Negative reportage in Indo-Pak media
Subarno Chattarji
Overview:
The rhetoric of peace, goodwill, and commonality between the two nations manifested itself in the political arena, as well as on the cricket field. Regional media on both sides of the border were not impervious to this desire for harmony, especially the way in which Daily Ibrat championed the opening of the Khokrapar-Munabao border. However, there were a significant number of articles that presented a negative portrait of the other and were skeptical about the peace process. This skepticism was evident in the articles on the Kashmir issue on both sides of the border, as well as in more pointed pieces on the perceived shortcomings of the peace process.
Indian media reservations:
Both Amar Ujala and Dainik Jagran carried articles that highlighted negative aspects of Pakistan, not necessarily related to Kashmir or terrorism. For example, Ujala had headlines such as ¿Pak cannot play on a green pitch¿ (January 20), ¿Pakistan silences Mukhtaran¿ (January 22), and ¿Starting of Munabao-Khokrapar rail a lethal decision for nation¿ (January 24). Jagran¿s headlines included ¿Mukhtaran interview banned under Pak pressure (January 22), ¿Musharraf spoilt Pakistan¿s image in the whole world¿ (January 31), and ¿Pak not trustworthy¿ (February 12). It is interesting that both papers picked up the Mukhtaran Mai story because of the discomfort it caused Pakistan as well as the outrage at her rape in the international arena. Such a negative story without a concomitant contextualizing of the problem of violence against women in South Asia made it seem as if the issues of rape were limited to Pakistan.
Musharraf bashing was one way in which Amar Ujala attempted to indict Pakistani society and politics. ¿Musharraf among worst dictators¿ cited a survey done by the US illustrated magazine, Parade: ¿Last year this magazine had Musharraf on number 7 in the list of 10 worst dictators. The magazine says, in this year¿s list Musharraf¿s position has gone down from the top 10 [to 17th position] not because his conduct has improved but because other dictators¿ attitude has worsened even more¿ (January 24). The rogues gallery cited from Parade included Kim Jong Il of North Korea and Hu Jintao of China!
The next day Ujala highlighted an interview given by Musharraf: ¿As far as terrorism is concerned it is a mere inclination produced in the mind. Musharraf stated this during his tour of Norway. […] Referring to the investigation against terrorist elements in Pakistan, Musharraf said that it is important to understand pure/real Islam for a Muslim renaissance¿ (¿"Terrorism is a mere product of mind": Musharraf¿).
The conjunction of the two pieces is deliberate because the first piece discredits Musharraf¿s claims to fighting terror by nominating him amongst the world¿s worst dictators. It also highlights the paradox of Musharraf¿s position: a military dictator and yet a frontline ally in the war against terror. The aim was also to indicate the political and moral difference between a non-democratic Pakistan and a democratic India.
This difference was clearly stated in an earlier article, ¿General Musharraf on same path as dictator Saddam¿: ¿Musharraf¿s army is killing people with poisonous gases in Baluchistan. […] The Pakistani senator for Baluchistan province says that Musharraf is going one step ahead of the Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein in torturing and afflicting the people. […] During an interview with a regional daily [Baluchi leader] Sanaullah asked who Musharraf is. He did not come to power after a democratic election¿ (January 21).
Troubles in Baluchistan were covered with as much glee and moral superiority in India as Kashmir was covered in Pakistan, though without the frequency of the latter. While I will deal with the coverage of Baluchistan later, here it is noteworthy that Musharraf¿s credentials or lack thereof were linked with the problem of Baluchistan, implying that a democratically elected leader would act otherwise. No connections with Kashmir where a democratically elected government rules was made by this article.
Dainik Jagran¿s skeptical attitude to the peace talks as well as General Musharraf was evident in a series of articles. In ¿Musharraf harps on Siachen¿ the disjunction between peace and Kashmir was clear: ¿A day after raising the issue of Kashmir in the World Economic Forum, Pakistan president Pervez Musharraf harped on the issue of Siachen on Saturday. He said that his country cannot talk of business and economic aid when "people are killing each other" on the border¿ (January 28). This oft repeated position was then bolstered by a bit of moral sentimentalism with a direct quote from Musharraf: ¿"I may be bhala for Manmohan Singh but what is the guarantee that the next person would also be like this? We should work for peace and if we can¿t then we will let our future generations down."¿ There was an after-me-the deluge syndrome that Musharraf employed with some skill and it was shown to be mere grandstanding. Musharraf¿s credibility was also dented by the ways in which these articles are juxtaposed one after the other.
