On February 29, activist Indrajeet Ghorpade received four favourable orders from NBDSA. There orders were issued by the statutory commission, presided over by retired Supreme Court judge Justice AK Sikri, upon three complaints filed by the complainant against three separate news channels for airing news programmes that were violative of the guidelines set by the NBDSA. Through the three orders, a monetary penalty of Rs. 1 lakh has been imposed upon Times Now Navbharat Rs 1,00,000, while News 18 India has to pay a fine of Rs 50,000. Furthermore, the commission has issued a warning to Aaj Tak. Additionally, all three channels have been directed to remove the online uploads of the offending programs within seven days. Notably, all the three have been found guilty of airing content that spreads hatred and communal disharmony.

1. Order of Times Now Navbharat:

Complaint: On June 3, 2023, activist Indrajeet had filed a complaint with Times Now Navbharat. He had flagged the tickers and headlines showcased during the show that had been aimed at demonising and spreading hatred against the Muslim Community. The complainant had also highlighted the many generalised statements against the Muslim community that were made during the show with no basis. Notably, the murder of Sharaddha Walker was repeatedly given a communal angle and used to colour Muslim men as suspicious.

Order: NBDSA imposed a fine of Rs. 1 lakh on Times Now Navbharat after finding anchor Himanshu Dixit to have targeted the Muslim community and generalised inter-faith relationships as “love jihad”. In its order, the commission took objection to the Times Now Navbharat program on “love jihad” and observed, “on a perusal of the impugned broadcast, it appears that at the very beginning of the broadcast, the anchor has concluded that men from a certain community lured women from another community by hiding their religious identity and then committed violence or murders against such women and every such violence or murder committed on women of a certain community related to ‘love jihad’. This is evident from the questions raised and statements made by the anchor during the impugned broadcast. When some of the panellists expressed their concerns regarding the communal angle being given to such alleged incidents and regarding selective cases of violence against women where the perpetrator belonged to a particular community, the anchor shouted them down and did not allow them to express their views.”

In furtherance to this, NBDSA also observed that there may be some instances where boys from a particular community married Hindu girls, however the same does not give a warrant for news anchors to make generalised statement. The order stated, “Some such instances should not lead to making generalized statements regarding inter-faith marriages by giving it a communal colour. Every citizen, from whichever religion, has a right to marry a person of his/her choice, irrespective of the religion to which he/she belongs. Merely because a Hindu girl married a boy of another faith would not tantamount to love jihad unless it is established that such a Hindu girl was duped or coerced into the marriage. Further, because of few incidents of such forced marriages, an entire community cannot be branded. Thus, it was not proper to generalize the incidents with the tickers such as “Love तो बहाना है … Hindu बेटियाँ निशाना हैं” Jihadiyon se Beti Bachao”.

NBDSA further pointed out that the term “love jihad” should be used sensibly in future broadcasts since religious stereotypes can damage the country’s secular fabric. NBDSA considered that if incidents had been discussed or debated independently, they would have fallen under the bounds of journalistic freedom and stated “It is the generalization of these incidents by targeting the entire community, which is found to be violative of the principles of Impartiality, Objectivity and Neutrality under the Code of Ethics & Broadcasting Standards (“Code of Ethics”) and the Specific Guidelines covering Reportage relating to Racial and Religious Harmony. In the impugned broadcast, the anchor had also violated Clauses (f) and (h) of the Specific Guidelines for Anchors conducting Programmes including Debates”.

The complete order can be viewed here:

2. Order of News 18:

Complaint: A total of four shows that had been aired by News18 were complained against by activist Indrajeet. It had been contended by the complainant that these four shows. All of which were based around the themes of ‘Love Jihad’, had violated the Code of Ethics & Broadcasting Standards and Guidelines relating to neutrality, accuracy, fairness, religious harmony, sensationalisation of crime, negative stereotyping and good taste.

Order: Through its order, the NBDSA slapped a fine of Rs. 50,000 on News 18 India for three shows, two of which were anchored by Aman Chopra, and one by Amish Devgan. These shows were found to have communalized the Shradda Walker case as “love jihad.” Notably, the remaining one broadcast was a subject-matter of an FIR registered in Bharatpur, Rajasthan and thus, the commission could not take cognizance of the same.

In the order, the commission stated that “while the media has the right to conduct debates on any topic of its choice, however, it may have been inappropriate for the broadcaster to haveconducted several debated on the subject of “love jihad” while linking it to the Sharaddha Walker murder case”.

It further added that “NBDSA stated that the term ‘love jihad’ should not be used loosely and should be used with great introspection in future broadcasts as religious stereotyping can corrode the secular fabric of the country, cause irreparable harm to a community and create religious intolerance or disharmony.”

The complete order can be viewed here:

3. Order of Aaj Tak:

Complaint: The third complaint had been filed by activist Indrajeet against the ‘Black and White’ show anchored by Sudhir Chaudhary and aired on Aaj Tak. Through the complaint, the complainant has specifically pointed to the false statements made by the host to target and create hatred and fear against the Muslim community. In the complaint, the complainant wrote that “the broadcasters chose to look away from the rampant discrimination that Dalits and Muslims face. Instead, it ran a show portraying Muslim people as rioters and Muslim areas as mini-Pakistan.”

 Order: In its order, NBDSA observed that there would not have been a problem with the broadcast if the broadcaster had confined its analysis to the incidents of communal violence, but the tickers that were shown during the programme portrayed a completely different picture. Additionally, NBDSA noted that the violence committed by a few miscreants was generalised by the anchor to target a particular community.

The order stated “NBDSA observed that there would have been no problem with the broadcast if the broadcaster had confined its analysis to the incidents of communal violence. However, by broadcasting the following tickers ‘today Muslim areas, tomorrow Muslim country’, a completely different colour had been given to the programme.”

With this, the authority directed the broadcaster to remove the video of the said broadcast from its channels and websites within 7 days of the order.

The complete order can be viewed here:

4. Order of India Today

Complaint: On June 30, 2023, a complaint against a programme titled “Nudity sparks outrage at USA pride parades- How India’s LGBTQ+ lead Responsibility” aired by India Today had been filed by activist Indrajeet. Through the complaint, the complainant has emphasised upon the false images that were show during the show to spread hatred and homophobia. In the complaint, the complainant had stated that “a simple reverse image search can help separate facts from fake news. However, it is clear that the broadcaster was either incapable of fact-finding or had malafide intent to sensationalise and spread fear against minority communities.”

Order: Noting that the broadcaster had utilised images sourced from USA and made false assertions regarding them to instil fear amongst the audience regarding the LGBTQIA+, NBDSA observed that the visuals and images used were “totally out of context” and were not part of the incident covered was a violation of the principle of accuracy. With this, the commission ordered the broadcaster to edit the video of the said broadcast by expunging the objectionable parts or if that is not possible, to remove the video, from all websites and channels within 7 days.

Apart from following the Code of Ethics & Broadcasting Standards and Guidelines, members were also circulated a set of guidelines for broadcasting on issues concerning the LGBTQIA+ community, for “strict compliance” after the commission noted that several complaints had been received by concerning reporting on LGBTQIA+ issues.

The complete order can be viewed here:

Other orders issued:

In addition to the aforementioned four orders, NBDSA had issued more such orders. Another ‘Black and White show’ hosted by Sudhir Chaudhary on former US President Barack Obama’s comments on the protection of minorities in India while PM Narendra Modi was on a state visit to America came under the scanner of the authority. On the complaint filed against the same, the NBDSA found that apart from finding “a violation of the principles of Objectivity and Neutrality”, the broadcast had violated the Specific Guidelines for Anchors, which stated that “all programmes must be presented in an impartial, objective and neutral manner”.

