On July 10, India woke up to startling pictures of massive crowds at the funeral of Hizb-ul-Mujahideen commander Burhan Wani in Tral, Kashmir.

The disconnect between Kashmir and the rest of India was captured by the fact that even as Wani was a figure of mass adulation in the Valley, large sections of the Indian media had described him as a “terrorist” as it had reported on his killing by Indian security forces on July 8.

This included the Times of India, Times Now as well as NDTV – even as theTelegraph, Indian Express and Business Standard stuck to the plain vanilla “militant”.

How these respective organisations differentiated between a “terrorist” and a “militant” was unclear and undefined. This might seem like hair splitting around semantics but it’s actually far deeper than that – even if this is a discussion that’s not been had in India.

“Terrorism” and “terrorist” are words laden with value judgment, used often by political players as a means of getting their own message and viewpoint across. In reality, there are few definitions of the word “terrorist” accepted across the board. Indeed, it is for this reason that a number of global publications have strict guidelines on how to use the term. In India, however, few press outlets seem to have rules about the T-word and much of its use in the country, it seems, is driven either by Arnab Goswami-esque jingoism and/or India’s highly troubled relationship with Kashmir.

History of the word “terrorism”

There are few words in the English-language which have had as tumultuous a life as “terrorism”. In fact, the word didn’t even start its life in English but in French where the regime de la terreur was a label adopted by the new French state to establish order after the first uprisings of the French Revolution in 1789. The first avatar of the word “terrorism” was therefore almost completely different from its modern meaning.

Firstly, it was applied to the functioning of a state, whereas today it is used to almost always describe non-state actors. Even more strikingly, at the time, it had decidedly positive connotations. The “terrorism” of the French state was pressed into ideals that many would today consider the foundations of the modern world: Liberté, égalité and fraternité. Given this connotation, the state used it as a badge of honour with revolutionary leader Maximilien de Robespierre proclaiming that, “terror is nothing but justice, prompt, severe and inflexible; it is therefore an emanation of virtue.”

In its more modern form, as a tool used by people against the state, terrorism traces itself to an Italian revolutionary called Carlo Pisacane who in 1857 theorised the “propaganda of the deed”. Holding actions, and not ideas, to be the driving force of human civilisation, Pisacane was clear that as a tool of revolutionary instruction, violence was a far better teacher for the masses than a book or a speech.

The first group to take up Pisacane’s ideas were the Russian revolutionaries, Narodnaya Volya (literally, “people’s will”). Using the doctrine of the “propaganda of the deed”, the organisation assassinated prominent people – including the Tsar himself in 1881 – in order to spur a mass revolt against the Russian monarchy. Between 1881 and 1914 other assassinations inspired by Pisacane’s ideas, often undertaken by libertarian anarchists, were King Umberto I of Italy, King Carlos I of Portugal and King George I of Greece.

Note that while the terrorists till today subscribe to the “propaganda of the deed” – using violence as a way to shock – they differed starkly with most anarchists of that period in their goals. Like the French Revolution, the anarchists of the time subscribed to ideas such as democracy or human rights, which would generally be viewed as positive today, and used “terrorism” to combat autocratic regimes. Consequently, “terrorism” was mostly a value-neutral term describing a type of action rather than something pejorative. It is in this context that Indian revolutionaries such as Bhagat Singh are called “terrorists”. In fact, in its 1929 manifesto, Bhagat Singh’s party the Hindustan Socialist Republican Association was quite open to admitting that “terrorism” was a part of its policy to pull down the British Raj.

Civilians in the firing line

Post World War II, revolutionary nationalists such as the Irish Republican Army, Jewish Zionist, Palestinians and Sri Lankan Tamils would use techniques similar to the Anarchists but with one crucial difference ­– now mass civilian causalities were also involved. This is, of course, how modern terrorism is defined. This change also made the word a pejorative one. Post World War II, there are few self-described terrorists.

In the modern-age, “terrorism” as a term has famously avoided a common definition – Saudi Arabia even defines atheists as “terrorists”. The US State Department goes by this: “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents”. The academic and terrorism expert Bruce Hoffman has a five-part test: violence for political goals, aims to influence a broader audience, involves an organised group, targets civilians and carried out by a non-state actor.

No matter the definition, “terrorism” as a term is a highly pejorative one today and used by political players to tar their opponents. “The decision to call someone or label some organisation “terrorist” becomes almost unavoidably subjective, depending largely on whether one sympathises with or opposes the person/group/cause concerned,” explains Bruce Hoffman. “If one identifies with the victim of the violence, for example, then the act is terrorism. If, however, one identifies with the perpetrator, the violent act is regarded in a more sympathetic, if not positive (or, at the worst, an ambivalent) light; and it is not terrorism”.

Global media

Given this vagueness, many global media outlets are reluctant to use the term “terrorist”, preferring more banal ­– and unambiguous – words such as “gunman”, “bomber” or “militant”. “There is no agreed consensus on what constitutes a terrorist or terrorist act,” the BBC lays out in a guide for its reports. “The use of the word will frequently involve a value judgement.” It goes on to add:

The word “terrorist” itself can be a barrier rather than an aid to understanding. We should convey to our audience the full consequences of the act by describing what happened. We should use words which specifically describe the perpetrator such as “bomber”, “attacker”, “gunman”, “kidnapper”, “insurgent”, and “militant”. We should not adopt other people’s language as our own; our responsibility is to remain objective and report in ways that enable our audiences to make their own assessments about who is doing what to whom.

