Khaleequr Rahman: Media and Minorities

Khaleequr Rahman: Media and Minorities: "In this age of information technology media plays a very crucial role in projecting images. What appears in media--print or visual--is wide..."

Media and Minorities

In this age of information technology media plays a very crucial role in projecting images. What appears in media--print or visual--is widely accepted by people as true. There are very few discerning readers or watchers who would critically look at what appears in the media. It is also true that media plays a very important role in a modern democratic society. More often, it plays god. It is a vehicle for opinion-making. Hence it has to be very careful while projecting images. Unfortunately, it is not so, at least in a majority of cases. There are very few papers which write about minorities after thorough study and with a positive and constructive attitude.

The English papers, though more careful, also often throw caution to the winds while reporting on crucial events pertaining to minorities. The language papers are (with honourable exceptions) much worse. They never observe any caution and often display a crude prejudice in their reporting about minorities. And there is yet another category, organs of communal outfits like Samna, which deliberately, and even maliciously, project distorted images of minorities. In the north, central and western India, the Hindi, Marathi and Gujarati papers are the worst culprits. They often display crude prejudices against minorities in their reports and stories.

Samna, the Marathi mouthpiece of the Shiv Sena, uses highly provocative language against Muslims and Christians, especially against Muslims. During the Bombay riots this paper called Muslims "pro-Pakistani traitors" and wrote several editorials against them. The campaign was so vicious that the ex-chief secretary of Maharashtra, J.B. D'Souza, filed a public interest writ petition in the Bombay High Court against its editor under the Criminal Procedure Act. It should be borne in mind that the Samna is read by lakhs of Maharashtrians every day and their opinion is influenced by it. Even the policemen read it regularly and form their perceptions about minorities from what appears in Samna. No wonder they have jaundiced views about Muslims.

And what is sad is that Samna is no exception though other language papers may not be as crude. All these papers stereotype every minority community, treating them as completely homogeneous. A social anthropologist or even a discerning and conscious person knows that the minority communities like Muslims, Christians, Sikhs and Buddhists, are not homogeneous at all. All these communities, like others, are quite heterogeneous. There are, within them, sectarian, linguistic and cultural differences and their political attitudes also greatly vary.

It is, for example, assumed by even well-meaning scholars that all Muslims had supported the partition in 1947. It is a highly questionable assumption. The print media also frequently writes along these lines. The fact is that the Muslims were polarised on this question. The partition project was supported, by and large, by middle and upper class Muslims of UP and Bihar where they were in a minority. Even in these states, there was a large number of middle and upper class Muslims, popularly known as 'nationalist Muslims' who were vehemently opposed to partition. Many muslims voiced their opposition to partition through public demonstrations. Many prominent Muslim leaders were also opposed to the partition and substantiated their stand from a religious perspective. However, this is hardly projected in the media. Throughout the eighties when communal conflicts were at their height, Muslims were seen by the media as not only supporters of Pakistan but also loyal to it which is totally misleading and false.

The other notorious example is that of cricket. When Pakistan won and some Muslims rejoiced at the victory of Pakistan, the media projected as if all Muslims did so. Unfortunately, cricket which is deified by the media and projected out of all proportions, became a holy war not only between two countries but also, according to a section of the media, between Hindus and Muslims. And this despite the fact that Indian Muslims like Mohammed Azharuddin have led the team.

The minorities are often stereotyped as 'fanatical' and 'fundamentalist' and acts of a few individuals are seen as that of an entire community. Even if a religious leader issues an appeal to the Muslims, it would be described by a loaded word like fatwa, as if fatwa is binding on all Muslims. Hardly anyone bothers to find out that no fatwa, even if issued by a prominent theologian, is binding on all Muslims. There is no concept of priesthood in Islam. And to describe a political appeal as fatwa is also very irresponsible.

The way the Shah Banu case was projected in the media, including the secular press, gave the impression that only Muslims mistreated their women and denied them their basic rights. Suddenly the national press became the champion of Muslim women's rights. It is true that some orthodox Muslims and particularly the Muslim leadership took a rigid stand; not out of love for Islamic orthodoxy but, and it is important to note, to grab an opportunity to become ‘towering leaders’ and to project themselves as ‘champions of Islam’. This aspect was almost missing in the media. There were many liberal and progressive Muslims who were opposing the fundamentalists, upholding the Supreme Court judgement. This, however, was not adequately projected in the media. The media mostly indulged in Muslim-bashing at the time. There is much that is progressive in Islam about women though it is not practised due to male-dominated values. This aspect that Islam treats women better than many other religious traditions or legal systems, was never brought out in any media analysis. The only thing projected in the media was that Islam treats women badly.

The Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi controversy is another example. Undoubtedly, some Muslim leaders were trying to exploit the issue for their own benefits. The language press particularly gave an impression that it is a settled fact that Babar had demolished a Ram temple in Ayodhya and now it is time the Hindus vindicated their honour by constructing a temple after removing the mosque. The regional media, particularly the Hindi press, gave a distinct impression that it is ironical that Hindus cannot construct a Ram temple in their own country. The leading Hindi newspapers from UP published highly exaggerated versions of incidents in Ayodhya in 1990. Highly emotional stories were published with exaggerated accounts of police brutalities. It was reported that hundreds of people were shot dead, a totally false claim. Even the Press Council reprimanded these papers for publishing false accounts of what happened at Ayodhya.