As per a report of the Indian Express, the order stated that by using words “Tukde Tukde Gang”, “Khalistani in Punjab” and “Pakistani supporters” instead of confining its discussion to Obama’s statement, the broadcaster had failed to present a controversial issue with sensitivity and objectivity. With this, NBDSA slapped the broadcaster with a fine of Rs. 75,000 and directed them to remove the video of the show. In addition to this, the broadcaster was also advised by the commission to ensure that “in future broadcasts, controversial subjects are fairly presented with strict adherence to the principles of Neutrality, Impartiality and Objectivity in the broadcast”.

Another complaint had been filed against an episode the ‘Black and White show that aired on Aaj Tak in March 24 last year. . Notably, the show had aired a day after a Surat court convicted Congress leader Rahul Gandhi of defamation for a 2019 speech about thieves with the surname Modi. The said complaint had been filed by Youth Congress president Srinivas B V on a fictional video of Rahul Gandhi that was shown in the programme. In its decision, NBDSA observed that the “story of the robber and the imputation it carried” with Gandhi’s conviction was “not in good taste” and “should have been avoided”. The NBDSA also advised the channel to be “careful while airing such fictional videos” in future.

CJP complaints to NBDSA over the years:

Since 2018, Citizens for Justice and Peace has been consistently monitoring news programmes being broadcasted contentiously and with the aim of spreading its partisan agenda. Over the years, a total of 23 complaints have been filed by the human rights organisation with the NBDSA. Out of these 23 complaints, 8 have been filed against Times Now Navbharat, 3 against Zee News, 4 against Aaj tak and 2 against Times Now.

In addition to this, out of the complaints filed, 4 had Sudhir Chaudhary as its host/anchor, 2 had been hosted by Aman Chopra and 7 were against shows hosted by Rakesh Pandey. Notably, a total of 7 complaints remain pending with NBDSA and the arguments are yet to take place. Out of the remaining 15 complaints that have been decided by the commission, 13 have resulted in removal of the contentious shows. Additionally, in two cases, monetary penalty of Rs.50,000 and Rs. 25,000 were also imposed.

Details of the complaints filed can be viewed here:

Related:

CJP’s NBDSA Complaints 2023: How persistent monitoring put a check on unbridled hate, one channel at a time

CJP Impact! NBDSA orders removal of two Times Now Navbharat shows (videos)

CJP Impact! NBDSA orders AAJ TAK’s Sudhir Chaudhary show to be pulled down, censors second

CJP escalates complaint against Times Now Navbharat show on Gyanvapi Mosque to NBDSA

The post 7 shows broadcasted by mainstream news channels to be removed orders NBDSA, fines imposed in some cases appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The report contains an interview of Vishvajeet, a District Inspector, CID, who is responsible for gathering information and intelligence across Nuh. During the interview, Vishwajeet claimed that he had sent a formal warning to the local authorities regarding potential trouble during the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) annual procession. It was purported by him that his department’s specific warnings against the 130 km long religious procession passing through Muslim dominated Nuh were completely ignored.

In the clip showing his interview, Vishvajeet stated that the CID had input that when the VHP will be taking out their procession, raising slogans and brandishing their swords, will surely have an encounter with the locals of Nuh. He specifically provided that all these inputs had been submitted to the government at least 10 days before the procession was taken out.

It was then claimed by Vishvajeet that his findings on the potential violence at Nuh were not acted upon by the law enforcement authorities. He provided that “The senior officials thought they could manage the situation and disperse the crowds in case anything untoward took place. They took it lightly. They thought they could convince the locals that Monu Manesar did not show up.”

He further provided “It only took a rumour to spread that Monu Manesar was present at the procession. The locals were prepared to stop the procession from proceeding, they wanted to block its route.”

Additionally, Vishvajeet provided that it just took one hour for the build-up of the violence. He also specified that the locals who were involved in the violence were between the ages of 17-22. He stated “No one was mature amongst them.”

Local police remained clueless, overpowered by the numbers present in the crowd

A different story was told by Kishan Kumar, the Station House Officer (SHO) of the police station under whose jurisdiction the communal violence at Nuh had taken place. As provided by him to India Today, he had received no intimation regarding any potential trouble at the procession.

As provided by Kumar, there were less than 100 police personnel available alongside the religious procession. On being asked by the interviewer whether any information was made available to the local police by the CID regarding the potential violence, he said that no such information was received by them.

Kumar stated “We were not informed about any need for addition reinforcements. Had we known beforehand about this situation, we could have acted. Had we known, we could have stopped the procession. The procession was not an emergency exercise that had to take place. We had no such information, else we would have alerted the higher authorities.”

In a separate interview with the India Today team, Kumar had explained how the available force at the scene of the procession were spread too thin across the route. He provided “The available forces was all on duty. We were spread across the entire route.  The route kept on expanding. While the procession kept on expanding, the force remained the same, there was no extra personnel. The picket points increased from 10-20 to 200, the force fell short.”

The complete report can be viewed here:

ये Report दूध का दूध, पानी का पानी करने काफी है।

हरियाणा सरकार और हरियाणा पुलिस को पता था कि उत्पात होने वाला है, सरकार को जानकारी दी गयी।

लेकिन स्थानीय पुलिस के पास कोई Input नही दिया गया। pic.twitter.com/qh4TFMK7pL

— Srinivas BV (@srinivasiyc) August 2, 2023

Who is to be blamed for the deaths?

On August 2, Chief Minister Manohar Lal Khattar had stated that social security and peace was the foremost priority of the state government, and yet, crucial information on impending violence was not paid any heed by the government. As can be deduced from the aforementioned investigative report, significant information regarding potential disharmony and communal clashes were ignored by the law enforcement and the state government. Till August 2, the death toll die due to the violence in Nuh and Haryana had mounted to six, with multiple people having suffered injuries and loss of properties. A Mosque in Gurugram had been vandalised and burned too. A situation that could have been avoided led to the death of two Home Guard jawans and four civilians.

The blame game has started, with the local police stating that they were unaware and the CID stating that the information provided by them was ignored. While the “miscreants” cause the violence are being chased and held liable, attention should also be focussed on the role played by the authorities and the state government. There remains no doubt that administration failed to control the violence. Even as tell-tale signs of a communal divide were present, the same were ignored by local authorities, law enforcements and the state government.

Related:

CJP petitions NCM and DGP, Haryana as anti-minority violence spreads takes grip in the state

Nuh Haryana: Who cast the first stone?

Communal violence erupts in Nuh, Mewat, five killed, provocations by VHP-Bajrang Dal continue

Nuh Clashes planned and coordinated, more such violence likely before 2024 Polls: Satyapal Malik

Union MOS Home questions arms allowed in ‘religious’ procession at Nuh, Haryana: Rao Inderjit Singh

The post Lives lost in Nuh violence, a failure on the part of the Haryana police and government? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

CJP has moved the News Broadcasting Standards Authority (NBSA) seeking action against India Today for running a sting operation on madrasas when the Covid-19 pandemic had started to make headway in India. The show titled Madrasa Hotpots: India Today Investigation hosted by Rahul Kanwal, was aired on India Today TV news channel on April 10, 2020.

After this program was aired, it was summarily panned and criticised widely on social media for its communal content that appeared to be aimed at spreading hatred against one particular community. The entire program was a sting operation conducted in a madrasa where minor children are housed. However, madrasas serve as hostels for poor, destitute and orphaned children. This important piece of information was conveniently skipped in the show. Instead, the show blatantly claimed that these children have been hidden in the madrasa.

The show also drew a comparison between the much talked about Tablighi Jamaat case, and stated that despite concerns about the spread of Covid-19, there are children being crammed up in rooms in madrasas. The channel seems to have taken this stand in a bid to insinuate that Muslims are still defying social distancing, thus making them appear to be a greater enemy than the coronavirus itself.

The complaint states that, “While sting operations are considered a last resort in the field of journalism, to carry it out in an institution that houses poor destitute and orphaned children, can only be deemed deplorable. While such reportage defies all principles of morality, there are laws as well as standard ethical practices in place which make this kind of journalism a punishable offence.”