Many other organisations agree with the BCC. Reuters calls the word “terrorism” and “terrorism” “emotive words” and advises reporters to not use them unless quoting someone in direct speech.

Indian media’s use of the term

The Indian media, though, seems to have no fixed guidelines on the issue and the word “terrorism” is used without any consistency. Most definitions of the act involve attacks on civilian targets but sections of the Indian media consistently use the term “terrorism”/”terrorists” to also describe cases of military targets being attacked.

In Kashmir, for example, sections of the Indian media have consistently described attacks on military installations as “terrorism”. For a November, 2015 attack on an Indian Army base in Kashmir, while NDTV, Times Now and the Times of India described the attackers as “terrorists”, Reuters and The Telegraph in contrast, stuck to “gunmen” and "militants".

Yet, even with respect to attacks on Indian security forces, there seems to be no consistency. In Manipur, for example, attacks on Indian forces have been reported by NDTV, Times Now and the Times of India using the word “militant”. The value-laden term “terrorist”, it seems, is easier to abjure when the location isn’t Kashmir.

Meaningless words

In his sparkling 1946 essay Politics and the English Language, British writer George Orwell criticises the use of what he calls “meaningless words”:

The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies ‘something not desirable’. The words democracy, socialism, freedom, patriotic, realistic, justice have each of them several different meanings which cannot be reconciled with one another. In the case of a word like democracy, not only is there no agreed definition, but the attempt to make one is resisted from all sides. It is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it: consequently the defenders of every kind of regime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using that word if it were tied down to any one meaning. Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way. That is, the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his hearer to think he means something quite different.

“Terrorism” is, of course, exactly the sort of “meaningless word” that Orwell railed against, used not for its lexical meaning but to serve various political agendas.

In most cases, the Indian media uses it either to suit the purposes of the state or various nationalist narratives. The sharp difference between the way it is used when Muslims/Kashmir are involved versus other instances such as the North-East also points to a subtle anti-Muslim bias.

The nationalist pressure on the Indian media is, of course, apparent and, in the case of Burhan Wani’s death, has even been written about by journalist Rajdeep Sardesai. As Sardesai explains, even in Britain during the 1983 UK-Argentina Falklands War, the BBC came under intense pressure to appear more patriotic. However, at the time, the organisation resisted, with director general John Birt reaffirming that the BBC was not an “extension of the political authority”. Its first journalistic commitment was to the truth, not to the nation state – a principle that the Indian media has unfortunately not stuck to when using the terms “terrorism” and “terrorist”.

This article originally appeared on Scroll.  It can be found here. 

The post How exactly does the Indian media define a terrorist? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A team of editors visited Chhattisgarh and was told that 'every single journalist is under the government scanner'.

A team of the Editors Guild of India travelled to Chhattisgarh and found that journalists in the state were "working under tremendous pressure". There was a "sense of fear" among journalists in the conflict-affected region of Bastar and even those working in the state capital Raipur complained of their phones being tapped.

"The state government wants the media to see its fight with the Maoists as a fight for the nation and expects the media to treat it as a national security issue, and not raise any questions about it," the team said in a report released on Tuesday.

It added that there was pressure from the state administration, especially the police, on journalists to write what they want or not to publish reports that the administration sees as hostile. "There is pressure from Maoists as well on the journalists working in the area," it said. "There is a general perception that every single journalist is under the government scanner and all their activities are under surveillance. They hesitate to discuss anything over the phone because, as they say, 'The police is listening to every word we speak.'"

The Editors Guild of team is an independent body of editors with more than 200 members from national, regional and local newspapers, magazines and the electronic media.

It formed a three-member team to investigate reports of threats to journalists in Chhattisgarh. In 2015, two journalists were arrested by Bastar police for purported links to Maoists. In February, Scroll.in contributor Malini Subramaniam was forced to leave Jagdalpur in the face of intimidation by the police and a vigilante group called Samajik Ekta Manch. Soon after, Alok Putul, a contributor of BBC Hindi, had to abandon his assignment in Bastar mid-way after receiving threats. The Inspector General of police in Bastar, SRP Kalluri, had refused to meet him, questioning his nationalism.

In mid-March, two members of the Editors Guild team travelled to Raipur and Jagdalpur and met journalists, members of the police and administration, and the chief minister.

They could not find "a single journalist who could claim with confidence that he/she was working without fear or pressure". Senior editors told them that their phones were being tapped. Journalists in Bastar said they had stopped travelling to the conflict areas. Journalists confirmed that the Samajik Ekta Manch was supported and financed by the police, with the direct involvement of IG SRP Kalluri.

On the case of Subramaniam, the team found, "It is clear from the on record statements made by the authorities that the administration was not comfortable with the reports Malini Subramaniam was sending to Scroll.in. And instead of putting their side of the story, the so called citizen’s forum ‘Samajik Ekta Munch’ was incited to attack Malini’s house and compelled her to leave the city and even the state."

In Raipur, Chief Minister Raman Singh met the team and expressed concern over the incidents. When the team brought up the complaints against Kalluri, Singh "instructed the officials that the behavior of one officer should not take away all the credits of the good job the government is doing in Maoist area". He instructed the administration to ensure better coordination and co-operation.

The report, however, notes that a journalist was arrested shortly after the team met the chief minister, suggesting that "there is no shift in policy".

Here is the full text of the report.

