Press Council of India ruling on Geetaben article

PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA
Soochna Bhawan 8-C.G.O Complex Lodhi Road New Delhi-110 003
Tel. No.24366745-46-47

COMMUNAL VIOLENCE IN GUJARAT- ROLE OF THE MEDIA

(Adjudications rendered on 30.6.2003 in 24 cases)

XVIII-XXI.

1. Shri Sharad C. Mishma, Versus The Times of India,
2. Dr. DN. Gadhok, Mumbai.
3. Shri Har Dayal Bhalla
4.Shri D.C. Gupta,
(Mumbai)

Complaint

Shri Sharad C. Mishma, Former Economic Adviser, Ministry of Railways, Government of India, (ii) Dr. D.N. Gadhok, Former Director, Lok Sabha Secretariat, New Delhi, (iii) Shri Har Dayal Bhalla, Former General Manage’, Western Railway and (iv) Dr. D.C. Gupta, Former President, Birla Yamaha & Indian Tools Ltd. Mumbai filed this joint complaint dated 23.4.2002 against the Times of India, Mumbai edition alleging transgression of the norms of journalistic ethics.

The complainants submitted that by publishing an article captioned: “The Mask is Off-A Tale of Two Hindus” by Siddharth Varadarajan on 19.4.2002 and a report captioned: “UK mission report may put Modi in dock” on 20.4.2002, the respondent, Times of India has violated the norms of journalistic conduct prescribed by Press Council of India which enjoin on the Press to eschew publication of inaccurate, baseless, graceless, misleading or distorted material.

The box to the impugned article captioned: “The Mask is off” states “a Hindu woman killed for saving hem Muslim friend in Gujarat has shown more courage and dignity than Prime Minister Vajpayee… BJP’s project of ‘Hindu’ separatism will bring disaster to Indians… The attack on Gujarat’s Muslims is an attack on all Indians”.

The complainants have submitted that in the impugned article, “the macabre description of Geetaben’s dead body is imaginary based on her photograph reportedly sent by the resident editor of the Times of India two weeks ago. From the strident tone of the article it is felt that the author had deliberately gained time to equip himself for the competitive race in Modi-bating projecting himself and the newspaper he works for as the champion of the so called secularism. Rather than trying to restore communal harmony he has tried to open the old wounds. No evidence has been adduced in the article to authenticate the description of the lady having been stripped, dragged naked and killed due to her having been in love with a Muslim boy nor has the reported stated that he was himself an eyewitness to the incident.” The complainants have submitted that the “author’s intention is malafide to discredit the Hindu Community as a whole. His article has helped to add fuel to the communal fire raging in Gujarat.”

Regarding the second impugned news item captioned: “UK mission report may put Modi in dock” - “Riots victims families could move British courts to try Gujarat CM”, the complainants have submitted that the author has deliberately tried to internationalize the role of Shri Narendra Modi, Chief Minister for allegedly engineering the Gujarat riots by using sensational remarks. The author has deliberately added international dimensions to the case and is thus guilty of spoiling India’s friendly relations with other countries and tarnishing her fair image in the world.

The complainants have submitted that being responsible citizens of India they have filed this complaint in public interest and have requested the Council to inquire into the matter and to take action against the respondent newspaper for tarnishing the fair image of the country in general and Hindu community in particular which believes in the philosophy of the Sarv Dharm Sambhav, both within the country and outside.

No Comments

Comments of the respondent The Times of India, Mumbai were invited on 13.6.2002. There was no response.

Appearance before the Inquiry Committee

When the matters were called out for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at Ahmedabad on 28-29th April 2003, neither the complainants nor the respondent appeared before it. The complainants had, by a letter dated April 17, 2003 expressed their inability to appear before the Committee due to their old age. They had requested the Council to take appropriate action in the matter on the basis of the material already sent by them.

Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee

At the outset the Inquiry Committee noted the absence of the Times of India and observed that it expected better co-operation from leading newspapers. It expressed its displeasure over the callous attitude of the Times of India in neither filing the written statement in response to the Council’s letter dated 13.6.2002 nor being represented before the Inquiry Committee to defend their case. The Committee then proceeded to consider the matter on its merits. The Committee carefully perused the articles. It was of the view that the impugned articles cannot be equated to news items. The author has, in the said articles, given his opinion on the situation and in doing so incidentally commented on incidents reported by various fora and also referred to the views expressed by many responsible people on the course of action followed by the governmental machinery. The Committee opined that the newspaper could not be faulted for giving space to the opinion of the author, who was, as a citizen, as much entitled to his opinion, as any other citizen. Hence, it felt that no further action is warranted in the matter. It recommended to the Council accordingly.

Foot Note: Ms. Sabina Inderjit, member did not participate in the deliberations on account of her association with the Times of India.

Dying for Dubya: The Illogic of Indian Troops in Iraq

The Times of India, June 27, 2003

Dying for Dubya: The Illogic of Indian Troops in Iraq
By Siddharth Varadarajan

I wonder if L K Advani and others in the Vajpayee government who are so anxious to send soldiers to Iraq have ever heard of Lance Naik Anthony, III F.13, of the Bullock Corps? Or perhaps of Barkat Ali the Sapper, N Swamy the Bullock Driver, or Kannikar, Birsa, Copalan and Bhima B of the Indian Labour Corps?

I encountered their unremembered names at the Basra War Cemetery during a visit in 1998, on fading, chipped tombstones and the dusty, yellowing pages of Part XIII of The Basra War Memorial, Iraq, published by the Imperial War Graves Commission, 1931, and lovingly protected in a large sack by the cemetery’s caretaker. They, along with thousands of Indian soldiers, perished on the battlefields of Iraq during and after World War I, fighting a war of conquest and pacification against a fraternal people for the greater profit and glory of the British Empire.

Since their names were not individually recorded, separate plaques at the cemetery for the mostly anonymous ‘Mohammedan’, Hindu and Sikh soldiers announce that the brave Indians had “sacrificed their lives in the Great War for their King and their Country”. Underfed and poorly equipped, the Indian troops had been little more than cannon fodder for the British. The king they died for was George V, and one wonders what kind of epitaph will be penned for the Indian soldiers who will lay down their lives helping the US occupiers in Iraq if Mr Advani has his way. ‘For the brave Indians who sacrificed their lives for King George Bush II and his viceroy, L Paul Bremmer III’?

The call for troops from India is an act of desperation by the Bush administration which is hoping others will dig it out of a hole that is deepening by the day. With the body bag count slowly mounting, the US wants to cut its 150,000 soldier-strong presence to about 30,000, replacing the conquering heroes with dupes from around the world whose leaders aspire to nothing more noble than a chance to wait on the high table.

UN Security Council resolution 1483 lifted sanctions on Iraq, recognised the reality of the US occupation and -- regrettably -- allowed the invaders to decide how Iraqi oil revenues would be spent. However, the UN did not mandate a peace-keeping force of any sort, let alone the peace-making forces of the kind it deployed in Somalia (Unosom II) or the former Yugoslavia. It merely welcomes the “willingness of member-states to contribute to stability and security in Iraq by contributing personnel, equipment and other resources under the Authority” (emphasis added), i.e. the occupying powers.

So far, the debate in India has revolved around the question of whether it is acceptable for Indian soldiers to take orders from US commanders. Indian troops have functioned before under the command of foreign generals, but always within the context of a formally mandated UN force. In Somalia, so long as the US led its own peace-keeping force (Unitaf) -- which quickly degenerated into a deadly manhunt for Gen Aidid, endangering Somali civilians and peacekeepers alike -- India refrained from joining.

As in Somalia, this is the key reason why it would be disastrous for Indian soldiers to work under US command in Iraq. The US aim is not to restore stability -- it has not even managed to restore electricity and water -- but to impose political arrangements aimed at protecting its own interests. If that means aggressively wading into civilian areas (as in Fallujah, Tikrit and elsewhere) and making mass arrests, or closing down a TV station (as in Mosul), it is the Indian soldiers and other peace-keepers who will have to deal with the fall-out. What makes the venture all the more foolhardy is the mounting US pressure on Iraq’s neighbour, Iran. Indian troops deployed in the ‘trouble-free’ southern and northern areas of Iraq could willy-nilly get drawn into US machinations aimed at weakening Iranian and Shi’ite influence.

