The Tribune, Chandigarh, India

ARTICLE

Media — naïve, neutral or partisan?
It should not behave like an Opposition party, spouting partisan rhetoric
Salil Desai

Don’t shoot the messenger!" the Indian media protests, whenever faced with criticism. Yet can media persons claim with hands on their hearts that they have been politically neutral in the last few years and especially this election season?

When former media darling Arvind Kejriwal accused news channels of working for Narendra Modi, the journalistic fraternity frothed at its mouth. Is it because the shot rang home? While the media can remain in denial about how far right it has tilted, some of the curious arguments and spurious opinions repeated on op-eds and in prime-time panel discussions suggest that many in the media have either decided to put their lot behind Modi or are unbelievably naïve and gullible. Why otherwise do they endlessly harp on these obvious red-herrings?

1. Modi has only talked of development and refrained from communal rhetoric. What else did they expect? That Modi would be dumb enough to go about trumpeting Hindutva and play straight into the hands of his opponents? Isn’t it obvious that he has talked development because that is what people and media want him to tom-tom so that they can grasp at the fig-leaf and vote for him with a clear conscience!

2. Isn't it in Modi's interest to ensure no harm comes to Muslims during his rule? Come on, doesn’t the media know that a PM rarely has direct accountability for communal riots in the federal scheme of things because law and order is a state subject? It is the CMs and the state police who have to handle riots. The PM can just get away by wringing his hands like Atal Behari Vajpayee did, or at the most threaten dismissal of the state government. So Modi knows that as PM, he would never ever be held directly responsible for protecting Muslims and other minorities. Why does then the media float this puerile argument? And, if that is the logic, then why not argue that the Congress would ensure scams never happen again?

3. Secular parties are frightening minorities. There is a strong suspicion that the Gujarat CM used the Gujarat riots and fake encounters to bolster his own political career and popularity when faced with anti-incumbency or dipping fortunes. Why then is it not possible that he and his party would resort to similar tactics when he faces rough weather as PM? Isn't that what many ambitious, authoritarian leaders have done across the globe? Communal parties use violence and peace strategically and tactically, and when it suits them, they can unleash bloodshed without scruples. Just think Muzaffarnagar recently! So why does the media pooh-pooh these legitimate concerns and brand them as scare-mongering by secular parties?

4. Modi will be constrained by allies, constitutional checks and balances and other safeguards in our democratic system. Absolute poppycock! A man who has survived moral, legal, political and media accountability so far, knows the limitations of the system and people manning it too well. Not only has he escaped any indictment or repercussions for his abominable conduct in 2002 and thereafter, he has in fact successfully re-branded, re-packaged himself into a leader who can do no wrong and acquired a cult following. Do you think the media, the judiciary, constitutional positions (except the President), political allies and civil society would be in a position to curb such a man from committing excesses when he becomes PM? It's all okay to slam a liberal government and PM - like in the case of the UPA which stops short of physical intimidation — but all protest, dissent and overreach have a way of dissolving when confronted with ruthlessness. People discover spines only when faced with liberal opponents, not authoritarian ones. You don't have to look far. The Emergency is a classic example of how constitutional checks and balances amount to nothing.

5. The UPA presided over humungous scams. This allegation has been parroted ad nauseam with almost no regard for objectivity. The sensational figures bandied about as notional losses in 2G and Coalgate were swallowed by the media without any application of mind whatsoever. The spectrum auctions amounting to Rs 47,000 crore have clearly proved that the notional loss Rs 1,76,000 crore (at 2008 prices) was wildly exaggerated. The Coalgate presumptive loss figure of Rs 1.86 lakh crore stands on even a weaker ground. This does not mean that there were no scams but why hasn't the media been able to dig up a money trail or credible proof about the beneficiaries? Is it because the mountain of corruption is actually just a mole-hill? Having resorted to so much sensationalism, the media cannot back down and adopt a sober, realistic tone without losing credibility. Therefore, it keeps calling UPA 2 as the most corrupt government in Indian history without bringing any new facts to light.

