Don’t forget 1984

While working on an article on police reforms two weeks back, I met several police officers, serving and retired. Most of them, when talking about the politicisation of the police, referred to their inaction in the Gujarat riots of 2002. It was left to me to ask, “and also 1984”. And invariably they all said, “oh yes, 1984” but it was an afterthought. I found that strange. Two of them were from the Delhi Police. How could they, how could anyone, forget 1984?

I am extremely puzzled by the collective amnesia about the anti-Sikh riots of 1984 or a reluctance to equate it with the Gujarat riots.

To my mind, there is no difference between the two. The 1984 riots were as much revenge killings (for the assassination of Indira Gandhi by her Sikh bodyguards) as the Gujarat riots were (for the Godhra train fire). Those riots were as much instigated by politicians (Congress) as the Gujarat ones were (the sangh parivar). In fact, in the 1984 riots, several small time Congress politicians (and some big time ones as well) were seen leading rioters or encouraging them. In both cases, there were hints to the police to go easy on the rioters. In both those involved in the riots could not be brought to book, even though names were well known. In fact, some Delhi politicians who were named in the riots were given ministerial positions in successive Congress governments.

So why this reluctance to remember 1984, even as we keep flogging the Gujarat riots for all it is worth?

We, as a nation, have to do some intensive soul searching about this. And we must never forget 1984 or allow its seriousness to be diluted in any way.

Dixie Chicks and Parzania

So the Dixie Chicks sweeping the Grammy's is being seen as a referendum on the Bush Administration (the group has been openly critical of Bush). If that's true, that, to me, should be less a commentary on Bush's politics and more a reflection of the Grammy's itself. Are singers/bands to be awarded for their music or their politics?
This isn't the first instance of artistes being rewarded for things other than their work. If the Dixie Chicks got the awards for their anti-establishment stance, there have been other examples of artistes who have suffered for it. The Hollywood of the 1950s saw a witch hunt against artistes who were seen as being even slightly sympathetic of the communist point of view or who were merely being critical of the then American establishment. Both are equally wrong.
But I wonder if the Dixie Chicks were really being rewarded for their political posturing. More likely that the left liberals (clearly, not just an Indian affliction) decided to make heroes (heroines, actually) out of them because of their anti-Bush stand.
Much the same seems to be happening over Parzania, the moving tale of a family after their little son goes missing in the Gujarat riots. Gujarat's theatre owners have refused to screen Parzania, no doubt after threats from the sangh parivar. This comes about a year after they blacked out Fanaa only because Aamir Khan had criticised the Narmada dam project.
Without getting into what he said and whether or not it was right, the threats by certain groups not to allow the screening of the film because Aamir Khan had hurt the sentiments of the Gujaratis was ridiculous. So is the decision not to screen Parzania just because it will apparently re-open old wounds about the 2002 riots.
Both are patent violations of the freedom of expression and the government stands indicted for its failure to protect this freedom, so essential to a democracy.
That said, I make a distinction between the blacking out of Fanaa and of Parzania and I wonder if the second controversy wasn't, perhaps, sparked off by those very people who are now bemoaning its fate in Gujarat. Didn't they read political colours and messages into the movie, effectively sealing its fate in Gujarat?
The story of Parzan could have happened in any riot anywhere - Delhi, Bhiwandi, Meerut. India is hardly lacking in riot-hit towns. But it happened to be about a child missing in the Gujarat riots of 2002. So obviously our left-liberals just had to start singing paeans to the movie and breast beating about Gujarat.
So even before the movie is out, a simple, heart-rending story about a family gets imbued with all kinds of political messages. That promptly gets the other side on its high horse and then things just escalate. Would the film have got so hyped if it had been set anywhere else but Gujarat? I doubt it.
I'm not justifying what happened in Gujarat (the Godhra killings and the post-Godhra violence) or the blackout of Parzania. And I think the state government should have stepped in and provided protection to theatre owners and people who wanted to see Parzania and Fanaa. Those who were angered by Parzania or with Aamir Khan for his stand on the Narmada dam could have expressed their resentment by boycotting the movies. The story of the Dixie Chicks bears mentioning here. When they first criticised George Bush in 2003, ahead of the invasion of Iraq, angry fans destroyed their CDs, their album sales fell as did their rankings on music charts. But they were never stopped from playing anywhere. If that had happened, their right to perform would have been protected by the government.
But, at the same time, our lefties need to stop politicising everything and creating controversies where none need exist.