Challenges to Journalism in Bastar: A report by the Fact Finding Team of the Editors Guild of India

The Team:
Prakash Dubey, General Secretary
Seema Chishti, Executive Committee member
Vinod Verma,Executive Committee member

Places of Travel: Jagdalpur, Bastar and Raipur

Dates of Travel: 13th to 15th of March, 2016

Terms of reference:

To verify and assess:

Recent reports of the arrests of journalists in Chhattisgarh
The threats and challenges faced by journalists in the state
The challenges to the profession of journalism

Summary
Bastar division of Chhattisgarh state is fast becoming a conflict zone. There is a constant battle on between the security forces and the Maoists. Journalists, caught in the middle, are under attack by both the state and non-state actors.

Several incidents have been reported over the past few months of attacks on journalists. At least two, according to the reports, were arrested and imprisoned and others threatened and intimidated to a point where they had to leave Bastar for fear of their lives. The residence of at least one journalist, according to the information, was also attacked.

The Editors Guild of India constituted a three member Fact Finding Team to look into these reported incidents. Since Seema Chishti was unable to travel, Prakash Dubey and Vinod Verma travelled to Raipur/Jagdalpur on 13th, 14th and 15th of March, 2016.

A team of the Editors Guild of India travelled to Chhattisgarh and found that journalists in the state were "working under tremendous pressure". There was a "sense of fear" among journalists in the conflict-affected region of Bastar and even those working in the state capital Raipur complained of their phones being tapped.

The fact finding committee members met a number of journalists and government officials in Jagdalpur. In Raipur the team met Chief Minister Dr. Raman Singh and all top officials of the state, several Editors and some senior journalists.

The team recorded the statements of journalists Malini Subramaniam and Alok Putul. It also visited the central jail to meet journalist Santosh Yadav.

The fact finding team came to the conclusion that the media reports of threats to journalists are true. The media in Chhattisgarh is working under tremendous pressure. In Jagdalpur and the remote tribal areas the journalists find it even more difficult to gather and disseminate news. There is pressure from the state administration, especially the police, on journalists to write what they want or not to publish reports that the administration sees as hostile. There is pressure from Maoists as well on the journalists working in the area. There is a general perception that every single journalist is under the government scanner and all their activities are under surveillance. They hesitate to discuss anything over the phone because, as they say, “the police is listening to every word we speak.”

Several senior journalists confirmed that a controversial citizen group Samajik Ekta Manch’ is funded and run by the police headquarters in Bastar. According to them it is a reincarnation of Salwa Judum.

Challenges to Journalists: Some Cases

Challenges of writing for the newspapers are not new in Bastar division of Chhattisgarh. A journalist Premraj, who was representing the Deshbandhu newspaper in Kanker, was booked under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activity (Prevention) Act (TADA) in the year 1991-92 when the undivided Madhya Pradesh state was ruled by the BJP. He was charged with being close to the Maoists. He was later acquitted by the courts for want of evidence.

In December, 2013 a rural journalist Sai Reddy was killed by the rebels in a village near Bijapur. According to the police, a group of Maoists attacked him with sharp edged weapons near the market and fled from the spot.

Bastar Journalist Association President S Karimuddin told the fact finding team that in the year 2008, Sai Reddy was arrested by the police and kept in jail under the controversial Chhattisgarh Special Security Act, accusing him of having links with the Maoists. On the other hand, the Maoists suspected him to be loyal to the security forces and set his house ablaze and killed him later.

In February, 2013 one more rural journalist Nemi Chand Jain was also killed by the rebels in Sukma. Rebels were under the impression that he was passing messages to the security forces. 45 days after his murder, the Maoists apologised for his killing.

Last year, in 2015, police arrested two news persons under the same controversial law for allegedly having connections with the Maoists. One of them, Santosh Yadav was arrested in September. He was a stringer for at least two Raipur based newspapers Nav Bharat and Dainik Chhattisgarh. The editors of both the news papers have owned the journalist. The fact finding team met Santosh Yadav in the Jagdalpur Central Jail, where he said that he is also suspected by both the sides of being close to the other side.

A second journalist, Somaru Nag was arrested in July, 2015. He was also a stringer and news agent for a Raipur based newspaper, but that newspaper never came forward to own him as their employee.

Charge sheets in both the cases have been filed and the matter is pending in the courts.

On February 8, 2016, the residence of Malini Subramaniam was attacked by some unidentified people. She is a contributor for Scroll.in and former head of International Committee for the Red Cross (ICRC). As Malini told the fact finding team, her house was attacked in the early hours of the morning. Malini found stones scattered around her Jagdalpur residence and the window of her car shattered. According to her around 20 men gathered around her house a few hours before the attack, shouting slogans like "Naxali Samarthak Bastar Chhoro", "Malini Subramaniam Murdabad". She suspected that the same people must have been involved in the attack. According to the local administration, “her writing is one sided and she always sympathises with the Maoists.” The same allegation was made by the Samajik Ekta Manch. According to the local administration the Manch is being run by citizens opposed to the Maoists. However, the journalists in Jagdalpur and Raipur said that it was supported and financed by the police. A few of them said that the Inspector General of Police Mr. SRP Kalluri is directly involved in this.

The latest case was reported by BBC Hindi journalist, Alok Putul who was forced to leave Bastar after he received threats. According to his statement, recorded by the FFT (fact finding team), before these threats Alok received messages from the IG and SP who refused to meet him maintaining that they preferred to deal with “nationalist and patriotic journalists.”

