:: Saturday, August 02, 2003 ::

Regime Change in Tehran - and Pakistan?

Eric Margolis, a journalist who has specialised in reporting on Aghanistan and the conflict over Siachen, makes a strong comment against current US policy in the Middle East and comes up with some, what can only be termed, rather extreme answers. He begins by making clear what he thinks of Bush Jnr’s administration:

Bush seems determined to press his Christian fundamentalist crusade against Muslim nations. But another important reason impels him on. He is running a political shell game: diverting the public from the monster Enron and stock market swindles by invading Afghanistan, then covering that mess by invading Iraq, and now trying to cover-up the growing Iraq disaster by fanning a new crisis with Iran.

Soon after Israel's Prime Minister Ariel Sharon demanded the US Army march on Tehran, his American neo-conservative supporters launched a get-Iran campaign, featuring the identical propaganda they used to fan war fever against Iraq: weapons of mass destruction, threats to the US, terrorism and human rights violations. Some imaginative neo-cons even claim Saddam's unfindable weapons were moved to Iran.

Now I am, to put it mildly no fan of the current Bush administration; and it seems to be permeated with a strong ethos of evangelical Christianity but I would also be reluctant to class the current moves by the US in the region as simply a continuation of a Crusader mindset; at the very least the strategic location of most of the world's current oil reserves have more than a little to do with the intense interest the region attracts and its great importance for any global hegemonic power. On the other hand, there is no doubt that emphasising foreing policy and an aggressive stand in the WoT, is being pursued in order to detract criticism from areas of domestic economic policy where Bush is much more vulnerable. Still, given that the problems in Iraq are far from over; it is an extremely risky path to start preparing for any direct militart confrontation with Iran - a much bigger and internally more entrenched society. Besides, it is doubtful as to how many times the shell game shuffle will work.

The reference to Sharon, also seems a little gratuitous, not becuase it is factually incorrect but becuase US foreign policy is hardly micro-managed by the vagaries of a Likud-dominated coalition and Bush, like he father before him, has shown himself willing to lean on Israel when he deems it necessary to do so. Rumours abound regarding the elusive WMD's not least their supposed last minute evacuation to Syria rahter than Iran; and they need to be treated with the scepticism they deserve. On the other hand, Iran does seem to have accelerated their nuclear weapons programme on the belief that only actually having some WMD will preclude any US military action - a rational response in the circumstances, if not the desirable option.

Still Margolis presses on:

Though Iran denies nuclear weapons ambitions, Iran is probably developing covert weapons capability. In 1994, the head of West Asia's most capable intelligence agency revealed to me Iran had offered to pay his cash-strapped nation's total defense budget for ten years in exchange for nuclear know-how. The offer was refused.

Before his overthrow, the late Shah was secretly negotiating with the US for reactors, and with Israel for medium-ranged Jericho missiles armed with nuclear warheads. Any regime in Iran, clerical, royal, or otherwise, will seek nuclear weapons. A nation of 68 million with great oil wealth, which lost 500,000 men in the US-promoted 1980 invasion by Iraq, has as much right to nuclear weapons for self-defense as Britain, France, India, Pakistan, or the US.

Given Margolis's past involvement in covering the Afghan conflict, "West Asia's most capable intelligence agency" seems to me to be code for Pakistan's ISI; and if so it matches also with the fiscal problems Pakistan was having in shouldering its considerable defence burden, particularly after the passage of the Pressler Amendment in 1992. Given that Pakistan's own nuclear programme was well advanced by this time, it would have been well placed to give such technical assistance to Iran. The claim though needs to be treated with some caution, such a transfer of technology and funds could not have been done clandestinely and once detected would almost certainly have provoked a reation of some sort from the US. Acquisition of nuclear capability by Pakistan could be overlooked during the Afghan war and the fact that its nuclear arsenal was more or less exclusively aimed at India; Iran would have been another matter altogether. While Iran does have very serious and legitimate security concerns, I can't help but feel what is needed in the Middle East and on a wider global scale are less nuclear weapons and not more. The acquisition of nuclear weapons by India, in anycase certainly do not fall under the rubric of self-defence and Margolis fails to explain how their acquisition would be justified imminently in Iran's case.