Nithari and Us

The first para of this post is a letter I wrote to the Indian Express, which they carried in a completely rewritten form. I am expanding on my thoughts in this post.
There is another culprit - a collective one - in the Nithari massacre: the affluent residents of Noida in whose homes the parents of the missing children worked. Surely, these maids, drivers, security guards and other help must have mentioned to their employers that their child had disappeared, and that the police were refusing to lodge a complaint? Unless these people are so impersonal towards their servants that they don't speak to them at all, beyond giving instructions. I find that a bit hard to believe. The maids must have taken a day off to look for their missing child, do the rounds of the police station, among other things. They must have been asked why and they must have given the reason.
Did any one of the employers offer to help these people? Did any one of them offer to go to the police station and help get a complaint registered? Did any one of them pick up the phone to call `someone they know', which they would have done if someone from their peer group had been in trouble? It's another matter that the police are so callous that it may not have helped, but did they even try? Or did they also, like the policemen, dismiss the incident as children running away due to poverty? Or good looking girls having eloped?
Could it also be possible that these people weren't able to spend more time looking for their children because their employers would have upbraided them for not coming to work on time or taking too much leave or inconveniencing them in some other way? I suspect this could also be a reason.
Even as we all sit and criticise the police for not acting, we have to come to terms with this disturbing question - how active are we and others from our socio-economic set?
The drain in which the children's remains had been found hadn't been cleaned for years. And all these people living in these posh houses just kept quiet? Regular cleaning may have prevented the culprits from hiding their crime as easily as they did.
When people lit candles for Jessica Lal and Priyadarshini Matoo in Delhi and Meher Bhargava in Lucknow, everyone hailed it as the beginning of middle class activism. I had argued then, in an article in DNA (posted on this blog (http://beyondlabels.blogspot.com/2006_04_01_beyondlabels_archive.html) that activism has to go beyond lighting candles.
Activism needn't always be a group activity. It need not be about demonstrations or joining NGOs. It could manifest itself in quiet individual actions. Like not turning away when a girl is being teased on a bus. Like not letting a neighbour dump garbage in a public place. Like trying to help your servant get a complaint registered. Like ensuring municipal authorities clean drains regularly. Lighting candles or going in a procession is so easy. But it is nothing more than a diversion from the humdrum existence of our daily lives. We all need to do more. Maybe not collectively, but certainly at an individual level. Otherwise we have no right to complain.

Whose Security?

So little Anant Gupta is back with his family, after a three-day ordeal with kidnappers. All’s well that ends well and all that, but in the shock over the abduction and joy over the return, there’s something that’s getting overlooked.
Just a day before Anant was kidnapped, the government decided to provide Z category security to the grandchildren of the Prime Minister, Sonia Gandhi and Atal Behari Vajpayee.
Apparently there were reports of the Jaish-e-Mohammed (the Pakistan based militant group) planning to abduct the relatives of these VIPs and demand the release of some militants. The suspicion, however, refuses to go away that this is just a charade to extend security to Sonia’s grandchildren.
But even if that suspicion were not there, there’s still something disturbing. Sure, these people are important national leaders and, by that token, their relatives are in peril and deserve protection from the state. But what of Anant Gupta and countless others who are kidnapped across the country, especially in the badlands of Bihar and Uttar Pradesh? There’s a thriving kidnapping industry in the country that just can’t be controlled.
The children of each one of us is vulnerable. And taxpayers’ money is used to protect the children of a handful of VVIPs? It just doesn’t seem right.
People are supposed to pay taxes because the state provides certain services. Is it too much for tax payers to demand basic security and maintenance of law and order, which is the primary responsibility of the state? Why should that basic right be restricted to the children of just a few?
Forget the children of these three VVIPs, what about the crores that are spent on providing security to all kinds of people, many of them venal politicians under whose benign protection the kidnapping industry flourishes?
The inadequate police force across the country is stretched to its limits but never at the cost of security to all kinds of so-called VIPs. It is the ordinary people who have to pay the price.
This has to end.

