Jingoism on the airwaves

Prime Time News  

A qualitative comparative analysis of how an India-Pakistan story was treated

 Nothing tests the professionalism of a news channel like an India-Pakistan story. The week the news was monitored was the one in which there was a terrorist attack on a CRPF camp in Srinagar on March 13, followed by a resolution passed in the National Assembly of Pakistan condemning the hanging of Indian Parliament attack convict Afzal Guru. This escalated tension between India and Pakistan. On March 15, the Indian Parliament passed a counter resolution asking Pakistan to refrain from interfering in India's internal affairs and declaring that Jammu and Kashmir is an integral part of India. The bilateral hockey series was also cancelled and a new group tourist visa facility for Pakistanis put on hold.

The developments dominated all the news telecasts.  Some news channels instantly went to war. The news crawler on Aaj Tak said, “Declare Pakistan a terror state.” Few aspired to objectivity. Instead of presenting facts and letting the viewers make up their own opinions, they offered nationalism and jingoism. It was us vs them. This was in the news, not the panel discussions where editorial views inevitably creep in.

Since these channels are mostly viewed by Indians, taking sides makes good business sense but constitutes bad journalistic practice. The statements of Opposition leaders, including those of Sushma Swaraj, Arun Jaitley, Syed Shahnawaz Hussain and Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi decrying Pakistan and India's “soft” foreign policy, came in handy to provide the news bias that the channels were looking for. By linking the attack in Srinagar to a lunch laid out for the Pakistani Prime Minister on an unofficial visit to India a few days earlier, the opposition leaders kept the chorus going.  

When Pakistan's National Assembly passed a resolution condemning the hanging of Indian Parliament attack convict Afzal Guru, seeking the return of his body to his family members, the removal of the Indian Army from Kashmir and the release of political prisoners, the act ignited a wave of hyper nationalism on the satellite news.  The language of news bulletins should not resemble foreign officespeak, but in this case, it far outdid it. News channels termed the acts as interference in India's internal affairs. A few also thundered that Pakistan was overtly supporting terrorism.   

On Times Now, anchor Arnab Goswami took the task of putting Pakistan in its place upon himself. He began his show 'Newshour' by saying: “The Pakistan Parliament has today supported the attack on the Indian Parliament Yes, that's exactly what it has done by passing a resolution questioning the execution of Afzal Guru. The Pakistan Parliament has directly challenged the sovereignty of India. Afzal Guru was not a Pakistani and this resolution is a direct violation of the Simla Agreement.” He went on to decry the official response and extolled the greatness of India vis-a-vis Pakistan.

He continued: “Most surprisingly, the official response from India is muted, the official response is cautious and totally unsure. I really wonder why. Like all of you we hope tomorrow that the response in our Parliament is equal and fitting. We hope that our politicians will draw the red line for Pakistan and tell the Pakistanis that even if their foreign policy is decided in Rawalpindi Cantonment, they should know never to cross the line with a nation far greater, a nation far more powerful and a nation far more tolerant than theirs.”

While Aaj Tak termed it a “Na-Pak Jurrat” (unholy daring act), ABP News adopted a tough posture, posing the question, “How long will India tolerate?” The voice over went on to say: “Instead of improving its own image due to terrorism, Pakistan has dared to give advice, supported Afzal Guru and commented on the situation in Jammu and Kashmir. The question remains, will India remain soft on Pakistan?” It was a case of competitive nationalism among the private channels with the public broadcaster Doordarshan left far behind.

No channel thought it necessary to offer its viewers the factual background that Pakistan considers Kashmir a matter of international dispute, not India's internal affair, and believes that Afzal Guru was innocent. Considering the development in this light reveals that Pakistan was following its consistent diplomatic policy of raising the Kashmir issue whenever it can. With national elections in Pakistan around the corner, it also made good political sense to divert attention from internal issues.

Aaj Tak and Times Now were the two channels with the most hectoring and opinionated telecasts on the development.  They demanded a cancellation of all engagements between the neighbours.

On March 15, after India passed a counter resolution, Aaj Tak said: “It had become difficult for India to maintain its composure and good manners. People wanted to know if Pakistan ditches us all the time why should India always extend a hand of friendship....Pakistan had lost its democratic manner and composure over the decision of the highest court on the attacker of the Indian Parliament. The Indian Parliament could not accept this silently.”  