In ¿Each one blows one¿s own trumpet¿ Jagran harped on the theme of Pakistan¿s untrustworthiness: ¿Prime Minister Manmohan Singh¿s disappointment is actually due to Pakistan¿s distrustful behavior. The government has presented an unprecedented example of peaceful co-existence with Pakistan, which was not seized wholeheartedly by Pakistan¿ (January 30). The piece ended, however, with a cautionary word about the geopolitical need to make peace with Pakistan: ¿The representatives of India and Pakistan have met off and on, during several world forums, but every time Pakistan presents its fanatical and stubborn attitude. But India must keep in mind that if she desires to be a superpower of the twenty-first century, then the relations with these neighbours must be improved.¿ Thus realpolitik rather than brotherly love should be the motivating force behind India¿s peace initiatives because Pakistan is unlikely to jettison ¿its fanatical and stubborn attitude¿.
Jagran reverted to the idea of India as a soft state in ¿Tit for Tat¿: ¿Pakistan¿s perpetual statements against India are the result of the soft attitude of India. Pakistan has always viewed India¿s generosity and straightforwardness as her weakness. Thus, India should also follow a policy of tit for tat with Pakistan. […] The way Pakistan has given patronage and cooperation in its country to separatist groups active in India makes its wish clear. It would always wish to see a weak India instead of a strong one¿ (January 30).
Pakistani media skepticism:
As with the Indian papers, Nawai-e-Waqt carried headlines that highlighted the negative in India: ¿Betting rumours high on Sehwag¿s innings¿ (January 17), ¿Culture is severely affected due to the caste system in India¿ (January 31). Its special venom was reserved for articles related to Kashmir.
In keeping with its general attitude of animosity towards India, Nawai-e-Waqt carried numerous pieces expressing disdain for the peace overtures made by India and occasionally Pakistan (as was evident in the articles on Kashmir). A comment piece by Professor Fateh Mohammed Malik, ¿New creation of Pakistan in an Indian mould¿ was a detailed critical commentary of Pakistan¿s New Creation, a book written by a former Indian Director General of Military Training, Major General Vinod Sehgal. General Sehgal¿s fantasy of a sub-continental confederation from Kabul to Colombo involves the obliteration of Pakistan as it exists today. It offers familiar arguments of Pakistan as a failed jehadist state that needs to be remoulded in the image of India. This feeds into the ¿Akhand Bharat¿ ideology beloved of the right in India. Professor Malik¿s critique of the book is therefore justified but he couches it in terms of an absolute opposition between Islam and Hinduism and attacks Ayesha Jalal as well. This absolutism tends to dilute the question he asks in conclusion: ¿shouldn¿t I call the person who is giving a threat like this a "Hindu terrorist?"¿ (January 19). Indeed he should and one wonders why General Sehgal¿s book was not commented upon by the Indian media under survey. Perhaps because it shows Indian policy commentators in poor light and India as a state with hegemonic desires.
Another comment article by Shahzad Chughtai, ¿India¿s efforts for its inclusion in the OIC¿ was equally forthright in denouncing India: ¿After facing defeat militarily, India has now decided to face Pakistan politically and diplomatically. […] India is not a Muslim country yet wants to be a part of the association of Islamic countries. In fact it wants to get into every international organization so that it can irritate Pakistan. […] India is still busy back-stabbing Pakistan. It has no interest in Pakistan¿ (January 29). Again Pakistan¿s identity is predicated purely on Islam and India¿s desire to be a part of the Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC) is seen as the irritating moves of an interloper. This is the tit-for-tat strategy outlined by Dainik Jagran from a Pakistani angle.
Chughtai¿s jingoism gets sharper as he writes: ¿India used the pretext of the "attack on the Parliament incident" as an excuse for going to war with Pakistan. Although its forces were deployed for almost a year they did not have the courage to go to war with Pakistan in case they face similar military defeat as they did during Kargil.¿ History is rewritten from the Pakistan perspective and ¿courage¿ defined in terms of military adventurism.
Chughtai sees the peace process as inimical to Pakistan interests and imposed by the US: ¿After the Kargil defeat, India is following on the policy of increasing political problems for Pakistan. […] For a long while, India tried to create unstable conditions in Karachi; now it is trying to do the same in the entire country. Pakistan stopped Kashmiri infiltration on American pressure, but that increased India¿s political interference.¿ Chughtai¿s admission that Pakistan controls infiltration in Kashmir coexists with the idea that India is responsible for all the troubles that plague Pakistan. Just as Amar Ujala saw all Pakistanis (and indeed Muslims) as traitors and terrorists, so too Chughtai established a symmetry of suspicion whereby Indians are the untrustworthy ones.
In a lead editorial Nawai returned to the conspiracy of ¿Akhand Bharat¿ citing a speech by President Abdul Kalam on the possibility of an Indo-Pak federation. ¿Pakistanis have always been skeptical of India¿s expansionist dreams and its anti Pakistan sentiments and the Hindu leadership actually accepted the June 3 plan with the specific purpose that the newly formed state will not be able to survive for long and will come into India¿s lap like a ripe fruit. Maulana Azad has written about his talk with Patel and Gandhi in his book. That was the reason for which Pakistan¿s assets were withheld and the Kashmir issue was raised so that Pakistan will continue to have instability and India will thus be able to prove the division of mother India. However, due to special blessing of God, Pakistan is not only here but is also an atomic power¿ (February 4). The edit provides historical ¿evidence¿ to prove India¿s unhappiness with the creation of Pakistan.