Of course he raises the usual complaint about Israel's nuclear option:

Iran's nuclear ambitions are aimed at countering Israel's large nuclear arsenal - reportedly over 200 weapons. While Iran long accepted UN nuclear supervision, Israel flatly refused UN inspection, even creating in 1969 a fake control room at its main Dimona reactor, according to defector Mordechai Vanunu, to fool US specialists in the only inspection it ever allowed.

President Bush's trumped-up war against Iraq, and now threats of war against Iran over its alleged nuclear projects, while turning a blind eye to Israel's nuclear, chemical and biological arsenal, is hypocritical and assures a continuing strategic arms race in the region. Nuclear and biowarfare disarmament of the entire Mideast- including Israel - is the right answer, as the UN has long urged.

While Israel's nuclear weapons reduce rather than add to the security stability of the system in the region; they are hardly an immediate threat to Iran and Israe's territorial ambitions are very limited and can be reduced mainly to an insurance policy against a future detrimental development in the conventional military balance of power vis-a-vis potentially hostile states in the region. Again, as mistaken as the means maybe, it hardly constitutes a major direct threat to Iran. Though the wider disarmament of the region is a laudable aim, it is unlikely to be achieved without more progress on the Palestinian issue and a more generalised regional peace iniatiative - the political solution will need to precede the military one.

Last fall, pro-Israel neo-conservatives revealed plans for a US campaign against Iran: stirring student unrest, then inciting a broader revolution to overthrow its Islamic theocracy. Last week, as US pressure on Iran mounted, student riots erupted in Iran, sparked by CIA-staged pirate TV broadcasts using US-based Iranian royalists calling for rebellion.

The demonstrations were not solely the result of foreign machinations. Some Iranians find President Mohammed Khatami's Islamic regime narrow-minded, too repressive, or ineffectual, though it is more representative of national interests.

Crushing US sanctions on Iran have inflicted severe economic woes, and high unemployment. More important, Iran is undergoing the same generational revolution that swept away the communist regimes of Eastern Europe. Seventy percent of Iranians are under 30, half under 18. They are rebelling against hidebound orthodoxy; many seek the 'decadent' western life the mullahs have struggled to fend off.

This ferment does not necessarily mean a counter-revolution will return Iran to the Shah's days. Still, a major revolution cannot be totally discounted, particularly if fuelled by the US and perhaps supported by American forces in neighboring Iraq and Afghanistan, and, of course, Pakistan. Interestingly, many neo-conservatives are beginning to call for the 'liberation' of Pakistan.

Again, I think it is doubtful that the main motivation behind the demonstrations is external - there are serious internal pressures for reform that have not been satisfied with Khatami's progess on these issues so far and the precedent of earlier upheavals acts as a warning to any Iranian regime that does not accomadate them. By far the most interesting point raised by Margolis is the reference to Pakistan; extreme as the neo-conservative view of geo-politics is, I find it amazing that this can be seriously considered even by them. While it may fall into the realm of wishful thinking, such a course in current circumstances would be foolish in the extreme and would probably lead to the severe destabilisation of the country itself. Apart from anything else it ignores the fact that Pakistan has been a fairly consistent ally throughout the recent period of history and its government at least has delivered on what the US has usually asked of them. Trading this in for a weaker and potentially more unruly Pakistan, is from the US's point of view at any rate, a weak bargain.




:: Conrad Barwa 8:40 PM [Permanent Link] :: ::
..............

Flogging Dead Horses: Part Two:

The US is still pushing the issue of Indian troops being sent to Iraq, with the visit of the Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff, Richard Myers hinted in his recent stopover in New Delhi, as the Hindu reports :

With India having declined to send troops to Iraq without an explicit U.N. mandate, the two-day interaction between the Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, Richard B. Myers, and senior Defence Ministry officials beginning on Monday is expected to focus on the current situation in Iraq and the possible Indian troop deployment options in that country. Though there is no formal acknowledgement, the Army has kept a division size force in readiness for Iraq as part of its operational plans for the current year.