The voice over explained this stand: “Pakistan has declared itself as a terror state by aligning with separatists and Afzal Guru This is a tough challenge for India as it will have to reveal the real face of Pakistan to the international community. Through the resolution, Pakistan had sent a message of parliamentary terror to our patience and sovereignty.”

Other news strips on Aaj Tak said:

'Yeh dushman dost nahin ho sakta' (This enemy can't be a friend)

'Sirf do took ya do do haath bhi' (Just a verbal reaction or a physical fight too?)

A correspondent said: “When Pakistan was formed, Gandhi had said it will be like India's younger brother. India also believed this but when went on to embrace him, he struck a knife. Now how do we have political and sports relations with such a brother? It's clear that these relations will only improve when Pakistan improves. India gave a befitting reply and now Pakistan would think four times before repeating such a mistake.”

The news anchor predicted an end to talks. “On Pakistan's betrayal, India has clearly stated that we know how to use our power and have used it earlier too. It shows the talks between two nations will not happen for a long time.” (The fact that India sent feelers to the newly-elected Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif within two months of this development belies the prediction).

Times Now presented news about the counter resolution on March 15 with a question: “They have returned our hospitality with hostility. They have stabbed us in the back again and again but this time India has refused to take it lying down. A counter resolution was passed in the Parliament against the Pakistan resolution against the Afzal hanging and both Houses have seen unanimous support. But is that enough? Why have we failed so far to contain Pakistan? Should the government take a tougher stand and call off all talks?”

The news also mentioned that when the Parliament assembled, the scene was different and it was only later that the government, sensing the mood of the House, decided to bring in the resolution.

The Hindi and English telecasts of DD News stressed that the political situation in Pakistan might have led to the passing of the resolution. On March 14, DD News Hindi had the headline: “Pakistan mein Afzal kee phansi par garmai siyasat.” (In Pakistan, Afzal Guru's hanging becomes a political high point). On the same day, the English telecast underscored the political angle by mentioning: “The Pakistani resolution was passed by the National Assembly only two days before its five-year term comes to an end.”

When a counter resolution was passed by the Indian Parliament on March 15, the Hindi bulletin termed it a “fitting reply” but asked: “Will Pakistan desist from such actions now?” The correspondent said: “Indo-Pak relations seemed to have gone off-track again. Pakistan has passed a resolution supporting Afzal Guru but never talked about the 26/11 Mumbai attacks in which it was proven without doubt that the attackers were Pakistanis. It never talked about Kasab.”

The English telecast began with the statement: “Pakistan got an earful from the Indian parliament over its national assembly resolution on Afzal Guru's execution.” The news strip said: “Resolution Vs Resolution”.

However, the bulletin referred to Pakistan’s domestic compulsions. The anchor said: “The Indian resolution says Pakistan should desist from such acts but will Pakistan learn any lessons especially at a time when domestic politics is peaking in a build up to elections? With elections round the corner, Pakistan is also juggling populism with the need to keep dialogue with India open.”

The correspondent echoed this line: “The Indian parliament has given a fitting reply to Pakistan. BJP wants the dialogue to be suspended which has already been put on the backburner by the UPA government. But with Pakistan heading towards elections, India needs to be far more vigilant on the security front. Another spark and a diplomatic powder keg could well blow up.”

NDTV India and NDTV 24x7 provided the most balanced coverage, without any rhetoric. The only view the news anchor on NDTV India expressed was: “Pakistan never leaves a chance to talk about Kashmir which is why the resolution was passed.”

Quite unexpectedly, prime time news on NDTV 24x7 missed the story of Pakistan's National Assembly passing a resolution. On the second day, however, it stepped up the coverage and talked about the counter resolution and the “stinging criticism”of Pakistan by all political leaders.

CNN-IBN also presented the developments without editorialising but with references to past incidents. It saw Pakistan's action as a gambit on Afzal and believed that it was fishing in troubled waters. On India's response, it said: “The government's first reaction was to mildly chide Pakistan but due to the build up of criticism, all parties put a united front and passed a counter resolution...relations have gone sour due to the beheadings of Indian soldiers near the Indo-Pak border a few months ago besides the recent terror attacks in Hyderabad and Srinagar, in which India sees the Pakistan hand. This will further reduce the PM's room for engagement with Pakistan. For the moment, even confidence building measures don't seem to be working.” 