The press often fails to highlight the positive contributions of Indian Muslims that can create a different image of the community. For example, Col.Wajihuddin laid down his life fighting in Kargil. On hearing the news his mother said with pride that "my son has laid down his life for the country and I wish I had more sons to give for the country." This was not carried even by the English media. I read this in an Urdu paper Inquilab. Asian Age reported this, but failed to project it properly and prominently.

Even committed secular papers who are sympathetic to the minorities do not have reporters and commentators who specialise in minority affairs and have intimate knowledge of minority communities. Even the secular commentators often homogenise the minorities ignoring their differing religious and political perceptions. When Punjab was faced with Khalistani movement, many papers wrote as if all Sikhs were supporting the militants and stood for Khalistan. Even those Sikhs who complained of serious human rights violations in Punjab were suspected of harbouring Khalistani sympathies. Even a cursory study of the Punjab problem could have shown that a large number of Sikhs like Mazhabis were totally opposed to the creation of Khalistan. It is only a section of Jat Sikhs who felt their political and economic aspirations were being thwarted, supported the extremist movement. It was very similar to the partition plan, supported by upper class Muslims in minority provinces who felt that their aspirations in independent India will be thwarted by the Hindu majority. It was this fear, and not religious fanaticism, that induced them to support partition.

Recently there have been many attacks on the Christian community by the Sangh Parivar over the issue of conversion. The Christians were stereotyped and the media, particularly in north and western India, wrote as if every Christian in this country was for conversion. I have spoken to several Christians throughout India who are opposed to conversions. They favour dialogue to conversion. What we refer to as 'inter-faith dialogue' has been popularised by the Christian organisations in contemporary India. Though Akbar had started it in medieval period, the tradition was lost and in our own times it was certainly revived by Christian organisations. Thus it is wrong to describe all Christians as conversion-enthusiasts. So much so that even an attempt was made by a section of the press to accuse Mother Teresa of inducing conversions forcibly. Also, all conversions are seen as being carried out through 'coercion', 'fraud' and 'inducement'. Whatever communally inclined politicians allege about the minorities is reported as if it is an established truth.

When Christian establishments and churches came under attack in Dangs from the VHP and Bajrang Dal, the Gujarati media wrote anti-Christian articles and hostile news items. During communal riots, highly coloured stories about Muslim fanaticism are published without verification. Riots in Ahmedabad, particularly in 1969 and 1985, spread like wild fire because some Gujarati papers carried rumours prominently. Next day these items were contradicted in a corner on the inside pages. The damage was done.

In every religious community there are all sorts of people -- liberal, secular, fanatical and fundamentalist. No community can be fully liberal secular nor can it be singularly fundamentalist. Yet when it comes to minority communities, among whom a few vocal elements may indulge in fanatical acts, the entire community is held responsible. The voice of liberal-secular Muslims or Christians or Sikhs is dismissed as some kind of an exception. The vast majority, who are voiceless, is thought to be fundamentalist or fanatical.

There is another aspect which has to be seriously considered. There are very few attempts to project the positive contributions made by the minorities in the process of nation-building. A large number of Muslims made supreme sacrifices in the freedom struggle. Who can forget the sacrifices made by Pathans under the leadership of Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan? This hardly comes through in our media. Even today there are many Muslims in various fields making important contributions.

The Sikhs and Christians also have made significant contributions in nation-building. Christian contribution to education is most significant. But for their institutions, thousands of Indians would not have acquired the educational attainments they have made. But when some politicians started a controversy about conversions, a section of the media began to write as if all Christians were busy converting others to Christianity.

It should be borne in mind that all communities in India are contributing to nation-building. This is certainly not the monopoly of any single community or caste. The problem of minorities should be seen in a dynamic frame-work, not in a static one which the media often applies. The behaviour of the communities change according to emerging contexts. Today there is much greater enthusiasm among Muslims about modern education as they have realised that education is a must for the betterment of their lot. If they are behind in the race, it is more because of poverty than their resistance to education. The ground realities are changing fast and these changes are being absorbed by all, whether the minorities or the majority. The media should stop viewing the minorities in a static frame-work. 

In the fields of sports also, the muslims have made immense contribution and have brought laurels to the country. We have Mansur Ali Khan Patudi, Abbas Ali Baig, Abid Ali, Salim Surrani, Arshad Ayub, Syed Kirmani and many more and the in the recent years we had produced legends like Mohammed Azharuddin, the all time great Indian cricketer and once he used to be envied by his opponents.  Sania Mirza, Pathan Brothers, Mohd.Kaif and the list is never ending who have been given excellent opprtunities and they have proved and made India proud. So India is famous across the globe for its Ganga Jamani Tehzeeb.

