|
|
|
July 28, 2002
REVIEW: Propagating peace?
Journalists can, through their writings, help to modify perceptions and so bring about a process of change in countries locked in a conflict situation. For instance, the improvement in Franco-German relations after the Second World War is attributed in part to creative journalism. But what about the role of the print media in India and Pakistan? Are mainstream newspapers “weapons of war or purveyors of peace”? This is what Ilmas Futehally and Fauzia Shaheen examine in their insightful and thought provoking paper.
The period studied is from October 1999 to July 2001, which includes the Agra summit, a great “media event”, where the media was not just an observer but also a “player”. The study reviewed a few prominent newspapers from the 3000 publications in India and 1100 newspapers in Pakistan to see what the dominant trends are, if any.
The content analysis of the leading papers in India and Pakistan between 1999 and 2001 indicates that the press almost always reflects the establishment’s viewpoint. When political relations were tense in May 1999-April 2000 — given the Kargil war, the military takeover in Pakistan, the Indian airlines hijacking incident — the press was “negative towards bilateral relations in the coverage of events and reportage”. However, in May 2001, when Prime Minister Vajpayee announced his intention to invite General Musharraf, and Pakistan responded positively, the press became “very positive and constructive about the outcome of the summit”.
After the summit, newspapers in both countries blamed each other for the failure of the talks. Whereas the Pakistani press held the “hidden hand” responsible, the Indian press blamed Pakistan’s President for being “unifocal”.
This indicates that the “press is neither pro nor anti peace or war”. Rather, the press in each country “simply looks at the political or military leadership in order to formulate views on relations between India and Pakistan”.
Not that there is any formal state control of the press in the two countries. But there is much “indirect control” by the government through grant or withdrawal of certain favours to newspaper proprietors, such as newsprint quota and government ads (the authors do not specifically mention the latter). Such indirect government control is rendered easier with limited press ownership. In both India and Pakistan a few large newspaper groups control a vast number of publications.
Investigative journalism focuses on domestic issues, such as uncovering corruption in high places. But the same spirit of enquiry is found wanting in writings on national security concerns or foreign policy. The newspapers in both countries remain wary about matters relating to national security and may not report on certain issues altogether.
In fact journalists in India and Pakistan “often have to prove their patriotic credentials” and to safeguard what is seen as national interests. It is in this spirit that they tend “to blame the other side for all wrong doings and profess innocence on the part of one’s country”. To make their point, Futehally and Shaheen give excerpts from the Indian and Pakistani press.
That the media is not a “free marketplace of ideas” is reflected also in the space given to the dominant viewpoint while the alternate view on crucial issues is hardly entertained. Journalists critical of the official viewpoint can be labelled as anti-nationalists.
What is notable is the degree of “obsession” about the other country in the press. This was evident during the Agra summit when many newspapers carried special papers and supplements, columns and interviews about the summit; while international events of a more urgent nature were sidelined.
A “dangerous” trend noticeable is the “stereotyping of the people and country across the border”. This clouds the ability to think and encourages prejudices, even “legitimacy for hatred”. For instance, an Urdu paper with a wide circulation in Pakistan uses different terminology while referring to the two sides in the Kashmir conflict. The Mujahideen who die are termed “shaheed” while the term “halaq” or “mar gaye” is used while reporting on Indian deaths. Several other examples are given.
Some Indian newspapers on the other hand assume that “all Pakistani religious schools are the centres of terrorism”. Take for instance this editorial comment from an English newspaper in India, “These schools train young men for jihad in places like Kashmir and Chechnya.”
Futehally and Shaheen further observe, “It is clear that when events taking place in the other country are reported on, often very strong and harsh language is used. In no case is the benefit of the doubt given to the opposite side”.
The media can also build up war hysteria, by “legitimizing irrational claims and nationalistic positions” of their countries. Then, if a war does take place, “the public opinion on both sides would be willing to support it”. The authors give excerpts from various Indian and Pakistani papers to underline the media role in building up war hysteria. They note, “Indian and Pakistani newspapers almost unanimously put the blame for the escalating tensions between the countries on the other”.
In recent years, a number of organizations in South Asia — and some journalists in their own individual capacity — have outlined measures that could affect the way a conflict is reported. SAARC drew an 18-point plan of action during the first conference of Ministers of Information in Dhaka in April 1998. Some valuable measures outlined include, the free flow of information, newspapers, periodicals, books and other publications; easier travel for media persons within the region; exchange of data through e-mail and Internet; etc.
If implemented, this action plan could reduce tension within the region. However, as yet, there has been “no action”.
Some other organizations that seek to promote free flow of information and interaction among journalists of the region include South Asian Media Association (SAMA), a volunteer association of media practitioners and academics from the SAARC countries and South Asian Editors Forum (SAEF).
In the chapter on “Pro-peace options” Futehally and Shaheen mention a number of practices that journalists could adopt to improve the quality of reportage. These include: establishing an Indo-Pakistan feature service covering human stories to strengthen ties between people; creating awareness through the media about the horrifying consequences of nuclear war; building alliances with NGOs and other components of civil society to embark on creative initiatives; etc.
Today, when there is growing tension between India and Pakistan, journalists can gain much by reading Weapons or war or purveyors of peace? not only to compare how facts are being portrayed by the print media in Pakistan and India but also, perhaps, to adopt some strategies that could pave the way for a process of change.
Weapons of war or purveyors of peace? Print media in India and Pakistan
By Ilmas Futehally and Fauzia Shaheen
International Centre for Peace Initiatives, C-306 Montana, Lokhandwala Complex, Andheri West,Mumbai 400 053, India
Website:
www.peaceinitiative.org
48pp. Price not stated
|
|
|
|