The complaint also draws out how the show stands to violate the code of ethics and fundamental principles of self-regulation laid out by the NBSA for its member organisations. It further points out how the channel becomes liable under the Indian Penal Code for perpetrating hate speech and for inflammatory and inciteful contents of their show.

The complaint also mentions the Bombay High Court judgment which said that the Jamaat members were made scapegoats by the government and “an attempt was made to create a picture that these foreigners were responsible for spreading Covid-19 virus in India”.

The complaint further states, “We assert that this show of India Today was a part of this larger conspiracy to subdue the Muslim community in India by blaming the spread of an entire pandemic basis one singular incident, which no case been completely established in any court of law. The clear intention of media houses like India Today was to create and sell a narrative that suited their agenda, of being anti minority, and to paint them in such a negative light, that feelings of hatred and animosity are implanted in other communities against them, and the communal divide further deepens”.

The NBSA has taken cognisance of the complaint on September 19 and while sending the complaint to India Today, has asked them to send a response to the same within 7 days.

The complaint may be read here.

Download PDF

Related:

Sudarshan TV airs ‘UPSC Jihad’ show

NBSA forwards CJP’s complaint against Sudarshan News to I&B Ministry

The post CJP moves NBSA against India Today’s communal sting operation on Madrasas appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In a shocking expose, the India Today news channel has unmasked the true face of the Sanatan Sanstha, an extreme right wing Hindutva supremacist organization that has been in the news for its members’ involvement in a series of terror attacks as well as the murder of rationalists.

India Today caught on tape two members of Sanatan Sanstha. Both men have the designation of saadhaks or seekers in the organization. Mangesh Dinkar Nikam confessed on camera to planting the bomb that luckily failed to explode at the Vishnudas Bhave Auditorium in Vashi on May 31, 2008. The Marathi play Amhi Pachpute was being performed there.

“I had kept the bomb. We had protested against the depiction of gods and goddesses in a play that was being performed at the theater. When they refused to stop the performance, we decided to scare people,” confessed Nikam. But it did not stop there. This was the second bomb attack in 2008. Earlier on Feb 20, a bomb had exploded at a Panvel theater screening Jodha Akbar. Unaware that he was being recorded on a hidden camera, he spoke with greater impunity and said, “We just wanted to scare them. If we wanted, we could have even killed people!”

Nikam said that he had been with the Sanatan Sanstha since 2000 and that he would often visit their ashram in Panvel. “That is how I stayed in touch with the others who planted bombs,” he said explaining how the ashram played a key role in the planning and coordination of the bomb attacks. Interestingly, though Nikam had been implicated in the case, he was acquitted by the court in the absence of any evidence.

Meanwhile, another saadhak Haribhau Krishna Divekar revealed something even more sinister. On June 4, 2008 another bomb had exploded at Thane‘s Ghadkari Rangayatan theater’s parking lot during the performance of Amhi Pachpute. Divekar was a key accused in this case. “After the blast the police came to my house to conduct a search. So I turned over all weapons and explosives I had to them. There were one or two revolvers, 23 gelatin sticks, 20 detonators and some digital meters.” However, interestingly the ATS that was investigating the case stated in its official documentation that nothing was recovered from Divekar’s house. This is why despite being implicated in the case, he too, like Nikam, was acquitted by the court… due to ‘lack of evidence’.

The Sanatan Sanstha was quick to dismiss India Today’s investigation. “These tapes have no evidenciary value under the IT Act. Moreover, the two men in these videos have come to us and claimed that they were given Rs 2 crores each to make false statements against the Sanatan Sanstha,” said spokesperson Ramesh Shinde.

Senior journalist Nikhil Wagle wondered how the Sanatan Sanstha was still allowed to run despite mounting evidence against it. “They have planted bombs, their men have been caught with explosives in their homes. They are involved in murders of journalists and rationalists. How is this secret assassin society allowed to operate,” he demanded to know.

Meanwhile, Deepak Kesarkar Minister of State for Home, Maharashtra assured that action would be taken. “You have provided us with new evidence. We will inform the central government and take necessary action.” But it was clear that he had been caught off guard and was playing on the backfoot. He also steered clear of specifying what action will be taken or comment on whether the Sanatan Sanstha will be banned.

Meanwhile, the second part of India Today’s investigation revealed that investigators in cases where men from Sanatan Sanstha were allegedly involved were under tremendous political pressure. CL Patil a police officer of the rank of Station House Office, who investigated the Margao blast, confirmed the existence of political pressure. The Sanatan Sanstha had planned the blasts to trigger communal violence, but the plan backfired when the explosives went off prematurely killing the handlers! Patil said, “Had it not been for political pressure Sanatan men responsible would be behind bars. I had also recommended that the Sanatan Sanstha be banned, but that recommendation was not acted upon.” He further elaborated on the kind of political pressure saying. “Even the police are not allowed to enter the Sanatan Sanstha premises in Ponda. The political pressure is so strong that the moment it is about religion, there is complete silence. Mantri to santri everyone is involved.”

But in more shocking revelation India Today discovered that Amit Degvekar who is one of the key accused in the murder of journalist Gauri Lankesh, had stated the Sanatan Sanstha ashram in Ramnathi, Ponda as his residential address in his voter ID and bank documents. Patil also revealed that Degvekar once shared a room with Malgonda Patil who was one of the men who was handling explosives in the Margaon blast and died when the bombs exploded prematurely. He suspects that these men were brain washed by Sanatan Sanstha founder Dr Jayant Athawale who lived in a room next to them.

ATS Inspector Salim Sheikh also spoke about the Sanatan Sanstha’s close association with political power brokers. Both Patil and Sheik point to an as yet unnamed powerful politician who is a minister in the Manohar Parrikar government as a key player. Though India Today is withholding his identity, they say his wife and sister-in-law are both senior office bearers in the Sanatan Sanstha.  

The post India Today exposes Sanatan Sanstha’s terrorist activities appeared first on SabrangIndia.

यह बात दर्ज की जानी चाहिए कि जब पाँच राज्यों में विधानसभा चुनाव हो रहे थे तो इंडिया टुडे ग्रुप देश का मिज़ाज बताने का दावा करने वाला सर्वे लेकर आया । उसने इन पाँच राज्यों के बारे में कोई नतीजा ना देकर ऐलान किया कि देश में एनडीए की लहर है। क्या यह संयोग है या फिर सोची-समझी प्रचार योजना का हिस्सा। यह कैसे हो सकता है कि आज तक जैसा सबसे तेज़ चैनल विधानसभा चुनाव के समय राज्यों का नहीं देश का मूड बताने में दिलचस्पी रखे।

इंडिया टुडे और कारवी  इनसाइट के इस सर्वे के नतीजे में मोदी ही मोदी हैं। सर्वे के मुताबिक अभी चुनाव हो तो एनडीए को लोकसभा में 360 सीटें मिलेंगी। मोदी जी की लोकप्रियता में ज़बरदस्त इज़ाफ़ा हुआ है। 65 फ़ीसदी लोग उन्हें प्रधानमंत्री पद के लिए सर्वाधिक योग्य मानते हैं। यही नहीं सैकड़ों लोगों की जान लेने वाली और देश की आर्थिक रफ़्तार को धीमी करने वाली नोटबंदी के फ़ैसले के साथ भी 80 फ़ीसदी लोग हैं। सर्वे के मुताबिक अकेले बीजेपी की 305 सीटें आएँगी अगर अभी चुनाव हों। सर्वे में 19 राज्यों के 12,143 लोगों से बात की गई।

