THE one question that has been on my mind often is whether national interest should be kept upper most in our mind while reporting on a issue or one should follow the ‘be true to reporting’ dictum. My instinctive reaction has always been in favour of my nation, and it has enabled me to implement self-restraint. Allow me to quote an instance.

Sant Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale had just begun to come out of Chowk Mehta. He later moved to Guru Ram Das Sarai in the Golden Temple complex, and finally forcibly occupied the Akal Takht. Traditionally, various Akali ‘dharam yudh morchas’, political or religious speeches were always held at Dewan Hall Manji Sahib. However, Sant Bhindranwale used the roof of the langar building to address people. It was done probably because a larger gathering was ensured there.

It was at this juncture that I got my first most sensational interview with him. As a citizen, I was shaken by what he said. However, as a journalist, I was sure to hog front page. While I was still debating as to what to do with the interview, R K Mishra, the then Editor-in-Chief of Patriot and Link, who had come to know of this interview, called up. My late husband, Shaukin, Mishraji and I had a long discussion on the interview, viewing it from all angles. Finally, we unanimously decided not to carry it.

In retrospect, I feel decisions like this were the rarest of rare and almost every journalist was faithfully reproducing any word uttered by known or unknown faces that came up during those days in Punjab.

Today, I have no doubt that Indian media (both electronic and print) is playing a directionless role when it comes to reporting matters that may affect the nation’s interests. For instance, let’s analyse the reporting on the hijacking of the Indian Airlines plane to Kandahar in 1999. If we analyse the reports we will see that the media is to be held responsible for morally forcing the government to take a decision that was against the interest of the nation. The way the entire electronic as well as the print media highlighted emotional scenes of the relatives of the passengers and their outbursts against the government and accusations of the general public vis-à-vis Mohammad Mufti Sayeed’s daughter created the climate for the government to free the terrorists. Yes, it is true that relatives were desperate. Yes, one minister had succeeded in misusing his influence in getting his daughter released from the clutches of terrorists. But wasn’t it the moral duty of the media to remain dispassionate about it? Why did a few crying relations became so important for the media that it went the whole hog and built a public opinion that was more emotional than strategically intelligent? Similarly, one wrong does not justify another. If this minister had succeeded in pressuring the the government, it does not sanctify the implementation of similar action in a matching situation, which, in fact, was far more serious. What is worse is that Indian media is arrogant and obsessed with itself and its peer groups. It never sheds tears or express any regrets about its own follies. Till date, none has admitted that they should not have highlighted the agony and plight of the relatives of the passengers.

Interestingly, I saw two reports in the print media quoting the regrets of these very relatives. While they had the humility to admit that they should not have demanded the release of terrorists in return of their near and dear ones, not a single such regret has come from the media. I have often wondered that if media was to highlight the tears of mothers, wives,children and fathers of the jawans and officers killed in wars or war-like situations, will anyone ever send their children to join the defence services?

I wonder whether it is the arrogance / ignorance or the rat race in which the Indian media is involved that it refuses to learn from the past. Once again all the newspapers and all the channels have been repeatedly highlighting the tear-soaked faced of passengers of Samjhauta Express and the bus to Lahore. Why the tears of a few hundred of people have become so important for the media? Starting of the train and the bus service was India’s own initiative to build goodwill with Pakistan. When the whole purpose stands defeated and our elected government has taken a decision to withdraw this initiative, aren’t we supposed to respect it, especially when our nation’s interest is at stake? When Pakistan is aiding and abetting the terrorist attack on our Parliament, we cannot be naïve to keep on pretending that a goodwill gesture of a train or a bus should continue. Hence, excessive highlighting of such issues at such a juncture should actually force us in the media to indulge in self-introspection and self-restraint. There were one or two editors, who wrote editorials admiring the opposition and the people of America who had not indulged in hurling any kind of accusations against the Bush Administration. In fact, every body stood solidly behind President Bush and allowed him to take decisions, which were unanimously respected. Not that President Bush was very judicious, fair and democratic in taking decisions. But people of his nation and the media of the USA have not criticised a single action taken by him. While Bush never gave any evidence against Osama bin Laden while attacking Afghanistan, he still dictated to India to share evidence with Pakistan vis-à-vis attack on our Parliament.

But all this criticism of America, the big bully, is by us, the Third World countries. In Afghanistan, thousands of civilians have died or become disabled. Yet, the American media has not carried any reports on the plight of such people. While we can criticise it, it is a war to them. But for the Indian media, any such fallout makes good reading and better sales. Hence, any wider perspective vis-à-vis its repercussions on the nation’s interests are of no relevance to them.

To substantiate my point further, let us view the Indian media’s role in Jammu and Kashmir. They have been carrying the most offensive quotes from Abdul Ghani Bhatt of the Hurriyat Conference as if it would be a sin if they are not published. Now compare it with American media’s attention on the attack on our Parliament. They have been strictly following and advocating the line taken by the Bush government. Time magazine has been obsessed with the attack on the WTC building. However, after the attack on our Parliament, it devoted just few paragraphs in which it sermonised Indian Parliamentarians. Besides, it just beats around the bush about the role of terrorists and Pakistan, even when America is pretending to be fighting a war against global terrorism. Clearly, the American media never takes any line that goes against the interests of their nation.

The same holds true for the European media.

If we were to boast that the Indian media is so very fair and so very concerned about human rights violations, about the objectivity, judiciousness etc, then can anyone educate me what has been India’s gain in this regard? Is the Indian media rated the best in the world? Do reports by Indian media carry a weight that is not matched on the international scene by any other?