Some ideas it seems, are not fated to die a quiet death and the usual carrots are being dangled to elicit co-operation:

Gen. Myers' meetings with the National Security Adviser, Brajesh Mishra, the Defence Secretary, Ajay Prasad, and the Army and Naval Chiefs, will see New Delhi conveying its requirements for a mutually beneficial relationship such as shifting India to the catchment area of the American Central Command (Centcom) which oversees the volatile Middle East and facilitating the sale of the Israeli "Arrow" anti-missile missile system.

Though the U.S. has allowed Israel to begin negotiations with India on the sophisticated "Phalcon" air-borne radar system, it has dragged its feet on permitting the sale of "Arrow", whose acquisition is considered critical by New Delhi to counter the threat of Pakistan's inventory of Korean and Chinese missiles.

Worryingly, there is no sign of a stick - something of even more concern, in my opinion; this can only be a sign of desparation and should signla more caution. The senior command, is understandably rubbing its hands together hoping to acquire more hi-tech goodies; anyone would think that we have lost the last three wars with PAkistan due to a shortfall in proper equipment:

Meeting ahead of the defence policy group (DPG) meeting, the highest forum of bilateral military dialogue, the two Generals will also review the status of the Indian Army's request for specialised counter-insurgency equipment and nuclear, biological and chemical (NBC) warfare suits. The Army has forwarded a 29-item wish list worth over Rs. 200 crores and the U.S. will supply almost half of it during the current year. The first major Indo-U.S. weapons deal in three decades has taken off with the arrival of a set of weapon locating radars (WLRs) to help locate hostile artillery batteries and neutralise them. The absence of WLRs had led to heavy casualties to Indian troops from Pakistani artillery during the Kargil conflict.

Though, how Washington would react to tipping the balance this much in India's favour seems debatable - after all Pakistan is a much more dependable client state and a strategic ally in the WoT. Still the US has not been remiss in seeking help where it can get it :

At a U.S. Department of Defence briefing here, he said: "We have been talking to the Indians, the Pakistanis, the Turks, the Bangladeshis, and any number of other countries and I anticipate we will continue to get more international (support)".

And after Delhi, the tour moves onto Islamabad :

US Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen Richard Myers arrived here on Tuesday for consultations with his Pakistani counterpart and senior officials in the military establishment. Gen Myers flew in from New Delhi after holding talks there with the top brass of the Indian armed forces.

The US general, who is leading a seven-member delegation, met the Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman, Gen Mohammad Aziz Khan, and other top-level military officials in the afternoon. Gen Myers and members of his delegation were given a special briefing on Pakistan's security perspective at the Joint Staff Headquarters in Rawalpindi.

"During the meeting professional matters and issues of mutual interest were discussed," said a brief statement issued by the Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR) Directorate after the meeting. Tension along the Afghan border, ongoing operation against Al Qaeda, the situation in Iraq, bilateral defence cooperation and Pakistan's security concerns vis-a-vis India also figured in discussions, sources said.

The sources said Gen Myers also raised the issue of Pakistan sending troops to Iraq. Both President Musharraf and Prime Minister Jamali have indicated that Pakistan would contribute to the stabilization force in Iraq only under the UN mandate or the cover of the OIC or the GCC.

Why either Pakistan or India will be willing to send substantial numbers of troops to Iraq, while Kashmir still remains a flashpoint for the two is not addressed at all and a compromise that will be acceptable to both sides is far off, indeed until both sides reach an internal decision that they need to negotiate rather than just repeat 50 year old cliches there will be no real progress - even one imposed from outside.

As they say, 'don't call us, we will call you'.




:: Conrad Barwa 6:57 PM [Permanent Link] :: ::
..............

The Costs of Assertive Nationalism: Demanding Sovereignty in the Pakistani Legislature:

The reception of the US aid package to Pakistan has raised some hackles in the legislature , with some strong statements being made against it:

FORMER President Farooq Leghari has asked the Government to reject the three billion dollar US aid package, if it has strings as enunciated in a recent bill introduced in the US Congress by some Congressmen of the anti-Pakistan lobby. Addressing a Press conference in Islamabad, he said ‘any aid at the cost of Pakistan’s sovereignty will not be acceptable’. It is unfair on the part of the US Government to seek humiliating conditionalities attached to the package through manipulation.