Fear Factors

FFT could not find a single journalist who could claim with confidence that he/she was working without fear or pressure. The journalists posted in Bastar and the journalists working in Raipur, all of them spoke of pressure from both sides.

They said that the journalists have to work between the security forces and the Maoists, and both sides do not trust journalists at all.

All of them complained about their phone calls being tapped by the administration, and being kept under undeclared surveillance. The government officials categorically denied these charges. Principal Secretary (Home) BVK Sumbramiam said, “I have to sanction every single request for surveillance and I can say this with authority that no govt. department has been authorised to tap phone calls of any of the journalists.”

The journalists posted in Bastar said that they cannot dare to travel to the conflict zone to report because they cannot report the facts on the ground. Although collector Jagdalpur, Amit Kataria told the fact finding team that the whole of Bastar is now open for everyone, including journalists.

The President of Divisional Journalists Association of Bastar, S Karimuddin said, “I have not visited any place outside Jagdalpur for the last six years, simply because I am not supposed to write the truth and if one cannot write what one sees then there is no point going out to gather information.” He represents UNI in Bastar for more than three decades.

A similar claim was made by the Editor of a local newspaper Dilshad Niyazi who said that he had not visited the neighbouring district Bijapur for the last eight years out of fear. Another senior local journalist, Hemant Kashyap, well travelled in the area said he knew Bastar like the back of his hand but that now journalists had stopped travelling. “All the journalists have now stopped going inside the forests because of the fear of police as well as Maoists,” he said. “Now we ask Maoist organizations to send photographs and press releases. We publish them as we receive them because we don’t want to explain every single line we are writing to them. Similarly the police expect us to publish its version so most of the journalists print their press releases as well without asking any questions,” Kashyap said.

Malini Subramaniam told FFT that even if someone dares to go out to gather information, one is not supposed to talk to the people. She said, “Police officials expect journalists to believe and publish whatever they claim. They don’t like it if someone wants to walk an extra mile for finding the facts. In one case of surrender, when I tried talking to a couple of people, they asked me to identify the persons I wished to talk and then they briefed them before I could reach them.”

The fact finding team found that this fear is not confined to the tribal areas only, but is there in the capital city Raipur too, 280 kilometres away from Jagdalpur. All the reporters working in Raipur also said that their telephones were tapped. Some of them shared incidents that confirmed this. A very senior journalist, who is considered to have a cordial relationship with the Raman Singh govt. said, “No one is spared, not even me. They have been tapping my phone calls too.” Government officials denied this charge as reported earlier and claimed that not a single journalist is under surveillance. They said that there was a perception gap and they would try to change this.

Chief Editor of an old and reputed newspaper Lalit Surjan said that it had become extremely difficult for a journalist to do his/her job. During his meeting with the FFT he said, “If you want to analyse anything independently, you cannot do it because they can question your intentions and can ask bluntly, ‘Are you with the government for with the Maoists?” He admitted that this problem was not only with the government, but also with the Maoists. He said, “Both sides feel that what you are writing is wrong.”

Surjan said that it was becoming increasingly difficult to work in areas like Bastar as the journalists cannot avoid meeting Maoists, and the government is not prepared to give them even the benefit of the doubt. “The government should respect democratic rights and should give benefit of doubt to the journalists,” he said. He questioned the arrest of the two journalists Santosh Yadav and Somaru Nag and remembers Sai Reddy, who was killed by the Naxals, as a fine reporter.

Challenges faced by Journalism

A journalist working in Bastar expects to be asked “Which side of journalism?” This question appears a bit odd but in Bastar it comes naturally. As the local journalists put it, there are three categories of journalists in Bastar. 1. Pro-government, 2. Not so pro government and 3.Pro Maoists or Maoist sympathisers.

The FFT found that there are nearly 125 journalists working in Jagdalpur alone. They can be divided in four categories:

Journalist by profession: There are only a few in this category. They are generally representatives of the Newspapers published from Raipur. Some newspapers have editions in Bastar, so heads of those editions can also be counted in this category. Journalists of this category are on the pay roll of the newspaper or news agency.

Part time journalists: Dozens of journalists belong to this category in Jagdalpur (or in other cities of tribal division of Bastar.) Journalism is not their main occupation. They have to take govt. contracts, work as builders or property dealers, traders, hoteliers or directors of NGOs etc. Apart from their business interests they have become printers and publishers of a newspaper or a periodical magazine, work as correspondent of some unknown or little known publication. Journalism is not their principal vocation. So called journalists of this category did not seem to be at all concerned about the salary they received from the publication they were working for, they don’t bother about circulation of the publication they own and least bothered about the reputation of the same. Their money comes from somewhere else. The fact finding team was told that many of them use journalistic influence for getting business, govt. contract, advertisements and some time extortion money from government officials and businessmen. Most of the time they are pro government for obvious reasons and senior journalists sitting in Raipur introduce/identify them as journalists on the ‘government pay roll’. Since corruption is rampant in Bastar, they are earning more money for not publishing a news item, than for publishing it. In a conflict zone like Bastar, they are the favorites of the local police and other officials.

