TERRORISM AND THE INDIAN MEDIA: A comparative study of the approach of English, Hindi and Urdu Newspapers towards terrorism, Rakesh Sinha, India Policy Foundation: New Delhi, Rs. 80
On the morning of September 19th, 2008, the Special Cell of the Delhi Police raided house number L-18 of Batla House Colony in Jamia Nagar, in the heart of Delhi, and killed two dreaded terrorists, Atif Amin and Mohammad Sajid, while another Mohammad Saif was arrested. While this news brought cheer to most people in Delhi as these terrorists were part of the same group that had terrorised the whole city only a few days before by unleashing a series of deadly bombings in public places that that had left over 30 people dead and over a 100 injured, a large section of the Urdu press, throwing all journalistic norms to the wind and without any iota of evidence, chose to condemn the police action as stage-managed and filled reams of newsprint with highly inflammatory articles and write-ups. For instance, the Urdu Times of Mumbai on September 23, 2008 published an obituary of the killed terrorists with the headline "Atif beqasoor tha, is par laga dagh Allah khud dhoyega" (Atif was innocent; Allah himself will wash the blame put on him).
The latest book of noted political scientist, Prof. Rakesh Sinha, "Terrorism and the Indian Media" is a comparative study on how the English, Hindu and Urdu newspapers in India deal with the issue of terrorism and is a culmination of the research carried out at the India Policy Foundation, New Delhi. The book tries to comprehend the attitudes of the newspapers through their coverage of three watershed events of recent times - the Batla House Encounter, the 26/11 terrorist attack on Mumbai, and the unsavoury episode where Abdul Rahman Antulay, a senior minister in the present Congress government chose to make highly obnoxious comments on communal lines about the Mumbai attack.
One would have thought that the supreme sacrifice of Inspector Mohan Chand Sharma, who laid down his life fighting the terrorists holed up in Batla House, would have completely laid to rest the initial murmurs among a section of the Muslims about the veracity of the encounter. However, as the book reveals, the Urdu press continued to insist that the slain terrorists were 'Masoon (innocent), 'Nirdosh' (blameless) and 'Bekasur' (innocent), in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. They gave wide publicity to wild rumours and amplified the inflammatory speeches of known rabble -rousers like the Shahi Imam of the Jama Masjid. Some Urdu newspapers published stories which would put even a highly lurid paperback to shame. The writer of an article in the Zadid Markaz, daily from Lucknow, on September 29 like the omniscient narrator of a novel wrote: "Inspector Sharma shouted from outside, 'Atif open the door, else I shall break it open and shoot you.' As soon as Atif opened the door, Inspector Sharma and his colleagues held him by the hair and dragged him from the fourth floor to the second floor. By this time Sajid was able to rid himself from police's grip and started to grapple with the cops. Sharma shouted an asked them to 'shoot the rascal', and the cops fired from behind. Instead of Atif, Inspector Sharma received the three bullets. ..."
In contrast, the book found both the English and Hindi print media to be objective on this issue. They stuck to the known facts and "never took the anarchist liberty of demonising the police or the Indian state". Debunking the canard spread by a section of the Urdu media, well known columnist Praveen Swami wrote: "Much has been made of a newspaper photograph which shows that Sharma's shirt was not covered in blood, with some charging that it demonstrates he was shot in the back. Forensic experts, however note that bleeding from firearm injuries takes place through exit wounds - not as in bad pop films, at the point of entry. In the photgraph, signs of a bullet having ripped through Sharma's shirt are evident on his visible shoulder; so too, is evidence of the profuse bleeding from the back ..." The Hindi dailies were in general scathing in their denunciation of those spreading false rumours about the attack. The Dainik Jagran took the local supporters of the slain terrorists in Jamia Nagar to task: "The way a section of the local residents opposed the operation of the Delhi Police, and even went to the extent of calling it a fake, provided the answer to questions as to why terrorists were able to get shelter in such localities. If the encounter were fake, then did Mohan Chand Sharma fall to the bullets shot from heaven? It is amply clear that the Muslim leadership still has miles to go before they can make the anti-terrorism campaign effective."
Barely two months after this incident came the worst terrorist attack on India soil. For over 60 hours heavily armed Jehadis held the port city of Mumbai in a pincer-grip of terror and at the end of it about 200 innocent lives were sacrificed at the alter of Islamic Jehadi fundamentalism and hundreds more were injured. The books presents overwhelming evidence of the fact that even at this moment of great national crisis, the Urdu media chose to play a very dangerous game by actively spreading egregiously baseless rumours. Most Urdu newspapers, even after one of the Islamic jehadis was captured alive, continued to spit out various conspiracy theories, blaming the Americans, the Jews, the Hindus, or a combination of these. The Roznam Rashtriya Sahara published an article with the headline: "Mumbai par hamala CIA ki karastani hai" (The Attack on Mumbai is the handiwork of the CIA. According to the Urdu Times of November 30, 2008: "Yeh Sangh Parivar-Mossad ki mushtarka dahsatgardi hai" (This is a joint terror operation by the Sangh Parivar and Mossad). Again on December 5, the same newspaper issued the patent denial "Musalman Dahsatgard nahi hai" (Muslims are not terrorists) and continued to insist that no Muslim organisations were involved in the Mumbai attacks. It also called on the government to "refrain from blaming Pakistan on every pretext."