That is a good one, Pakistani sovereingty, what does Leghari think the US doles out multi-billion dollar soft loans for? Out of humanity! A smarter question would not be the absolute infringement of sovereinty - as if this has never happened in the past - but what exactly is being given up here and for how long. One could always reply that this is necessary posutring to preserve the public facade of state integrity that is done by all Pakistani p[oliticans in public; but this is a weak arguement. Pakistani citizens are not fools, everyone can see that large amounts of money will not be doled out without a quid pro quo and not even the most ardent and myopic nationalist can ignore the deference and influence of the US on Pakistani policy operative on several different levels. It is time that the politicians earned some credibility and ditched these tired old myths; they might go some way in regaining electoral respectability and would also make it harder for the Islamists to pose as anti-imperialists under the guise of being the only ones willing to stand up for Pakistani national interests.

The fact is that the three billion dollar aid package announced by President Bush during Gen Musharraf’s meeting with him at Camp David had shocked the Pakistani people in view of its peanuts’ size and unjustifiably overstretched duration of its implementation. The conditionalities viz end to cross LoC infiltration, elimination of alleged terrorist camps in the country and adherence to non-proliferation of nuclear weapons being sought to be attached to it through the US Millennium Accounts Bill are totally unacceptable. We strongly feel that Mr Leghari’s nationalistic stance has some weight and call upon the Government to review its acceptance of the US aid package. Though it is not clear whether or not the move has been initiated in the Congress at the Bush administration’s initiative, yet there is hardly any doubt about the motive behind it. The strings are not only unwarranted but also ridiculous. It’s, in reality, an arms twisting device against Pakistan. What the elder Bush did with Pakistan at the end of the Afghan war by refusing to certify about Pakistan’s nuclear programme, his son apparently wants to follow his father’s footprints on the basis of these conditionalities. Mr Leghari’s stand on the issue represents aspirations of the masses and, as such, has raised his prestige in Pakistani society. It’s hoped that other politicians, heads of parliamentary parties and chosen representatives will follow suit and express their outrage at the move in the US Congress with the emphasis that its acceptance be reviewed by the Government. Any aid having strings is bound to undermine Pakistan’s sovereignty. It’s an issue of national dignity and self-respect and there ought to be a bipartisan approach towards it. It’s imperative that the Bush administration should intervene and block the bill, if it is really sincere in friendship towards Pakistan.

Well at least this is an honest if hopelessly idealistic view of the exchange. Zia would have turned his nose up at the $3 billion on offer considering the $12 billion he was able to derisively command from the US (in 1981 he famously dismissed a package of $400 million as 'peanuts'); but the geo-strategic situation has changed since then and now with the army in Pakistan no longer having the same legitimacy and a nuclear neighbour, combined the rise of the Islamist parties and the changed external conditions brought about by the WoT, Musharraf no doubt feels that beggars cannot be choosers. Interestingly, enough, Zia's approach towards India was ruthlessly pragmatic as he had judged that any direct military confrontation would be virtually suicidal for Pakistan and hence despite the increase in US support, Islamisation of the army and state institutions and repressive attitude towards domestic political parties; he was non-committal to initiating any confrontation with India, even over Kashmir. It should be noted that, only after his mysterious death in a plane crash in 1988, that Pakistan took advantage of simmering discontent in the valley after the rigged 1987 elections and 1989 disturbances to extend their support for cross-border terrorism; on a slew of other issues such as de-nuclearisation of the region, he also took a remarkably pragmatic and realistic stand. Musharraf, with his role in the ill-advised Kargil adventure, seems more inclined towards the traditional Pakistani military view of India as a deeply hostile state that entertains the dismemberment of Pakistan as a highly desirable option. Nonetheless, his domestic room for manoeuvre is much more constrained and the flow of largess not enough to keep every major political player at the table happy.