Some of the insecurities and fears within Pakistan are foisted on India¿s plan to decimate the country. ¿However, India considered the creation of Pakistan a defeat and started hatching the plan of ¿Akhund Bharat¿ from day one. Supporting the creation of East Pakistan and calling Kashmir an unbreakable part are all part of the plan to weaken Pakistan militarily, economically and politically so that it can disintegrate further.¿ Even Jaswant Singh¿s call for open borders is a part of India¿s design: ¿Jaswant Singh while crossing into Pakistan through the Munabao-Khokrapar route talked about erasing the division line on which the Pakistani government did not protest and tell him to shut up. Now the Indian puppet President has said that there is a possibility of a federation between India and Pakistan.¿
Finally the edit rejects the parallel with the unification of Germany: ¿The creation of Pakistan was not a hasty decision but a very well thought out plan, whereas Germany was forcefully divided into two parts. Pakistan is here to stay and because of such statements from the Indian leadership it cannot forego its independent status. After the Indian President¿s statement those people who say that the Indian leadership and politicians have accepted the creation of Pakistan should now go and jump into the lake. With its increasing involvement in Balochistan, we should take a note that India is preparing ground for the creation of a federation and hence we should stop the peace process and take steps to curb this menace.¿
Exceptions to negative reportage:
None of the papers under survey were totally monolithic in their coverage of the ¿other¿. Thus even Nawai-e-Waqt carried a headline contrary to Pakistan foreign policy and Musharraf¿s declarations: ¿"There is nothing common in the Palestinian and Kashmiri issues; both issues should not be linked": International Court of Justice¿ (February 1). The ICJ¿s declaration may cause dismay in Pakistan but at least there is an acknowledgement of alternative visions, in this case an international one rather than Indian.
Dainik Jagran carried a piece by Satish Kumar Singh, ¿A New Message of Peace¿, that was at odds with its dominant tone of suspicion: ¿Nobody wants that the noise of the gun between the two hearts should pierce through the people, they always pray for aspiration of love among the people. […] They should always share love and brotherhood since love is everything¿ (January 27). Although the article speaks sentimentally about generalities it is in sharp contrast to the hawkish pieces examined earlier.
That there can be alternatives within a dominant discourse of hate and suspicion was proved by another article in Amar Ujala, ¿God is a multimillionaire even in Karachi¿, which described a Hindu temple and the atmosphere of religious tolerance in Sindh. ¿Everyday apart from the ¿aarti¿, all Hindu festivals are celebrated. During Holi, Jinnah road that links it with the new town is closed and during Navaratri, ¿jagrans¿ of goddess also take place. The temple is even allowed the use of loudspeaker during all the religious rituals. The trustee of the temple Jawahar Lal informs that the temple does not face any problems in carrying out these activities. Nobody refuses the payment of rent and whenever there has been a conflict over this it has been sorted out in Court¿ (January 29). More than Singh¿s sentimentalism this piece is about a living and vibrant syncretism that Indian media seldom, if ever, highlight. The stereotypes of an intolerant Islam were overturned in this piece.
The fraught relationship between the two countries as well as the uneasy balance between peace and goodwill on the one hand and hate and jingoism on the other was perhaps best reflected in the coverage of the Indian cricket teams¿ tour of Pakistan. While Nawai-e-Waqt carried triumphalist headlines - ¿India¿s worst ever defeat¿, ¿Befitting reply to the defeat on home ground in 2004; Pakistani bowlers crushed India¿ (February 1) - Daily Ibrat was more measured in savouring Pakistan¿s victory. Ibrat also covered cricket in greater detail. For example, 12 of 14 articles on January 15 were on or related to the Lahore Test.
It was the Indian papers which captured the difficulties of reconciling cricket with peace, as in an article, ¿Warning: Sami and Shoaib must stop staring at Indians¿ that Amar Ujala carried. ¿According to a senior official of PCB, the board wants to avoid any conflict because of which Indo-Pak cricket relations, normalized with difficulty, would be adversely affected¿ (January 18).
Similarly Dainik Jagran cited Younis Khan, the vice captain of Pakistan, who rebuked spectators who were barracking the Indians: ¿"I advise the viewers to cheer for their team but not to hurt anyone"¿ (¿Pak admirers ridicule Indian players,¿ January 23). While cricket may not be a harbinger of peace at least it provides some space for competitive goodwill.
Contact: chattarji_s@yahoo.com