6. The UPA messed up the economy through irresponsible entitlement-based policies, mis-governance and policy paralysis. This is a classic case of 'call a dog mad and shoot it'. By its very nature the media is expected to be anti-establishment, but should it be blindly and rabidly so? While reams of elitist opinion and right-of-centre polemics have been written about profligate entitlement policies, mis-governance and policy paralysis, very little in terms of hard facts have been provided to support this wholesale condemnation of UPA 2. Surely the achievements of the government, which has facilitated an impressive growth rate in 7 out of its 10 years, reduced poverty by a whopping 21 per cent, navigated us fairly well through a severe global slowdown, introduced and implemented path-breaking innovations like the RTI, Aadhar, MNREGA, RTE, provided social harmony and stability (in stark contrast to the NDA regime), achieved manifold increases in tele-density, power capacity and roads, cannot be dismissed so summarily and contemptuously by the media.

Perhaps it's time for the media to realise that it is supposed to be anti-establishment and should not behave like an Opposition party, spouting partisan rhetoric. That's what's essential for media credibility!

Salil Desai is a Pune-based author and film-maker

MIDDLE

The ‘curriculum vitae’ of a soldier
Col IPS Kohli

Every year a large number of officers are put out to pasture by the armed forces even when they still have a few working years left in them. The reason is well known. I too became a 'supernumerary' recently and was honourably placed on the superannuated list. With the umbilical cord severed, there is a sudden vacuum in your daily routine. With nothing to do and nobody to bullshit, you end up getting on your wife and children's nerves.

I needed work to keep myself busy. Usually, soldiers in civilian jobs are like square pegs in round holes. However, there are many who have excelled in the vocation they chose post retirement.

I searched the job portals but found nothing that suited me. Somebody advised me that there are agencies in Gurgaon to whom you send a detailed resume about yourself and after charging a certain fee they make a suitable 'curriculum vitae'. This CV, when put on the net, facilitates placement. This 'curriculum vitae' business was something new to me. In the Army we call it 'Service Particulars'. A womb-to-tomb account of your deeds and misdeeds. This document, precise, to the point and devoid of any frills could make one look no different from his or her true self.

I downloaded the forms and made the resume as good as I could and sent it to the agency in Gurgaon. While filling the forms I felt a sense of pride at some of the things I did or had been associated with while in service. With credentials such as mine, I had no doubt that job offers would come aplenty.

One day I received a call from the agency to which I had applied for making my 'CV'. The bimbo who called tried to sound more important than she actually was, and tried to make me feel a bigger fool than I actually am. 'Sir, we have received your mail and it's making no sense to us at all. All your military assignments, courses, postings and operations etc you participated in are of little or no use to the corporate sector. We would like to know that due to your contribution and presence, how much was the increase in the production and as a consequence of that the increase in the profits of the organisation?'

I admit I have a short fuse. I replied, 'Sweetheart this is a Colonel of the Indian Army you are talking to and not a shop floor manager of a bloody factory. The only production I have ever been associated with is the birth of my three lovely children. A soldier's skill lies in causing destruction and not production and we do it in an extremely disciplined and organised manner. There is a method to our madness unlike you jokers who can do nothing right. Design the damn CV accordingly'.

I remain jobless and pass my time doodling.

OPED World

Middle East: ‘Mafiastan’ ruled by money
Robert Fisk

The Middle East we must confront in the future will not be a set of caliphates but a ‘mafiastan’. In Iraq, mafiosi already run almost the entire oil output south of the country

A protest by supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood. Fears of an ‘Islamist takeover’ in Egypt mask the issue of financial benefits for elite. Reuters

Saudi Arabia is giving $3bn – yes, £2bn, and now let’s have done with exchange rates — to the Pakistani government of Nawaz Sharif. But what is it for? Pakistani journalists have been told not to ask this question. Then, when they persisted, they were told that Saudi generosity towards their fellow Sunni Muslim brothers emerged from the "personal links" between the Prime Minister and the monarchy in Riyadh. Saudi notables have been arriving in Islamabad. Sharif and his army chief of staff have travelled to the Kingdom.

Then Islamabad started talking about a "transitional government" for Syria – even though Pakistan had hitherto supported President Bashar al-Assad – because, as journalist Najam Sethi wrote from Lahore, "We know only too well that in matters of diplomatic relations there is no such thing as a gift, still less one of this size".