Rejecting mindless pacifiers

There were two news items today on the Haj subsidy – one heartening and one depressing.
First, the depressing one. The government has decided to increase the subsidy cover for Haj pilgrims which will, in effect, allow 10,000 more Muslims to be covered. This is clearly a ploy ahead of the Uttar Pradesh elections.
The heartening news. The Indian Express has reported that several Muslim religious scholars and leaders have criticized the subsidy and asked for the money (Rs 180 crore at last count) to be used for schools, healthcare and other basic infrastructure for the community’s welfare. They’ve termed the subsidy un-Islamic because according to the Quran, only those Muslims who can afford to go on Haj should do so.
Now there can be issues whether the state should spend money on the uplift of certain communities (religious or caste-based), but clearly there is a realization among Muslims that this subsidy is ridiculous and does not help the community in any way. That it is nothing but votebank politics and is only creating resentment against them. Maybe that realization was already there but what is positive is that they are now coming out openly criticising it.
What is significant is that this criticism is not coming from the sophisticated liberal Muslims – the Mushirul Hasans, Shabana Azmis, Javed Akhtars and their like – but from people like Maulana Mehmood Madani, general secretary of the Jamiat-e-Ulema-e-Hind, S Q R Ilyas, convenor of the Babri Masjid Committee and a senior member of the All India Personal Law Board, Mohammad Owais, CEO of the Haj Committee and Mufti Nazeer-ud-din, who runs the Darul Aloom Rehimiya, which is supposed to be Kashmir’s biggest seminary. These people probably have more clout with the community than the seminar circuit Muslims. Come to think of it, one has never heard these Muslims ever raising this point?
It is time now for other Muslims to take up this line of argument and generate awareness in the community that Haj subsidies, holidays for Friday prayers and bans on books is not what will help uplift it. Those will only continue to keep it in physical and social ghettos. Rs 180 crore is a lot of money. It shouldn’t be wasted on mindless sops.

Muslim appeasement a myth?

The Indian Express has got figures given to the high level committee on the social, educational and economic status of Muslims headed by Justice Rajinder Sachar. It only confirms what is common knowledge - that Muslims are poorly underrepresented in the job market. Few would deny or dispute these findings.
But this is going to provide yet another opportunity by the left-liberals to rubbish the criticism about appeasement of Muslims.
It has already started. The Express report quotes `a senior member of the Sachar committee' as saying "if this data is any kind of a benchmark, this not only nails the myth of appeasement, it also shows that the politics of batting for Muslims is limited to providing security and safety, and it has been unable to go beyond simply protecting their civil right to life."
So that old line is back - if Muslims were being appeased, could their socio-economic status be so pathetic?
I have always found this line specious, at best. In a post titled Hum to anything karega posted on 5 March 2005, I had cited several instances of ridiculous sops in the name of making Muslims feel less alienated. (http://beyondlabels.blogspot.com/2005_03_01_beyondlabels_archive.html).
To recap,

# The Mulayam Singh Yadav government declaring Friday a half day in UP schools to enable Muslim students to offer Friday prayers. Way back in the 1980s one government in Kerala had done something similar. Yadav was compelled to retract the step.

# The subsidy for Haj (which is not given in the most Islamic of Islamic nations)

# The Muslim Women's Bill

# The banning of Satanic Verses

The list could go on. If this isn't appeasement, what is?
Sure, the condition of economically backward Muslims is as bad as many from the scheduled castes and tribes. But that is because successive governments have focused on providing meaningless pacifiers and offering lip sympathy to the community. More often than not, these concessions are more to pander to communal parties and leaders who have a vested interest in keeping their community backward. So Muslims have been the victims of tokenism, instead of genuine efforts to improve their lot.
But that cannot airbrush the above-mentioned concessions away from the picture. These do fall into the definition of appeasement and there's no getting away from that.
Isn't it time for liberal Muslims to stand up and say, stop these stupid sops and help the community prosper? Isn't it time for them to protest every time any government gives in to the retrograde demands of the Muslim clergy and other self-serving politicians and refuse such token gestures? The burden of breaking `the myth of appeasement' lies with the Muslim community.