The English and Hindi newspapers however clearly saw the Mumbai attack as a "war on India". The Hindustan Times recognized that the "Mumbai terror fits into the paradigm of Jehad international". In the targeted killing of Jews in Nariman House, the Times of India of November 28, was able to read a hallmark of Islamist groups - a fanatical hatred for Jews. The same newspaper also reported the case of the Turkish couple, Seyfi and Meltem Muezzinoglu, who were released by the terrorists at Oberoi Hotel, when they identified themselves as Muslims. The Hindi daily Aaj called on the government to formulate a policy to eliminate the root of this terror. It wrote: "The reality is that the terrorist infrastructure is still intact in Pakistan. The proof lies in the fact that from Karachi to Muzaffarabad, hundreds of terror camps are still operational, where youths are being trained before being sent across the border". In the same vein, the Dainik Jagran wrote: "...after killing the ruthless marauders who came from Pakistan it is now the responsibility of the Indian Government to take on the Pakistani leadership ..."
The response of the Urdu media to the highly irresponsible utterances of Abdul Rahman Antulay in Parliament about the killings of the ATS officers in Mumbai and those of the English and Hindi media were again a study in contrast. The Urdu press hailed him as a "Muslim leader" and in his statement found an opportunity to aggressively peddle their outrageous conspiracy theories. The English and Hindi were however unanimous in express their outrage at Antulay's anti-national statements. M.J.Akbar wrote in the Times of India of December 21st: "I am amazed at the sheer gall of both the spinners in Pakistan and Antulay's in India. They seem to forget that there is a Pakistani canary sitting in an Indian jail, singing out the plans, preparations and objectives. Nine dead men and their masters are being exposed by the tenth man, that man who did not die." (Referring to the captured terrorist Ajmal Amir Kasab). Many including Akbar felt the Mr. Antulay was impelled by the "lure of the Muslim vote."
The book concludes there has been a marked shift in the attitude of the English and Hindi media on the issue of terror, especially after 26/11. More and more newspapers are seen to be moving away from their stance of considering acts of terror as mere law and order problems. They are gradually coming to realise that terror acts are not isolated events and are not products of internal issues like the Ram Janmabhumi issue or the Gujarat riots, but is rather a part of the pernicious ideology of global Islamic Jihad, that is totally opposed to all ideas of democracy and modernity. The aftermath of the recent terrorist attacks also saw the usual concerted efforts from some quarters to derail the police investigations by bringing in issues like secularism, human rights, minority rights and the bogey of Hindu majoritarianism. Though both the English and Hindi did give space to the wild allegations levelled against the police and the Indian state, they did not get any endorsement from them, unlike in the past. They refused to buy the conspiracy theories peddled by Muslim right-wing activists, fundamentalist rabble-rousers, Jamia Students' and Teachers' bodies, and leftist organisations and were unanimous in recognising the supreme sacrifice of Inspector Mohan Chand Sharma at Batla House. The Urdu press on the other hand played a very dubious role during the latest spate of terror in the country and proved themselves be a big embarrassment for the nation, often reproducing the same baseless allegations, innuendos and wild conspiracy theories that sections of the Pakistani media was dishing out. They labelled the Batla House encounter a fake, questioned the role of “Muslims” and “Pakistan” in 26/11 while blaming CIA, Mossad and Sangh Parivar, and whole heartedly endorsed the untenable and highly anti-national statements of Abdul Rahman Antulay. They simply were not able to look beyond the outrageous paradigms of American, Zionist and Hindu conspiracies while seeking inspiration from medieval Islamic theology. Therefore, Ulema Council Chairman, Maulana Amir Rashadi in a typical conspiracy theory alleged that, “The UPA government have been acting under pressure from Mossad, which has been acting in coordination with the Sangh Parivar and targeting the Muslim community. All the terror attacks in the country have been carried out by them. Karkare exposed them and brought out this naked truth. So they killed him.”
When a reporter of India Today asked a terrorist arrested for the blasts in Delhi, whether he would plant a bomb in the same market where his mother was buying vegetables, he replied: "If Allah wants, I will do so.’Meri valida ko jannat naseeb hoga (my mother will get a place in paradise)." With such growing influence of Jehadi ideology, it is imperative for the media to be extremely careful in its conduct, lest it provide, in Margaret Thatcher's words, "oxygen for the terrorists." Hence Prof. Sinha's book comes at a very crucial time. Coming from an independent authority, it assumes all the more importance as he dispassionately provides incontrovertible evidence for all his conclusions. He and his team have painstakingly collected relevant material from all the major English, Hindi and Urdu newspapers and included them in the book. The absence of an index and printing errors are the only points which go against this excellent book. Overall a must read for anyone interested in national security and India's war on terror.