Now the word in Pakistan is that its government has agreed to supply Saudi Arabia with an arsenal of anti-aircraft and anti-tank missiles, which will be passed on – despite the usual end-user certificates claiming these weapons will be used only on Saudi soil to the Salafist rebels in Syria fighting to overthrow the secular, Ba’athist (and yes, ruthless) regime of Bashar al-Assad.

Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, Egypt’s former army chief and minister of defence, the candidate for the Presidential elections in Egypt. Can he clean up multi-million dollar conglomerates?

The Americans, in other words, will no longer use their rat-run of weapons from Libya to the Syrian insurgents because they no longer see it as in their interest to change the Assad government. Iraq, with its Shia majority, and Qatar – which now loathes and fears Saudi Arabia more than it detests Assad – can no longer be counted on to hold the Shias at bay. So even Bahrain must be enlisted in the Saudi-Salafist cause; his Royal Highness the King of Bahrain needs more Pakistani mercenaries in his army; so Bahrain, too – according to Najam Sethi – is preparing to invest in Pakistan.

But this is merely a reflection of a far larger movie, a Cinemascope picture with a cast of billions – I’m talking about dollars – which is now consuming the Middle East. It’s a story that doesn’t find favour with the mountebank "experts" on the cable channels nor with their White House/Pentagon scriptwriters, nor indeed with our own beloved Home Secretary, who still believes that British Muslims will be "radicalised" if they fight in Syria. Sorry, m’deario, but they were already radicalised.

That's why they went to Syria

But the Taliban is no more going to take over Afghanistan than Al-Qaida is going to rule Syria or Iraq, nor the Muslim Brotherhood Egypt. "Islamism" is not about to turn our beloved Arab and Muslim Middle Eastern world into a caliphate. That’s for The New York Times to believe.

Let’s just take a look across the region. Corruption in Afghanistan is not just legendary. This is a place where governance, law, electoral rules, tribal ritual and military affairs function only with massive bribes. It rivals North Korea in financial dishonesty (according to Transparency International). Remember the Kabul banking scandal that milked $980m (£584m) from the people (from which only $180m – £107m – was ever recovered)?

The Americans funded the Afghan warlords and then the NGOs spread their cash around the country and now, with the US withdrawal imminent – along with that of America’s NATO mercenaries – the Afghan gang bosses are not especially worried about the Taliban. Nor are they particularly concerned about women’s rights. But they are fearful that the dollars will stop flowing. A militia leader with three villas, 10 4x4s and 200 bodyguards has to find money to pay them when the Americans go home. So they will have to turn to drugs, money laundering and weapons smuggling on a massive scale. Pakistan, of course, is there to help.

In Iraq, mafiosi already run the Shia port of Basra and almost the entire oil output of the south of the country. "Institutionalised kleptocracy" was a minister’s definition of al-Maliki’s government; just take a look at my colleague Patrick Cockburn’s excoriating account of Iraqi corruption last year. In Syria, the rebels’ fiefdom is run by money mobs. That’s why every hostage has a price, every "Free Syrian Army" retreat – and the word "retreat" must also be placed in quotation marks – must be paid for, by the Syrian government or by the Russians or, most frequently, by the Iranians. The Syrian "civil war" is funded by Qatar and Saudi Arabia, by Libya and by Moscow and Tehran and, when it suits them, by the Americans. We’re so caught up in battlefield losses and war crimes and sarin and barrel bombs that we lose sight of the fact that the Syrian bloodbath – much like the Lebanese bloodbath of 1976-1990 – is underwritten by vast amounts of cash from foreign donors.

Just look at Egypt. The story we are supposed to swallow is that a benevolent if slightly despotic army has saved the country from an Islamist takeover. Just how President Mohamed Morsi – whose grasp of practical governance was about as hopeless as that of your average Egyptian general – was going to turn Egypt into a caliphate was anyone’s guess. Of course, our worthless political leaders — Tony Blair in the lead, naturally — are playing the "Islamist" line for the networks. Egypt was on the path to a medieval Muslim dictatorship, only rescued at the last minute by the defence minister-turned presidential candidate General al-Sisi’s belief in a "transitional government to democracy".