On the other hand, it is unclear how the "masses" of Pakistan are represented by the likes of Mr. Leghari, part of the bureaucratic-military elite that has ruled Pakistan for much of its post-colonial history. The socio-economic problems of Pakistan are serious and they need immediate attention; the kind of attention that can only be given if military expansionism and aggressiveness externally can be curtailed and a viable peaceful solution for Kashmir be found. The jingoistic dead-end which Leghari and other critics of the Musharraf regime from a hyper-nationalistic position propose; will impose heavy costs on Pakistan's economy and society that it cannot easily bear. Costs which will be borne disproportionately by the eponymous 'masses'.

The resolution of the national question and dignity as well as self-respect; will be very different for the mazdoori masses than for ashrafis like Leghari who will decide their fate.


:: Conrad Barwa 8:03 PM [Permanent Link] :: ::
..............

Saffronism Congress Style: Digvijay Embarks on the Campaign Trail:

The monsoon has hit most parts of northern India, Parliament is in recess, the crop is being sown and it is the one time politicians will have to go cap in hand to their electorates, whom they normally regard behind air-conditioned screens and VVIP security cordons - that is right it is election season. The incumbent Chief Minsiter, Digvijay singh in Madhya Pradesh, decides that some pandering to the Hindu won't go amiss:

If visiting temples can make one a “champion” of Hindutva, the chief minister, Mr Digvijay Singh, will give a run for religious thoughts to the likes of Miss Uma Bharati and Mr Praveen Togadia. The Madhya Pradesh chief minister, who is very often targeted for his “soft Hindutva”, has visited over a dozen temples and sought blessings from several saints, including Satya Sai Baba, in the past three months.

But wait didn't the 'new and improved Congress' eschew this kind of cheap saffron populism in line with a call for a "broad secular front"? Ah, old habits it seems die hard:

Quite interestingly, when the Congress president, Mrs Sonia Gandhi, was giving a clarion call from Shimla to “secular” parties to come together to fight the BJP, Mr Digvijay Singh cut short his stay at Vichar manthan shivir (7-9 July) and visited places of worship at Pandharpur, Pune, Alandi and Maa Tulja Bhavani temple in Maharashtra between 8 and 9 July. On 10 July, Mr Singh went to Selayur temple temple in Chennai. On 11 July, he visited Puttaparty to seek the blessings of Satya Sai Baba. While the chief minister would attribute these visits to his “samskar and kshatriya background”, his religious spree might be an attempt to give the BJP’s hindutva a point-counter-point reply in the election year.

Er, Digvijay's "kshatriya" credentials may stand him in good stead if he was a corps commander in the Northen sector, they are of less use when adminsitering one of the more backward northen states suffering from serious development and infrastructure problems, Diigi Raja however has other ideas:

It is not that Mr Singh had not visited temples earlier. But he has certainly added more religious excursions in the current year. When asked about his holy trips, Mr Singh said as he was a religious man, he would visit every place of worship, be it temple, mosque, church or gurudwara. His recent holy jaunts also included visits to Orchha and Mount Abu. He offered prayers at Donargarh temple on 4 April, visited Lord Rama temple at Orchha on 15 April and subsequently on 7 June. He had also visited a temple at Chitrakoot on 24 May.

Diggi Raja — as he is lovingly or otherwise known — was not deterred by heavy rains during his visit to Sumda Mata temple in Rajasthan. When his puja was getting delayed, he managed the temple priest at the helipad itself. Back home, he offered an exhaustive puja with his family at Raghogarh on 3 and 4 June.

No prizes for gueesing why the sudden interest in such pilgramages or for what boons were prayed for at the puja. Given the problems within Madhya Pradesh and the only fitful delivery of the COngress State government; divine intervention may prove decisive in delivering victory.


:: Conrad Barwa 4:02 PM [Permanent Link] :: ::
..............

Flogging Dead Horses: Part One:

Silly season continues with the usual dance of musical chairs around the issue of infiltration of militants across the LoC in Kashmir; Musharraf despite some pressure from the US, still makes wide eyes and plays the game of 'infiltration, what infiltration?' when quizzed on the problem in Washington:

"We have at the government level ensured that nothing ought to be happening on the Line of Control... I can't answer how much infiltration is going on. I don't know. For me there is no infiltration going on. Pakistan has done all that it can do," Musharraf, who is on an official visit to the US, said in an interview to the Washington Post.