Stringers and News agents: They are the backbone of journalism in Bastar. Posted in remote areas of the conflict zone known as stringers, newsagents or even hawkers. They collect news and send it to Jagdalpur bureau of to the head office directly. They don’t have any formal appointment with the newspaper nor do they get remuneration for their work. They get a letter from the newspapers or news agencies they represent, that authorises them to collect news and advertisements. Some might have been issued a press card, that the organisation rarely bothers to renew after it has expired. To the surprise of the FFT many of the stringers in the remote areas are carrying a press card issued by some national television channels too. Their money either comes from advertisement commission or from some other business they are involved in. In case of television sometimes they get paid if the video footage is used, but it happens very rarely and the payment is very low.

Visiting Journalists: They are the journalists representing national or international media. They come from either Raipur, where they are generally posted or from the head offices like Delhi and Mumbai. Police and local administration dislike them the most because they ask many questions, insist on getting the facts and try to visit the affected areas. They are generally seen as Maoist sympathizers or pro-Maoists. As one senior editor in Raipur puts it, “their reports seems pro Maoist because they go inside and talk to the people and anything coming from the people usually contradicts the government’s version and hence it is labeled as pro Maoists or anti government. ” The problem with this lot is, they cannot stay for a long time in Bastar so their reportage is not sustained. Secondly they came with an assignment and they end up looking for a particular story. Third, they cannot access most of Bastar because they are not allowed to visit many parts of the tribal areas, on the grounds that it is not ‘safe’. Four, they don’t understand the local language/dialact and hence are dependent on what the interpreter is telling them. It could be a local journalist from the above described category no. 2. There are some exceptions like Scroll contributor Malini Subramanian who was staying in Jagdalpur and visiting remote places for gathering news, but she could not stay there for a long time for obvious reasons.

Language and Class:

There are only a few journalists who can understand the language/dialect tribal people speak, whether it is Gondi or Halbi or some other dialect. There is not a single full time journalist who comes from one the tribes. Most of the journalists belong to a different class and speak some other language. Their mother tongue could be Chhattisgarhi, Marwari, Hindi, Telugu, Bangla or Hindi but not the one in which local villagers speak. Language constraints are a problem.

Difficult Terrain:

Major part of the conflict zone is in Abujhmarh, which means ‘unknown hills’. It is hilly forest area which is home for many tribes. The population in this area is very thin. According to the 2011 census India’s average population density is 382 persons per square kilometers but in this part of the country the population density is 10 persons only. Then it is one of those areas of the country where Malaria is common. Because it is also the so called liberated zone of the Maoists, it is very difficult to go inside the jungle to gather reports.

Government’s response

The FFT met Chief Minister of Chhattisgarh Dr. Raman Singh at his residence. All top bureaucrats of the state were also present in the meeting. Editors Guild’s executive committee member Ruchir Garg and editor of a local daily Sunil Kumar were also present in the meeting.

The Chief Minister said that he is aware of most of the incidents and he is concerned about it. He said that his government is in favor of free and fair media. He informed the fact finding team that after the controversy over the arrest of journalist Santosh Yadav he had called a meeting of top officials and some editors and formed a monitoring committee which will be consulted for any cases related to the media and journalists.

About the phone tapping and surveillance allegations, the principal secretary (home) assured the team that he is the authority for sanctioning surveillance and he could say that not a single journalist is under surveillance. The principal secretary to the CM admitted that there is a perception gap and said it was the government’s responsibility to change this perception.

The attitude of Bastar IG Mr. SRP Kalluri towards the press also came up in the meeting. The CM instructed the officials that the behavior of one officer should not take away all the credits of the good job the government is doing in Maoist area. Some senior police official with credibility should be authorized to talk to the press, he said. Principal Secretary (Home) should visit Jagdalpur and interact with the media, the Chief Minister instructed.

CM Dr Singh assured the FFT that his government has no prejudice against any one and he will personally take all necessary steps required to make media free of any kind of fear.

Samajik Ekta Manch

This is an informal but controversial organization in Jagdalpur. The administration calls it a citizen’s forum and claims that people from all walks of life are members of this organization. The collector of Jagdalpur, Amit Kataria said that many religious organizations are also part of it and they are against the Maoists. But many journalists call it the urban version of Salwa Judum. They, however, did not want to oppose it openly. They said off the record, that the Manch is sponsored by the police and it takes its orders from the police headquarters.

The FFT met one of the coordinators of this organization Subba Rao to understand the working of the Samajik Ekta Manch.

He introduced himself as editor of two dailies, one morning and the other published in the evening. When asked, whether his main occupation is journalism, Subba Rao was candid enough to explain that he is basically a civil contractor and he is working on some government contracts. The FFT met more than a dozen journalists in Jagdalpur, but he was the only (so called) journalist who claimed that he had never experienced any pressure from the administration.

His statements about the arrested journalists were the same as the administrations. He termed Santosh Yadav and Somaru Nag as informer for the Maoists. He said that what Malini Subramaniam was reporting was very biased. “Malini was glorifying Maoists and painting a picture of police like exploiter”, he said. He denied that Samajik Ekta Manch was behind the attack at Malini’s residence.

Cases and the findings

Santosh Yadav/ Somaru Nag

Santosh was arrested by the police on September 29, 2015. Police charged him for working as a courier for the Maoists and taking money from them.

Government officials claim that Santosh Yadav is not a journalist and they don’t know which newspaper he was working for. The FFT met Santosh Yadav in the Central Jail in Jagdalpur and discussed the case with him. He claimed that he had been working for at least two newspapers Navbharat and Chhattisgarh. (Editors of both the newspapers confirmed that Santosh Yadav was working for them and they own him as a journalist working for their newspapers).

