Sometimes you can’t escape from comparisons though comparison, at times, may be odious. According to our mythology, Lord Krishna was quite elusive, despite his mischievous deeds and omnipresence, for those whom he tormented out of love. Our own Telugu bidda, Kishen ji, who claims to fight a dharmic war for the sake of the poor and downtrodden, is accessible to every journalist, talks to everyone at will, travels extensively, but our establishment cannot trace him or pin him down like Sri Krishna for his Gopis. He is at large for the establishment, but he is available to anyone just for a buzz.
Exchange of statements between Maoist leader Kishen and the government, especially the Home Minister sounds as if two sovereign states are talking to each other. First, when Union Home Minster Chidambaram wanted theMaoists to stop violence for 72 hours before there could be any meaningful dialogue, Kishen taunted the Home Minister that he would enforce a ceasefire for 72 days provided the government stopped its offensive. It was just a tit for tat. He knew that the government cannot accept conditional offer for talks and still he wanted to score a point over the government.
When Chidambaram wanted the Maoists to fax their statement direct to him instead of talking through the media and gave them his fax number, Kishen had the audacity to give his mobile number and asked the Home Minister to talk to him over phone. He did not leave a choice for the Minister for the timing. Kishen wanted him to call him on Feb 25 at 5 PM. “Let him (Chidambaram) call me with specific proposals. We are offering the truce in all honesty, disregarding our earlier conditions”, Kishen said with all temerity that he can command.
As a counter to Operation Green Hunt, he threatens to launch Operation Peace Hunt and put the governments of Chattisgargh, Orissa, Jharkand and West Bengal on notice. He also threatened an armed rebellion in the capital city of Kolkatta just before 2011 assembly elections.
Do all these mean that the Maoists are somewhere nearer to their objective of overthrowing a democratically elected government through the barrel of gun? Have they succeeded in establishing their “Red Corridor” without encountering any challenge from the duly elected governments? Are the Maoists talking from a position of strength vis-a-vis state governments?
So far as the West Bengal government is concerned, it is absolutely clear that there is no political will to take on the Maoists. Sildha massacre in West Midnapore district is a classic example for the state government’s complacence despite intelligence inputs, if one has to use Shivraj Patil’s phrase – “actionable intelligence”. There were five attacks on police outposts in West Midnapore district during the last six months killing 32 security personnel. West Midnapore is a stronghold of Maoists and 266 people were killed in the district since 2002 in Left Extremist violence. Of this, 155 persons were killed since June 2009.
Despite the resurgence of Maoist activities since 2004, Buddhadeb Bhattacharya feels and talks like Buddha. He feels ban will not serve the purpose when the problem is a political one. According to observers there is inexplicable reluctance to use force against Maoists. There are also reports that atleast one two occasions, the security forces zeroed in on Kishen and at the last minute they were asked not to rein him in.
Sildha is a recent example for lack of preparedness. When the Maoists ran into the camp, 50 jawans were busy in the kitchen with no arms around. It is not clear whether these jawans were aware of the Standard Operating Procedures. Jawans were poorly trained and there were no adequate arms and ammunition.
When this is the attitude of the Marxist government in containing the Maoist menace, Marxists are charging their beta noire Mamta Banerjee for being soft on Maoists or for arriving at a deal with them. It may be a fact that Mamta di must be deriving vicarious pleasure when the Maoists are targeting the Marxists in West Bengal for after all “my enemy’s enemy is my friend”. When her one point agenda in politics is to throw out the Marxist government in West Bengal who have been ruling the roost for three decades, she is prepared to take help from any quarter.
But what Mamta di should realise is that Maoists have always played this game and they will have no remorse to turn against her once she ascends the gaddi. They did it twice in Andhra Pradesh. When the late Dr Marri Channa Reddy wanted to finish TDP, he took the help of Peoples War Group and returned as chief minister for the second time. Late Dr Y S Rajasekara Reddy also followed in his footsteps and scored a spectacular win in 2004. As a thankgs giving gesture, he lifted the ban on PWG immediately after coming to power and invited them for talks. That the talks were a miserable flop is a different story. And YSR had to constitute a special elite force to wipe out Maoists from the state.
Whether the Maoists offer of ceasefire is real or a ploy to regroup, as they always did like the LTTE of yesteryears, what is there for Chidambaram to talk to them when he said “Maoists should abjure violence and issue a statement that they were prepared for talks”. Several intellectual groups (read Maoist sympathisers or front organisations in the garb of NGOs) want the Centre not to miss this opportunity for talks. This is quite amusing. Talks for what? Does the government expect the Maoists to give up their ideology of capturing power through the barrel of gun after the so-called talks? If the government thinks so, it seems to have learnt no lesson from the past. If anyone has illusions about the Maoists love for the poor and tribals, they exposed themselves when they brutally attacked a tribal village in Bihar and massacred them and burnt their houses.
