The riotous media story
by Swapan Dasgupta
Last Tuesday and Wednesday, a handful of TV channels tried their utmost to trigger communal riots in Gujarat, if not the rest of India. I happened to be in West Bengal on the days Vadodara was said to be burning, and it was clear as daylight that the media was bent on stirring things up. Sitting in a studio while voting was in progress in Muslim-majority districts like Murshidabad, I could only speculate about the editorial rationale behind constant telecast of footage of young lumpens stoning policemen and frightened women mourning the tragic killing of a Muslim businessman in a burning car. The commentary was equally inflammatory - "animal-like brutality" and "tandav lila" were just two of the descriptions of Gujarat's still-born Intifada.
By the evening, Communist leaders were warning people to be vigilant about a replay of the 2002 riots, the explosion of passion that yielded such handsome dividends for the Left in the 2004 general election.
I don't know whether the media coverage of the Vadodara clashes influenced Muslim voters to gang up against the Trinamool Congress and BJP candidates in West Bengal, but in the rest of India riots didn't break out. This was despite the attempt of at least one channel to suggest that local Muslims were being targeted as Pakistanis by a communalised Gujarat police.
"Modidom", the secular activist description of Gujarat, did not burn but not for the want of secular prodding of local Muslims. The clashes in Vadodara prompt larger questions centred on the mindset of secular activism. First, it was apparent to all that the demolition of what the secularist weekly Outlook called the "less significant and tiny Rashiduddin Chishti dargah" built in the early-20th century was not the outcome of any Hindu-Muslim tensions.
The removal was dictated by the imperatives of urban renewal-in this case, road widening. It was not any different from the demolition of at least 10 Hindu temples in the city for the same reason. In other words, the demolition was prompted by the local municipality's sense of the larger good. There was a case for relocating the dargah but to suggest that the roadside shrine should have been left alone because it was dear to local Muslims suggest that there should be one rule for the aam aadmi and one rule for minorities. Teesta Setalvad may believe so but there is no reason why upright, patriotic Indians should concur.
In theory, the suggestion is preposterous but this is precisely what secular activism is now demanding. The demolition of the grand malls on MG Road in Delhi was bitterly resented by fashion designers. They pleaded with the authorities, wept before the cameras and staged havans and dharnas but to no avail. The malls were deemed unauthorised and demolished. After all, there couldn't be one law for Page 3 people and one law for slum dwellers.
Yet, differential treatment is what the wannabe Intafadists demanded and secured, if the response of the Centre is anything to go by. Maybe they took their cue from the Shahi Imam of Delhi's Jama Masjid and his brother who assaulted a person within the precincts of the Prime Minister's residence and in full gaze of the cameras. To this date, the Delhi Police have refused to register an FIR. The ingenuous suggestion is that such an FIR goes against the "secular" Preamble of the Constitution. Would such an argument have held if the assailant was, say, Praveen Togadia of the VHP?
These are no longer rhetorical points. For the past few months, undesirable pressure groups ranging from the Maoist killers, Taliban look-alikes and disruptive Luddites-backed by mediapersons who wish they didn't have passports have been pressuring a vulnerable Centre to acquiesce in moves that stall the march of a resurgent India. Narendra Modi is constantly at the receiving end of their ire because he is one man who is not afraid of calling their treacherous bluff. What a shame that he confines himself to Gujarat.
Last Tuesday and Wednesday, a handful of TV channels tried their utmost to trigger communal riots in Gujarat, if not the rest of India. I happened to be in West Bengal on the days Vadodara was said to be burning, and it was clear as daylight that the media was bent on stirring things up. Sitting in a studio while voting was in progress in Muslim-majority districts like Murshidabad, I could only speculate about the editorial rationale behind constant telecast of footage of young lumpens stoning policemen and frightened women mourning the tragic killing of a Muslim businessman in a burning car. The commentary was equally inflammatory - "animal-like brutality" and "tandav lila" were just two of the descriptions of Gujarat's still-born Intifada.
By the evening, Communist leaders were warning people to be vigilant about a replay of the 2002 riots, the explosion of passion that yielded such handsome dividends for the Left in the 2004 general election.
I don't know whether the media coverage of the Vadodara clashes influenced Muslim voters to gang up against the Trinamool Congress and BJP candidates in West Bengal, but in the rest of India riots didn't break out. This was despite the attempt of at least one channel to suggest that local Muslims were being targeted as Pakistanis by a communalised Gujarat police.
"Modidom", the secular activist description of Gujarat, did not burn but not for the want of secular prodding of local Muslims. The clashes in Vadodara prompt larger questions centred on the mindset of secular activism. First, it was apparent to all that the demolition of what the secularist weekly Outlook called the "less significant and tiny Rashiduddin Chishti dargah" built in the early-20th century was not the outcome of any Hindu-Muslim tensions.
The removal was dictated by the imperatives of urban renewal-in this case, road widening. It was not any different from the demolition of at least 10 Hindu temples in the city for the same reason. In other words, the demolition was prompted by the local municipality's sense of the larger good. There was a case for relocating the dargah but to suggest that the roadside shrine should have been left alone because it was dear to local Muslims suggest that there should be one rule for the aam aadmi and one rule for minorities. Teesta Setalvad may believe so but there is no reason why upright, patriotic Indians should concur.
In theory, the suggestion is preposterous but this is precisely what secular activism is now demanding. The demolition of the grand malls on MG Road in Delhi was bitterly resented by fashion designers. They pleaded with the authorities, wept before the cameras and staged havans and dharnas but to no avail. The malls were deemed unauthorised and demolished. After all, there couldn't be one law for Page 3 people and one law for slum dwellers.
Yet, differential treatment is what the wannabe Intafadists demanded and secured, if the response of the Centre is anything to go by. Maybe they took their cue from the Shahi Imam of Delhi's Jama Masjid and his brother who assaulted a person within the precincts of the Prime Minister's residence and in full gaze of the cameras. To this date, the Delhi Police have refused to register an FIR. The ingenuous suggestion is that such an FIR goes against the "secular" Preamble of the Constitution. Would such an argument have held if the assailant was, say, Praveen Togadia of the VHP?
These are no longer rhetorical points. For the past few months, undesirable pressure groups ranging from the Maoist killers, Taliban look-alikes and disruptive Luddites-backed by mediapersons who wish they didn't have passports have been pressuring a vulnerable Centre to acquiesce in moves that stall the march of a resurgent India. Narendra Modi is constantly at the receiving end of their ire because he is one man who is not afraid of calling their treacherous bluff. What a shame that he confines himself to Gujarat.
Labels: Pseudo Secular Mass Media
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home