Santosh Yadav admitted that he had been attending calls from the Maoist leaders because of the nature of his job but he had never passed any information to them. He also admitted that he had been occasionally dropping packets between Darbha and Jagdalpur. Sometimes it was bundle of newspapers or magazines and sometimes some other papers he did not know anything about. He said that anyone who lives in remote area of conflict zone cannot risk his life by refusing the Maoists to carry a bundle of papers from one place to another.

The Chief Editor of the newspaper group the Deshbandhu, Mr. Lalit Surjan said during his discussion with the fact finding team, “Santosh Yadav and many other journalists working in remote area of Bastar should be given the benefit of doubt because they have been talking to Maoists as part of their job. They don’t have any choice.” He said that journalists of those remote areas are also talking to the police as part of their jobs and become victims of Maoist anger.

Santosh Yadav told the FFT that he had been given money by a senior police officer and he was expected to pass information about the Maoists movements around the area, but did not do so. He claimed that after some news items published in the newspapers, he was called by the local police station and was tortured for three days.

Somaru Nag was also arrested last year. He was basically a newspaper agent for a newspaper and also gathering news for the same. But the newspaper doesn’t own him now. Charges are same for him too.

Malini Subramaniam

Malini is a contributor for the website the Scroll.in. She was living in Jagdalpur and collecting news for the website. She was working for the Scroll for nearly one year. Before that she was head of International Committee of Red Cross (ICRC). She was first threatened by a group of people then her house was attacked in the wee hours of February 8, 2016. Then she was compelled to vacate her rented accommodation in Jagdalpur.

When the team was in Jagdalpur she was in Hyderabad. The FFT discussed the case with her over the phone.

The local authorities claim that they were not aware that someone is contributing for the Scroll from Jagdalpur. As the collector of Jagdalpur put it, “which is not even mainstream media”

Local journalists say that even they were not aware that Malini Subramaniam was writing for Scroll before the whole controversy came up. Malini admitted that she never bothered to enroll herself as a journalist with the local govt. public relations department, as she was not covering day to day events.

The govt. officials admit that they are not happy with Malini’s writing because ‘it is always one sided and sympathises with the Maoists.’ The Collector of Jagdalpur, Amit Kataria told the FFT- “Even her questions in the press conferences used to be pro Maoist.” Malini in her testimony to the FFT, denied this and said, “Despite my limitations, I have been travelling to remote areas, meeting local people and writing about them. That is something the police don’t want any journalist to do. They want journalists to write what they say of what their press release say.”( Malini told the team that when she was trying to meet some tribal people, the police objected to it and they picked up a couple of tribal people briefed them first then only did the police allow her to interact with them.)

Malini said that objection on her writings came from a newly formed organisation ‘Samajik Ekta Manch’. Her impression is that this organization is supported by the local police and they take orders from the police only. She told the team that during the day a few dozen people gathered in front of her house and shouting slogan against her and then after mid night her house was attacked.

The fact finding team asked many government officials if they have issued any denial for contradiction notice against the Scroll report, the answer was negative.

Malini said that the local police is becoming intolerant and doesn’t want any voice of dissent to be present in Bastar.

Alok Putul

He is a contributor for BBC Hindi from Chhattisgarh. He was in Bastar for gathering news and was trying to meet the Bastar IG Mr. SRP Kalluri and SP Mr. Narayan Das. After many attempts he received this reply from the IG, “Your reporting is highly prejudiced and biased. There is no point in wasting my time in journalists like you. I have a nationalist and patriotic section of media with and press which staunchly supports me. I would rather spend time with them. Thanks.”

The SP sent a similar message, “Hi, Alok, I have lot of things to do for the cause of nation. I have no time for journalist like you who report in biased way. Do not wait for me.”

In his testimony before the team Alok Putul explained that this message was unexpected from the police officers from whom he was trying to take their quotes on the Naxal surrender and law and order situation story he was trying to do.

As Alok explains, “This message was the beginning. After these messages, one local person, known to me, came and advised me to leave the area as some people were looking for me. Initially I was taking it lightly and travelled to another area, there one more person came to me to give me same information. Then I had no other choice but to leave the area immediately.”

Alok told the FTT, “First thing I did was to inform the BBC office in Delhi and some journalist friends in Raipur and then I came back to Raipur.”

The Jagdalpur collector, Amit Kataria when asked about this by the team, laughed and then said, “There was some communication gap between Alok Putul and IG, nothing else.”

After several messages and phone calls, the team could not get a chance to meet IG SRP Kalluri. When the team left Delhi, he had assured that he would give an appointment, but stopped responding when the FTT reached there.

Conclusions

1. Santosh Yadav is a journalist and he has been writing for at least two news papers of Raipur. Both the newspapers have owned him. So the government’s claim that he is not a journalist is baseless.

2. Authorities claim that they have enough evidence about Yadav’s links with the Maoists. It is now for the court of law to decide where these evidences will be produced. But senior journalists in Raipur feel that he has been a victim of circumstances and he should be given benefit of doubt.

3. It is clear from the on record statements made by the authorities that the administration was not comfortable with the reports Malini Subramaniam was sending to Scroll.in. And instead of putting their side of the story, the so called citizen’s forum ‘Samajik Ekta Munch’ was incited to attack Malini’s house and compelled her to leave the city and even the state.