Panel Discussions:

Certain news channels also hosted panel discussions and interviews on the strained Indo-Pakistan relations.

On the first day, Times Now invited Chandan Mitra of the BJP, Maroof Raza,the Times Now strategic affairs expert, Kanwal Sibal, former foreign secretary, and journalist Swapan Dasgupta to represent the Indian viewpoint. From Pakistan's side, political and strategic analyst Syed Tariq Pirzada, former Admiral Javed Iqbal and diplomat and political analyst Zafar Hilaly were present. The panel was heavily biased towards India as it had four pro-India panelists and three Pakistani guests. The anchor, Arnab Goswami, fought with Pakistani panelists for the cause of India asking them at one point to recount the 1971 Indo-Pakistan war and at another retorting that they had no business talking about differences in opinions in India on the hanging of Afzal Guru.

The discussion turned into a verbal war, ending with no particular conclusion. The total time of the panel discussion was 35 minutes 23 seconds and the time given to Pakistani speakers was just 7 minutes 45 seconds. One of the guests pointed out this anomaly, complaining about being forced to listen to long Indian monologues. 

When asked to respond to Pakistan's resolution, Chandan Mitra took off with the claim that “Pakistan is planning to invade and occupy Jammu and Kashmir but will get a bloody nose as they have always got...the Indian Parliament should tell Pakistan that OK,we have got your point, now we will meet outside parliamentary norms, parliamentary democracy, we shall see who has greater strength and who does not. And this time, it will really be a fight to the finish.” Not once did the anchor interject to ensure that war mongering was avoided and the real issue discussed. Yes, when Admiral Iqbal later dared: “If Pakistan is wrong, then why don't you teach Pakistan a lesson?”, Goswami said: “This is getting into too unreasonable a territory,”.

Earlier, Goswami questioned Admiral Iqbal by listing India’s virtues: “As I began by saying, India is a country far more greater, far more powerful and far more tolerant but the tolerance levels are now being tested admiral. I am asking you today what happened to your country's tolerance?” When Admiral Iqbal retorted “You are far weaker than you think,” Goswami said: “That's your assumption. We know 1971, you remember 1971.”

Later, Goswami picked up the issue of human rights violations in Balochistan to drive home the point that the Indian Parliament had never passed a resolution against Pakistan's acts there provoking Hilaly to say: “If you are talking about human rights violations, I think you will admit that many Indians have said that the hanging of Afzal Guru was deplorable, the way his trial was conducted, in fact the judge of the Supreme Court who hanged him said society expects him to pay the highest cost.” At this, Goswami retorted: “None of your business,” making Hilally respond: “You just said human rights. So, Balochistan is your business but this is not our business. Even on that plane you stump yourself.”

This left Goswami speechless and he looked around to Maroof Raza for support, saying: “You will given a fitting reply to that,” but the topic had already been sidelined by Hilally who then attacked the inclusion of Chandan Mitra in the panel, calling him “a member of a fringe group in India which your Home Minister so conveniently identified for the rest of the world as a major source of terror in India...Now if you are starting to recruit your panelists from these groups, which I suggest you also have a moral affinity with, how are you going to get the dialogue process? You don't want dialogue, well then say so.”

This obviously led to an angry response from Chandan Mitra who said he belonged to the major opposition party in India and accused Hilaly of being a Taliban agent. The debate kept dipping to new lows, becoming more of a slanging match than a discussion of a vexed issue.

In comparison, the NDTV 24x7 debate on March 15 had Shantaram Naik of the Congress, Najma Heptullah of the BJP and Shahzad Chaudhary, a retired air vice marshal and former diplomat from Pakistan. This panel, though very small, had views from all sides.

While remaining committed to their respective national interests, the panelists countered each other's arguments without calling each other names. The anchor put questions as a representative of India but not as somebody wanting to ignite passions. He questioned Chaudhary, asking: “Pakistan's resolution has come as a shock. He (Afzal Guru) was a convict and Pakistan says there is no space for terrorism on its soil. Why the double standards then?” Chaudhary replied: “Pakistan has had to come in and show a diplomatic as well as moral support to the people of Kashmir as has been Pakistan's stance all these years.” Shantaram Naik and Najma Heptullah called the resolution an interference in the internal affairs of India and proof of Pakistan's involvement in the attack on the Indian Parliament.