In India today, those favouring the sending of troops naively assume that the US will assist us against Pakistan over Kashmir (although what happens once Islamabad sends troops to Iraq is anybody’s guess). There is also a myopic and defeatist opportunism: “Let’s face facts, the US rules the world, we better join it in the hope that we might be able to influence them”, a retired Indian general with experience in peace-keeping (and US perfidy therein) declared on TV recently. Well, if Britain, America’s closest ally, is not able to influence US policy on most issues -- especially on giving the UN the decisive role in Iraq -- fat chance of India doing so.

Above all, the Vajpayee government must respect the Parliament resolution condemning the aggression against Iraq and calling for the immediate withdrawal of US forces. That resolution recognised both the will of the Indian people and the fact that the violation of international law and the destabilising of Asia are not in India’s national interest. To send troops to enforce an occupation explicitly condemned by Parliament would make a mockery of our democracy.

Another fiction being peddled by Mr Advani is that “if the Iraqis favour it”, India would send its troops. The Iraqis today are under an illegal, colonial occupation, and it is Viceroy Bremmer who takes all decisions. The day the Iraqis wrest back control of their country would also be the day the US occupiers would have to leave. Any call for Indian troops by Iraqis before that time would not be worth a piastre.

Iraq killings bode ill for Indian troops

25 June 2003
The Times of India

Iraq killings bode ill for Indian troops

SIDDHARTH VARADARAJAN
TIMES NEWS NETWORK

NEW DELHI: The killing of six British soldiers by an angry mob of civilians in Majar-al-Kabir near Basra in Iraq on Tuesday is a grim reminder of the dangers that await Indian troops should the Vajpayee government agree to their deployment in aid of the US-UK occupation of that country.

The British soldiers -- all military police -- were killed in circumstances that are still unclear. The Associated Press reports that the town's population was seething over intrusive searches for weapons conducted by the British and that the killing of civilians by the soldiers finally led to revenge attacks. The British defence ministry says it has no information of civilians killed but is still investigating the circumstances of the firefight.

Either way, the incident has underlined that 'peacekeeping' -- or more accurately, the enforcement of foreign occupation -- in Iraq is no tea party. "The Americans have assured us Indian troops will not be used for combat-related situations", said a senior Indian official familiar with the region, "but what happens when the situation chooses you?".

Given the frustration that the lack of basic civic services throughout Iraq is causing, Indian soldiers could well find themselves at the wrong end of an angry demonstration. And without the means to do anything about their complaints.

Officials here say Indian soldiers are "much better prepared to deal with crowds" than their US or even British counterparts (i.e. are less trigger happy) and will also have the advantage of being from a country which has traditionally enjoyed good relations with Iraq. "But all it takes is one bad incident for the mood to change", said a source.

"And once we're batting for the Americans, there'll be people out there who'll want to take pot shots at us". There are also concerns about how any untoward incident involving Indian troops would affect the Indian population elsewhere in the Arab world.

If its troops go, India will also have to overcome an additional burden, that of history.

The British used Indian troops to put down the large uprising which convulsed southern Iraq, especially the lower Euphrates region, in 1920. In his book, British air power and colonial control in Iraq, 1920-1925, University of Hull historian David Omissi has chronicled that 'pacification' campaign: Winston Churchill, who was minister of war and air at the time, believed that Mespopotamia could be "cheaply policed by aircraft armed with gas bombs, supported by as few as 4,000 British and 10,000 Indian troops".

Though the Royal Air Force was used with deadly results, Indian soldiers -- so crucial to Churchill's "cheap policing" -- were also pressed in to suppress the Iraqi freedom struggle, and many died in the fighting.

ends

Reviews of Gujarat: The Making of a Tragedy

Vrinda Nabar's review in The Times of India

Santosh Rao's review on mouthshut.com

Sohail Hashmi's review in The Hindu

Naunidhi Kaur's review in Frontline

Sidharth Bhatia's review in Dawn

Sreyashi Dastidar's review in The Telegraph