The bottom line is that Maoists will not be prepared to dilute their ideology, even if – a big IF indeed - they abjure violence for a shortwhile. They are not going to come before Chidambaram with ash and sac clothes. So long as their ideology remains, talks are going to be just talks for the sake of talks. We have seen it in Andhra Pradesh where they insisted on coming to talks with their guns slung on their shoulders. What happened after the talks is history now.
Rajpaksha mantra is the only answer for the Maoist menace
Showing posts with label MAOISTS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label MAOISTS. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Saturday, October 24, 2009
DEALING WITH DISCREDITED FORCES - ROLE OF MEDIA
The lifeline for sustenance and growth of any terrorist or violent movement anywhere in the world is publicity. It is the most precious oxygen on which these outfits that do not believe in democracy and rule of law survive. They use media as a perfect tool to promote their cause which, in any way, does not contribute to peace and social harmony. What comes out of their so-called struggle, whatever veneer they may apply to it, is nothing but anarchy and chaos in society.
Should the media oblige such organisations? It is difficult to give a categorical reply “yes” or “no” to this question. It is debatable and it all depends on which side of the political spectrum you are perched. Conventional use of tags for those on the left is that they are “liberal” and those on the right are “conservatives”. This is no longer so in China. Those who are opposed to communism are “liberals” and those who stand by communist ideology are “conservatives”.
Be that as it may,there were two instances in the recent past where the media, wittingly or unwittingly, played into the hands of the political and left extremist elements which are not only discredited but lost public support. Media has only helped them in their efforts for revival.
First, let us take the case of Telangana Rashtra Samiti chief K Chandrasekara Rao. 2009 general elections have exposed his hypocrisy and the elections only helped him grow richer by crores. He is the most discredited and cantankerous politician today known for his thoroughly inconsistent stands and language that does not befit a civilized politician. Of late, he has been talking of militant movement and civil war for Telangana statehood. He knows that people of Telangana no longer trust him. He wants to be in the news and so he talks of civil war. But neither the people nor the state administration takes his talk seriously.
But his only lifeline for survival is the media. When he organised a rally in Siddipet, in a desperate attempt to regroup his truncated party, almost every Telugu news channel (there are 12 in the state) telecast his rally live including the one owned by late Dr YS Rajasekara Reddy’s son. This is the rally in which he reiterated his “resolve” to launch a civil war.
Well, there can be no legal bar on the channels to report the rally in whatever manner the electronic media wanted. But, is there something like professional judgement and discretion in going “live” for the (mis)adventures of a politician? This is where unhealthy competition in the electronic media makes them shed all sense of professional propriety. There is a sheepish mindset. If one channel does “live”, everybody else has to follow suit; otherwise the competing channel may pip the post in the TRP race.
There can be no restriction in reporting the event especially when KCR threatens “ civil war” and people should have enough inputs to judge his credentials. But covering the entire rally “live” is to give an importance that he or his party does not deserve. This is where the editorial judgement should have come to play rather than senseless competition.
Politicians like Ambika Soni are making politically correct statements that the government would not constitute a regulatory body on its own and it should be left to the media establishments to come out with their own regulatory body and a self code. In the competitive atmosphere that we witness not only in Andhra Pradesh, but in the entire country today, will the media barons come out with such a self-regulatory body, and even if they come out with one, will it serve any purpose?
The second instance where media did not come out with flying colours was the one revolving around the West Bengal cop abducted by Maoists. The media space/airtime that Maoist leader Kishenji aka Koteswara Rao got on the national channels in every bulletin was amazing. He was giving exclusive interviews, phone-ins which were getting updated and bytes “behind” the camera. Besides, he also addressed a press conference with a hood covering his head and gun totting over his shoulders. It would have been a “romantic” interlude for the young journos to interview one of the dreaded left extremists rather than interacting with run-of-the-mill politicians who give a boring copy and sedate headlines.
To digress, hitherto, a journalist had to trek several miles blind-folded in thick forest to have an interview with a naxal leader. Now, the Maoists are holding press conferences within ear-shot distance of the Police station.It only reminds us of Nepal Maoist leader Prachanda’s interaction with the media.
But the point here is that Kishenji used media as a tool (not that the Maoists have any love lost for the bourgeois media) to blackmail the establishment. According to the West Bengal government, “the police had nearly cornered the top Maoist leader, but he very shrewdly used the media to blackmail the government threatening that the officer’s life would be in danger if the offensive was not halted immediately”
It is possible that the W Bengal government did not have the nerve to corner the Maoist and developed cold feet. But was it right on the part of the media to have allowed itself to be used for blackmail?
As the Prime Minister had stated time and again, Maoists are the single most internal security threat and the Home Minister has declared “war” on Maoists. Maoists don’t believe in democracy nor in peace talks. They believe in armed rebellion and are not prepared to give up arms under any circumstances. They would like to over throw Costitutionally elected governments. When the state declares “war” against them, what should be the role of media? Should it do something, whatever the professional obligations, that will only publicise and further the cause of Maoists who pose a grave threat to the very concept of nation-state?