Muzzling the media

Attempts to muzzle the media are back. What else can one expect from a Congress-led government supported by the Left.
I reproduce below a letter from the media advisor to the PM, Sanjaya Baru, a letter from the director, public relations attached to the PMO and a protest letter written by a spunky journalist, Jal Khambatta.
Going through Baru's letter, it appears that the behaviour of some journalists has sparked off the action of limiting coverage of Prime Minister's functions to only accredited journalists.
Without defending journalists abusing officials, staging dharnas and breaking security rules (I have myself been appalled at the behaviour of many of my tribe), let me explain why I (and Jal) see this letter as an attempt to gag the press.
Firstly, Baru's statement that the PMO will decide which meetings the press will cover smacks of arbitrariness. How can he decide which meeting will yield a news story for the media? What will end up happening is that Baru will later call select journalists who he is sure will toe his line and give them private briefings briefings with the PMO's own angle. It is a sad comment on journalism that this is happening and some of the people indulging in this are very senior journalists.
Then look at the warning that those who engage in unruly behaviour will have their accreditation cancelled. Such a provision exists anyway and often is not used because people complain to editors and the concerned persons are pulled up. In such a situation for Baru to seek opinion on how to deal with unruly journalists is nothing but a threat.
Accreditation rules don't allow newspapers less than a year old and journalists with less than a certain number of years to be accredited. So all such newspapers and journalists will be barred from covering the PMO, making it easier for the PMO to `manage' the media. In any case, mostly it is accredited journalists alone who cover PMO. And often the unruly behaviour is by them. So what is Baru trying to do, really?
I think this letter has less to do with some unruly incidents and more to do with the security breach that happened when two young girls and one boy drove into the PM's house complex. The PMO - especially Baru - tried to downplay it but the whole incident would never have come to light if the electronic media had not been present there to cover a cabinet meeting. Now briefings of the cabinet meeting are held at the office of the Press Information Bureau, some kms away from the PM's residence. The journalists were hanging around there to get sound bytes from departing ministers. And that's how they got not just visuals of these youngsters driving up to the reception area but also of the utter laxness on the part of the security forces. Now, clearly, this is not something that will be a `news story for the media' in Baru's definition. In fact, his proposed action will effectively ensure that the media doesn't get to know of any such incidents which could occur.
The other reason I think this smacks of muzzling is that this is the second time Baru has written to editors in such a high handed way.
In the wake of the dizzying market rise and the sudden crash last year, one irresponsible television channel put out the news that the PMO and the Intelligence Bureau etc were holding a meeting on the market behaviour. Most newspapers swallowed this and wrote about it. Turned out such a meeting never happened. Bad and irresponsible journalism and worthy of condemnation. It was an incident that should have journalists and their bosses introspecting on the way they work.
But what did Baru do? He shot of a letter to editors hectoring them on what happened and asking them to take action against the journalists concerned and - hold your breath - report back to the PMO on the action taken!
Well, going by that, this letter is very, very mild!

Dr. Sanjaya Baru D.O. No. 970/MA/G/2006
Media Advisor to PM PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE
Tel 23016920 New Delhi - 110 011
August 24,2006
Dear Editor,

I am sure it must have come to your attention that we have once again had a couple of unfortunate incidents in the recent past at the Prime Minister's House involving the media.
I am writing this letter to you to seek your cooperation in a matter that I, as a media professional myself, feel we should revolve in the best interests of both the media and the Prime Minister.
You will agree with me that the Prime Minister has several meetings which do not necessarily yield a news story for the media. Whenever there is a meeting or an event of interest to the media, my office and the PIB normally ensure that the media is kept informed.
It is as much in our interests as it is in yours to secure media coverage for Prime Minister's programmes. Hence, you will appreciate that on occasions when the media is informed that there will be no statement from the Prime Minister's Office with respect to any meeting that the Prime Minister may have, it would be inappropriate for journalists to protest/sit in dharna and demand a statement or a byte for TV.
I, therefore, request you to tell your colleague who has been assigned to cover the Prime Minister's Office that it would not be regarded as good professional conduct to stage demonstrations in pursuit of news either at Prime Minister's Office (PMO) or at Prime Minister's House (PMH).
May I also request you to draw the attention of your colleagues to the imperatives of security at PMO and PMH and the need to be courteous in their behaviour with officials and staff to Special Protection Group and Delhi Police. The security personnel are only doing their job just as our media colleagues are also doing their job.
I have issued instructions that henceforth only PIB accredited media personnel will be permitted access to the media stand at PMO and PMH.
I request you to ensure that your reporting and audio-visual staff covering PMO and PMH have PIB accreditation.
I would like your advice on what action you feel, as an editor and senior colleague, we should take when journalists misbehave and use foul language when dealing with PMO/PIB staff and security officials.
Do you think it is fair to seek their transfer out of the PMO beat or withdraw their accreditation? Or, would you prefer that I merely report such instances to the editor concerned in the hope that the organization to which the journalist belongs, will take necessary disciplinary action. I will be grateful to you for your considered opinion.
Finally, let me add that I am fully aware of the physical stress reporters and cameramen undergo while waiting for a briefing outside PMO/PMH.
I have tried to improve facilities, especially at RCR. We are in the process of securing sanction for a media room at RCR that will provide some basic amenities and facilities.
I hope you will appreciate my concerns in writing this letter to you.

With kind regards,
Yours sincerely,
(Sanjaya Baru)

28 August 2006
To
All correspondents covering PM Beat
Dear Sir/Madam,

As is the practice for coverages in all Ministries, the Prime Minister's Office has decided that henceforth media persons with PIB accreditation alone be permitted to cover the programmes of the Prime Minister both at South Block and at 7 Race Course Road. This also includes the media stand within the precincts of 7 Race Course Road and the Car Park area at the South Block. This will be in force with effect from 1st September, 2006.
2. You may like to bring this to the notice of all concerned persons in your organization.
3. Further communication regarding enhancement of accreditation quota will follow separately.