अब यह बात छिपी नहीं है कि बार-बार ग़लत साबित होने के बावजूद चैनलों में सर्वे करने को लेकर इतना उत्साह क्यों होता है। दरअसल, ऐसे सर्वे माहौल बनाने में अहम भूमिका निभाते हैं और उहापोह में पड़े मतदाताओं को प्रभावित करते हैं। यह एक तरह प्रचार का ही रूप होता है। पहले हज़ार-दो हज़ार लोगों से बात करके, अपनी  राजनीतिक रुचि के मुताबिक एक नतीजा रखा जाता है और फिर ऐसे नतीजों को आधार बनाकर रात-दिन चैनलों में बहस चलती है। चुनावी रैलियों में भी इनका हवाला दिया जाता है। अख़ाबारों में भी भरपूर प्रचार होता है। यानी अमेरिकी विचारक नॉम चाम्सकी जिस मैन्यूफैक्चरिंग कन्सेंट (सहमति विनिर्माण) की चर्चा करते हैं, यह उसी का एक रूप है। कॉरपोरेट मीडिया अपनी ताक़त का इस्तेमाल करके मुद्दों और नेताओं की छवियाँ गढ़ता है।

अगर इंडिया टुडे का सर्वे सही है तो फिर पाँचों राज्यों में बीजेपी की सरकार ही बननी चाहिए। राजनीति की ज़रा भी समझ रखने वाला व्यक्ति इसे चुटकुला मानेगा। ऐसा नहीं कि इंडिटा टुडे के सर्वेकार इसे समझते नहीं, इसलिए उन्होंने बड़ी चालाकी से इसे ‘देश का मूड का नाम दिया’ और विधानसभा चुनाव वाले राज्यों पर कुछ कहना गोल कर गए  गोया देश का मूड, यूपी, पंजाब समेत पाँच राज्यों को अलग करके पता किया जा सकता है।

साफ़ है कि ऐसे सर्वे मतदाताओं पर असर डालने के औज़ार हैं। ख़ास बात यह है कि इसमें आप एक पैटर्न देख सकते हैं। आमतौर पर बीजेपी ही आगे रहती है। सर्वेकार ग़लत होने की संभावना ख़ारिज नहीं करते, लेकिन ऐसा ग़लत सर्वे कभी नहीं हुआ जिसमें कभी बीजेपी विरोधी या छोटे दल जीत गए हों। बीते बिहार चुनाव में भी इंडिया टुडे एनडीए की सरकार बनवा रहा था। दिल्ली के चुनाव में आज तक ने आम आदमी पार्टी को महज़ आठ-दस सीट दी थी।

यह केवल इंडिया टुडे का मसला नहीं है। ज़रा 2014 में दिल्ली के चुनाव को लेकर एबीपी न्यूज़ के सर्वे को याद कीजिए। जिस बीजेपी को 3 सीटें मिलीं, उसे सर्वे में 46 सीटें दी गई थीं। जिस आम आदमी पार्टी ने 67 सीटें पाईं उसे 18 सीटें दी गई थीं। 2013 का सर्वे भी  ऐसा ही था। ऐसी ग़लतियाँ संयोग नहीं नीयत का पता देती हैं। 3 सीट को 46 बताना सिर्फ़ ग़लती का मामला नहीं है।

ऐसी ग़लती होना और बार-बार होना संयोग नहीं है। यह बताता है कि देश की कॉरपोरेट लॉबी दरअस्ल किन राजनीतिक शक्तियों को शीर्ष पर देखना चाहती है। चैनल मालिकों का हित सीधे उनके सोच से संचालित होता है।

ऐसे में अगर आपको बीजेपी के स्टार प्रचारकों की लिस्ट कहीं दिखे तो उसमें एक नाम अपनी ओर से जोड़ लीजिएगा। वह नाम है अरुण पुरी,टीवी टुडे कंपनी के मालिक। इस मसले में संपादकों को दोष देना ग़लत है। वे तो हुक्म के ग़ुलाम हैं।

Courtesy: Media Vigil
 

The post NDA को 360 सीटें यानी पाँचों सूबे जीतेगी बीजेपी ! या ‘आज तक’ है बीजेपी का स्टार प्रचारक ! appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A grab from the sting operation telecast by Headlines Today and Aaj Tak

As Uttar Pradesh goes to elections once again next month, the 16^th UP Legislative Assembly may dissolve before putting an end to the contempt proceedings initiated against Aaj Tak and India Today for breach of legislative privilege of one of its senior members, namely,  Azam Khan.

This particular controversy was in the news in February, 2016 when the media reported that a couple of TV channels had been ‘indicted’ by a legislative committee constituted by the Assembly to investigate the manner in which these TV channels conducted a ‘sting operation’ alleging political interference in the functioning of the police during the Muzaffarnagar riots.

The Committee’s specific mandate was to examine the veracity of the sting operation since it involved allegations against Azam Khan, a senior minister in the government and a senior member of the UP Assembly. The sting in question conveyed the impression that Azam Khan had given directions to the police to go easy on some of those accused during the riots, thereby further stoking the violence.
 

"The sting in question conveyed the impression that Azam Khan had given directions to the police to go easy on some of those accused during the riots, thereby further stoking the violence."

 
Although many in the mainstream media declined to mention the name of the news channels, the smaller digital media outlets like Janatakareporter.com did name Headlines Today (now renamed India Today) and Aaj Tak. According to these reports, the Committee constituted by the UP Assembly recommended action against nine journalists belonging to these two TV channels, “under various Sections of IPC and IT Act including 153 (A), 295 (A), 200, 463,  464 & 465, 469 , 471‎ of IPC and IT Act (2000) and Cable TV Networks (regulation) Act- 1995 Sec-5 & Section 20”.
According to these reports, the nine journalists were: Supriya Prasad (Managing Editor-Aaj Tak), Rahul Kanwal (then Managing Editor-Headlines Today, now renamed India Today TV), Deepak Sharma, Arun Singh, Harish Sharma (all members of the then Special Investigations Team) Manish Kumar (Output Head, Aaj Tak) along with anchors Punya Prasun Bajpai, Gaurav Sawant and Padmaja Joshi.

After perusing a translated copy of the Committee’s findings, these reports do not appear to be substantiated. The Committee did make some stinging remarks against most of these nine journalists but it did not order prosecution under all the sections mentioned above. It only finds that the journalists have breached the privilege of the UP Assembly by making unsubstantiated allegations against Azam Khan.

The Committee also alleged that the channels violated the Cable TV Act. The only recommendation made by the Committee was that the UP Assembly should take action against the journalists for breach of privilege. A fact conveniently suppressed by Janatakareporter.com in its report was that its founder, Rifat Javed, was working at the TV Today Network as an input editor at the time of this controversy and had deposed before the Committee against the TV channels.
 

"The only recommendation made by the Committee was that the UP Assembly should take action against the journalists for breach of privilege."

 
After the report was voted on by the UP Assembly, it reportedly summoned the nine journalists in February 2016 for an explanation. At this stage, the journalists moved the Supreme Court and got a stay on the summons, setting the stage for what could have been a potentially explosive showdown between the judiciary and the media on one side and the Assembly on the other.   

As is usually the case in such situations, the mainstream media has been silent on the serious charges being made against one of its own. In this article, we will briefly discuss the context and findings of the Committee, based on an unofficial translation.

 
The context of the 350 page report
In August-September, 2013 during the run up to the general elections that swept the BJP into power, Hindu-Muslim riots broke out in Muzaffarnagar.  The riots resulted in approximately 62 deaths and thousands of others being displaced from their homes. While communal riots are hardly new to India, they usually take place in urban areas and not rural areas like Muzaffarnagar.

While the events leading up to the riots are still hazy, there is little doubt that the riots helped polarise a community which had otherwise seen strong Jat-Muslim unity. Such polarisation of the electorate on religious lines usually helps the BJP win elections by consolidating the Hindu vote and the Muzaffarnagar riots are believed to be at least partly responsible for the BJP’s stunning victory in Uttar Pradesh during the May, 2014 general elections: the party won 71 out of the 80 Lok Sabha seats from the state.

