Roundtable
Media during intense conflict

Rehana Haim

In 1998, when Nawaz Sharif was prime minister, editors from all over the country were invited to Islamabad to offer their opinions on Pakistan’s nuclear options. India had tested at Pokhran and Nawaz Sharif wanted to know how Pakistani journalists felt about the issue. I suspect the decision to go in for the tests had already been taken but the government wanted to know the media reaction. What was surprising was that 90 percent of the journalists were for a commensurate response from Pakistan. There were journalists present who said, “if you do not go ahead with the blasts your authority will wane”. There were a group of us from Karachi and Hyderabad who tried to point out the political and economic ramifications of the Bomb and how it would adversely affect Pakistan. At that point the country’s foreign exchange reserves were dangerously low, the level of external debt was very high and we thought that this was really going to create a lot of problems. But nobody was willing to listen. In fact, the overwhelming reaction to our opposition was that Karachi people speak like banias, they cannot get out of the accounting mind set.

Soon thereafter Chagai happened and for many journalists it was a sobering moment. There were many lessons to be learnt from it, particularly on the question of whether the media can defuse tension. It seems to be quite evident that most of the time the media is not driven by noble intentions. More often than not, they are just chasing a story. That is the ground reality. But having said that, I also find that there is a certain change in Pakistan-India coverage that has come about gradually. I would like to believe that it has a lot to do with the interaction and dialogue between Indian and Pakistani journalists meeting over the years at various conferences. I think one of the first of such conferences was in Kathmandu and I remember being very irritated when an Indian journalist asked me whether we are allowed to wear sarees in Pakistan. Sunil Sethi was one of the first journalists who did a detailed cover story on Pakistan and he seemed to dwell at unnecessary length on the meat eating habits of Pakistanis. But I think those were the initial days and as we met over the years things improved.

One change in particular is striking. In the past when it came to domestic issues the Indian media had very divergent points of view but on foreign policy issues they followed the establishment point of view. On Kashmir, too, the Indian media seemed to disregard the fact that a problem did exist. This went on for some time. But of late one sees much more independent reporting on Kashmir. It is also heartening that there are some individual journalists who are willing to go on record in Pakistani publications with their critical views.

A question that repeatedly comes up during conflict situations is how to cover issues like the Gujarat carnage or the Babri Masjid demolition. Are passions going to be inflamed in Pakistan by covering these issues? I feel that these stories have to be told no matter what. Newsline’s coverage of Gujarat was by an Indian journalist. We thought about it and wondered if Newsline would be accused of inflaming passions. We eventually went along with the story and I feel that we did the right thing. But the reaction is often a cause for concern. Newsline did a story on Dawood Ibrahim and it was used by Indian foreign minister Jaswant Singh to make a diplomatic claim on Pakistan. In response, Pakistan demanded that 20 people based in India be handed over. Such reactions make us wonder if we are doing the right thing.

There are no definitive rules and a responsible media has to go by its instincts. The media cannot prevent war largely because the government does not much care what the media feels on these issues. But the media can certainly publicise the consequences, for instance, of a nuclear war, by covering the human aspect, the economic aspect, the refugee aspect. But there are so many divergent views, there are different media with differing compulsions and motivations. The Urdu press in Pakistan is far more conservative. The English media is often criticised for being very liberal and pro-India. But such criticism should not be allowed to come in the way of fulfilling responsible objectives.

The media is placed under enormous strain during periods of intense conflict. The capacity for objective reporting can be a casualty when patriotism rises to the surface. People do tend to take sides and the media is not an exception. Besides, access to information is limited. Journalists are not allowed to investigate independently and so they have to rely on the government. But usually, and of late, once the event is over, there is a fair bit of introspection, as happened in the case of the Kargil war. By contrast, in the case

of the Bangladesh war, the Hamoodur Rehman Commission Report was released only 30 years later. Because of these changes, there is ground for optimism and hope that the media can mitigate the effects of conflict even if it cannot prevent one. Nevertheless, there are still certain areas where the mindset needs to be changed. I am not certain it is possible in any comprehensive way, but it is still worth trying for.