It seems that being a military dictator these days is not all it is cracked up to be and there remain important constraints on what such a figure can do, or so Musharraf would have us beleive:

He, however said, he could give no guarantee on ensuring that no one crossing over into Kashmir from the Pakistani side. to ask me to give a guarantee that nothing is happening across the Line of Control, I will not do that. I cannot. It is not possible." "...Pakistan cannot be held responsible to ensure, to guarantee that not a bird will fly across the LOC. It is not humanly possible," he said, adding sealing the border was "not possible".

Unluckily for the Pakistani president, trans-border traffic is not limited to harmless (and I might add tasty) fowl or members of the avian species, and reports indicate to the contrary that jihadi recruitment is on the rise over the last year:

Jehadi publications — Ghazwa, Majalla, Zarb-e-Taiba, Shamsheer and Zarb-e-Momin — reveal that between January and June this year, various groups have recruited more than 7,000 youngsters in the 18-25 age-group from across Pakistan.

The most high-profile outfits, Lashkar-e-Toiba (LeT) and Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM), claim to have enrolled more than 3,350 and 2,235 boys, respectively. uoting the LeT website, an interior ministry official says that around 800 youngsters died fighting the Indian Army last year.

The problem is not purely one of crazed fanatics eager to die, it is at least in part a socio-economic one as well, casting some doubt on the 'poverty does not foster terrorism' myth, while there is not a causal relationship, there is defintely a discomforting correlative one:

Claims Maulana Yousaf, a prayer leader at Al-Raza Mosque in Rawalpindi: ‘‘My speeches have motivated hundreds of people to donate their sons.’’ Ahsan Mehmood has eight children. He works as a labourer in Rawalpindi and earns barely 150 rupees a day. Last month, he donated his two sons. ‘‘It is better for them to die for a cause...before hunger kills them,’’ is his argument.

‘‘The jehadi outfits have offices in Islamabad and Rawalpindi. They chase young boys and indoctrinate them. They draw a very rosy picture of jehad. They tell innocent boys that they will go to paradise and get 70 houris if they died in Allah’s way. That’s what they did to my son,’’ recalls Maula Bux, father of Kalim, who was killed in Kashmir in March this year.

Sakina, mother of 23-year-old Imran who was killed in Kashmir in June, has a similar story. ‘‘They tempted my son with all the talk about martyrdom and salvation. He was unemployed and quite frustrated and perhaps found it easier to live in the hereafter than here and now,’’ she says.

Of course, the mere presence of unemplyoed and fustrated youth does not immediately make terrorism possible, no, for this there has to be a demand for recruits and the infrastructure in place to turn them into militants and fighters. Ironically, there seems to be no shortage of such facilities to turn relatively raw young men into those willing to use violence for a putative religious/political cause, frequently on civlians. One wonders why such resources cannot be directed by the state to turning them into productive members of society, but such is not the way of the pervasive "political economy of defence" that has taken root in Pakistan:

Of course, the most steady stream of warriors comes from the seminaries run by various outfits. Here they are indoctrinated over a longer period of time since they join at a much younger age, points out Anis Jillani, head of the Society for Protection of Children’s Rights.

An interior ministry official says the government cannot penalise people for donating their children or stop the youth from joining these outfits. ‘‘This happens secretly. They do not have any official patronage. You cannot stop jehad. If you have to stop it, you will have to stop people from offering prayers and keeping fasts. In other words, jehad is an integral part of Islam, so you can’t reject it,’’ he said.

Apart from the egregious misinterpretation and justification of political violence and religion, it is a bad sign when the State seeks to avoid imposing the writ and force of law under the plea of inability to exert its power. While infilitration may occur and Musharraf mouth platitudes about how it is not possibile to stop it, borders cannot become porous to armed political entrepreneurs skilled in the use of violence; no state can permit such a state of affairs to continue and expect to be able to maintain legitimacy over its own territory. Musharraf's disningenous apologies apart, this remains a serious obstacle in the way of Indo-Pak peace talks, it allows the perpetuation of killings and attacks by both militants and Indian soliders in Kashmir to continue and it lends political support to hardliners in New Delhi that are unwilling to enter into talks or negotiations to end the conflict.