The controversial sting conducted by India Today and Aaj Tak in September 2013 conveyed an impression that police officers were being ordered by Azam Khan to back off from arresting the people responsible for the riots. The transcript of the sting operation can be accessed here. The controversial portion is where a police officer agrees with the reporter’s suggestion that Azam Khan was the politician exerting pressure. Building on the sting footage, the India Today TV channels then made a string of allegations against Azam Khan, including this report that Azam Khan asked the police to go slow against rioters in Muzaffarnagar.

The subtext to this reportage was that he was trying to protect the people from his religious community. This narrative fits in perfectly with the BJP’s narrative of ‘minority appeasement’ by parties like the Samajwadi Party to which Azam Khan belongs. At the time, Azam Khan held a press conference denying the allegation that he interfered with the police investigations, pointing out that the reporter was putting words into the mouth of the police officer and that the police officer had not himself made any such statement about receiving calls from him.
 

Outrage prompts an investigation
The resulting outrage in the Assembly and political circles led to the Assembly setting up a Committee of seven MLAs to investigate the ‘sting operation’ since Azam Khan had denied the allegations made by the two TV channels. The report of the Committee (which had 48 sittings) is incredibly detailed and nuanced and appears to provide conclusive proof that something went very wrong during that sting operation conducted by India Today TV and Aaj Tak, both of whom belong to the same media house.
 

"The proceedings of Committees set up by legislatures are very different from Commissions of Inquiry set up under The Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952."

 
However, before delving into the report, it should be understood that the proceedings of Committees set up by legislatures are very different from Commissions of Inquiry  set up under The Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952.

To begin with, Inquiry Commissions are usually headed by persons such as retired judges who are not overtly affiliated to political parties. Assembly committees are always headed by a member of the legislature in question, which means they come with their political baggage.

The second important difference is that Inquiry Commissions feature lawyers for both sides and are conducted very much like judicial proceedings, which means the lawyers usually cross-examine witnesses. Assembly committees usually don’t allow cross-examination or legal representation.

The last and perhaps most important distinction is that unlike Inquiry Commissions which are routinely subject to judicial review by courts, the proceedings of legislative committees are immune from judicial interference thanks to the concept of parliamentary privilege enshrined in the Constitution. Of late, however, the Supreme Court has been interfering in privilege motions being tabled before state legislatures. These are important facts to be kept in mind while going through the contents of the report.

 
Stonewalling tactics by India Today
According to the Committee’s report, the India Today management had initially failed to co-operate with its investigation. Apparently, repeated requests for the ‘raw footage’ of the sting operation and the presence of the sting team were disregarded. Finally, on December 19, 2013, two months after the Committee was constituted, it issued a contempt notice to Supriya Prasad, the Executive Director/Channel Head at Aaj Tak. The notice had its intended effect – the reporters, editors and news anchors from both Aaj Tak and the India Today group began appearing and the raw footage was given.  

Most notable however is the refusal of Aroon Purie, Chairman and Managing Director of the TV Today network to appear. The Committee had initially summoned him as CEO on December 29, 2014. That notice resulted in Puneet Jain, the legal head of TV Today, informing the Committee that the CEO of the group was in fact Ashish Bagga. The Committee therefore summoned Bagga, examined him and decided once again to summon Aroon Purie. At the next hearing, Supriya Prasad, the Managing Director and Puneet Jain, the head of legal, appeared in place of Purie and submitted a letter from Purie explaining his position.

As per the Committee’s report, in this letter Purie explained that he was not responsible for the daily running of the TV Today Network (TVTN), before laying out the editorial processes followed by the network while deciding to broadcast sting operations. He also explained that TVTN had initiated an internal inquiry into the sting and that even before the enquiry could be completed, Deepak Sharma (the head of the sting team) had left the company and that other reporters were also “sevamukh” from the company. Purie also promised the Committee his entire co-operation. The letter appears to have worked since Purie was never summoned again.  

 
The key questions about the sting
One of the key aims of the Committee’s report was to examine the editorial process followed by TVTN during the conduct of the sting and the subsequent decision to broadcast it on September 8, 2013.

The key portion of the transcript, as available on the India Today website is reproduced below:
 
Headlines Today: Main role I think was Azam Khan's, that he put pressure.
R S Bhagaur, Second Officer: That's right, that's right.
 
Headlines Today: You won't do anything, you will let things happen as they are happening.
R S Bhagaur, Second Officer: Yes
 
Headlines Today: This is all political, they are trying to take advantage of the situation.
R S Bhagaur, Second Officer: Everyone is trying to take advantage.
 
The first line of questioning followed by the Committee, was whether Azam Khan’s name was brought up by the reporter or the police officer.

The second line of questioning was aimed at uncovering why the reporter brought up Azam Khan’s name in the sting because none of the India Today reports cited any corroborative witness statements that backed the allegations made by its reporter.

The third line of questioning pertained to whether Azam Khan was given an opportunity to comment on the allegations being made against him during the broadcasts.

The long and short of the response from the India Today team is a negative response to all three questions i.e. it was the reporter and not the police officer who brought up Azam Khan’s name in the conversation, there was no corroborative evidence from any other source to back the allegation and finally, they never gave Azam Khan an opportunity to reply.

 
The sting team turned out to be a divided house
What really stands out in this report is the manner in which the Committee went about its job. It called all the editors and journalists involved in the proceedings and grilled them about their respective roles and played them off against each other.

The key players of this exercise appear to be the two managing editors who approved the sting, the head of the SIT who conducted the sting and finally the four anchors who hosted the shows featuring the controversial footage: Rahul Kanwal, Gaurav Sawant, Padmaja Joshi and Punya Prasun Bajpai. 

"What really stands out in this report is the manner in which the Committee went about its job."

 
The depositions made by the reporting and editorial staff from TVTN reveal a divided newsroom with some of the staff clearly questioning the editorial judgment exercised by those who made the decision to broadcast the sting footage.

For instance, regarding the footage of the reporter asking the policeman about Azam Khan’s alleged phone call to police officers not to arrest the accused (and the police officer’s response), at least three members from TVTN stated that they disagreed with the decision to broadcast it without collecting more corroborative evidence.

Of these three, two were members of the sting team – Harish Sharma and Arun Singh – both of whom testified that they informed Deepak Sharma that more evidence was needed before accusing Azam Khan of interference with police investigations (para 181).

The third person was Rifat Javed, earlier with the BBC and then the input editor of the TVTN channels. He had joined the network on September 17, 2013 and thus had no role in giving approval to the sting. According to the Committee’s report, Javed during his deposition agreed that the portion pertaining to Azam Khan should not have been broadcast (para no. 181) and that the head of the sting team and the managing editor failed to discharge their editorial duties in doing so.  

Apart from these three, the Committee also grilled the Managing Editor, Supriya Prasad and the four anchors. The Committee makes references to specific quotations from the broadcasts, where each of the anchors made comments alleging that senior figures from the UP government including Azam Khan were interfering in the police investigation.

Supriya Prasad apparently agreed with the Committee that the question asked in the sting on Azam Khan’s role should not have been asked as it was by the reporter (para 188).  As to the anchors, since none of them were able to provide any proof regarding interference by SP leaders (including by Azam Khan) the Committee remarked that the anchors were more culpable for the broadcast of the sting than the team responsible for editing the footage (para 189).

Based on all these observations and more, the Committee concluded that the editors and journalists had in fact breached the privilege of the UP Assembly by making unsubstantiated allegations against Azam Khan.

 
Did the sting violate ethics and the law?
Apart from examining the editorial process, the Committee conducted a deep-dive into the issue of the legality of the sting. Starting with judicial precedents in the cases of R.K. Anand v. Registrar, Delhi High Court (2009) as also the Uma Khurana case (where a schoolteacher was wrongly accused of running a prostitution ring) and the Rajat Prasad Versus Central Bureau of Investigation (2014) case, the Committee sought to highlight how the judiciary had viewed sting operations as morally hazardous and therefore requiring much higher editorial control than ordinary reporting. 

