The reason is simple: the English media long ago ceased to be objective and cannot any longer be trusted
The l'affaire Modi has now ceased to be a moral issue and has turned into a prestige issue as to who, ultimately, will win: the government or the Opposition; and in another sphere whether the government or the media.
The opposition, like the media, has conveniently forgotten how, following the indifference shown by the Rajiv Gandhi government, in the wake of the assassination of Indira Gandhi, some 3,000 Sikhs were cruelly murdered by Congress mobs crying: blood for blood. Selective amnesia is not uncommon among politicians, especially of the Congress hue and the media, in its zest to condemn the Sangh Parivar, would not like to be reminded of another time and era. That is par for the course.
Step further
But The Times of India (April 20) has gone a step further to warn that riot victims' families could move British courts to try the Gujarat chief minister - and never mind under what law. What is implicit in the story is the threat that if Modi doesn't resign, not only he, but the Government of India may be disgraced. There is an expressive word for this kind of journalism in the English language with which, no doubt, the distinguished journalists of The Times of India are fully aware.
It is clear that some journalists need to attend a refresher course in journalism. They do not seem to realise that there are limits beyond which no responsible journal should cross, but what can one say about newspapers like The Times of India and The Hindustan Times which refuses to obey the summons of the Press Council of India? How can any one take these newspapers seriously when they behave as if they are a law unto themselves? How can they presume to read the Riot Act to the Sangh Parivar when they consider themselves above the law? Then they probably do not realise that when a beast - whether communal, fascist or secular - is pushed to the wall, it behaves irrationally and bears its teeth. What is true of beasts is true of political parties and the media as well.
Narendra Modi may still resign but it is clear from the media behaviour that it is not so much anxious to see normalcy restored in Gujarat as much as to see Modi humbled.
Rajiv Gandhi got better treatment. This is exactly what Jyoti Punwani, writing in The Hindu (April 15) has observed. In a perceptive article Punwani asserts that "despite the seemingly unbridgeable divide, spend some time with them, and Godhra's Muslims and Hindus tread the middle ground - privately."
And she adds: "The Hindus ask how right is it in a democracy to thrust your religious views on a minority. The Muslims mutter that there's a limit to the amount of religious provocation that can be tolerated. When you are pushed too hard, the Devil can takeover, and that should not have happened." The media - let along the irresponsible opposition parties - has been pushing the Parivar too hard and no one should be surprised if the reaction is commensurate with the push. Wisdom is a rare commodity in the world of the English media. That being so, what can one expect from a party which is led by an Italian-born citizen with no understanding of the Indian ethos - let alone its history and its people?
But there is some hope still. The Indian Express (April 20) carried an article by Balbir K. Punj - it shows maturity on the part of the paper - that argued that while Modi is accused of handling the situation badly, those who should sit on judgement should be neither the media nor the opposition, but the people.
It is virtually saying that fresh elections are the only answer. As Punj pointed out: "By taking on the prime minister on this issue, the "secular" pack has knowingly or otherwise extended a lifeline to those who pose a threat to civil society and democratic polity". But so low is the credibility of the English media that few respect it any longer.
As Punwani put it: "So low is the credibility of the English press and of private TV news channels among the majority of Hindus, that even when you tell them that you have met Sophiya Khan and her story is true, they refuse to believe it". The reason is simple: The English media long ago ceased to be objective and cannot any longer be trusted.
So hate-filled is the English media that it has conveniently forgotten a whole series of massacres, at Nelli, Mangaldoi and elsewhere. Indira Gandhi ignored those killings even when they continued for six months, before the elections were declared "and even during the polls". But for our secular pundits Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi, like themselves, are above the law and beyond questioning.
It is in this connection that "A Code of Ethics for Journalists", a first draft of which is now available, makes important reading. The Code has been circulated by The Editors Guild of India. Some of the points made in this Code bear repetition. Thus:
Scenes of personal grief are a delicate matter to handle. They should never be shown blatantly in the name of 'human interest'. l Give fair opportunity to the aggrieved party to reply or contradict, within reasonable limits. A journalist must keep himself free from bias. Views of all sides must be reflected (in the matter of disputes and controversies) so that an impression of one-sidedness or partiality is not created. Utmost restraints must be exercised in reporting and writing about communal incidents. The Press Council of India directives in this regard must be strictly adhered to by the media. The English language press could do itself - and its readers - a great favour by contemplating over some of these dos and don'ts. How many papers, for instance, have published a contrary point of view in regard to the Godhra-Ahmedabad riots? How correctly, for example, was Prime Minister Vajpayee's speech in Goa reported? Motivated propaganda
According to Deccan Herald (April 15) Vajpayee thinks that the manner in which his Goa speech was reported showed that there was a motivated propaganda to 'misrepresent' him. And it does not require any special talent to realise that the English media, by and large, has been grossly motivated to misrepresent not only Vajpayee personally, but the entire Sangh Parivar. It cannot be proud of its shockingly shameful record. Had the media correctly reported Vajpayee there would have been no need for him to attempt to set matters right. It is one thing to have intense dislike of a person or a party and quite another for the media to take sides and condemn the person or his party by twisting facts.
At least The Hindu which has no
particular love for the Sangh Parivar has had the decency to publish views
contrary to its own as it did on April 16 when it published N.S. Rajaram's
powerful article condemning secularists. That is good journalism.