Y.S.R. Murthy, DPR[PM]
PIB, 1st floor, A wing, Shastri Bhawan
Tel. 23381211; 9868111273
2338 4768; 9873079681 [Dhiraj, IO-PM mobilie]; 2338 3203 [fax]

Jal Khambata replies to this email on 28 August

Please be advised that this attempt to gag the Media would not get better publicity to the PM. The media persons gather at the two places not only for official version but also to catch those coming to meet PM for their comments.
Your media alert and the letter of the PM's Media Advisor to editors last week smacks of the Emergency days when we were allowed to publish nothing except what is officially cleared by the Censor. 2006 is, however, not 1976.
what a poor attempt to get positive publicity to PM by allowing only accredited journalists and that too only outside PMO and PMH and not inside PMO and threatening to cancel their accreditation if they do not sing the official tunes. Accreditations are sought for entry into ministries for coverage and not for coverage from outside and hence,may I please point out that it is wrong to say that it is the practice for coverages in all ministries that you now want to introduce in PMO.
As a seasoned PR executive, you may please like to advise the PMO, and rightly so, to desist from this kind of gag orders.

With thanks and regards,
Jal Khambata

Y.S.R Murthy replies on 28 August 2006, by email:
Dear Jal Khambata,

I am sorry that you have not understood it in the correct perspective. For entry into any Govt. building you require security cleared PIB accrediation card.
Media freedom does not entitle one to sit on a dharna at high security places and obstruct passage of Ministers etc, as happened twice in the recent past. I do not share some of the sentiments expressed by you.
We can discuss it over in person. If you happen to pass by Shastri Bhavan, it will be a pleasure to meet with you and clarify a few aspects.

best,

To which Jal replies:
Dear Mr Murthy:

Journalists will always remain watchdogs irrespective of howsoever you try to banish inconvenient ones. They will certainly block ministers and officials to extract information. Would you suggest that the kind of restrictions Dr Sanjaya Baru is trying to slap tally with the Right to Information? If I am not wrong, almost all journalists involved in the two incidents you refer to were the security-cleared accredited PIB card holders. Threat to cancel accreditations of inconvenient journalists or ask editors to remove them from the PM's beat will only boomrang.
Today, journalists in a chorus protested to Congress spokesman Abhishek Manu Singhavi at the AICC Press briefing about Dr Baru's letter. Here is also a statement by Delhi Union of Journalists for your ready reference. I believe Editors' Guild and other professional bodies may also follow suit.

With thanks and regards,
Jal

And on 31 August 2006 this is what happens (Jal files a story):
JOURNALISTS THROWN OUT OF PM'S HOUSE
From Our Delhi Bureau
NEW DELHI: Journalists turning up at the Prime Minister's House Thursday evening on official invitation to attend a book release by Dr Manmohan Singh had the first taste of the new game rules for the PM's coverage set by his media advisor Dr Sanjaya Baru.
They were thrown out, though with due courtesy, by the security personnel as soon as the function was over, not allowed to even have tea and snacks served to guests after the function.
Every such occasion gives an opportunity to journos to have a chat with the Prime Minister but the security personnel firmly and yet politely told them that they cannot go anywhere near him. The function over, you have no reason to remain on the premises,a senior officerof the Special Protection Group (SPG) that provides security to the PM affirmed, pointing out that the security had orders to banish all journalists from the PM's House immediately.
The gathered guest at Panchvati hall in the PM's House for the release of noted constitutional lawyer Fali S Nariman's book titled "India's Legal System : Can it be Saved?" looked askance as the SPG personnel cordoned off the Media persons and drew them out of the gate.
Dr Sanjaya Baru looked at from a distance just as some journalists pleaded with security men that they had come on invite and not barged in the premises to be dealt in such a manner.
They,however, quietly left without picking up any fight as if sobered by Dr Sanjaya Baru's threat to cancel their PIB (Press Information Bureau) accreditation and get inconvenient correspondents removed from the PM's beat.
Two, three journalists, however, did protest at the security personnel, showing all courtesy in pushing them out, that they always get opportunity to approach the Prime Minister and ask some questions after such functions. You are doing your duty but let us also allow us to do our duty, they pleaded but in vain. "Sorry, you cannot meet him.You cannot even stay here any longer," a senior officer responded.