There is a school of thought that believes in the jargon “Publish and be damned”. Media cannot be expected to analyse the intentions of those in the news and then report. During the Balkan war, when British media did not toe the official line, it was said that media had no territorial loyalties and truth is the only overriding factor to guide the media. Otherwise, we would not have had “Watergate”.
While it is a case of professional discretion in the case of KCR, it is undoubtedly a dilemma when it comes to Maoists. At least, the latter deserves a debate.
Should the media oblige such organisations? It is difficult to give a categorical reply “yes” or “no” to this question. It is debatable and it all depends on which side of the political spectrum you are perched. Conventional use of tags for those on the left is that they are “liberal” and those on the right are “conservatives”. This is no longer so in China. Those who are opposed to communism are “liberals” and those who stand by communist ideology are “conservatives”.
Be that as it may,there were two instances in the recent past where the media, wittingly or unwittingly, played into the hands of the political and left extremist elements which are not only discredited but lost public support. Media has only helped them in their efforts for revival.
First, let us take the case of Telangana Rashtra Samiti chief K Chandrasekara Rao. 2009 general elections have exposed his hypocrisy and the elections only helped him grow richer by crores. He is the most discredited and cantankerous politician today known for his thoroughly inconsistent stands and language that does not befit a civilized politician. Of late, he has been talking of militant movement and civil war for Telangana statehood. He knows that people of Telangana no longer trust him. He wants to be in the news and so he talks of civil war. But neither the people nor the state administration takes his talk seriously.
But his only lifeline for survival is the media. When he organised a rally in Siddipet, in a desperate attempt to regroup his truncated party, almost every Telugu news channel (there are 12 in the state) telecast his rally live including the one owned by late Dr YS Rajasekara Reddy’s son. This is the rally in which he reiterated his “resolve” to launch a civil war.
Well, there can be no legal bar on the channels to report the rally in whatever manner the electronic media wanted. But, is there something like professional judgement and discretion in going “live” for the (mis)adventures of a politician? This is where unhealthy competition in the electronic media makes them shed all sense of professional propriety. There is a sheepish mindset. If one channel does “live”, everybody else has to follow suit; otherwise the competing channel may pip the post in the TRP race.
There can be no restriction in reporting the event especially when KCR threatens “ civil war” and people should have enough inputs to judge his credentials. But covering the entire rally “live” is to give an importance that he or his party does not deserve. This is where the editorial judgement should have come to play rather than senseless competition.
Politicians like Ambika Soni are making politically correct statements that the government would not constitute a regulatory body on its own and it should be left to the media establishments to come out with their own regulatory body and a self code. In the competitive atmosphere that we witness not only in Andhra Pradesh, but in the entire country today, will the media barons come out with such a self-regulatory body, and even if they come out with one, will it serve any purpose?
The second instance where media did not come out with flying colours was the one revolving around the West Bengal cop abducted by Maoists. The media space/airtime that Maoist leader Kishenji aka Koteswara Rao got on the national channels in every bulletin was amazing. He was giving exclusive interviews, phone-ins which were getting updated and bytes “behind” the camera. Besides, he also addressed a press conference with a hood covering his head and gun totting over his shoulders. It would have been a “romantic” interlude for the young journos to interview one of the dreaded left extremists rather than interacting with run-of-the-mill politicians who give a boring copy and sedate headlines.
To digress, hitherto, a journalist had to trek several miles blind-folded in thick forest to have an interview with a naxal leader. Now, the Maoists are holding press conferences within ear-shot distance of the Police station.It only reminds us of Nepal Maoist leader Prachanda’s interaction with the media.
But the point here is that Kishenji used media as a tool (not that the Maoists have any love lost for the bourgeois media) to blackmail the establishment. According to the West Bengal government, “the police had nearly cornered the top Maoist leader, but he very shrewdly used the media to blackmail the government threatening that the officer’s life would be in danger if the offensive was not halted immediately”
It is possible that the W Bengal government did not have the nerve to corner the Maoist and developed cold feet. But was it right on the part of the media to have allowed itself to be used for blackmail?
As the Prime Minister had stated time and again, Maoists are the single most internal security threat and the Home Minister has declared “war” on Maoists. Maoists don’t believe in democracy nor in peace talks. They believe in armed rebellion and are not prepared to give up arms under any circumstances. They would like to over throw Costitutionally elected governments. When the state declares “war” against them, what should be the role of media? Should it do something, whatever the professional obligations, that will only publicise and further the cause of Maoists who pose a grave threat to the very concept of nation-state?
There is a school of thought that believes in the jargon “Publish and be damned”. Media cannot be expected to analyse the intentions of those in the news and then report. During the Balkan war, when British media did not toe the official line, it was said that media had no territorial loyalties and truth is the only overriding factor to guide the media. Otherwise, we would not have had “Watergate”.
While it is a case of professional discretion in the case of KCR, it is undoubtedly a dilemma when it comes to Maoists. At least, the latter deserves a debate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)