Khaleequr Rahman: Advani's accepts the December 6 was the saddest da...

Khaleequr Rahman: Advani's accepts the December 6 was the saddest da...: "Senior BJP leader L K Advani as per the reports of the PTI today said that he felt the demolition of the Babri mosque in 1992 had 'badly de..."

Advani accepts the December 6 was the saddest day in his life

Senior BJP leader L K Advani as per the reports of the PTI today said that he felt the demolition of the Babri mosque in 1992 had "badly dented" the credibility of his party. He had taken nineteen years to realise that. Recalling a newspaper article he had written a fortnight after the demolition, he said that while describing the genesis of evolution of Ayodhya movement, he had said that the day the disputed structure was pulled down was the saddest day of his life.

In the latest post on his blog, Advani said that some colleagues had criticised him for that statement saying, "Why he was being apologetic about the development?". Advani said he had replied, "I am not at all apologetic. Indeed, I am proud of my association with the Ayodhya movement. But I am extremely sad that our party's credibility has been badly dented by the happenings of December 6." Why this double standard Advani ji. On one hand you say that  December 6 was the saddest day in your life and on the other hand you say that you are not at all apologitic about the demolition and you further said in your blog that you are proud with your association with the Ayodhya movement. Either you should have the guts to condemn whole heartedly the sad demolition of Babri Masjid or you should own the complete responsibilty. What does it mean when you say that the act of your party and RSS has dented the credibility of your party, that means you accept that your party has done it with a meticulously planned strategy.

He recalled that he had written in his article that organisations involved in the movement could be faulted for not being able to judge the impatience of the people participating in it.  "I felt sad that a meticulously drawn up plan of action, where under the UP government was steadily marching forward towards discharging its mandate regarding temple construction without violating any law or disregarding any court order had gone awry (because of the demolition). Advani ji, here again you have accepted that your party was at fault and your partymen had gone awry and did the most ghastly act.

"If the exercise contemplated had now been short-circuited in a totally unforeseen manner, the organisations involved in the movement can be faulted for not being able to judge the impatience of the people participating in the movement, but they were certainly not responsible for what happened that day", Advani recalled as having stated in the article. What a mockery of your own statements you are making. Being such a senior leader and senior parliamentarian, you should not play a double standard.

India has thrown away the Nagpur one day match

Analysing a defeat isn't easy but not if you are talking about the Indian setback against South Africa in Nagpur on Saturday. Rarely does a range of errors happen with such proportions in a One-Day match and become the difference between victory and defeat. Batting, bowling, fielding and leadership, everything went for a toss after a start loaded with positives before a question mark surfaced over India's chances of making it to the quarter-finals. There is no room for a false step now and it's worth inspecting what went wrong on a bad Saturday.

Batting, obviously

It's easy to tell that India's shoddy showing in the batting power play was a precursor to what was to unfold. But what went wrong? Batsmen came in and went with such absurdity that sanity went for a walk. Perhaps things were building up to it as India did not exactly capatilize after the brilliant partnership between Virender Sehwag and Sachin Tendulkar. And when Tendulkar and Gautam Gambhir fell in the 40th and 41st overs, the other batsmen took it upon themselves to hit out from the word go. The result? They came in, tried to hit the ball without getting their eye in and the result was there for all to see. More alarming was the way India lost the last five wickets. Even after losing four wickets in a rush of madness, they never thought that one more wicket would sink the team deeper into despair. Nine wickets for 29 runs in less than 10 overs was just unimaginable.

Bowling & fielding

Zaheer Khan bowled his heart out but significant success with the new ball continued to elude India. The opening bowlers didn't beat the bat often enough to sow doubts in the minds of batsmen for whom it was just a matter of seeing off that period. Dhoni had already voiced concern about this shortcoming but it continues to haunt him.

The spinners bring up the second front of worry. Unable to take wickets against the weaker sides and failing to check the run flow against the big guns - is this what India's biggest strength on paper has to offer? On a pitch that got slow and offered turn, the slow bowlers were expected to tighten the screws when it mattered. But they failed.

Awful fielding

Fielding was forgettable. Crucial catches were dropped by Yuvraj Singh and Gambhir, the latter's let off leading to a six by Johan Botha off the next ball. And in the penultimate over, substitute Suresh Raina fumbled with a run out chance of Robin Peterson, who then hammered 16 in the final over by Ashish Nehra to clinch victory. This brings Azhar to my mind as our team India needs inspiration from his fielding. Azhar shoud be requested by BCCI to give crash course to our boys on fielding before the next match. Why doesnt our boys get that dedication which world's best fielder of his time has shown to the world of cricket. Why dont they watch his videos in free time.

Why not Harbhajan?

It was startling to see Nehra called upon to bowl the last over. He has done well at the death in the past, but with Harbhajan Singh having one more over left, this move was baffling. The sardar enjoys pressure situations and the tail-enders are certainly less comfortable against spin than pace. Plus, Harbhajan had been economical in the last few overs he had bowled.

I wish the Team India and Dhoni all the best for the rest of the matches.