It remains to be seen, whether Musharraf, can break free of the khaki myopia of his unifmored predecessors and make a constructive move towards dismantling this infrastructure and laying the groundwork for serious peace talks. The omens are not good.


:: Conrad Barwa 8:40 PM [Permanent Link] :: ::
..............

Saffron Media in Gujarat: Grinding the Rumour Mill:

The government continues to relentlessly tame and subvert the autonomy of institutions like Press Council of India . Recently the PCI was pressurised for not censuring two Gujarati dailies, ‘Sandesh’ and ‘Gujarat Samachar’, for their role in flaring up communal passions during last year’s genocide in Gujarat. This institution also faced heavy armtwisting in the matter of journalist Gilani, who was facing trial in Parliament attack case. It has been reported that a ‘communication’ has been sent to the PCI to avoid inquiries into the cases of newspapers articulating and championing the ‘holy’ cause of Hindutva.

The PCI, already starved of staff and funds and an office building of its own, has this time appreciatively dared to defy the government mandate and censured two abovementioned dailies for publishing inflamatory and false reports, although govt. was favouring issuance of mere warnings to them.

The Press Council of India has pulled up ‘Sandesh’ for being irreponsible in publishing a false news item on March 1 in order to spread communal venom after Godhra carnage that two girls were abducted from Sabarmati Express whose mutilated bodies were found later, while other newspapers had publicly denied this report. ‘Sandesh’ continued its false reporting and on March 6 it again carried a baseless report which said that the pilgrims returning from Haj were carrying RDX and other explosives for mounting attacks on Hindus. The reaction of the papers was anticipated one usually given in these cases:

The committee expressed its displeasure over the boycott of its sittings by Gujarat Samachar by remaining absent. Nor did this paper respond to the PCI notices on six complaints against it, except in one case. There were eight complaints against Sandesh but the paper sought to take shelter behind the plea that it had carried the objected reports “in good faith

Faith it seems, has replaced journalistic investigation for these regional dailies. The attitude of the PCI commission was understated in the extreme in dealing with some of the more provocative examples of biased reporting:

Stopping short of a blanket condemnation of Sandesh and Gujarat Samachar, the committee said “it did not appreciate the headlines like ‘Godhra killings a challenge to the rise of Hindutva’ in February 28, 2002 issue of Gujarat Samachar or even some of the later reports/articles that exhorted Hindus to rise as a class against the Muslims.”

The committee noted that “a greater onus lies in times of crisis on regional media rather than the national media, in restoring the faith of the public in the law and order situation and encouraging communal harmony and amity.

Given the greater reach and depth in regional language markets that non-English newspapers have this is a commendable and sensible view to take. The reactions of the editors, responsible for permitting these dubious stories to be printed demonstrates that their only embarassment and regret comes at being caught not in the act itself:

The editor of Sandesh had sought to claim that these reports were “published by all other newspapers in the state and.... repeatedly aired by the TV channels.” He went on to claim that “reporting in Sandesh was the outcome of the events which had taken place for which no newspaper was required to be dealt with under the provisions of the Press Council Act.”

In other words, 'don't blame us sahib, everybody else was throwing muck around as well', this kind of herd mentality is common amongst those who indulge in communal propaganda and seek to follow the crowd rather than maintain some distance and restraint in their analysis and dissemination of news and current affairs. The Press Council of India inquiry committee also censured both the dailies for publishing scurrilous stories in which noted dancer and cultural activist Mallika Sarabhai was accused of creating rowdyism in Gandhi Ashram in Ahmedabad, on the contrary she was manhandled and badly misbehaved by saffron hoodlums during a meeting organised there for peace.

This action is belated, but welcome nonetheless.


:: Conrad Barwa 8:28 PM [Permanent Link] :: ::
..............