The Committee also mentioned the specific guidelines laid down by the Delhi High Court in the Uma Khurana case and pointed out that the Azam Khan sting operation did not comply with them. The Committee does a good job in using judicial precedents to present the TVTN sting as violating both ethics and the law.
 

"The Committee does a good job in using judicial precedents to present the TVTN sting as violating both ethics and the law."

 
The report also refers to guidelines laid down by the News Broadcaster’s Associations (NBA) and also the provisions of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 to explain how the sting violated both the guidelines and Section 5 of the Cable TV Act in that it could have stoked communal tension.

 
Action against the journalists unlikely  
The report ends by recommending that the Assembly take action against the journalists, editors and anchors in question for breach of privilege of the UP Assembly. It also recommends against action be taken against the journalists, editors and anchors for violating the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995. As per the translated version of the report that we accessed, the Committee never recommended prosecution under the IPC and IT Act as was alleged by Janatakareporter.com.

Acting on the Committee’s report, the UP Assembly summoned the journalists, editors and anchors to explain why action should not be taken against them for contempt of the house. The TVTN group then moved the Supreme Court which stayed the proceedings in March 2016. Such judicial interference in privilege-related issues has previously led to legislative-judicial clashes.
 

"While the matter is likely to be heard by the Supreme Court on 31st January, it is unlikely that a verdict can be expected given the impending state elections."

 
While the matter is likely to be heard by the Supreme Court on 31^st January, it is unlikely that a verdict can be expected given the impending state elections. Failing which, it is not clear whether the challenge before the Supreme Court will survive dissolution of the UP Assembly.  

It must be seen whether the next Vidhan Sabha will be keen to pursue the case.  In any event, the consequences of dissolution of the Assembly itself throws open new questions on the continuity of the present proceedings. For one, it may be plausible to argue that the 17^th Vidhan Sabha may not have the locus to pursue a contempt motion on behalf of  a member of the previous Vidhan Sabha. On the other hand, it could be reasoned that a breach of legislative privilege will always be contemptuous of the Vidhan Sabha.  
 
The authors are lawyers.

Courtesy: The Hoot
 

The post India Today’s ‘sting’ and the UP assembly enquiry appeared first on SabrangIndia.

नोटबंदी को लेकर संसद में फँसी मोदी सरकार के लिए देश के सबसे तेज़ चैनलों यानी आज तक और इंडिया टुडे का यह रुख़ वाक़ई राहत भरा है। 
 

पहले बात हेलीकाप्टर सौदे की। इंडिया टुडे के राहुल कँवल ने बड़े ज़ोर-शोर से जिस ख़बर को एक्सक्लूसिव कहकर दिखाया वह तो पौनो तीन साल पहले ही यूके के डेलीमेल ने छाप दी थी । तो क्या पौने तीन साल पुरानी ख़बर को अचानक एक्सक्लूसिव कहकर दिखाना बेईमानी का संयोग भर है या इसका मक़सद सत्ता पक्ष को हथियार मुहैया कराना है?

ग़ौरतलब है कि इस ख़बर को मेल टुडे ने भी छापा था जो टीवी टुडे का ही अख़़बार है। तारीख़ थी 1 फ़रवरी 2014 . 
 

राहुल कँवल जिन दस्तावेज़ों को दिखा रहे थे वे पौने तीन साल पहले की ख़बर में भी मौजूद थे। 

 

 
वैसे, राहुल कँवल ने 15 दिसंबर को इस सौदे के कथित बिचौलिये क्रिशचियन मिशेल का इंटरव्यू दिखाया। यूएई से लाइव मिशेल ने तमाम दस्तावेज़ों के जाली होने का दावा किया। सवाल यह भी उठाया कि जब उसे लिखना आता है तो वह बजटशीट को डिक्टेट क्यों कराएगा ? 

बहरहाल बिचौलिया झूठ बोल सकता है। यूपीए सरकार ने भी इस डील को संदिग्ध मानते हुए सौदा रद्द किया ही था। 

लेकिन करीब आधे घंटे के इस इंटरव्यू में  राहुल कँवल वह सवाल पूछना क्यों भूल गए जिसकी ख़़बर उन्होंने खु़द की थी। सवाल यह कि इस सौदे में गाँधी परिवार का नाम बताकर तमाम आरोपों से बरी करने का लालच मिशेल को किसने दिया था। इसी साल 4 मई को राहुल ने यह ख़बर दी थी कि गाँधी परिवार को फँसाने के लिए मिशेल पर दबाव डाला जा रहा है। क्या राहुल का यह विस्मरण महज़ संयोग है ?

 
अब आइये स्टिंग अाँपरेशन पर। नोटबंदी के बाद ही देश के हर कोने में बीजेपी के नेता नए नोटों के बंडलों के साथ पकड़े गए, लेकिन आजतक के स्टिंग में सिर्फ विपक्षी दल के लोग हैं। यह अक्षमता का मामला है या सत्ता पक्ष की ओर से आँख मुूँद लेने का। 

ध्यान रहे कि  नोटबंदी के कुछ पहले बिहार में बीजेपी के ज़मीन ख़रीद मिशन की जानकारी आजतक जैसे सबसे तेज़ चैनल ने नहीं दी थी। यह कशिश न्यूज़ जैसे छोटे से चैनल की कोशिश थी। ऐसा क्यों है कि बीजेपी के मामले में यह ग्रुप आजकल आमतौर पर गच्चा ही खाता है।  

सवाल यह भी है कि मिशेल की बजटशीट पौने तीन साल बाद भी एक्सक्लूसिव है तो फिर आजतक और इंडिया टुडे सहारा -बिड़ला के उन दस्तावेज़ों पर ऐसा ही फॉलोअप क्यों नहीं कर रहे हैं जिसमें गुजरात सीएम को करोड़ों रुपये देना दर्ज है। मिशेल के बजटशीट को पवित्र मानने वालों के लिए ये काग़ज़ात अश्पृश्य क्यों हैं ? मिशेल का इंटरव्यू विदेश से हो सकता है तो सीएम को पैसा दैने वाले जायसवाल जी को तो देश में ही पकड़ा जा सकता है !

 
वैसे, मोदी के हनुमान बनने की कोशिश में राहुल कँवल पहले भी पकड़े जा चुके हैं। काफ़ी पहले उन्होंने ब्रिटेन के प्रधानमंत्री एटली को लिखि पं.नेहरू की एक चिट्ठी की ख़बर फोड़ी थी जिसमें नेताजी सुभाषचंद्र बोस को युद्ध अपराधी कहा गया था। राहुल ने इसे राजनीतिक भूकंप की संज्ञा दी थी। यह अलग बात है कि यह पूरी चिट्ठी पूरी तरह फ़र्ज़ी थी और पहले भी अख़बारों के चंडूख़ाने में जगह पा चुकी थी।

सुनिये, नेहरू की फ़र्ज़ी चिट्ठी को राजनीतिक भूकंप बताने वाले टीवी टुडे संपादक राहुल कँवल का फ़ोनो ! टोटल फ़्रज़ी….!
 

Courtesy: Media Vigil

The post तीन साल पुरानी ख़बर बनी ‘डायरी बम’!…वाह इंडिया टुडे ! मोदी को ऐसे बचाओगे ? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

 

Lying about Kashmir with old videos

 
In their coverage of the Kashmir protests, some channels recently used old 2010 footage to spread canards about the demonstrators. Hindi news channels Zee News and Aaj Tak and English channel India Today recently aired two videos to argue that Kashmir’s present crisis is sponsored by Pakistan and that Kashmiri mobs have been attacking Indian security forces.

In the first video they show a young Kashmiri boy in his undershirt, surrounded by a group of hostile CRPF personnel, crying and saying that “Geelani is paying their gang Rs 500 for throwing stones at Indian soldiers”. Rahul Kanwal, India Today’s anchor known for his pro-establishment views, took to Twitter to write this: “Newsroom on confession of a stone pelter who says he was paid money by separatists to spread mayhem in Kashmir.”

