TELEPROMPT
Coverage was adequate
Mannika Chopra

It was only to be expected that 25 years after Prime Minster Indira Gandhi was assassinated, and after days of senseless rioting consumed Delhi and other parts of the country, that television would mark the occasion. Most channels put in place special programmes — Scars of 1984, India of Indira (CNN-IBN) and Indira Gandhi’s Legacy (NDTV 24x7) — and interviews with RK Dhawan (NDTV India), whose loyalty with the late Mrs Gandhi remains unshaken, and even, rather tastelessly, one thought, the reconstruction of the leader’s assassination (IBN 7 and News 24) by her two Sikh bodyguards on that infamous day on October 31, 1984.

Twentyfive years after Indira Gandhi was assassinated, channels telecast special programmes

While the programmes were adequate, following expected lines, there were interviews with on-tap historians, political analysts and authors who have written books on Indira Gandhi. There were thankfully also some new voices emerging. For example, the perspective from academician Jit Uberoi on We the People. How refreshing to hear a different viewpoint (He thought Indira Gandhi as an able leader during times of unity but a disabled one in times of diversity). But by and large it would be fair to say that the tricky areas were left out.

For instance, the faux policing that had been undertaken clearly could not prevent the killing of thousands of Sikhs. Also missing, at least in my TV viewing hours, the delayed response of getting the Army in to quell the bloodbath. Which brings me to my main point. When the anti-Muslim riots took place in Gujarat in 2002, it is largely believed that it was the media, especially the electronic media’s incessant focus on the situation that pressurised the state government to take action.

To be sure, the coverage was not exactly an example of precision journalism, but in 2002 that element of dogged reporting did manage to deliver to the viewers, and by extension to the establishment, that the rioting had the potential to go completely out of hand, and some remedial measures had to be taken. Whether it could have been done so even earlier is a matter of debate, but the argument goes that had the Army not been called in, the human loss would have been far higher. So, would the glare of television cameras, the incessant questioning of TV anchors, the images of burning truck tyres, close-ups of fear-stricken, sobbing members of the Sikh community have helped in stemming one of the most gruesome communal riots that took place in India?

Does the way the media frames a particular event have any connection with the subsequent reaction to a situation? I have to say yes, especially in such a case of large-scale communal rioting. Had television news cameras been there in the same intrusive way they are now, the death toll would, I am sure, have been much lower. The rumour- mongering that engulfed Delhi at that time would have also been downplayed. Most importantly, the culpability of the guilty would also have been clearer, and I would like to believe — to use the late Rajiv Gandhi’s imagery — that instead of big trees falling and shaking the ground, heads would have rolled.

But that was 1984, two years after the arrival of colour television, thanks to the 1982 Asian Games, and seven years before India had even heard of words like cable or satellite channels and 24-hour news networks. It was also the time that the national network was firmly an adjunct of the government, and the only medium of His Master’s Voice. Which is why Rajiv Gandhi received confirmed news of his mother’s death from the BBC World Service rather than through DD or AIR.

So today, 25 years later, the public managed to see, through the lens of time, what the horror must have been like. In a series that ran through the week, CNN-IBN tracked the families of some of the victims living in Trilokpuri, one of the worst affected areas of the Capital. There was a woman who lost 11 members of her family. A victim-cum-citizen journalist questioned why, despite the proof, the Nanavati Commission was unable to pin down the blame on the guilty. From Punjab there were reports on the families of Sawant Singh and Beant Singh, and how they were dealing with the idea of assassins being close relatives.

To be sure, though anniversaries can serve as timely reminders, they also can open up old wounds. One got a sense from these special programmes that the anger and discontent, which had been lying dormant for some time now, still has the potential to burst again in an explosive expression of rage.