4. Alok Putul was in Bastar to gather some news about the law and order situation for the BBC. Instead of meeting him or talking to him, the two top officials of Bastar sent him messages questioning his nationalism and patriotism. Later he came to know that a few people were looking for him, so he had to leave the place to save himself. Police officials were not available to meet the FFT. The DM dismissed the threats to the journalist as a “communication gap.”

5. There is a sense of fear in Bastar. Every journalist who is working in Bastar feels that he/she is not safe. On one hand they have to deal with Maoists who are becoming more and more sensitive about the reports appearing in the media and on the other hand, the police wants the media to report as and what they want.

6. As one Senior Editor Mr. Lalit Surjan puts it, “If you wish to analyze anything independently then you can be judged whether you are with the government or with the Maoists. The democratic space for journalism is shrinking.”

7. There is a general feeling (in government) in Chhattisgarh that a large section of the national media is pro Maoist. One senior editor, who is perceived as close to the government, said this.

8. Newspapers and other media houses are appointing journalists as stringers in the remote areas without any formalities. These journalists gather news, collect advertisements and arrange the distribution of the newspapers too. They generally survive on the commission they get from advertisement collections or they rely on other professions for the same. A separate and detailed report on stringers is recommended.

9. There is no mechanism in place for accreditation of those journalists who are working beyond the district head quarters. So when the question of identity arises government conveniently denies that someone is/was a journalist. Media houses also disown them because they see them as liability beyond a point.

10. The state government wants the media to see its fight with the Maoists as a fight for the nation and expects the media to treat it as a national security issue, and not raise any questions about it.

11. Chief Minister instructed the administration for better coordination and co operation. A journalist was arrested shortly after the FFT meeting with him, suggesting that there is no shift in policy.

12. FFT is of the view that news paper organizations should take care while appointing stringers and give them adequate protection.

The post ‘Not a single journalist working without fear or pressure’: Editors Guild on Bastar appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Not only does it embody a Hindutva imagination of India, it categorises Muslims as a group who are unable to partake of this form of patriotism.

In 1905, Gujarati politician and writer KM Munshi asked Aurobindo Ghosh a question that has become vital a century later: “How can one become patriotic?”

Ghosh – one of the fathers of Hindu nationalism – replied with an answer that is especially relevant today. Pointing to a map of British India on the wall, Ghosh said:

“Do you see this map? It is not a map but the portrait of Bharat Mata: its cities and mountains rivers and jungles form her physical body. All her children are her nerves, large and small…Concentrate on Bharat as a living mother, worship her with nine-fold bhakti.

In the Maharashtra assembly

Cut to 2016. On Wednesday, in the Maharashtra Assembly, Ram Kadam, a Bharatiya Janata Party legislator, exhorted Waris Pathan, from the Majlis-e-Ittehad-ul Muslimeen, to chant the slogan “Bharat Mata ki Jai”, victory to Bharat Mata, during a heated debate. Its home base in Hyderabad city, the Majlis-e-Ittehad-ul Muslimeen is a party that draws on a Muslim vote base. Many Muslims believe that invoking the deity of Bharat Mata violates the monotheistic beliefs of Islam. Pathan refused to chant the slogan.

In the ensuing uproar, the Maharashtra Assembly showed remarkable unity. The Bharatiya Janata Party, the Shiv Sena, the Congress and the Nationalist Congress Party all asked for Waris Pathan to be suspended – a request that the Speaker put into effect with remarkable efficacy and haste. Pathan was suspended from the Maharashtra Assembly for refusing to chant “Bharat Mata ki Jai”.

That Aurobindo considered Bharat Mata worthy of navavidha bhakti or nine-fold worship is a good indicator as to how the image of India as a mother goddess had already taken root in 1905. That in 2016, a Muslim MLA was punished for not chanting a slogan to “Bharat Mata” shows just how far popular Hindu nationalism has come.

Bengali origin

The concept of worshipping prithvi, the earth, has long been part of Hinduism. However, modern forms of equating a nation with a mother goddess first arose in Bengal. This was a region where Shakto worship dominated and forms of the mother goddess such as Kali, Durga, Manasa and Chandi were popular. The first powerful expression of the motherland as a goddess came with what is now a seminal work in Bengali literature and political philosophy: the novel Ananda Math, the Abbey of Bliss, by Bankimchandra Chattopadhya.

Social scientist Carl Olson writes:

Although not the first author to emphasize the mother for political purposes, Bankimchandra Chattopadhyay (1838-94) transforms Bharat Mata into a fully fledged Hindu goddess and symbol of India who is experiencing difficult times; her children are indifferent to her sufferings, and they need to awaken to the dire conditions and act. In 1875, Bankim Chandra composed Bande Mataram, a song about a benign goddess figure, which becomes an anthem for Indian nationalists in their struggle for liberation from British hegemony.

Ananda Math’s contribution to the development of a proto-form of Hindu nationalism is immense. In the novel, the principal antagonists are clearly Muslims who have ruled over India. Bharat Mata appears in the book as a ten-armed idol in a marble temple. Bande Mataram, contained within the novel, is a hymn to the goddess Durga and, as Tagore wrote, “Bankim Chandra does show Durga to be inseparably united with Bengal in the end."

Enters the public sphere

During the Swadeshi movement and the agitation to annul the 1905 partition of Bengal, the idea of India and Bengal as a mother goddess was used widely in the popular realm. Bande Mataram, Praise the Mother, was the popular anthem of the time. Abindranath Tagore, nephew of Rabindranath and father of modern Indian painting, created what was probably the first pictorial representation of Bharat Mata in 1905, which was widely reproduced and used in the Swadeshi movement.