The video was of the 2010 demonstrations. It was run as an “exclusive” report in July 2016. Mufti Islah, a well-respected television journalist based in Srinagar, responded with this tweet: “One channel was running total crap today and called it exclusive. Grow up folks.”

Similarly, in another attempt to distort the Kashmir reality, on Zee News a pheran-clad Kashmiri man was shown throwing a petrol bomb at CRPF personnel. A pheran? The long woollen coat Kashmiris wear in winter? In the heat of July? This was total distortion and false reportage. 

By airing such old videos and other doctored ones, these channels are not only insulting the intelligence of their audiences but also lending credence to the Kashmiri argument that India’s hyper-nationalist media cashes on falsehoods, propaganda and provocation, and feeds on a daily diet of anti-Pakistan rhetoric. 

Hardly any journalism ethics are followed by vast sections of the Indian electronic media when it comes to reporting Kashmir dispassionately and with an open mind. They take every word of their army and police as gospel and willingly become partners in propaganda. They try to blame Pakistan for everything that happens or does not happen in Kashmir. 

Appallingly, as the death toll reached 32, Times Now ran a ticker saying “32 die in Kashmir in Pakistan-sponsored violence”. There can be no better example of the Indian media’s Pakistan paranoia. Afterwards, they ran another campaign saying that Pakistan has sent Rs 100 crore to encourage stone-pelting in Kashmir through Syed Ali Geelani who has been under house arrest for the last six years. Sometimes you don’t know whether to laugh or weep.   

Robert Fisk, noted British author and journalist, in one his articles published in the Independent, writes how journalists covering any conflict zone often become “partners in crime”. “Most of all, it's about the terror of power and the power of terror. Power and terror have become interchangeable. We journalists have let this happen. Our language has become not just a debased ally, but a full verbal partner in the language of governments and armies and generals and weapons.”

The author further asks a relevant question, “How do we break with the language of power? It is certainly killing us. That, I suspect, is one reason why readers have turned away from the "mainstream" press to the internet.” 

It doesn’t help that, in Kashmir, a crisis invariably means that journalists from outside the state are air-dropped in. Many television journalists, who can hardly tell whether the All Parties Hurriyat Conference is a conglomerate or a party or what exactly is the difference between the Hurriyat led by Syed Ali Geelani and the one headed by Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, or how many districts there are in the Kashmir Valley and how their names are pronounced, can hardly do justice to the Kashmir story.

But I am also aware that these selected journalists are parachuted in to parrot the Indian government’s propaganda on Kashmir. They do not come to Kashmir to report facts. They come to distort them, and act as extensions of the Indian state. They often do the job of firefighting and think of themselves as conflict managers rather than journalists reporting and analyzing the facts on the ground.

Whenever Kashmir is on the edge, this ‘army in civvies’ on ‘Mission Kashmir’ with an aim to ‘douse flames’ will tell you that Kashmir is angry, that Kashmiris are feeling more alienated than before. But they won’t tell you the truth: that Kashmiris are raising azadi slogans and are demanding a just political solution to the Kashmir dispute.

The second appalling thing they do in Kashmir is to try and equate the state-sponsored violence with some protesters hurling a stone at government forces. They show pictures of 14 members of paramilitary and police being treated for minor scratches here and there at an army hospital in Srinagar to draw unfair parallels with the violence perpetrated by the government forces.

The brazen killing of 48 civilians (45 confirmed officially) which include women, and injuries to over 3,000 persons, mostly teenagers, is inconsequential. They try to stoke nationalistic passions in mainland India by erroneously showing that their brave soldiers are exercising maximum restraint while dealing with Kashmir’s “agitational terrorism” and “terrorist sympathizers”. Yes, this is the language they often employ to criminalise and de-legitimise the genuine political aspirations of the people of Kashmir.

Large sections of the Indian media often ‘sermonise’ to Kashmiris that “your future is safe with India” and offer unsolicited suggestions to Kashmiri audiences without making any genuine and unbiased attempt to listen to what Kashmiris have to say. Many Indian journalists wear their patriotism on their sleeve and think that they’re defending their borders in their air-conditioned studios and OB vans. 

India and its corporate-owned media and propagandists must wake up to the reality that there is no anger or alienation in Kashmir. People on the street are unambiguous in their demand: azadi. 
 

This article originally appeared on The Hoot

Gowhar Geelani is a journalist, political analyst & commentator based in Srinagar. He has worked for Deutsche  Welle and writes for Dawn, Catch News, and contributes political essays for the London-based Race & Class. @gowhargeelani/Twitter 
 

The post Lying about Kashmir with old videos appeared first on SabrangIndia.

“When a lovestruck 14-year-old girl decided to run away from home to meet her boyfriend, she had no inkling of the horror she was in for.”  That was the opening sentence of a news report about the repeated rape of the teenager by two Indian Army jawans on a train to Amritsar in December 2015.

“It all started with Facebook – initially by sending friend requests to each other, followed by messages and then late night chats,” the story continued. “For the minor girl, that was perhaps enough to fall in love with a boy who actually hailed from Punjab's Ludhiana district.”

Once again a media report on rape diminished the seriousness of the crime by highlighting extraneous details about the young survivor instead of focusing on the most relevant information: in this case, the sexual assault of a minor girl by two soldiers.  As a letter to the editor from the Network of Women in Media, India (NWMI) asked, “How does the girl being lovestruck connect with the rape at all? How does it matter where she met her boyfriend –  on Facebook or elsewhere – or even that she had one?” 

The fact that the multiple violent attacks on the girl amounted to statutory rape under the law was evidently missed in the process, as was the fact that the crime was all the more heinous because the perpetrators belonged to the armed forces, which presumably exist to protect citizens of the country, not harm them.

The report was accompanied by a lurid illustration which, as the NWMI letter pointed out, contributed to the sensational nature of the story as told. 

It is difficult to avoid a feeling of déjà vu every time such flawed reports on rape surface.  Issues relating to media coverage of sexual assault have been discussed and debated for decades, at least from the campaign against rape sparked off in the early 1980s by the Supreme Court judgment in what has come to be known as the Mathura rape case onwards. 

Media coverage of rape and the campaign against it was among the five topics included in the 1994 book, “Whose News?  The Media and Women’s Issues.” When Kalpana Sharma and I revisited media coverage of sexual violence in India for the second edition of the book in the mid-2000s, we found that rape was back on the media agenda – a quarter of a century after it had become a legitimate subject for media attention – thanks to a number of high-profile cases in the political and commercial capitals of the country, Delhi and Mumbai.  Our review revealed that media coverage of rape in the new millennium was “something of a mixed bag, ranging from the serious, concerned and gender-sensitive through glib, superficial and celebrity-oriented to sensational, irresponsible and intrusive.”  

That assessment is still more or less applicable today, a decade later, although heightened competition in the burgeoning news media space has added new dimensions to the coverage.  Privately-owned Indian television news channels – with their characteristic high-pitched reporting and confrontational panel discussions that invariably generate more heat than light – now play a dominant role in setting the public agenda.  This has had an impact on the style and substance of news coverage in large sections of the print media as well. 

Critiques of media coverage of sexual violence in general and rape in particular tend to focus primarily on sins of commission.  While some of these – such as sensationalism and prurience – are professionally indefensible, others are more complicated:  the amount and type of detail to be included in news reports, for example. 

Take the question of the right to privacy.  The Indian Penal Code, as well as the limited ethical guidelines issued by the Press Council of India and the News Broadcasters’ Association, stress the need to protect the privacy of victims and survivors of sexual violence.  Death does not automatically release the media from this obligation:  according to the law, “the name or any matter which may make known the identity of the victim” can be published only if the next of kin authorises it in writing. 

