajwadi Party to embarrass her) and quoted state BJP leaders as welcoming Mayawati’s appeals to the dharmacharyas to reform the Hindu religion and cleanse it of caste inequalities. And according to Rashtriya Sahara, the BJP said that the law would take its own course as far as Mulayam Singh Yadav was concerned.

The numbers’ game: One of the great mysteries of this rally’s coverage concerned numbers. The Times said 176 FIRs had been filed against Samajwadi Party leaders in 40 districts of the state. 178, claimed the Express, and Jagran said 179.

Of these, 136 were against ‘Mulayam and his men’, said The Times. Rashtriya Sahara and Aaj said 137 of the FIRs were against Mulayam; Swatantra Bharat said 135, and Amar Ujala said 148. The papers also confuse the reader over how many FIRs were filed by the state government, and how many by the Bahujan Samaj Party.

Where were the rallyists? Another numbers game was over how many people was turned up for the rally. Till the 13th, it was being as the biggest political rally ever. The papers noted the point that the turnout was below expectation. The Hindustan Times and its Hindi counterpart, Hindustan said on Page One that this was an embarrassment for the rally organisers. In a single-column page three piece the Times calculated that 4 lakh people turned up for the rally, instead of the estimated 8 lakh.  But Amar Ujala put the actual figure at 2.5 lakhs. In any case, this was not treated as a major story, neither was any attempt made to find out the reasons for the low turnout. Although the opposition parties claimed it reflected erosion of her support amongst Dalits, Mayawati provided alibis in her speech: "I thank you all for coming in such large numbers, larger than the dhikkar rally last year, despite this being the harvesting season in your fields, the sweltering heat and your children’s board exams." This was clearly to pre-empt reports of a low turnout.

Railway coaches: A contradiction amongst the papers was over whether the railways had added special coaches for the rally. HT said they did, but they refused to run special trains to ferry the returning rallyists, owing to non-payment of balance amount of 2.93 lakhs by the BSP. The Times said the same, but it said that the railways "did not even attach extra coaches, as had been decided." Whom does one believe?

Detailed coverage in Hindi: The Hindi press’ coverage of the ‘Pardafash’ rally and the related issues was far more detailed than the English papers. For instance, Dainik Jagran, Rashtriya Sahara and Hindustan used about one-half of their pages to publish the list of inDIViduals and institutions who benefited from the chief minister’s Discretionary Fund when Mulayam Singh Yadav was chief minister. (This list was issued by the government and the cases against Mulayam Singh Yadav accuse him of misusing the Discretionary Fund.) Jagran and Aaj mentioned the exact charges of the FIRs against SP leaders, while other papers confused you in the jargon of the Indian Penal Code.

Considering Mayawati’s penchant for replying to allegations with a mammoth rally, the press in Lucknow is likely to have more such opportunities, when the story from Lucknow is the lead story in the national papers.

Contact: tellsachin@yahoo.com and shivamvij@hotmail.com