Nationalism and divinity also got fused in the more militant forms of the freedom movement. The Anushilan Samiti, a group that believed that using violence against the colonisers was justified, took great inspiration from Ananda Math. Initiation ceremonies of the Samiti consisted of conducting shastra puja, weapons worship, in front of a pratima, an idol of the goddess Durga. Large sections of the Samiti went so far as to ban Muslims from joining (although given the overt Hindu religiosity of the group, Muslim participation was never really a pressing issue). One of the founders of the Samiti was Aurobindo Ghosh, who was arrested by the British in 1908 for sedition, among other charges. In prison, Ghosh underwent a change of heart and turned to mysticism, moving to Pondicherry to open his famous ashram.

Communal fissures

Historian Eric Hobswam gives us other examples of female personifications of nations such as Mexico's Virgin of Guadalupe and Catalonia's Virgin of Montserrat. These “holy icons”, says Hobswam imagined the nation visually and emotionally helping forge a sense of unity. In India, though, the explicitly theocratic image of Bharat Mata actually produced communal divisions, not unity. As a result, many streams of the politics at the time moved to check the Bharat Mata cult. In 1937, Rabindranath Tagore wrote to fellow Bengali and Congress president at the time, Subhash Chandra Bose, arguing that Bande Mataram could not be India’s national anthem, given its religious nature:

The core of Bande Mataram is a hymn to goddess Durga: this is so plain that there can be no debate about it… no Mussulman can be expected patriotically to worship the ten-handed deity as ‘Swadesh’….The novel Ananda Math is a work of literature, and so the song is appropriate in it. But, Parliament is a place of union for all religious groups, and there the song cannot be appropriate.

The Congress took Tagore’ views on board and expunged the explicitly religious stanzas of Bande Mataram that directly conflated the goddess Durga with the nation.

A 1966 image where Bhagat Singh offers his decapitated head to Bharat Mata as Subhash Chandra Bose salutes and children march by enthusiastically with bayonets.

Enter Savarkar

However, other streams of political thought in India at the time disagreed with this and strove to reclaim the Bankim Chandra tradition of conflating the nation with Hindu divinity. Chief amongst them was Vinayak Savarkar, a Maharashtrian who, like Aurobindo Ghosh, had once believed in violent struggle. Just like Ghosh, Savarkar had been sent to prison by the British and had emerged a changed man, swearing to abjure anti-British violence.

In his seminal 1923 work, Hindutva, Savarkar outlined a nationalism based on religious identity. Charging the Indian landmass with sacredness, Savarkar's definition of nationality was based on whichever religious groups had their places of worship in the subcontinent. Faiths such as Islam and Christianity, which originated in the Middle East, were seen to be unIndian. Otherwise a nonbeliever, Savarkar imagined “Hind” to be the “richly endowed daughter of god”.

Since then, Hindutva has reclaimed and greatly magnified the Bankim Chandra idea of Bharat Mata. The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh conducts almost every event of its with blazing banners of Bharat Mata holding a saffron flag – and not the Indian tricolour. The goddess is mounted on a lion, the vahan, or divine vehicle, of the goddess Durga.

Bharat Mata temples

Other traditions have also been reclaimed. In 2013, for example, Narendra Modi, then the chief minister of Gujarat, conducted a public shastra puja on Bijaydashami, the day Durga defeated her enemy, thus creating a direct link to the Anushilan Samiti.

Apart from religion-based politics, Bharat Mata has also been installed as a goddess in the traditional precincts of a Hindu temple. This includes a 1936 temple in Banaras that has as its installed deity a large relief map of of the British Indian Empire. Since the concept of Bharat Mata was first created in British India, it is its geography that informs it. Hindutva versions of Bharat Mata have her and her leonine mount floating above a map that almost always includes Pakistan and Bangladesh. Regions such as Sri Lanka or Afghanistan might come and go depending on the political imagination of the bannermaker-cartographer.

Apart from Banaras, there are Bharat Mata temples in the Daulatabad fort in Maharashtra as well as one in Haridwar, inaugurated by Indira Gandhi in 1983.

Hindu rashtra

After being suspended, the MIM MLA Waris Pathan defended himself. “I am willing to say Jai Hind. I love my country," he said. “My objection was to their forcing me to say Bharat Mata Ki Jai.”

Of course, in this whole fracas, it doesn’t really matter whether Pathan considers himself a patriot. Judging patriotism is an absurd idea. But the challenge to Pathan by his fellow MLAs shows how the power of Bharat Mata as a symbol of Hindutva cultural nationalism works. Not only does it achieve a Hindutva imagining of India, it also casts Muslims as a community who are unable to partake of this form of patriotism.

On March 3, Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh head Mohan Bhagwat had sparked off what is now a full-blown political controversy by claiming that young Indians must be taught to chant “Bharat mata ki jai”. A theocratic Hindu rashtra has always been the RSS’s aim and building on the stepping stones laid down by Bankim Chandra, it seems like the RSS is now using “Bharat Mata” as a dog whistle for its concept of “Hindu rashtra”.

Courtesy: Scroll.in

The post Producing patriotism: How ‘Bharat Mata’ became the code word for a theocratic Hindu state appeared first on SabrangIndia.