In the case of a young woman who went missing near Chennai one mid-February night in 2014, her name, age, place of origin and employer were made public the day her body was finally discovered over a week later.  Of the reports I scanned, only The Hindu persisted in referring to her as an employee of Tata Consultancy Services, providing no further details.  In contrast, some media reports even included her photograph with no attempt at morphing.

Most media outlets chose to report that the woman was raped before the results of forensic analysis, which alone could establish the nature of the crime, were available – presumably going by information provided by the police about confessions by the first two men arrested.  Again, The Hindu was an exception.  Some reports included several details about the likely sequence of events before, during and after the crime, obviously relying purely on police sources yet again. 

Take the question of the right to privacy.  The Indian Penal Code, as well as the limited ethical guidelines issued by the Press Council of India and the News Broadcasters’ Association, stress the need to protect the privacy of victims and survivors of sexual violence.  Death does not automatically release the media from this obligation:  according to the law, “the name or any matter which may make known the identity of the victim” can be published only if the next of kin authorises it in writing.

Besides the over-arching journalistic principles of accuracy, fairness and independence, the key precept that should inform decisions about necessary and unwarranted details is, surely, the interest of justice.  Many details now routinely included in news reports on rape cases serve no constructive purpose and may, in fact, have negative consequences. The references to a teenaged survivor being “lovestruck,” having met her boyfriend on Facebook, and so on, in the report described above represent a case in point.

The controversy over when a legitimate and ethical, if aggressive, pursuit of truth in the interest of justice turns into an illegitimate, unprincipled trial by media that can result in miscarriage of justice raises troublesome questions which call for serious reflection even if there are no easy answers.  The tragic death of social activist Khurshid Anwar, who committed suicide in December 2013 following charges of rape – possibly pushed to the edge by a television programme – underlines the grave consequences that thoughtless or irresponsible journalism, however well-intentioned, can lead to. 

The good news is that there is growing debate among journalists themselves on issues concerning media coverage of sexual violence in general, and rape in particular.  Such welcome introspection has led to several attempts – by journalists or with their involvement – to evolve practical dos and don’ts that recognise the realities of reporting news in an ever more competitive media environment, but seek to promote ethical practice despite the undeniable, disagreeable pressures that most journalists, especially reporters, have to contend with.

However, the media’s equally critical sins of omission have yet to receive the attention they demand if coverage of sexual assault, including rape, is to serve its logical purpose:  justice in general, gender justice in particular and, ultimately, a necessary decline in the prevalence of such violence.

A collaborative academic study focussing on “sexual violence journalism” in four leading English language publications before and after December 2012 concluded that, although this section of the press has made “small but important progress with respect to reporting on gender justice,” the news media need to move beyond “the incident and crime cycle,” and away from the sensational aspects of such crimes, to progress towards “gender justice sensitive reporting.”

What would this involve?  To begin with, an acknowledgement – especially by decision-makers in the media – that coverage of gender-related events and issues, including sexual violence, is serious business.  Those reporting and commenting on the subject need to acquaint themselves with the complexities of the subject, the history of efforts to deal with these issues, and the debates and actions that have taken place in the past (in India from at least 1980 onwards).

In the wake of the December 2012 gang-rape, for example, some sections of the media spearheaded a vociferous crusade calling for capital punishment in cases of sexual assault. There is little doubt that the relentless, emotive, campaign-style coverage and impassioned, impatient television debates contributed to the apparent manufacture of consent among vocal sections of the media-consuming public about the desirability of the death penalty for rape, if only in high-profile cases.  Little attention was paid to the fact that women’s organisations with long experience in tackling gender violence, as well as other groups and individuals committed to human rights, oppose the death penalty on the ground that it is not only wrong in principle but also unlikely to work in practice, especially in terms of reducing the incidence of sexual assault or increasing the conviction rate or both. 

The excessive and blinkered focus on retributive justice also obscures genuine hurdles in the path of justice of any kind:  prejudice, ignorance, negligence, incompetence and worse within the investigative, legal and judicial systems. The media would serve the cause of justice better if they spent time and energy on creatively exposing these impediments instead of chasing elusive “exclusives” that are often based on unconfirmed (often incorrect), inconsequential or salacious trivia that shed no light on the matter and often violate the rights of the human beings involved. 

Data on sexual crimes represent another area crying out for critical attention.  Apart from the fact that undiscerning use of statistics is often misleading, it appears that National Crime Records Bureau data themselves may be unintentionally deceptive, going by a report in The Hindu in October 2013 flagging a statistical flaw that could mean that even the December 2012 gang rape would not be counted in NCRB data on rape. Surprisingly, this sensational revelation, which was not denied, caused barely a ripple in the media.

Sometimes startling statistics are blandly presented when further examination is clearly required.  For example, according to data attributed to the Delhi police a couple of years ago, 95 per cent of the accused in rape cases were less than 25 years old.  If this was indeed true it obviously has major implications for efforts to deal with the problem of sexual violence. If it was not, why was such incredible data released by the police?  Or was police information misreported by the media? 

The law is another area that requires more informed reporting.  The new amendments to the law relating to rape, greeted with glee by much of the media in early 2013, were later widely criticised in the context of the charges filed against Tarun Tejpal later that year.  Both the initial reaction and the subsequent reassessment would have been more instructive and convincing if lawyers and activists with the requisite knowledge and experience had been consulted.

And then, most importantly, there is the social, cultural, economic and political context in which the apparent proliferation of sexual crimes is taking place.  It is significant that the most serious efforts to delve into the lives of the perpetrators of the December 2012 gang rape, exploring what could possibly have led them to commit such a brutally violent crime, appeared in two international newspapers.

Articles situating rape within the larger context of gender inequality and patriarchal attitudes towards women, on the one hand, and women’s growing consciousness, confidence and mobility, on the other, have appeared in the opinion and features sections of the print media; so have explorations of the skewed concepts of masculinity that underlie such crimes. However, such essential perspectives (often put forward by professionals from outside the media world), which could promote better understanding of such violence, its causes and consequences, and what needs to be done to tackle the scourge, have not yet permeated sufficiently into regular media practice. 

There is clearly an urgent need to step up and institutionalise ongoing efforts to improve media coverage of sexual violence. In some parts of the world media professionals have sought sensitivity training from survivors of crime and those helping them to secure justice in order to improve the accuracy of their coverage and minimise the trauma it can cause.  Such initiatives could make all the difference provided media institutions are willing to do things differently in order to make a difference. 

(The writer is a journalist and author based in Bangalore)
 
References (Some Resources):

1. ‘When Survivors Become Victims’ by Sameera Khan in ‘Missing Half the Story: Journalism as if Gender Matters,’  Kalpana Sharma (ed.), Zubaan Books, 2010
2. The Hoot (www.thehoot.org):  a media watch website – http://www.thehoot.org/resources/reporting-rape
3. Press Council of India:  Norms of Journalistic Conduct (http://presscouncil.nic.in/NORMS-2010.pdf)
4. News Broadcasters’ Association: Guidelines on Reportage of Cases of Sexual Assault (issued http://www.nbanewdelhi.com/images/uploadfile/43_PRESS%20RELEASE%207-1-13.pdf)
5. Report Responsibly (http://report-responsibly-india.tumblr.com):  a platform to host conversation and generate debate about responsible reporting on sexual assault in India.
6. The Blue Pencil (pencilblue.wordpress.com): a media watch project to monitor reporting on gender violence.
7. Network of Women in Media, India:  http://www.nwmindia.org (e.g., http://nwmindia.org/about-us/statements/nwmi-statement-on-insensitive-media-coverage-of-gang-rape-victim-in-west-bengal-june-14-2013, http://nwmindia.org/about-us/statements/nwmi-statement-at-mumbai-february-2013-the-media-must-be-part-of-the-solution-not-the-problem, http://www.nwmindia.org/national/identifying-survivors-of-sexual-assault-who-decides)

The post Uncovering Rape appeared first on SabrangIndia.