Yes, the "transitional" road to democracy is all the rage these days. But the real counter-revolution in Egypt was not the overthrow of the pathetic Morsi, but what followed: the army’s re-establishment of its massive financial benefits, its shopping malls and real estates and banking, which bring in billions of dollars for the country’s military elite – and whose business dealings are now constitutionally safe from the prying eyes of any democratically elected Egyptian government, "transitional" or otherwise.

And if al-Sisi is elected the next President of Egypt – O Blessed Thought – woe betide anyone who suggests that the army, which is still the recipient of billions from the US, should clean up its multi-million dollar conglomerates.

All this is to say that the Middle East we must confront in the future – and it will be of our making as surely as the mass slaughter of its people have been primarily our responsibility – will not be a set of vicious caliphates, of Iraqistan or Syriastan or Egyptstan.

No, there is one international, all-purpose name which we will be able to bestow upon almost all the states of the region, united as they have never been since the demise of the Ottoman Empire.

We will understand its masters all too well. We shall support them. We shall love them. Our Tony will understand them – Catholicism, after all, has its own history of corruption and the Vatican, as we have learned, has its own gangsters. Our enemy is not – Cameron and Hague, please take note – terror, terror, terror. It is money, money, money. Dirty money.

For the name of this brave new world will be Mafiastan.

Global barometer

The Global Corruption Barometer sheds light on which institutions the public in each of 107 countries views as most corrupt in their country.
Tunisians, Egyptians, Libyans, Syrians and Yemenis who ousted or are in the process of trying to oust their president, all mention corruption as one of the reasons for revolting. Simple bureaucratic procedures require a bribe. Many jobs and opportunities, especially in the public sector, are based on connections.
Libyans worry most about their public officials and civil servants. Egyptians doubt their media and police; the latter is also a concern of those in Morocco.
Yemenis, Iraqis, Israelis and Tunisians are all most wary of their political parties.
The Sudanese see religious institutions as the most corrupt bodies in their country.
Algerians mistrust their judiciary and business community.
None of the populations in the 107 countries surveyed in the random global barometer believes the military is the institution most affected by corruption.

Most violent & most corrupt

Transparency International's 2013 Corruption Perceptions Index ranks more than four-fifths of countries in the Middle East below 50 on a scale where 0 is a country perceived to be highly corrupt and 100 perceived to be very clean.

There is a general feeling of corruption across the board in the Middle East, including police, judiciary, and government procurement offices.

Three countries that have undergone Arab Spring transformations dropped notably over the past year, with Yemen's rating falling five points to 18, Syria dropping nine points to 17, and Libya down six points to 15. The survey of 177 countries is based on local and international experts' opinions of public-sector corruption. Afghanistan, North Korea and Somalia tied for last place with 8 points.

The group's annual Corruption Perceptions Index ranks more than four-fifths of countries in the Middle East below 50. Countries in the region scored an average 37, below the global average of 43.

Imagine what it takes for a country to root out corruption — it always takes institutions with people in them who have levels of integrity and a system of independent oversight. In conflict situations, all of that goes out of the window.

With the overthrow of Yemeni president Ali Abdullah Saleh in 2012, the lawlessness that followed led to an expansion of corruption in army, police and government agencies.

In Libya, bribery and embezzlement were common under slain dictator Gaddafi's 42-year rule. But the collapse of his government in an uprising supported by a Western bombing campaign has done little to root out corruption. A monthly stipend for rebels who fought Gaddafi's regime was paid out to 250,000 duplicated names — meaning Libya may have handed out hundreds of millions of dollars extra until the programme was halted.

In Syria with the ongoing civil war, smuggling, bribe paying and other issues have increased with the breakdown of state order.

Egypt's score remained unchanged at 32, but the report was based primarily on surveys from the first half of the year before the turmoil that ensued after the military removed president Mohammed Morsi in July.

To many oil-producing developing countries, the blessing has often turned out to be a curse, an invitation to major power intervention, political corruption, militarisation and, paradoxically given its income value, foreign debt.

The curse of oil is often linked to a colonial past, but its social and economic impact differs from other forms of colonial exploitation. Oil production is localised. Its technology and capital intensity also isolate it from the rest of the economy, making it less shattering to local life patterns than a shift from subsistence agriculture to cash crops.

Oil money also changed the balance of power between state and society in oil exporting countries, giving many local rulers the ability to suppress popular institutions and thwart traditional checks on their authority.

— The Independent