THERE is no question
that India’s democracy is stronger than Pakistan’s. It is less prone to coups
and violence. Its minorities are more secure. And, most Indians assume, their
media are freer. When Cyril Almeida, a Pakistani journalist, revealed earlier
this month that he had been banned from travelling abroad after writing a story
that embarrassed Pakistan’s security forces, India’s tabloid press gloated.
The Schadenfreude proved short-lived. To general surprise,
Mr Almeida’s colleagues rallied in noisy support. Pakistani newspapers, rights
groups, journalists’ clubs and social media chorused outrage at his
persecution. The pressure worked; the ban got lifted.
Mr Almeida had been
reporting on tensions between the Pakistani army and civilian leaders over the
border crisis with India, which began last month when infiltrators from
Pakistan killed 19 Indian soldiers. On the Indian side of the border, however,
there has not been much critical examination of the government’s actions.
Instead, Indian media have vied to beat war drums the loudest.
When an army
spokesman, providing very few details, announced on September 29th that India
had carried out a retaliatory “surgical strike” against alleged terrorist bases
along the border, popular news channels declared it a spectacular triumph and
an act of subtle statecraft. Some anchors took to describing India’s neighbour
as “terror state Pakistan”. One station reconfigured its newsroom around a
sandbox-style military diorama, complete with flashing lights and toy fighter
planes. A parade of mustachioed experts explained how “our boys” would teach
Pakistan a lesson it would never forget.
Such jingoism was
predictable, given the fierce competition for ratings among India’s news
groups. Disturbingly, however, the diehard nationalists have gone on the
offensive against fellow Indians, too.
This month NDTV, a
news channel with a reputation for sobriety, advertised an interview with
Palaniappan Chidambaram, a former finance minister from the opposition Congress
party. Mr Chidambaram was expected to say that previous governments had also
hit back at Pakistan, but with less fanfare than the present one. Abruptly,
however, NDTV cancelled the show. An executive sniffed that it was “not obliged
to carry every shred of drivel” and would not “provide a platform for
outrageous and wild accusations”.
Arnab Goswami, the
anchor of a particularly raucous talk show, has declared that critics of the
government should be jailed. Extreme nationalists in Mumbai, India’s commercial
capital, have urged filmmakers to ban Pakistani actors. One party has
threatened to vandalise cinemas that dare show a Bollywood romance, “Ae Dil Hai
Mushkil”, due for release later this month, which features Fawad Khan, a
Pakistani heartthrob. The film’s director, Karan Johar, has aired a statement
declaring his patriotism, explaining that the film was shot before the current
trouble and promising never again to work with talent from “the neighbouring
country”. One commentator described his performance as akin to a hostage
pleading for mercy.
Why, asks Mr
Chidambaram, are the media toeing the government line so slavishly? Some answer
that they have become ever more concentrated in the hands of big corporations,
many of which carry heavy debts and so are wary of offending the party in power.
Others ascribe the shrinking space for dissent to the unchecked rise of
chauvinist Hindu-nationalist groups. Repressive colonial-era laws on sedition
and libel also play a part.
Happily, India’s press
still brims with multiple voices. Critics of Mr Modi may worry about internet
trolls, but they do not fear assassination by terrorists or shadowy government
agencies, as those in some neighbouring states do. The Indian public is, in
fact, tired of endless brinkmanship with Pakistan and yearns for stronger, more
effective government. Of course, to be truly strong and effective, governments
need to tolerate and even heed critics.
No comments:
Post a Comment